I’ve never agreed with this premise.
I buy things that mostly meet my needs and desires in every other walk of life. I’m personally OK with extending this to computers as well.
And isn't the point in this very situation that people simply can't buy what they want because Google and Apple are a duopoly and now Google is going to follow the path of restricting what you can do with your own property?
At least this is probably how people in charge of enshittification think like.
But the reality (which was correctly identified by Adam Smith himself) is that the effort required to enter a market can sometimes be so high, that we practically end up with oligopolies, see mobile OSs. They require a network effect to make sense, so the entry cost is not just developing the product, but also to somehow convince basically every other player to consider you a target platform - which is a cyclical problem that you can't just bootstrap yourself into. Even Microsoft failed at it, even though they were paying hefty sums to companies for apps working on their OS.
My needs and desires aren’t that complicated. There’s nothing that I really want or need to do that I can’t do on my phone or iPad.
I assure you it is not.
Your response reminds me of Snowden's quote, which I'll likely butcher because it's from memory, but roughly: "Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say".
I know what I do on computers/phones/iPads. I know that every computer/phone/iPad I've ever owned has done more or less what I wanted. I'm usually the weak link, not the device.
I don't go to bed worried that the sun is going to rise in the West. I've got things that seem likely to happen to worry about.