No. My argument is that if Apple isn’t going to open up their ecosystem to genuine competition and genuine interoperability then they need to have their hand forced through regulation.
Telling people to just stop buying Apple products is a lazy, knee-jerk self-righteous response that ignores the realities of platform lock-in.
No, it’s not a sunk-cost fallacy.
If you already have a bunch of Apple stuff, it makes more sense to continue using Apple stuff, because switching would cost money and effort. You’d also lose access to the software library that you paid for.
Having a bunch of Apple stuff also makes buying more Apple stuff in the future a better value proposition because you gain access to features that you wouldn’t otherwise have. Platform lock-in is not a sunk-cost fallacy. You’re just uninformed and being smug about it.
The sunk cost fallacy only applies when stopping is free or the cost is low enough (in money or effort) that it makes more sense to quit than continue.
Two-factor authentication is required. In most cases you can use a TOTP authenticator app. This is the most privacy-friendly way to do 2FA to my knowledge, as it requires no information at all to be shared by you.
Of course, it’s not unknown for Google to randomly lock accounts, but there’s not really much you can do about that anyway.
You seem to think that regulation doesn’t work. Luckily, we have a test case set up for us in real-life.
In the United States, consumers relied on voting with their wallets. In the European Union, regulatory agencies forced Apple to take pro-consumer moves through regulation.
Now take a look at which approach produced results and which approach left consumers continuing to complain about the lack of interoperability and the lack of competition in Apple’s walled garden.