Too many folks in the #FOSS and #OpenSource communities fail to understand that the moral valence of a tool or product is not its primary feature to most users.
Lemme explain with tomatoes.
In the US, organic produce sales growth outperforms non-organic produce. It costs more, so why is this true? Two things are going on: first, the organic tomato still tomatoes as well as the non-organic tomato—it may even tomato better! Plus you have the added value of buying a thing you feel good about purchasing. We don't need to unpack "organic" right now, but I hope we can agree the term is designed to signal, among other things, a higher ethical echelon than the alternative.
So why don't people prefer "organic" software?
Because unlike the grocery store counterpart, organic software almost never performs the function at the level expected by the user, and often requires assembly. Even worse, it comes with bugs without support. Imagine buying a tomato that came with worms and you could not return it.
The thing needs to thing as well, if not better, than the alternative to be competitive. Taking the whole population into account, almost no one cares about "free software." Almost no one cares about freedom from advertising; we're all conditioned to accept it as part of internet life. And almost no one cares about privacy in a real sense. Those aren't your primary features, developers; those are bonuses.
I guess I'm trying to say the whinging about people moving to closed platforms is kinda telling on ourselves. If you sell a wormy tomato, you can't blame the buyer for picking from another shelf.