I don't think it's so black-and-white. There are multiple forces at play simultaneously.

I agree that people don't care enough about owning their data for it to matter more than what the companies want to push, which is of course monetizing the data and maximizing user lock-in.

Similarly, I think it's in the companies' interests to use non-swappable batteries: simpler and cheaper to manufacture (I think this is the main reason) and the device is made obsolete earlier which is an added bonus. Maybe small improvements in size etc., but that's a very small difference. Modern phones are already larger even with non-swappable batteries so I'm not sure it mattered. But again, having a non-swappable battery has to be weighed against other features, and availability of alternatives. In the end, people just care more about the other features, even though swappable battery would be a good thing.

Just to conclude: I don't believe markets work to fully cater to what customers actually want. It's more like customers (and other parties) get a compromise between what different parties in the market want.

> the real reason which is that it's what consumers want

Consumers want what they're told to want by a constant barrage of commercial propaganda.

Devices are large and non-serviceable because this way they can be sold with a higher profit margin. Side effect being that the larger screens make the embedded commercial propaganda more effective and easy to deliver.

I get what you're saying.

People want vendor lock in...otherwise they wouldnt pay for it.

People want bait and switch sales tactics...otherwise they wouldnt work.

People are perfectly fine with high rents...if they didnt, they would not pay them.

People want their smartphones to be deliberately slowed down when they get old...otherwise theyd vote against it with their wallet.