Not really. Gamers don't like exclusives, when they are excluded especially. Why would they like to be excluded?

If you're a gamer, then you're quite used to this going back all the way to the old Sega vs Nintendo days. It may be annoying but it's something we by and large accept.

So, if you know that, don't say "Consumers don't appear to be bothered by any of those missing freedoms."

Say something like "Apple is still successful despite the lack of freedom" :)

It is not a non sequitur: it is the same argument applied to another situation where people fall into the same trap of lack of knowledge leading to a lack of understanding of their own plight (we might even call it a "blissful ignorance"). The other person who responded to the same parent comment saying "it's hard to be consciously bothered by the lack of something that you've never experienced?" could have been leaving that exact same comment with respect to having an intact foreskin in response to someone claiming the point about circumcision.

Do you really not see the parallels? It seemed like a really great way to point out the fallacy here and demonstrate that "just because people aren't complaining, and even if when asked they are adamant they don't have a problem (an even stronger position than simply that they aren't going out of their way to complain), it clearly doesn't imply they don't have a problem if they haven't been given the necessary knowledge to understand or appreciate the problem" without having to directly engage with the broken logic (which is, of course, impossible).