The author was describing "gets all users" as in, gets all users that Apple can get. What's next, would you point out how people in the 3rd world wouldn't be buying Apple/Google phones either?
The point was, when Apple has all of the market share they can expect to get, will they turn around and flip tracking on and etc.
Please don't deviate topics for solely pedantic reasons. I generally love pedantic distinctions, but this i think added little to no value.
The counter-arguments were that this would never happen because Apple's unlikely to deviate from the luxury pricing model that's worked so well for them. If Apple "gets all users that Apple can get" then turns tracking back on, while Android is still around with the same tracking but at a small fraction of the price, there's no reason for privacy-conscious users to stick with Apple.
There is a cost of switching platforms.
Google's revenue comes from advertisers.
Attribute incentives and motivations accordingly.
You essentially turn everything into a paperweight.
I don't think we have to worry about that. Apple has a small (10-20%) portion of the global market. In many sub markets Apple is struggling against the competition.
What we do have to worry about is digital privacy being unevenly distributed with people that have more money being able to afford more privacy.
That's assuming it's only a matter of Apple vs. Google and there is nothing to be said about it by Mozilla or Purism or anyone else whose products don't require Apple money to use.
And even if that turned out to be the case, it could sink the whole silly edifice anyway because advertisers want the customers with money. Tracking people who don't buy anything isn't nearly as valuable.