I think it’s a little different in the analog camera world: it’s common to buy lenses or bodies with “fewer” features, since there are mechanical and image quality tradeoffs to stuffing everything into a single component.

For example, it’s common to buy a “prime” lens, i.e. one that doesn’t zoom. But you wouldn’t describe that as taking away choice; it’s an intentional choice to prioritize size and other parameters (sharper images due to fewer elements, faster apertures).

Fixed focus cameras have been around forever because they are mechanically simple, reliable, and easy to operate. The thing is that they are usually set with a short hyperfocal distance. This means that the manufacturer is not choosing where the focus is as much as putting everything in focus. This removes any opportunity for mistakes and avoid fiddling with any focus ring and concentrate on other things. The trade off is much more subtle than “manufacturing taking freedom away bad”.

There’s also always been manual focus lenses if you want, so I struggle to see where the problem is.

I don't think the analogy quite carries over. With computers there are only a few major operating systems, so the simplification of design directly reduces choice. Cameras are different. There are a vast range of bodies and lenses to combine, all creating different possible images. And people can easily understand the difference between an automatic and a manual camera, or between autofocus, manual and fixed focus. That's just one more choice.