Sorry but it is not really your phone if it runs proprietary software. It is like in medieval times, you didn't own the means of production. Welcome your new digital overlords!!
There is a kind of half-formed philosophy out there which believes we can get back to some false utopian small-collective agri-mercantile worker paradise.
It doesn't exist, and never did. Learn how to adapt and make the most of the systems that exist now.
I dare to say, if you even actually achieved those fantastical scenarios, the damper on economic and population prosperity would be such that you might not have been conceived to wish for it.
It's a little extreme to let a mobile phone's operating system call for the revamp of our economic systems.
Make the most that the owner of the proprietary OS allows you to. I am very thankful of all the people that have been writing free (as in freedom) software which allows us to have alternatives. I do not know about any small-collective agri-mercantile worker paradise, but I am so happy that I can still run Replicant and use things like Mutt+vim+gpg for email. Free software is now more important than ever.
Strictly speaking you are right, but Librem 5 [0] is going to get Respects Your Freedom certification from the Free Software Foundation, which is a high bar. If it's not enough for you, see also: Precursor [1].
That was my point, we are no better than in medieval times. One can however run things like Replicant (I do) and I am aware of some better alternatives like linux phone, pinephone and librem5. I want to learn more about them before my old Replicant phone dies.
Most people don't have the money to afford to own an entire factory, and if they did its still more secure for them to diversify by owning many pieces of many factories in different industries, that's why capitalists figured out how to commodify the means of production as stocks. Its not quite the same, its better.
It's not strictly better, no. As a minority shareholder in Google I have effectively no power to make them stop ruining the internet. Majority control is what gets you something like full ownership, just with some other risks and benefits.
Majority control requires a lot of wealth, you don't have majority control of Google because you don't have that much money. You have no reason to expect a person like yourself to be able to control the amount of capital assets that Google represents. Your access to the means of production is dependent on your ability to buy into them and stock allows you to do that in small increments. If it weren't for stock you still wouldn't have control over anything like Google.
I don't have control either way, that's all I'm saying.
Small quantity stock owners effectively serve to slightly reduce risk for big-fish investors. Their investments are like financial fodder. They get an upside of course, but I think the invention of 401ks are more of a help to the financial sector than their owners.
And, big fish stock owners help to reduce risk for small quantity stock owners. The big guys get to crowdsource capital for a big project and the small guys get to invest in a variety of big projects without needing to know much about the details of running any of the companies or risking their entire knot on one venture. The modern notion of stock also helps to reduce liability as it legally prevents the stockholders from being held liable for the actions of the company.
This whole discussion is about whether small fish in a mixed market economy have access to the means of production. They do, to a greater extent than ever before in history. Yes, if you only have $3k, you can't control a company that is worth a billion dollars. But you can invest in it, which option was not available before the joint stock company was invented (in the 7th century in Asia and the 13th century in Europe).
401k is also a boon to workers because it allows them to save for retirement by investing in the means of production at a tax advantage.
"who benefits more" is an interesting question but some of us shy away because it invites intersubjective utility comparison and we're not comfortable with the use of cardinal utility to make judgments of that nature.
