Yes, Apple locks you in, but Microsoft has always been worse. Apple's options are proprietary, but Microsoft used their monopoly power to destroy their competitors like Netscape, and waged war against Linux. Meanwhile, Apple switched to a variation of NeXTSTEP which is mostly compatible with Unix and the GNU tools.

On the iPod / iPhone front, both Google and Apple lock users in to their app stores. Both manufacture un-repairable phones. The non-standard Lightning connector was a pain in the ass, but so was the frequent switching on Android phones from mini-B B to micro-B to USB-C. And, until USB-C there was the constant problem of trying to plug in the phone and getting the orientation of the plug wrong, something Apple got right with Lightning.

Then there's advertising / surveillance. Google is an ad-tech company so privacy is never going to be high on their list of priorities for their end-users. Meanwhile, Apple led the way with App Tracking Transparency. Yes, Apple still surveils its users, but at least it doesn't seem to use that data to rent eyeballs the way Google does.

Google and Apple are both shitty companies, but if you want a modern smartphone you basically have to deal with one of them. Apple and Microsoft are both shitty companies but if you want a desktop or a laptop, without the constant toil of dealing with Linux, they're your only options. So, it's about what bothers you more: anticompetitive actions including embracing standards with the aim of destroying them from within, or annoying proprietary stuff? Planned obsolescence and an extreme aversion to fixability, or slightly less surveillance, a slightly more open system, but much more surveillance?

Really, what's needed is proper regulators who can reign in all these shitty companies.