Were you responding to my post? It seems non-sequitur. Since you seem lost on this point, how about I provide a notional example?

Suppose you have a very strong personal belief, it doesn't matter what it is, but let's say for purpose of argument that your belief is that no car should be sold without Rattan Cooling Seat Covers. You point to all kinds of studies about how it improves circulation and prevents hemorrhoids and is more comfortable and all that. Because it's a health issue you take it up as a moral obligation that these be sold with every car. One car manufacture even goes so far as to sell some of their models with this cover and you point to this one as an example of what should be done.

This is your "arbitrary measure of goodness".

If you were also a free marketer you'd argue "there shouldn't be a regulation to force car manufacturers to put Rattan Cooling Seat Covers, the market should drive towards it". But what the free market knows, even with imperfect information, is that putting $100 of Rattan Cooling seat covers in every car doesn't make them money. In fact, the one maker that puts them in their cars are only marginally popular so it doesn't seem to be driving sales and if every car maker put them in, it wouldn't be a market differentiator anymore anyway! The market knows, even imperfectly, that there is no demand for such a thing in their products, and the after market serves the small percentage that really want it.

But you argue, "this is a moral imperative! Circulation!" You post on message boards about the benefits of Rattan Cooling seat covers, you raise money and take out advertisements, you do everything to build market demand short of going to your local congressperson/parliamentarian because you don't believe this should be regulated and the market will simply correct for your arbitrary measure of goodness...even if the market isn't interested.

Suppose you're successful, now every car is $250 more expensive (you can't possibly believe they'd throw in $100 of Rattan Cooling seat covers, available at any after market stores, at cost do you?). Congratulations, arbitrary measure of goodness is met, cars are more expensive. But as a result fewer cars are purchased. Do car makers make more money? Does the free market win? After all, they're making $150 on each set of seat covers! They should be! You're a hero, asses are saved and car makers make more money, win-win!

But we don't actually know the outcome. Cars are more expensive, fewer people buy them as a result. Or the used market grows as people can buy cars without Rattan Cooling seat covers without the extra "ass-tax" as it's come to be called on internet car enthusiast forums. It could turn out to be a wash, who knows? The market has imperfect information and can't predict the outcome.

But it's more likely that you'll fail because the market, because of imperfect information, isn't interested because there's no guarantee that they'll make more money selling cars with the seat covers, and lots of potential they'll lose money doing so. One company interprets this imperfect information as still sells their cars with the seat covers, but the rest interpret it more conservatively and seek other money making opportunities instead.

Just because it was your arbitrary measure of goodness, doesn't mean the market will follow it.

Just like in this case, just because a bunch of nerds on tech forums don't like carrier crapware installed on phones, doesn't mean the market has any reason to correct for it. Even in the presence of a competitor that doesn't install the software on their phones, the market still chooses the crapware infested phone at rates exceeding the alternative. The market has actually already chosen crapware infested phones at something like 88% of the global smartphone market. And companies, using this signalling, and the bigger signalling of the revenue that comes with allowing carriers to install garbage on their phones, have listened to this imperfect information and sell phones with this "feature". The market optimizes to make money, not solve our arbitrary measures of goodness.

The alternative is for us tech forum nerds to try and raise awareness about why this is vaguely bad for consumers (it's usually mildly annoying at worst to the vast vast majority of consumers and likely has almost no measurably impact on their purchasing decision), and convince the market to drive towards phones that don't have this problem. But it's an uphill battle.

The result of this legislation has three possible outcomes.

1) Phones will cost more. The revenue that went to Samsung for whoring out their phones to various carriers will simply be passed along to consumers.

2) Phones will be made more cheaply so prices can remain at parity. Features will be dropped, or upgrades won't happen till technology advances a bit more and BOMs can fit within some profitability model.

3) Phone makers will feel a great wave of sympathy for their consumers and the small minority who has an arbitrary measure of goodness for "don't install garbage on my phone I can't remove" and continue on as-is, eating into their margins and making less money.

I can tell you that I'm not betting on #3.