I often hear the following invalid argument: "I don't care about code availability, I won't look at it!" to which my response is: "You won't look at it, but other people will, and when they contribute back, you will benefit too."
Saying that the source availability is not important because you won't use it is like saying free speech is not important because you have nothing to say.
That is just an argument for features/the quality of code, not about freedom. There are other models for make good quality software that has the features users want without making it open source. And no, having the source available for software that you use is not like freedom of speech.
Anyway, like I have already said, my intent here was only to try to make people like you see another perspective (namely that non-free platforms can create ecosystems where users enjoy the labours of a large number of developers who can make a profitable living out of programming for that ecosystem - access to such ecosystems is also a freedom and one that many users care about). Apart from making that limited point, I had no interest in having a pointless argument with an open source fanatic.
I understand what you mean and I feel sorry for taking the discussion in an unintended direction. I could counter arguments some points you show, but I don't think that would contribute anything to the discussion.
Apart from that, It is clear from my comment history that I do have a side. Nevertheless, calling me an "open source fanatic" is kind of rude.
Saying that the source availability is not important because you won't use it is like saying free speech is not important because you have nothing to say.