I don't think that is what they are talking about. Users can be sad. But they cannot claim ownership of a money they "spent". It is not their money anymore.
Not to critique on the article, but as a general suggestion, it would be great if people don't use emojis as a scale. Unless it shows a specific character like number emojis, they are sometimes read differently by people from different language backgrounds. So what the author might be trying to say might lead to misunderstandings.
It's very plausible that emojis are perceived differently too, although I'm not aware of any studies on it at the moment.
Naturally it's quite hard to talk about, because people don't necessarily have the words to describe the differences between what they experience, or are even aware of a difference in the first place.
It is influenced by the language and culture. For example mask on the face emoji is usually read so. But in some asian cultures it has a religious meaning.
These emojis are used while communicating in native language or even in transliteration via english.
This is a weird way to think about it. You are basically saying a company should not launch something exclusive to their platform or ecosystem, but rather should consider launch a generic product compatible with everything out there. Why would they ? How will they stand different if everyone does that ?
Exclusivity is a basic part of business model. Look at PS4 with exclusive titles. Hell, look at your local store with exclusive products only available in their stores.
I would have agreed with you if Apple had done this for a basic feature like calling. But this sure is a privileged feature and there is nothing wrong in making it exclusive to iPhone (but they haven't you see).
Lol, What do you mean your hard-earned money ? You already spent your money. It is their money now. Consumer != Investor.
Your equivalent is someone going to their local grocery store and asking them to sell stop selling Avocados because they are allergic.