People like choice.
Well, that's not quite true. It would be more correct to say that we don't like to loose choice. Few people actively seek situations in which they'll have more freedom, but almost anybody will fight back when they perceive that some measure of their freedom is being taken away, unless they stand to gain something in exchange.
Consequently, people don't get too worked up over the lack of customizability of some product, or the narrowness of selection available at the local all-you-can-eat diner. But, let someone know that their cellphone could do more, but was deliberately handicapped, or that they can get a wider selection by paying through the nose, and they'll be furious (and willing to pay through the nose).
This phenomenon remains, getting weaker only gradually, as you begin to tip the scales. Let people know that they have access only to the top 10% of apps (accounting for 95% of purchases, say) on their smartphone, and many will still pay a premium to be permitted that bottom 5% of purchases. Which will never be used. We're dumb like that.
But it gets worse. Faced with that greater variety, one's decision-making ability is hampered. The average price paid for quality will go down, not up. We need a filter, and without it, our choices suffer.
The obvious corollary is that, when making a product, your first priority should be to remove unnecessary choice, not to provide more options. This is not an unknown principle: it appears in the (widely applicable) book The Art of Unix Programming as a directive to minimize the number of available configuration options in favor of sane defaults.
Sadly, it's not a widely-obeyed principle. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that adding a configuration option is a feature. It's not. It's a bug.