Ok, so you want someone else to decide what you can do with your car. Maybe you wouldn't mind if Apple stopped you from going to certain websites as well. Maybe if they blocked you from calling certain people, that would make life 'better' for you. Maybe you could get some isneakers, that only let you walk from your house to your car, or car to workplace?
I don't understand this point of view, you want less choice? Maybe you miss your mommy making decisions for you?
All 'cars' are compromises. Any low-riding sports car would be damaged by riding on a rutted road, that's the tradeoff inherent in purchasing one.
Lotus (say) isn't saying you can't drive here or there, they just build cars that happen not to be suitable for a given activity. A passable analogy since car manufacturers have far less ongoing control might be Lotus voiding the warranty for your Elise if you took it on a rough track.
In any case, if that choice is not one you're comfortable with don't buy $PRODUCT, problem solved.
But If I want to ruin my iCar (say by putting it in a blender) then I should be able to. That can void the warranty, but I shouldn't be physically stopped from doing it.
Another car analogy (which cuts both ways) I can think of is the Nissan GTR -- it has a speed limiter built in that stops you going over a certain speed on normal roads -- but then when you are on a racetrack all limits are off.
You can't be physically stopped from jailbreaking your iwhatever either. Apple would probably like to prevent that from happening but they haven't spent nearly as much effort in the system design as say Sony did with the PS3 or BluRay towards making it difficult.
You have three choices: Buy Apple and color within the lines. Buy Apple and jailbreak, lose stability in favor of features. Buy Android.
Frankly I find it difficult to muster much outrage over Jobs' tyrannical jihad against openness (or whatever) when there are so many available alternatives. Many people are quite content with a walled garden approach; castigating Apple for taking their money seems backwards.
did everyone just miss the point where Jobs said that Apple wanted to be able to be free to release new hardware features and not have to wait for some 3rd party to support development for them?
