It's sounds incredibly controlling, which would explain the lack of freedom on iOS and Apple's various platforms. It's not enough to own the entire ecosystem, anything outside is not allowed to run on the hardware (at least for iOS devices). Great for investors and Apple's bottom line, but horrible for consumers (e.g. this story: http://niederfamily.blogspot.be/2012/06/silencing-of-maya.ht...)
Whether or not Apple's corporate culture is "controlling" (though I don't really understand why you're conflating 'confrontational' with 'controlling' in the first place) does not directly impact whether policies towards consumers are restrictive. Since the two seem related, I can see why you'd slip into that, but your claim is really a non sequitur.
Also, that article is about a patent lawsuit being brought against a third-party software development firm. The plaintiffs probably requested that Apple take down the allegedly infringing app, and they did. Any curator, no matter how strict or liberal their policies, has the freedom to remove potentially patent-infringing content from their marketplace.
(Which, for the record, isn't to say I agree that the patent is legitimate. I really hope the small developer wins.)
Here's just one example of the controlling nature of Apple from the article:
> Andy Miller, who joined Apple as a vice president after Apple bought his mobile advertising company in 2009, asked Jobs if he could join the board of an independent company in a different business than Apple. “What?” Jobs responded. “You’re barely cutting it here,” Jobs said, which Miller understood to be relatively high praise, “and you want to go spend your time helping someone else’s company? I don’t even let Forstall out of the office,” Jobs added, referring to Scott Forstall, Apple’s mobile software chief, a high-ranking and considerably more influential executive than Miller. Needless to say, Miller declined the board membership offer.
Expecting a board member at a critical time in Apple's turnaround to dedicate 100% of the time to Apple is hardly controlling. In fact I would deem it common sense.
First, 2009 (or later I suppose) was a critical time in Apple's turnaround?
Second, the anecdote in question is about an Apple executive wanting to be a board member somewhere else. Plenty of executives (at companies other than Apple) are board members elsewhere, so Jobs' refusal is at least noteworthy. And since the refusal seems at least partly motivated by limiting an employee's outside interests, that does sound controlling (try replacing the subject of the conversation another professional activity that had a similarly modest time commitment).
It's also worth noting that the executive in question left Apple last summer.
Because consumers don't always know what they want. They can be influenced by marketing and word of mouth (as shown in the Vista vs Mojave experiment).
On another point, Facebook is by far the most popular social network, and it can hardly be argued that Facebook's policies are good for the users.
