If its for my sake, why must they treat me like a child and not let me choose to have them remove that restriction on my device?
If something done for my own good drives me to another product, what does that say about if it is actually for my own good? Thats my problem with the GP's post.
Personally, I think Apple's policies are more destructive. They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good.
Not that I'm boycotting them....
I've spent 20 years playing tech support to friends and family who have accidentally fubar'd their open computing devices. IME that has done far more to convince folks that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good moreso than anything Apple's done.
The conflict is framed as "open" vs "closed" but once someone can do "open done right for non-techies" that's where the industry will go.
I used to think that yes, Apple makes neat things, but it's still evil because it locks us down. But consider, for example, how trivial it is to install OS X on a PC. There certainly are many ways Apple could go to prevent that, but they don't and will even give away updates for such installations.
This makes me think that Apple has consciously made its top priority delivering the smooth experience and working device/software. For that, Apple chose to sacrifice breadth for the sake of depth—focusing on fewer use cases, but better working them through. This means fewer features and poorer extensibility. We tend to perceive that as restrictions, but it limits the non-technical users' ability to shoot themselves in the foot, and allows for better quality.
For years the most common cause of people's computer issues was a combination of the terrible security or MS operating systems circa Windows 95 - XP and overly complex programs with badly designed UIs.
I'm sure it is possible to create a platform where one can install whatever software you like but not run a huge risk of malware. For example you can run applications in a sandbox which will stop them from damaging the system. Applications would then only be able to break out by exploiting the OS itself, so you build it on top of something like OpenBSD.
E.g., today most people don't really differentiate parts of their experience defined by the OS from those defined by application makers. So you have to control the ways your users install software, if you want users to not hate your product because of some crappy app.
To be honest, I doubt that without such complete control there would exist a computer / tablet I could recommend to, say, my non-technical mother, and be more or less sure that she won't hate all computer-related things afterwards.
You're also assuming that everyone who uses a computer knows how to modify it and not break it. Understand that a lot of Apple users want a device that just works. They don't want to have to mess around with the operating system or type a lot of intimidating commands into a terminal just to change something. They want to go on Facebook, play some games, listen to music, or type term papers. DRM does nothing but prevent things from "just working." It locks down where you can watch DVDs, how you can watch them, how you can use things, and can even lock you out of something if there's a problem on the developer's end (example: Assassin's Creed 2 included a DRM that needed an internet connection whenever you played the game, so if Ubisoft's servers went down or you don't have access to Internet, you can't play the game). To say that DRM is for the user's benefit and totally not for the developer's is insane.
Comparing the MPAA's restrictions with Apple is a bit unfair, and their success is only due to almost a complete monopoly in that area. The MPAA executives look at their audience with dollar signs in their eyes. Apple looks at them with those same dollar signs, but also with care and pride for the products they push out. They want to get a good product out. They adopted new business models like iTunes, iCloud, and even Siri. The MPAA is the antithesis of innovation and doesn't care about the products it pushes out, it just wants money.
Sorry for the long rant, but I needed to do it.
The MPAA views Internet users in the same way that Apple views people attempting to unlock or jailbreak their device. They have nothing but contempt for those of us who dare to use the products that we've purchased in a way that they have not envisioned. In their world, they tell us what we are and are not allowed to do, and we meekly submit. Both MPAA and Apple have this mentality and I find it rather hateful.
One could argue that DRM is required for there to be a thriving market in media, and therefore is to the user's benefit. Now, you don't believe that, I don't believe that, and maybe even the MPAA doesn't believe that, but the argument isn't invalid on its face. It's clear that restrictions which only limit users can be considered to be good for them. Apple's restrictions only limit users, yet you and many others argue that they're good for users.
I don't really care about Apple's intentions, care, or pride. I see Apple as pushing the entire world to a much worse model of computing. The MPAA, on the other hand, is fading into obsolescence one way or another.
On what?
On decent UI design and hardware/software that "just works."
Linux UIs are getting slightly better with Gnome 3 and Unity, but they still suck. (And they're getting better by copying Apple.) Windows UIs have been getting worse since XP. (All the good features in Windows 7 are copied from Apple, like their Expose equivalent.) Neither OS offers anything like the plug-and-go and design cleanliness that Apple offers.
It really makes a difference in terms of productivity. I know how to futz around with my machine to make it work, but I have better things to do with my time.
Until either a competitor or the open source community can offer good design -- which matters -- I am stuck with Apple.
BTW, I'll give you all a hint on good design: minimal is a synonym for good. Exterminate features.
OS X just works and all that, but it is a constrained environment that lacks the Debian repository. MacPorts is painful as hell, it broke my installed packages twice and the last thing you ever want to do is to upgrade all installed packages (because, you know, you might fear security risks). It also installs its own replacements for whatever OS X ships with, being its own little bubble, which drives me insane.
And what's the fix for MacPorts? That's right, Homebrew, which is a bunch of scripts that compiles your packages (again) from source and you end up praying to God that the software you want is available, that it takes care of all dependencies and that it compiles until the end, as you've got no idea what to do otherwise. Like it's freaking 1996.
So you know, now I'm happy working on Ubuntu full-time, which inherits the most awesome software repository ever from Debian. It may not be the shiniest and most polished operating system ever, but it treats me well as a developer, it doesn't restrict me in any way and I never had any problem that's unworkable.
BTW, I'll give you all a hint on good design:
minimal is a synonym for good. Exterminate features.
What most people are missing: the interface/software should do what you want, not the other way around.
This is my biggest problem with Ubuntu lately. I would have rather preferred for them to not fuck around with Gnome's interface, pulling out a proven and working interface, replacing it with broken software in the name of simplicity. I want it to work, not marvel at how simple, shiny and useless it is.