First, I don't think Jason Calacanis is arguing unequivocally for government intervention, necessarily; he's first and foremost expressing a market preference as a consumer, and is trying to make the case to other consumers to have the same. If the consumers protest Apple's decisions, this situation could, theoretically, be resolved by market pressures alone; in other words, not so much that "the company that produces consumer products must suck my dick" as "the company must bend to the will of what its customers want." In order for that to happen, a larger proportion of consumers have to be better informed about the nature of the restrictions and more assertive about what they ostensibly prefer instead. It's not so much that Apple should be compelled to cater to them legalistically, I think, as that the denominator of everyday technology use tends toward open, interoperable and free. At least, that's the argument Calacanis is making. Whether you agree with it or not, you should give it a fair treatment instead of simply dismissing it as an exhortation toward legal anti-trust action.

Yes, Apple is there to make money from its products and so, Apple looks out for its interests very well. That means the buyers of its products should do their part to look out for theirs.

Having said that, I understand your position perfectly. I came out with a very similar stance as my initial reaction to the whole Google Voice situation, and basically agree with you fundamentally. However, this is a complicated question; both of the extreme positions ("kill the evil Apple now!" vs. "Apple is the vendor, it can do what it wants, and if you don't like it, don't buy it") have certain untenable aspects to most people when carried to their logical conclusion.

Specifically, I think the central ideological premise of competition-related regulation hinges on the fact that the world is too complicated to expect ordinary consumers to intricately understand every nuance of the restrictions, stipulations, caveats, etc. that come with every single product they come into contact with in a variety of areas. Whether you agree with this or not, you have to acknowledge that neither AT&T, nor Windows, nor Apple came to be "monopolies" (in the various ways in which they were/are alleged to be) because every consumer consciously and willfully bought into the consequences of adopting their respective goods/services/platforms/etc.

There are two sides to that argument, of course; the traditional free-market stance is that this is the consumer's own damn problem; if you're going to be lazy and not do your research, you pay the price. The counterpoint is that there is a great deal of social moral consensus around NOT allowing that to happen in other areas of life, which is why a great many consumer protection, disclosure, safety and liability laws exist.

If the roofers were allowed to put large amounts of radioisotopes in your shingles and you just didn't happen to know that this is an issue you should inquire about, you could get badly burned on that in the absence of laws that basically say that they can't knowingly do stuff like that.