I agree, and I think it's fine for a company to retain some reasonable controls. Opinions will differ on what constitutes 'reasonable,' certainly.
What blows my mind is seeing people lambaste Apple for exerting 'control' over a device, and then saying, 'but Google meant well, so it's okay for them to do it.'
Yes, when it allows them to create an irregularly shaped battery with more capacity than they would have been able to fit in the device as a user-replaceable option.
Longer battery life than a comparably-sized device with a user-replaceable battery is certainly a good thing for many consumers.
Then why, in your esteemed opinion, are millions of people buying these devices, when there are completely viable alternatives available?
And I gotta be honest, porn apps? Get real, who would bother installing those when a quick trip to any of the numerous ios compatible video streaming sites is perfectly free, and constantly updated?
What exactly are these "porn apps" that people are being so horribly denied from using?
I see... So on a road, you're limited in what you can do in your car because other operators may not be as expert as you in handling their vehicle.
But with a networked computer, you're never at risk from or even coming in contact with, other networked computers operated by others who are less expert than you.
So "when it's in service of a good cause," violating user privacy and the ability to own your phone is okay?
Or is any measure acceptable if it's claimed to be to eliminate a risk?
Or is it Google good, Apple bad, still?
I'm very confused.
No, you save 272 minus parts costs minus the value of your time, and the value of having that time to do other things.
If you pay someone else to do it, you have basically paid $272 to have several hours added to your life. How much is a few extra hours worth to you, especially when you consider that most of the services you purchase like this have the same effect, and that cumulatively, you are "purchasing" months or years of extra time added to your life.
As I stated previously - that time has a definite value, even if it's not time spent earning money - it can be time spent doing any of the numerous things that you presumably work to support - time with family, enjoy a hobby, relax, study, read, have a drink, walk your dog, spend some "quality time" with your lady. And presumably all of those things are worth more to you than $60 an hour, as well, otherwise why would you work to support those activities and interests?
I have absolutely no financial incentive to accept any sort of governor on my phone.
Sure you do, it's called the carrier subsidy. If that wasn't there, you'd be paying probably as much extra for an unsubsidized iPhone as you would for a year of basic car insurance.
No, it's like publicly stating that you intend to do suspicious things in order to "test the security" of a meeting of very powerful, very influential world leaders, and doing everything in your power to do "suspicious things," and then claiming that you're shocked - SHOCKED - that those cops proved to be quite capable at detecting the threat you posed, and containing it.
You're right, we'll wait and see. My money's on the simple fact that not everybody in this security effort is the dimwitted moron people here are assuming them to be, and they realize that arresting someone on transparent charges just because "we felt like it" is something that nobody's going to live down for a very, very, very, very long time if that's in fact what happened.
Yeah, because we here on Slashdot are miles above the intellect of every detective, lawyer, judge, politician, analyst, and security consultant who has anything to do with the G20 security.
The overwhelming sentiment here at the time of their respective arrests was that Hans Reiser wasn't guilty, and Terry Childs was "just doing his job!", too.
Unless they're so damn crafty that they've read Poe's "Purloined Letter," in which hiding in plain sight is an amazingly effective tactic! And let's not forget that this is the same Slashdot "IANAL but I play one" crowd that absolutely was certain Hans Reiser was simply being persecuted for "being odd," and Terry Childs was some sort of folk hero for refusing to hand over passwords to "unauthorized personnel" who were, in fact, quite authorized.
The guy - without any requests for it, or coordination, apparently, with the police & other security forces - decided he'd take it on himself to "see how good" the security was by doing suspicious things. Well, he got caught doing suspicious things that appeared to be illegal, and has now been arrested, and will be given a hearing in court. That'll be his chance to explain away everything and show how flimsy the evidence is - if it is. Until that point, the police did exactly what they should have - prevented him from being able to carry out what he appeared to be planning. He didn't tell police "Hey, I'll be testing security," they didn't ask him, "Hey would you test security?" So what do you want them to do? Sit there while he kills a bunch of diplomats?
Sorry bud, the "privileged elite" are just as much part of "the public" as you or me or anybody else. They may have "above average" wealth and power, but that doesn't exempt them from being part of "the public." Lots of non-privileged worker drones who have very pedestrian, decidedly middle class lives would also be affected by an attack or a bomb on those "privileged elites."
Of course it happens. Do a simple google search for "false arrest" with your state or province name, and you'll find lawyers who advertise as specialists in this type of case. They wouldn't be offering the services if it wasn't helping to pay their bills.
In the United States at least, the real issue is whether or not the claim of "false arrest" shows a violation of "clearly established law". Law enforcement officials are granted qualified immunity against "false arrest" claims, with the qualifier being that no such violation occurs.
In the link provided above, an example of false arrest is outlined, Sorrell v. McGuigan (4th Cir. 2002). The plaintiff was arrested for possession of a weapon, when the law clearly exempted the type of knife he was carrying. The officer thought the knife constituted a weapon, and so arrested him. Because the knife wasn't considered a weapon under the law, and the man hadn't broken any law, he sued for false arrest, and the officer's qualified immunity was denied, and that denial has been upheld on appeal.
I'm not certain of the details of the law in Canada, but I'm certain that they have false arrest provisions as well, and I've no doubt that a massive suit will be brought against anybody with a hand in the G20 security effort if there's even a shred of hope that the guy's being arrested & held on completely trumped up charges.
And tens of police raided the guy's house, arrested him - and apparently later, his girlfriend - and charged them both with very specific crimes, including possession of weapons & explosives.
Do you think the police just sit around the squad room all day and go, "Joe, check me out. Why don't we... drive up to a random house in Toronto, kick the door in, arrest the guy on trumped up charges, get the story splashed in newspapers around the world, and then have a beer and laugh about it?"
He and his girlfriend are being charged with very specific crimes; Given the intensity of the media coverage surrounding the G20, the level of outrage over the security spending, and the fact that so many people were involved in the raid and arrest, I think it's far more likely that there is something *actually illegal* going on here. Think of the black eye to Canada (and especially their law enforcement), if this were shown to be trumped up charges over a guy with a cell phone, a can of gas in his garage, and a couple walkie talkies? They'd be laughed at as a bunch of Keystone Kops for years over this.
Your scenario, where it's just a bunch of crooked cops looking to railroad some guy for a crime he didn't commit, while no doubt appealing to the "IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot!" crowd, simply doesn't pass the test of logic. It would require dozens, perhaps hundreds, of law enforcement and judiciary personnel to be corrupt to the point of downright evil in order for that to happen. Is it *possible*? Sure, just about anything is. But it's not *likely* that that many people would wake up and, in the midst of Canada being in an international press spotlight, decide to ruin someone's life just for the fun of it.
Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, and the guy bought a bunch of weapons and bomb-making materials "just to see if anybody would notice." Well, guess what? They noticed, and now the justice system is responding in exactly the way it should to somebody who legitimately appears to be a threat to public safety.
And having malware on a networked device doesn't put others at risk of being exposed, infected, or breached? Or have you really missed out on the last 15 years or so of Windows releases?
What about if nobody else is on the road? The law still prohibits me from driving as fast as I want, even if I'm not putting anybody else at risk, doesn't it?
I had a police officer working a construction detail down a side road get in his car, leave the construction site, and pull me over for speeding. He, and the construction workers, were never in any risk - there were guard rails, trees, and a stone wall separating me from any straight-line approach to them - I would have had to literally turn ~90 degrees to the right on a dime to have ever placed them in my line of travel. Yet he still estimated I was doing 45-50 in a 35mph zone, and ticketed me accordingly.
How does this reconcile with your statement that "if you want to make life inconvenient or dangerous for yourself, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to." The law, and many many years of legal precedent, beg to differ with you on that.
No, what I'm saying is use an appropriate analogy.
And I did. Good thing for us we're in agreement on that.
And the iPhone won't matter in a few years.
Right, because Android is totally setting the trend here. Every Android device before the iPhone came along was already a multi-touch phone with a 3-4" screen and soft keyboards, right?
Whether or not Apple "keeps up" with other players in the phone market over the next few years, the iPhone set a bar for smart phones which every manufacturer is now rushing to meet or better. Competition is inevitable - Apple is minting money off the thing, and now everybody wants a piece of that pie - competition is good because it will force Apple (and the other device manufacturers) to continue improving these devices.
The hardware isn't any better than anyone else's any more (ook at the multi-touch virtual/swipe keypad on the droid x).
So you go from saying that "iPhone is being smoked by Android devices like the EVO and Droid X" to "everybody else has now caught up to Apple." Which is it? If they're behind, why would anybody need to catch up? The simple fact that other manufacturers feel they have to "catch up to" or "beat" the iPhone is a pretty good indicator that it's a credible contender in the smart phone space, regardless of it's suitability for YOUR particular needs.
One droid X can replace 1 iPhone + 1 iPad.
1 iPhone can replace 1 iPhone + 1 iPad, too. In fact, you can run most of the software you'd put on your iPad on your iPhone as well. Why does this matter, exactly, to the notion of the iPhone being a serious contender in the smart phone space? All this really says is that either device "could" serve the same purpose as an iPad, if the extra screen space of the iPad is irrelevant for your requirements.
Actually, your points only underscore how good the analogy is.
A NASCAR driver, or somebody else with deep knowledge of cars, would probably know all about changing the tires properly. Just like somebody with deep knowledge of computers will probably be safe with a completely open, unrestricted phone.
As you point out, the "average" driver would not know they need to change their tires to drive safely at high speeds; Similarly, an "average" user of an iPhone won't know they need to take some simple precautions to use their phone "safely" in an unrestricted environment.
You can't legitimately attempt to justify restrictions on one form of technology without accepting the corollary that restrictions implemented for "user safety" are legitimate, even if not every user feels that the restriction is necessary for THEM to use the technology safely.
Putting apps on your phone could certainly put yourself at risk of unwanted results - not on the scale of a bloody death, but certainly the issue of malware, disruption of your ability to communicate with other people, and privacy & personal data breaches are possible - and in fact could put others at risk of similar results. These are networked computing devices, and as people here on Slashdot are quick to point out, no OS is completely secure and free of malware.
"Bad things could happen" is the reason we're told we have speed limits, and the law gives these limits teeth. Given that "bad things" could happen with your phone, isn't it reasonable for Apple to enact restrictions, even if they don't have the force (or penalty) of law?
I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but you need to consider that your response is predicated on a host of things, most notably the fact that YOU would not harm anybody with YOUR free/unlocked/open phone because YOU know better. There are millions of people out there who don't know better.
Hell, most people know that taking a hair dryer into the shower with you is dangerous... but they still have that warning.
Agreed - he probably does get some satisfaction out of doing repair work himself, and yes, spending time getting someone else to do the repair work yourself can be inconvenient.
The calculation will be different for everybody, but it's a calculation that should be considered - $272 to the repair guy versus "free if I do it" is a bit misleading, because none of the work you do yourself is truly "free" unless you place absolutely no value on how you spend your time.
Then drive it on a NASCAR-sanctioned track with other drivers who have accepted the risks.
So you agree that somebody should be able to apply arbitrary restrictions about how and where I use my devices (and vehicles)? Sounds to me like the analogy works just fine.
Experts never like being told they can't do something in an area of their expertise. "But that restriction surely shouldn't apply to me, I *know better*!" But the restrictions aren't there for you, they're there for the 99% of the other users who don't have your expertise. The iPhone has been restricted for, and marketed to the masses, not to experts.
Which is where your point about competition comes in - there are devices that are open for experts to play with. The iphone, unfortunately for you and the rest of the experts, is not one of them, as much as you might wish it to be.
I fail to see how I'm dismissing the car argument when I'm directly responding to your question.
The "apples to oranges" claim at the bottom of your response led me to state that you're dismissing the argument. Usually that's an indication that the argument is being dismissed because it doesn't apply.
And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that you buy the phone that's right for you, based on your requirements.
What I'm pointing out is that for "experts" who have deep knowledge of whatever device you're considering, any artificial restrictions are onerous, but the restrictions are still put in place because the majority of people who do not have the deep knowledge of the device. And for people who aren't experts, those restrictions are baffling - "What? I'd never drive over 70... they could restrict it down to 80 MPH and I'd never even notice!"
I think this is a reasonable objection, and a reasonable choice to make as a result of that objection.
I own an iPhone, and I love it, but I would happily agree that it's probably not the right phone for everybody. I don't have any interest in writing my own software, and I actually find that I like having a single place to find just about any app I can think of. For someone with the technical know-how to write their own apps, or the inclination to scour the web for new software for their phone, the App Store is a "bug". For someone who just wants a simple & easy-to-use phone where they don't need a lot of technical know-how to find & install software for it, the App Store is a "feature".
If you consider it an issue, it's entirely reasonable to purchase a different phone that offers the features you want. I'm happy to "outsource" some of the administrative hassle to Apple, knowing that I may be missing out on the "full view" of software available to me. It sounds like you wouldn't be, and I can respect that.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, and I think it's fine for a company to retain some reasonable controls. Opinions will differ on what constitutes 'reasonable,' certainly.
What blows my mind is seeing people lambaste Apple for exerting 'control' over a device, and then saying, 'but Google meant well, so it's okay for them to do it.'
In point of fact, it's not an issue for most people as it stands today.
Yes, when it allows them to create an irregularly shaped battery with more capacity than they would have been able to fit in the device as a user-replaceable option.
Longer battery life than a comparably-sized device with a user-replaceable battery is certainly a good thing for many consumers.
And do they all use it to force changes down to your phone?
Then why, in your esteemed opinion, are millions of people buying these devices, when there are completely viable alternatives available?
And I gotta be honest, porn apps? Get real, who would bother installing those when a quick trip to any of the numerous ios compatible video streaming sites is perfectly free, and constantly updated?
What exactly are these "porn apps" that people are being so horribly denied from using?
"better" is a very subjective term, and you use it as if everybody shares the same standard of value that you have.
How unfortunate.
I see... So on a road, you're limited in what you can do in your car because other operators may not be as expert as you in handling their vehicle.
But with a networked computer, you're never at risk from or even coming in contact with, other networked computers operated by others who are less expert than you.
How exactly does the analogy fail again?
This sort of thing is being worked on already, at least by Apple, and I have no doubt many more companies.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/24/apple_investigating_multi_haptic_feedback_for_multi_touch_devices.html
So "when it's in service of a good cause," violating user privacy and the ability to own your phone is okay? Or is any measure acceptable if it's claimed to be to eliminate a risk? Or is it Google good, Apple bad, still? I'm very confused.
No, you save 272 minus parts costs minus the value of your time, and the value of having that time to do other things.
If you pay someone else to do it, you have basically paid $272 to have several hours added to your life. How much is a few extra hours worth to you, especially when you consider that most of the services you purchase like this have the same effect, and that cumulatively, you are "purchasing" months or years of extra time added to your life.
As I stated previously - that time has a definite value, even if it's not time spent earning money - it can be time spent doing any of the numerous things that you presumably work to support - time with family, enjoy a hobby, relax, study, read, have a drink, walk your dog, spend some "quality time" with your lady. And presumably all of those things are worth more to you than $60 an hour, as well, otherwise why would you work to support those activities and interests?
Sure you do, it's called the carrier subsidy. If that wasn't there, you'd be paying probably as much extra for an unsubsidized iPhone as you would for a year of basic car insurance.
No, it's like publicly stating that you intend to do suspicious things in order to "test the security" of a meeting of very powerful, very influential world leaders, and doing everything in your power to do "suspicious things," and then claiming that you're shocked - SHOCKED - that those cops proved to be quite capable at detecting the threat you posed, and containing it.
You're right, we'll wait and see. My money's on the simple fact that not everybody in this security effort is the dimwitted moron people here are assuming them to be, and they realize that arresting someone on transparent charges just because "we felt like it" is something that nobody's going to live down for a very, very, very, very long time if that's in fact what happened.
Yeah, because we here on Slashdot are miles above the intellect of every detective, lawyer, judge, politician, analyst, and security consultant who has anything to do with the G20 security.
The overwhelming sentiment here at the time of their respective arrests was that Hans Reiser wasn't guilty, and Terry Childs was "just doing his job!", too.
Unless they're so damn crafty that they've read Poe's "Purloined Letter," in which hiding in plain sight is an amazingly effective tactic! And let's not forget that this is the same Slashdot "IANAL but I play one" crowd that absolutely was certain Hans Reiser was simply being persecuted for "being odd," and Terry Childs was some sort of folk hero for refusing to hand over passwords to "unauthorized personnel" who were, in fact, quite authorized.
The guy - without any requests for it, or coordination, apparently, with the police & other security forces - decided he'd take it on himself to "see how good" the security was by doing suspicious things. Well, he got caught doing suspicious things that appeared to be illegal, and has now been arrested, and will be given a hearing in court. That'll be his chance to explain away everything and show how flimsy the evidence is - if it is. Until that point, the police did exactly what they should have - prevented him from being able to carry out what he appeared to be planning. He didn't tell police "Hey, I'll be testing security," they didn't ask him, "Hey would you test security?" So what do you want them to do? Sit there while he kills a bunch of diplomats?
Sorry bud, the "privileged elite" are just as much part of "the public" as you or me or anybody else. They may have "above average" wealth and power, but that doesn't exempt them from being part of "the public." Lots of non-privileged worker drones who have very pedestrian, decidedly middle class lives would also be affected by an attack or a bomb on those "privileged elites."
Of course it happens. Do a simple google search for "false arrest" with your state or province name, and you'll find lawyers who advertise as specialists in this type of case. They wouldn't be offering the services if it wasn't helping to pay their bills.
In the United States at least, the real issue is whether or not the claim of "false arrest" shows a violation of "clearly established law". Law enforcement officials are granted qualified immunity against "false arrest" claims, with the qualifier being that no such violation occurs.
In the link provided above, an example of false arrest is outlined, Sorrell v. McGuigan (4th Cir. 2002). The plaintiff was arrested for possession of a weapon, when the law clearly exempted the type of knife he was carrying. The officer thought the knife constituted a weapon, and so arrested him. Because the knife wasn't considered a weapon under the law, and the man hadn't broken any law, he sued for false arrest, and the officer's qualified immunity was denied, and that denial has been upheld on appeal.
I'm not certain of the details of the law in Canada, but I'm certain that they have false arrest provisions as well, and I've no doubt that a massive suit will be brought against anybody with a hand in the G20 security effort if there's even a shred of hope that the guy's being arrested & held on completely trumped up charges.
And tens of police raided the guy's house, arrested him - and apparently later, his girlfriend - and charged them both with very specific crimes, including possession of weapons & explosives.
Do you think the police just sit around the squad room all day and go, "Joe, check me out. Why don't we... drive up to a random house in Toronto, kick the door in, arrest the guy on trumped up charges, get the story splashed in newspapers around the world, and then have a beer and laugh about it?"
He and his girlfriend are being charged with very specific crimes; Given the intensity of the media coverage surrounding the G20, the level of outrage over the security spending, and the fact that so many people were involved in the raid and arrest, I think it's far more likely that there is something *actually illegal* going on here. Think of the black eye to Canada (and especially their law enforcement), if this were shown to be trumped up charges over a guy with a cell phone, a can of gas in his garage, and a couple walkie talkies? They'd be laughed at as a bunch of Keystone Kops for years over this.
Your scenario, where it's just a bunch of crooked cops looking to railroad some guy for a crime he didn't commit, while no doubt appealing to the "IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot!" crowd, simply doesn't pass the test of logic. It would require dozens, perhaps hundreds, of law enforcement and judiciary personnel to be corrupt to the point of downright evil in order for that to happen. Is it *possible*? Sure, just about anything is. But it's not *likely* that that many people would wake up and, in the midst of Canada being in an international press spotlight, decide to ruin someone's life just for the fun of it.
Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, and the guy bought a bunch of weapons and bomb-making materials "just to see if anybody would notice." Well, guess what? They noticed, and now the justice system is responding in exactly the way it should to somebody who legitimately appears to be a threat to public safety.
And having malware on a networked device doesn't put others at risk of being exposed, infected, or breached? Or have you really missed out on the last 15 years or so of Windows releases?
What about if nobody else is on the road? The law still prohibits me from driving as fast as I want, even if I'm not putting anybody else at risk, doesn't it?
I had a police officer working a construction detail down a side road get in his car, leave the construction site, and pull me over for speeding. He, and the construction workers, were never in any risk - there were guard rails, trees, and a stone wall separating me from any straight-line approach to them - I would have had to literally turn ~90 degrees to the right on a dime to have ever placed them in my line of travel. Yet he still estimated I was doing 45-50 in a 35mph zone, and ticketed me accordingly.
How does this reconcile with your statement that "if you want to make life inconvenient or dangerous for yourself, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to." The law, and many many years of legal precedent, beg to differ with you on that.
And I did. Good thing for us we're in agreement on that.
Right, because Android is totally setting the trend here. Every Android device before the iPhone came along was already a multi-touch phone with a 3-4" screen and soft keyboards, right?
Whether or not Apple "keeps up" with other players in the phone market over the next few years, the iPhone set a bar for smart phones which every manufacturer is now rushing to meet or better. Competition is inevitable - Apple is minting money off the thing, and now everybody wants a piece of that pie - competition is good because it will force Apple (and the other device manufacturers) to continue improving these devices.
So you go from saying that "iPhone is being smoked by Android devices like the EVO and Droid X" to "everybody else has now caught up to Apple." Which is it? If they're behind, why would anybody need to catch up? The simple fact that other manufacturers feel they have to "catch up to" or "beat" the iPhone is a pretty good indicator that it's a credible contender in the smart phone space, regardless of it's suitability for YOUR particular needs.
1 iPhone can replace 1 iPhone + 1 iPad, too. In fact, you can run most of the software you'd put on your iPad on your iPhone as well. Why does this matter, exactly, to the notion of the iPhone being a serious contender in the smart phone space? All this really says is that either device "could" serve the same purpose as an iPad, if the extra screen space of the iPad is irrelevant for your requirements.
Actually, your points only underscore how good the analogy is.
A NASCAR driver, or somebody else with deep knowledge of cars, would probably know all about changing the tires properly. Just like somebody with deep knowledge of computers will probably be safe with a completely open, unrestricted phone.
As you point out, the "average" driver would not know they need to change their tires to drive safely at high speeds; Similarly, an "average" user of an iPhone won't know they need to take some simple precautions to use their phone "safely" in an unrestricted environment.
You can't legitimately attempt to justify restrictions on one form of technology without accepting the corollary that restrictions implemented for "user safety" are legitimate, even if not every user feels that the restriction is necessary for THEM to use the technology safely.
Putting apps on your phone could certainly put yourself at risk of unwanted results - not on the scale of a bloody death, but certainly the issue of malware, disruption of your ability to communicate with other people, and privacy & personal data breaches are possible - and in fact could put others at risk of similar results. These are networked computing devices, and as people here on Slashdot are quick to point out, no OS is completely secure and free of malware.
"Bad things could happen" is the reason we're told we have speed limits, and the law gives these limits teeth. Given that "bad things" could happen with your phone, isn't it reasonable for Apple to enact restrictions, even if they don't have the force (or penalty) of law?
I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but you need to consider that your response is predicated on a host of things, most notably the fact that YOU would not harm anybody with YOUR free/unlocked/open phone because YOU know better. There are millions of people out there who don't know better.
Hell, most people know that taking a hair dryer into the shower with you is dangerous... but they still have that warning.
Agreed - he probably does get some satisfaction out of doing repair work himself, and yes, spending time getting someone else to do the repair work yourself can be inconvenient.
The calculation will be different for everybody, but it's a calculation that should be considered - $272 to the repair guy versus "free if I do it" is a bit misleading, because none of the work you do yourself is truly "free" unless you place absolutely no value on how you spend your time.
So you agree that somebody should be able to apply arbitrary restrictions about how and where I use my devices (and vehicles)? Sounds to me like the analogy works just fine.
Experts never like being told they can't do something in an area of their expertise. "But that restriction surely shouldn't apply to me, I *know better*!" But the restrictions aren't there for you, they're there for the 99% of the other users who don't have your expertise. The iPhone has been restricted for, and marketed to the masses, not to experts.
Which is where your point about competition comes in - there are devices that are open for experts to play with. The iphone, unfortunately for you and the rest of the experts, is not one of them, as much as you might wish it to be.
The "apples to oranges" claim at the bottom of your response led me to state that you're dismissing the argument. Usually that's an indication that the argument is being dismissed because it doesn't apply.
And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that you buy the phone that's right for you, based on your requirements.
What I'm pointing out is that for "experts" who have deep knowledge of whatever device you're considering, any artificial restrictions are onerous, but the restrictions are still put in place because the majority of people who do not have the deep knowledge of the device. And for people who aren't experts, those restrictions are baffling - "What? I'd never drive over 70... they could restrict it down to 80 MPH and I'd never even notice!"
I think this is a reasonable objection, and a reasonable choice to make as a result of that objection.
I own an iPhone, and I love it, but I would happily agree that it's probably not the right phone for everybody. I don't have any interest in writing my own software, and I actually find that I like having a single place to find just about any app I can think of. For someone with the technical know-how to write their own apps, or the inclination to scour the web for new software for their phone, the App Store is a "bug". For someone who just wants a simple & easy-to-use phone where they don't need a lot of technical know-how to find & install software for it, the App Store is a "feature".
If you consider it an issue, it's entirely reasonable to purchase a different phone that offers the features you want. I'm happy to "outsource" some of the administrative hassle to Apple, knowing that I may be missing out on the "full view" of software available to me. It sounds like you wouldn't be, and I can respect that.