In what sense? Many (like me) already own iOS devices and are invested in it with all the apps/games/songs/books that we already bought. I probably won't switch platforms based on the absence of a newspaper/music subscription service, but I sure would like the option of having those.

Wasn't it obvious when you bought the non-transferable music, books and apps that this was the sort of company you were dealing with?

It strikes me that this is a pretty unreasonable complaint. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't think it's fair to moan when it turns out it's a duck.

I'm not knocking Apple, I like Apple but we as consumers need to be aware of what we're buying into and I don't think we can moan that it was in anyway unclear the way they behave, particularly to the sort of person who frequents Hacker News and really can't feign ignorance.

I think you missed my point: I'm not feigning outrage at the fact that I can't transfer everything I bought for phone A onto phone B.

I'm saying that shutting out apps because they don't cough up Apple's ransom only hurts the customer and that customers won't necessarily vote with their wallet and move somewhere else because they have already invested in their current platform/device.

If they won't do anything about being hurt, then the question is surely how hurt are they?

It depends on what you consider the injury to be. If they didn't have a smartphone before they purchased an iPhone, then having a phone that lacks the features of other smartphones doesn't really injure them, it just makes them jealous, which is possibly bad for business. But if they don't switch, then the lack of that feature isn't as important to them as the other apps they have purchased, etc. Are you injured? Well, you got a bad deal, and in a way Apple changed the terms of your contract without notifying you, but it's hard to say that you've really lost anything. More, you just made the wrong purchase due to asymmetric information.

Still, in this case, I think Apple is engaging in a weird sort of brinkmanship with distributors, and I'm not sure they're in a position to dictate such terms.

So it's ok to hurt customers a little bit. Just as long as it's not enough to force them to move platforms. Ok, Got it. Just as long as you're honest with it.

We can still be disappointed even if we're not surprised.

In the sense that if you are unhappy with your iPad, your next tablet will be something else. New customers won't buy an iPad if it doesn't do what they want.

True, some users might have some switching pain, but that's true for most things. Windows to Mac, Xbox to PS3, Kindle to Nook. Lock in is real, but rarely determinative.

Consumers vote with their wallets. The free market is a powerful thing.

People who own an iPhone or iPad bought it because they perceived it as their best option. Whether they buy something else, or just grit their teeth and bear it because there's still nothing better, they're being hurt when their best option gets worse.

Agreed, but shame on the competition if they're unable to build a product good enough to convert dissatisfied iPad customers.

How often do you expect to replace an item like an iPad? I'd expect one to last at least 2 years.

(Songs have no DRM, you can play them everywhere.)

Eventually, but many are locked in by 2 year contracts. Apple probably figures it can force them to switch from Kindle to iBooks and then once their cell phone contract is up they will have even more incentive to by an iPhone 6 because all of their content is inside Apple's walled garden.