Yes, indeed, I agree with you.
But, and here's the thing.
You may have someone that has a spark of genius and creates something, but you don't them want this singles person determining what this great invention can and cannot be used for.
As I say, we almost need Steve in the back room being paid by the world to create wonderful things, but not controlling all the inventions and stifling what they can do.
Like with the iPad at the moment, it's a great product, but again and again, I hear people say, can I do this, can I do that, what about this..... etc etc.
And again and again you hear, yes, but only if you jailbrake it.
The device is capable of being much much more than Apple allow currently.
Hopefully in time the chains will be removed, as if they are not, other unchained makes will, without question overtake it.
Pffft!
The iPad was not the first tablet ever created. It was beat to the market by at least 10 years. But it was by far the first successful one created. Why? Because Apple didn't try to over reach and create a product that satisfies everyone's "what if" scenarios.
Other tablet wannabes listen to the noise about why the tablet should have this feature or have that feature, and they bust their a**es trying to deliver when the engineering doesn't yet exist. Result: Watered down, difficult to use products that end up not delivering the experience promised.
I work in an organization where we demo numerous devices in anticipation of offering them to our employees as productivity tools. We've had the Galaxy tablet, Xoom, Atrix, and several other Android devices. Even the geeky Android fanboys in my department all admit that they're "concept" devices.
But our users keep buying iPads and iPhones in droves. Why? Because they offer a stable device that gives them an intuitive, useful tool. Today.