So that is a photo of Mac OS X Snow Leopard is it?
Not sure why you would say that. Snow Leopard is very "clean" in terms of design compared with every other OS I have ever used (and I've used a few over 30 years of computing).
Getting back to your original point, my take on Apple's ethos is that it comes down to cost, value and usability/consistency.
Firstly, it is much cheaper to make 100 million of the same product than to make 1 million of each of 100 different products. This allows you to make more profit (keeps company financially healthy and allows R&D spend), improve quality of materials and make the devices cheaper to buy. Apple do all three of these things to some extent. Nobody else can currently make a true iPad rival which combines cost, quality and profit margins!
However, not everyone wants the same device, I agree. Some things are cheap/easy to change such as memory capacity but other things either compromise economies of scale or compromise product vision. In this situation Apple will only produce a minimal number of well differentiated products to satisfy the market but without significantly compromising economies of scale or product vision. They won't allow their product to morph into a different product from what they designed it to be. They will insist on remaining true to the vision and maintaining consistency.
For some, this is a problem because they want the product to do X and Y and Z and it only does A and B and C. Speaking as an electronics design engineer, I hope this never changes because there are too many products on the market already with very poor design focus which were clearly designed by committee and the result is just a whole bunch of compromises in my opinion. Apple have said in the past that the really difficult decisions are deciding what NOT to put in a product. This is very true and takes a combination of good vision and strength of conviction. Apple have shown time and again that they have both.
Having a product that does more than you need it to may seem like you are not losing anything but in fact you almost certainly will be. You will either be paying for features you don't use (often because those features are not well designed or implemented but were simply thrown in to satisfy the checklist of committee design requirements), or you will be reducing battery life by powering those extra features, or you will have a heavier device than necessary, or thicker, or less secure.
If a device does less than you need it to then you need to decide if you can live without the missing features. This will depend on how important they are to you and whether you can find an alternate device which can either supplement the Apple device or replace it. This is where Apple's judgement will come into it. If Apple have done their job right then most people will buy their products and if they haven't then they won't! Apple products will never suit 100% of the people out there and nor will the products from any other vendor. However, Apple products will be suitable for the vast majority of consumers and those who fall through the gaps will no doubt criticise Apple and will probably find some other device which they feel is a closer fit.
I don't think it comes down to blind fanboi-ism in most cases, and certainly not in my case. I just find that I prefer to have a product which excels at doing 90% of what I need and completely misses the other 10% than to have a product which does an "Ok" job of doing 95% of what I need. That extra 5% requirements coverage is simply not worth the pain of having a product designed by committee, or worse still, designed by customers! Of course, if any part of the 10% missing functionality is crucial to you, or if you are someone who is unable or unwilling to compromise then you are unlikely to buy that product.
