I still feel you're responding to an argument that I actually didn't make.

What I said is, a less open OS in the long run leads to fewer choices to the user about what they can do with the device. This has nothing to do with whether or not the end user is aware of or cares about the differences in the openness of the OSes. But in the long run a more closed device will have fewer application choices, fewer possible ways the device can do things, less control over the services the device will work with, and less control over the security and privacy of the device.

Choices are limited, because a more closed system is inherently linked to a more hierarchical development process. A few people at the top have the final say over what is and is not possible on the platform. Even if those people have the best of intentions (e.g. "don't be evil"), they will never make as diverse a set of choices as a more open platform that necessarily has a more multifaceted and unconstrained development process. Those few people at the top will also act in their own best interest, which will necessarily be a narrower and more limited set of interests.

The iPhone is the best example of this. It does a lot of great things, but if it doesn't do what you want you're stuck, unless you're going to jailbreak it, which does not represent what most users are willing to do. You're also stuck, as I already said above, with Apple's capricious app approval process, including already documented cases of limiting political speech on the iPhone. Google won't be as heavy handed as Apple, with Android. They'll offer a set of applications and services so slickly integrated that it won't be worth your trouble to go outside this system, even if there's something you're missing. In fact, most users will be so complacent, they won't even realize what they're missing. This was really Microsoft's original strategy, with wanting to integrate IE deeply in the operating system. The courts shot that down, but Google is heading toward getting away with it on a much grander scale. Microsoft wanted to embed the browser and interaction with the web deeply in the operating system. Google has simply flipped this idea on its head and embedded the operating system/platform deeply in the web. The goal is the same. Completely monopolize the form of the user experience at all levels. You will also have zero privacy once you've decided to adopt the Google/Android way of doing things. As I mentioned before, everything in history suggests that this kind of centralized database of information about individuals will come back to haunt them.

So I completely agree, it's about the experience of the end user (who knows nothing about and does not care about how the underlying platform works). Right now Android looks great. Once Google has an effective monopoly, it's going to look really different. Innovation well get more and more stifled as Google circles the wagons and protects it's monopoly. And it's going to be a hard system to break out of, because 90% of people will have completely invested their mobile experience in it.

Although that said, I would also argue that users don't really want choices and control. This is part of the effectiveness of Apple in general and the iPhone in particular. It simplifies the options, let's users do a few things well, and saves them from thinking about what they're missing or giving up. Google pursues the same kind of strategy. I think the limitation of choices and surrendering of control in a slick and appealing way is actually part of what most users want and will help Android dominate.