He wants apps written for the iPhone, not apps that try to shoehorn some kind of cross-platform abstraction on top of the iPhone, because that usually sucks, and (at least in his eyes) it makes the iPhone look bad if the apps look bad.

This is a patently ridiculous generalization. Adobe Flash CS5 is a translator with associated API libraries -- similar in kind to a C compiler and the C standard library. So, an analogous argument would be that all code built with GCC sucks; and, therefore, only assembly can be used.

I wish I could view with indifference all of the people that drink the Apple Kool-Aid; but, I fear that little choice and freedom will remain in the wake of a tide of lemmings rushing off Apple's cliff of corporate lock-in.

There's and even worse possibility for Comcast: this ruling could result in the FCC reclassifying DSL and other broadband services as Title II telecommunications services, and subjecting them to common carrier regulations.

You missed the point...completely. To aid your, apparently, limited reading comprehension, I'll restate the point: Apple's actions are anti-competitive; and, they hurt the consumer and the marketplace, overall. Your responses, to paraphrase, that "Apple is just trying to maintain/gain an advantage", and "Apple actions are common business practice" are irrelevant. Essentially, those same arguments can be, and have been, used to justify the actions of Microsoft. The question is 'Does Apple's actions hurt the consumer?'. I say yes; and, there's nothing in your reply that militate against that.

Perhaps, you need to spend a little more time in your basement with a book, or two, or three...

I'll concede the point that Apple makes quality products -- although, personally, I find them less than compelling. My issue with Apple is that their business practices are anti-competitive in effect if not actually illegal; and, I believe their actions hurt consumers -- especially, those either not able or not willing to pay the Apple Premium.
For example,

• Assuming this story is correct. As described in IEEE Spectrum, Intrinsity is an unique company that produces technology capable of significantly boosting the performance of many ARM processors. Considering the ubiquity of ARM, this technology could've potentially benefited a large range of consumers; but, apparently, that benefit will, now, only fall on those purchasing Apple products.
• Apple's suit against HTC: This is an obvious ploy to impede if not completely halt the ascent of Android. Apple sues HTC for infringing on its questionable soft patents while refusing to pay Nokia for the use of its hard patents.
• E-book Price Increase: This is an instance of Apple using its virtual monolopy in the mind share if not the market share of mobile devices to hurt the consumer. Perhaps, previous e-book prices were artificially low; I won't argue that point. The fact remains that Apple's entry into the e-book business has resulted in higher prices for the consumer -- with one concrete instance being the 43% increase in NY Times subscriptions.
• Banning of Google Voice App: In additional to a multitude of other features, Google Voice allow users to make free domestic VOIP calls; so, the adverse affect to consumers of this rejection should be obvious. Furthermore, this isn't an isolated instance: Apple has a history of rejecting apps that compete against its products or those of its business partners.

Correct. From Oracle Outlines Plans To Tie Sun Hardware To Oracle Software:

In terms of the server business, Oracle, in addition to increasing its investment in the Solaris operating system, will also accelerate its investment in its SPARC processor-based server line, and will continue to focus on forward binary compatibility, Fowler said.

You seem to be missing a degree of freedom inherent in the relationship: the publisher is free to sell their books to Amazon at any price they choose, or not sell them to Amazon at all. So, the publisher has the prerogative to set the whole sale price which makes the most business sense for it. All amazon is doing here is attempting to exercise the same right: the ability to sell its previously purchased merchandise at the price that makes the most business sense for it.