You're confusing only-having-AppStore with not-allowing-other-programs.

Of course the average quality of the programs is higher, because all programs are checked. However, allowing other programs on the iPhone, while still having the AppStore as an easy way to buy/sell programs, would result in the AppStore having a similar quality level, while enabling choice for both developers and consumers.

pro-consumers will likely install applications from other sources, but then they choose to get a potential lower quality application. The same is valid for developers. If you want to be able to get your app in the AppStore, you'll need your app to be of higher quality. In other words: you could also see the AppStore in this case as a quality level.

Again: having an AppStore should not exclude the possibility of developing/using apps through a different way.

I agree. And then you even forget the opportunity costs. Even if the value of the "thing" you're considering buying is larger than its cost, you can only spend the money once. Thus, you buy the "thing" that has the highest value for the price you pay.

Clean, as in: do you know how much greenhouse gases are emitted when getting uranium/plutonium out of the ground and processed to be able to use it in a nuclear reactor?

If you would know, you wouldn't call it clean.

Cheap is also largely untrue.

See (for example): http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3250 to debunk your clean and cheap arguments.

Once oil will not be profitable enough, Shell will just buy the company with 'the good solar array network' or some other nice green energy company.

It's not just a dog; it's a _dwarf_ dog.