The notion that common ordinary folks can't pick up programming today is ludicrous.

True, true, but it can't be picked up by common ordinary and lazy folks.

I don't think it can work this way. At best you can get standardization and license requirements for extremely small and extremely well defined problem domains. A bridge is a bridge. The physic is the same for all bridges, the materials are the same, you know their properties. When you learned to build bridges, you probably can also apply this knowledge to build houses. Software is different. You cannot apply 'real world' solutions to bits and bytes. Software is extremely more flexible. And additionally many of today's software projects are still 'first of their kind'. The 'best practices' are far weaker then those for sticks and stones. Licensing requirements can never be flexible enough in the software world. When you can code the controlling software for an x-ray device, you might not be able to program a car computer. You would get an unrealistic explosion of standards or licenses. Software just does not work this way. What you want has been tried. The classical waterfall model tried to apply typical engineering methods to software development. Except for rate cases it failed miserably. And even in those rare cases the results were not always bug free.

I don't think it makes much sense to ask where programming should be made easier....Because it can't. Yes, you can get better tools, which give you more programming power. The result? Harder problems come in reach, which would hardly be feasible without those tools. When I started to code in the early 80th I needed a deep understanding of data structures and all kinds of algorithms. In memory relational databases? You are kidding. As an example, in the 80th I needed to know how to code a quick sort, or merge sort, or whatever sort. Getting all this together to even start to solve the actual problem was quite a task. Today? At best I need to know their best, worse, average behavior and when to use which. Implementing a sort algorithms myself? Am I crazy? I don't make fire with two stones either. So is coding easier today? Hardly. Today I might write my own video encoder, or play with voice of IP... things that were totally unthinkable ~30 years ago... at least for me. The 'brain investment' is roughly the same.

The problem is, designing a building, pulling a tooth, or fixing a toilet is relatively easy. There are not so many different ways to do it. The problems are perfectly understood. There are long tested procedures. Testing knowledge in areas like this has some worth. Software development above a certain level is research. There are a few ready made building blocks, but they carry only so far. Programming in itself is not so difficult. What is difficult is to understand the problem domain. If you only want to have licensed programmers, you would need to test the coding skills, and you need to test the skills in a certain problem domain. A programmer, who is licensed to code software for car computers would not be allowed to code for a plane. A programmer for bank software would not be allowed to work on a medical survey software. I don't think it can or should work this way.

Interesting. Are Question 1 and 2 exclusive? I have several programs in sourceforge. A few in the Google play store. Mostly happy customers. But I suppose I could fail miserably on question 2. I do... apparently I do good... but when it comes to explain... you would not believe that I know what a loop is.

There are as many bad HR people as there are bad programmers. The problem.. bad programmer write only bad programs. But bad HR people are doubly bad: They hire bad programmers. And they don't hire good ones.

.... Brain Surgery.

And that is even worse. While I can learn software development on my own. Make good money if I find someone who believes I am good enough.... I cannot become an autodidact brain surgeon. Heck, I am not even allowed to pull a simple tooth without a proper license. If that is not a real scandal....

Why? For a police state this is surprisingly low.

The main problem with your cynicism in this case is that if the product were to be mainly marketed to imbeciles then why does it have any pretense at privacy protection at all?

For people like you. Having no protection at all gives bad press. Having at least some protection or pretense of protection? "Uh... those nerds again. Should come out of their mother's basement... I just want to use a device, not learn computer science...yada yada". It is easy to distinguish between no protection at all and protection. But the average joe sixpack cannot distinguish between good and bad protection.

But the most important reason: Blame shifting. If something happens, and it will happen, Google can always say: The user opted in. He chose to allow this app to use SMS. If there is no protection at all, Google might get sued.

The problem instead seems to be that there is in fact a sizable portion of users out there who do care at least a little about their privacy...

You are aware, that Android is NOT the main focus of Google's business interests? It is big data. So, if someone has quantifiable information about 'the sizable portion', I'd guess it is Google. As much as it might hurt, geeks or nerds don't matter. Perhaps in the beginning as early adopters and multiplicators, but later on? When there is a userbase which goes into millions? Forget it.

Google simply isn't interested in protecting my privacy.

Or they are simply not able to do it. Google is seen by many as the software olymp. When I started developing for Android I was appalled by what a crap system Android really is. Buggy as hell and needlessly difficult to use. Maybe the Android developers are simply overstrained by their own system and needed to simplify it.

Really? An app is perhaps downloaded 5000 times. It has 100 comments... 20 complain about the permissions. You cannot know how many people did not install it because of the permissions. So, I think we don't have enough data to do a meaningful statistic and be surprised.

This isn't going to boost user adoption of apps (at least among people with a brain),

You can get much money from smart people, if you offer a great product.

You can get little money from totally brainless people, even if your product is total crap.

Too bad that there are so many brainless people compared to the few smart ones, that the latter approach is by far more profitable.

If you want to be successful... target the imbeciles.

Does not work this way. 'Sheep' don't allow advanced settings. Embarrasses them. Make them feel stupid. But of course it is not them who are stupid, but the software developer. Calling something 'advanced settings' is like putting a sign on: 'Randomly click here. No knowledge or understanding necessary'.

Sorry, not enough nerds there to make a difference. I write my android software myself. If I can. Usually not perfect, usually not so fine eye candy, but sufficient for my needs. And I know that it is 'clean'.

For Google. Android is for the masses. The masses are stupid. Therefore the software for the masses must be written for the stupid. The less functions the better. You don't like it? How often in IT related discussions come lines like this: "MeeMeeMeeMee... I just want to use and not study computer science. You are arrogant. Stupid nerds". In the right forum, 80% applaud this crap. So, this is the result. I am certainly not Google, but I write my software the same way.

I guess that they can no longer tell the joke "The only mad cow in TX is Oprah" anymore.

After seeing several patent decisions from TX courts , I think mad cow disease is rampant in Texas for years. So I guess this joke could not be told for quite some time.