More restrictive? Let someone put MS Office on Android and see what happens...
Of course Google won't like it: This is about the app market. MS would LOVE products like this since it gives Windows users an instant app library. But this is about the market place for Google. To compare apples to apples, see what MS does when their lock-in titles are ported to another platform (breaking the lock-in)...
Not that Google is handling this right, but apples to apples and all that...

Goody, I can look forward to another round of converter boxes and government coupons. Sounds like fun.
I do wonder if things like text messages will finally work with home phones...Then I realize the real motivation: AT&T and others are looking at an opportunity to sell more hardware and services. Oh, and a chance to crack open existing regulations and insert cracks and wedges for them to cut service and/or make more money of existing stuff.
Adding value is not an option.

I'm currently giving a try at leaving my beloved n900 behind with an S3. The hack-ability of the n900 was fun to have but it wasn't something I relied on. I actually like the n900 as a good phone. The real motivation was to move to more modern hardware ( better radio, better battery life, some extra CPU , etc.) but the biggest reason was to be on a supported platform. Any apps or such that come out are either Apple or Android. Things like work apps and latest apps of any type were off-limits on the n900. But, so far the S3 doesn't quite hit the same buttons as the n900 on just plain smartphone usability. The s3 was a compromise for price vs functionality, given I was going to loose features no matter what I paid (why pay for the top-of-the-line when it's still not as good as I have now?).
Things I liked in the n900 that are missing: Landscape mode as default (I prefer this, Android has it as a late add-on so not supported everywhere). Hardware keyboard (just no getting past how useful that is). Cover for the camera lens (protects it form scratches in a pocket or pouch). Instant access to camera (tied to the above cover, flip it open and camera starts automatically. great convenience). The plugin nature of the contacts app (you can download additions to it to increase the kinds of contacts details it can handle without jumping to another app) Sound worked better (android seems to get confused when jumping between earphones, speaker, Bluetooth when routing sounds. Alerts can go to speakers even when earphone plugged in, system sounds don't always go through Bluetooth when it's connected, can't reliably make it silent since some things will override that), and mostly just being able to change something if I didn't like it. I guess that's a vote on the hack-ability of the n900 but I did the minimum just tweaking things that I didn't like. Another more "fuzzy" thing is just better interface: seems like I'm having to do more clicks to get anywhere in Android. The N900 seemed well thought out and very consistent across the whole phone. Oh, and what is the issue with not including text notes by default? As a PDA veteran, taking text notes is a must for a portable device, yet seems like it's been forgotten except for add-on in most modern devices. And I like the X based interface...can't count how many times I forwarded an app to the phone in a pinch to get to something on my PC. I'll miss that
Things I have now: better connection to towers. seemed like the n900 was having more trouble talking to towers as time went on with more drops, less bars on average, etc. Supported platform: can buy accessories and find software more easily. I am supported with work and other apps. Much better battery life, although I had no issues plugging the n900 in each night, but it's still nice to get 2 days on a charge. One of the nicer things is support for MMS built in: the n900 had an app for it but it maintained separate menus and interface from regular messaging. That was another work related convenience that pushed me.
So, I'm making myself do without some things just to get the few important (mostly work related) features I consider critical for future.

My experiece is opposite: used vnc, rdp, citrix, X11, etc. etc. And X11 is always better. In fact use rdp and pcoip daily and don't enjoy it compared to X11.

To be optimistic for Linux adoption, I'd estimate that for every person who does nothing in terms of remote apps or desktops there are 2 users who do (have to count business, campus, etc. users who are on a large network where such things are every day events). Linux still has a lot of it's users in technical areas or who are technical even at home (home network, etc.) as opposed to just home users. So I's say we've got 2/3 of the Linux users doing remote work of some kind. And for every 3 users who do use some kind of remote app and is telling me X11 remote apps is just as good as VNC or RDP, I'd bet there is at least 2 of those 3 that doesn't understand how X11 remote apps works (hasn't used it or doesn't understand the difference) based on what I've heard from people who have tried or who have at least thought about it.
Just rough estimates on my part, sure, but it still gives my side the majority. Any place I can look up real figures to try and find out who is using Linux nowadays? See how far off I am?

Don't have mirage, but gave Konqueror a try. Prolly not an accurate test as I don't use it much, but worked OK from my PC to my phone...lots of messages in the xterm about contacting other desktop pieces but scrolled fine on the GUI side while showing my home folder...

Every time I'd tried it it's worked. Mozilla, Firefox, Doom3 even, The ones that have trouble are desktop environment apps (like gnome session manager, or other gnome utils) that assume the whole desktop is local...not a problem to do with X, they are looking for or trying to take over another desktop pieces. That's a multi-user fail, not an X fail.
Examples from your side?

Slashdot's not the only place I count. Other web sites and forums seem to be the same. Rough back-of-envelope counting anyway...no need to do more than that considering the counter replies don't even do that.
Just once I'd like someone to answer this criticism with something reasonable instead of "No it's Not!!!"

All X11 apps "support" it...that's the beauty of X11 network functionality: apps don't HAVE to support it, it comes free.

if I count most comments about it, you're out numbered, hence "minority"

You mean the "rest of us" being that minority that doesn't use and/or doesn't understand X11 network functionality?

I'd sure hope so, or better yet someone close to the "action" has already mentioned it to him and he was glad of the input. Even better still he had thought along these lines himself already while making the decisions he did...I'd assume I'm not the first to see this since the developers on these projects are much brighter and quicker than I am. The worry is it's been dismissed already without taking it in, not that it's a radical idea.
The question is more: Am I wrong in what I see? I would love someone to argue points instead of just refusing to take the point seriously, which is what seems to happen on forums like Slashdot and the other websites describing Wayland ideas.
It's been a while since I watched the video, but as I remember it: the justification for going the way Wayland went was doing some modern graphical tasks the X way was horribly convoluted and/or buggy, so clients did all the heavy lifting and handed X a finished product to throw on the screen. While true, doesn't really sound like the solution is take that workaround people were using to get around a problems and base a window system on it while dropping the network functionality that ONLY EXISTS IN X (emphasis all mine) and is so much better designed and implemented than any other network graphics model...
X has issues, but throw out a working design with a working (working well I might add) implementation (not just in Linux, but X is on many platforms) to fix a few shortcomings?

Watched it a long time ago. Doesn't change the fact that Wayland is a step backwards.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Wayland is a coder's fix to a design problem: take a hack/workaround and build a new base on it instead of fixing the design.
I watched the video and Wayland is a step backward.
What kind of solution ignores the use cases on a working (and well performing) system when replacing it? X has issues no doubt, but criticize it's weaknesses not it's strengths please. I'd love a replacement for X, but Wayland IS NOT A REPLACEMENT.

Funny, I feel the same way about Wayland: If they'd quit wasting time on Wayland, the graphics dev's would be able to put time into the better, feature rich and more mature X system and we wouldn't loose as much ground as Wayland development threatens to do.