Let's take it as a given that the iPad and like devices won't kill normal computers any time soon, if ever, so those of us who know we want to tinker will have

Let's take it as a given that the iPad and like devices won't kill normal computers any time soon, if ever, so those of us who know we want to tinker will have a place to do it. The question, then, is if one is designing a mass-market computing device, is the ability to tinker with it going to produce enough good in the world to offset all the misery it causes to other people? For every person that saves ten hours using VBA to program their spreadsheet, how many other people lose hours because they get a virus or install incompatible programs or corrupt some obscure system file? In other words: you're 100% correct that there will be negative consequences, but don't forget that there will be positive consequences as well. It's a judgment call as to which side you think weighs more heavily and where the overall balance will be. Yes, you lose something important and valuable when you lose the ability to tinker. Yes, the world would be better if you could have that AND not have people frustrated and crippled by their technology. But no one has figured out how to do both yet. I think it's fair to say that you have to make the choice, and you can't have it both ways. And given that choice, my personal accounting tells me that we gain a lot more by removing the frustration than we lose by removing the power. While we lose something, I think we gain a lot more, and I don't see any way to gain it without giving something up.