I'm not sure what you claim is so trivially obvious; sometimes a decision to restrict peoples choices ends up being good for the company simply because it is go

I'm not sure what you claim is so trivially obvious; sometimes a decision to restrict peoples choices ends up being good for the company simply because it is good for the user experience. Consider how facebook never allowed too much freedom over pages, no background images or changing the font or auto playing music. These were all hotly requested features, and why should facebook care if someone put a tiled image background or had a different font? They cared because in reality people often don't make the best decisions and for anything social, other people being morons and using red comic sans over tiled lolcats causes the value of the service to decrease. I'm not sure if the same is true about Google+, but I did think it was jarring that people named things like "Texans for Marijuana Legalization" started following me on Google+. If there was people named anything close to the average xbox handle, it would definitely make me less likely to use the service (things like vagblaster77 or dankbluntz4lyfe)