[aaronem]

I often see the same argument made in defense of desktop Linux vs. Windows and OS X. It's a little more justifiable there, I suppose, but a phone is an appliance. Its job is to do the things I need it to do, to do those things well without fail. Otherwise, it's worse than useless, because it complicates my life rather than simplifying it.

Sure, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the iOS user interface is far from perfect. Judging by OP's experience, it's still a lot better than can be expected out of the vast majority of Android phones. It'd be one thing if that platform offered the options you so laud in a fashion which doesn't get in the way of satisfying the essential requirements of a pocket phone. Apparently, though, that platform fails to do so.

You can be just as contemptuous as you like of people who find Android unworthy of their time and money as a consequence. (Certainly nothing I say will change your mind! I've had enough arguments with Linux partisans to have realized that long since.) Your contempt for such people doesn't change the fact that Android has a problem.

[izzydata]

A phone is a computer and a user should be able to configure it however they want. If that isn't for you then don't use it, but that doesn't make customization an inherent flaw because someone doesn't personally want to deal with it.

[aaronem]

Customization isn't a flaw. Obsessing over customizability, to the point where you fail to notice glaring flaws in the user interface and the behavior of the device, is a flaw.

[magicalist]

This really is a false dichotomy. Being able to set different default apps isn't a huge thing to ask, doesn't alienate huge numbers of non-techies, and doesn't make an OS that does let you do so for tinkerers only or something. Conversely, asking for better UX for selecting which app to use doesn't imply that it's a bad idea that can only be serviced by a million knobs and buttons and so should be abandoned.

[aaronem]

Thanks for pointing out the lack of precision in my preceding comment; by using the phrase "could offer" I erroneously implied a conviction that no such capability was possible. I've edited that comment, replacing "could offer" with "offered", to correct the problem.