iirc locking with BW doesn’t do what one might expect wrt encryption state.

i can see the argument for "burying" this ability, as users will tend to just get used to clicking "OK" blindly if you give them the ability to dismiss a prompt like this, much like i find myself doing with UAC on Windows.

Because the restrictions placed on Microsoft were a reaction to several anti-competitive business practices in which MS was effectively forcing OEMs to prop up a Windows+IE monopoly. OEMs were not allowed to remove IE, and as previously noted in US v MS, were often not allowed to install any other browser. OEMs were charged more for Windows licenses were they to offer any machine without Windows as well as mandating OEMs pay fees for each computer sold whether or not it was sold with Windows pre-installed in order to retain their license. This along with market pressure induced OEMs to focus production on Windows-only offerings, creating an anti-competitive environment in the larger, general-use OS market.

To the second point and this...

> Why is it not anti-competitive for Apple to ship their hardware with a completely locked bootloader?

Apple is the OEM. As far as iOS devices are concerned, they own the lot. I presume you didn't intend for them to be included here, but for their x86 devices (iMac, etc), you can install any compatible OS you want.

> How is it legal for the Kindle Fire and Nook to ship with locked bootloaders?

Simply put, Amazon and Barnes & Noble are not in the OS business. They don't stand to gain an unfair advantage from excluding another OS from their device and they are not forcing a third-party business to act on their behalf to support such an advantage. IMHO, Amazon is more likely to find trouble in areas such as their redirection of requests to market.android.com to their own app store though they still let you side-load apps and download them directly through the browser.

This is fairly specific anti-competitive behaviour, it's not an issue of locking devices in general.

it seems to me that content available online experiences immediate devaluation. why am i going to pay more to place an ad during your content when i can target the same audience for pennies elsewhere online? why am i going to pay the same for syndication or for physical media?

streaming license costs will continue to rise until they reach equilibrium with existing revenue streams with the corresponding rise in access costs, or decent quality streaming will cease to exist (legally). likely the latter will happen simply as a result of the former.

from the internal photos at ifixits iphone 4 teardown[1] this doesn't appear to actually be true... or am i crazy? ( i am fully prepare to be called crazy/blind :) )

[1] http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Teardown/3130/1