It may be easy to you to throw Brooks' experience, but mine is spread across 193 Macs used by teachers and students, and I could tell which ones had been running flash games because those were the ones I had to re-image every week or two. It's ridiculous to argue that that cross-compiled software is going to offer as high quaility an experience as software developed with tools made for the platform.
The single greatest selling point, the thing that allows us to call it better, is the user experience. I remember when photoshop was a Mac-only program. Now the Mac version looks like bastardized windows software. This is what Apple is trying to prevent for the iPhone/iPad. If they don't, what makes them worth buying. Without the user experience, what are they beyond just being cool, and if they're just cool, how long does that last?
I completely disagree with both this and the msg from the vibration resistant GPS user, except on the point that drop and vibration resistant gear is much more expensive than standard gear. Think for a minute about what in takes to make a phone water resistant and you'll see that phones are not much more difficult than watches to make water resistant, and some of the cheapest from Timex and Casio are good for 200 meters. How much extra should a water/humidity resistant cost? I don't know precisely but it seems like somebody's ignoring a chance to charge a premium. Unless, of course the wireless companies would prefer to charge people for replacement phones with "water" damage.
And this is where you compound your error. It's as if you have this vision of the commercially successful artist at the white end of the scale and the remixer, editor, interior decorator, plumber at the black. Every artist is building on what came before.
Elvis stole from the R & B artists. The Beatles stole from Goffin & King. Disney stole from the brothers Grimm. Original thought, true art is a lie we tell ourselves because we can't see that the shoulders we stand on are so broad that we confuse them with the ground. The ones who aren't screaming, the ones who "actually" create have been the most successful at believing this lie.
Perhaps the problem with seeing remixing as art comes from a lack of understanding about what is possible in remixing.
You could compare remixing to film editing. I would consider anyone who thought Walter Murch wasn't an artist an example of a person ignorant of what is possible in film editing, but then, he doesn't write or shoot or act, so I'm sure many people have never even heard of him.
A remixer can add and subtract elements to a song to the extent that even the artist being remixed might need to be shown the original elements.
I most like Fran Lebowitz's take on all of this:
"Original thought is like original sin. It happened before you were born to people you could not have possibly known."
One might say that these companies believe that denying choice is not only a fair use of their right, but that it works to enhance their power by framing the exchange in such a manner as to make the person on the receiving end of the notice feel powerless.