It's only lock-in in that the user is locked in [--] In other words, no lock-in at all.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Vendor lock-in doesn't only apply when you don't like the product. Now, if there were no other products you could switch to, that would invalidate lock-in, but it's reasonable to assume that the product being initially good is essential for lock-in to work at all.
No one is forcing you to use Apple's messaging platform. You can pay for SMS instead, if you feel that's the "free" option.
No one is forcing you to upload your music to the iCloud. You can keep syncing it the same way you always have (afaict, anyway).
No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone, iPad, or any other Apple product. What kind of lock-in are you on about?
No one is even forcing you to upgrade to Lion. Keep running Snow Leopard if you want.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. There are plenty of other vendors. The only way in which you could claim that Apple was "locking people in" is that they offer an integrated experience, so that if you go all-Apple, things work better.
Well, damn them, they should be shot! How dare they try to offer an integrated user experience to their paying customers? What bastards!
That's not what vendor lock-in is about. Lock-in means that after you bought it, you can't reasonably switch to something better, something that commonly you didn't know about or that didn't exist when you made the initial buy. For example, when offering integrated services, lock-in might mean that they won't allow a third party to integrate with their suite.
No. For the car example, lock-in means you aren't able to use off-brand accessories, or service your car in an unlicensed shop. However, cars are mostly self-contained, so this mostly only comes up with aftermarket stereo systems and membership programs.
And yes, mild lock-in is very common. That doesn't make it a good practice from the consumer's point of view.
