Right, but if you take your approach, you end up running in circles and pissing EVERYONE off (in sequence), which arguably is what design has always done.
I honestly and truly believe that, for example, splitting iTunes into six different apps would be clunky as hell. So now, if the expectation is that Apple should hear complaints and try to adapt, they are trying to resolve two diametrically-opposed views on what 'clunky' means. Does 'clunky' mean that they had N tabs for N features, or does it mean that they had N apps for N features? The fact is, they have N features. They are not going to stop selling music or movies or whatever just to erase a tab from an interface. So if they have N distinct features, how can they possibly find a way to present them in a way that is not 'clunky', if all of the following (discussed in this thread) are 'clunky'?:
Should they just endlessly keep changing the interface to try and guess what people want, even though they are guaranteed to always be upsetting the people who liked the current interface until it comes back up in the rotation? Should they just do everything all at once and have like 46 different apps to manage your music, each of which is tailored to a different user?
Basically, I am just trying to illustrate the pointlessness of making vague complaints. Apple can't address them, we can't address them, and the people complaining can barely even express what they are complaining about. I don't see any point in that (although admittedly we are now about six comments deep in a subthread ABOUT that, which might be even MORE useless, but still...).