I think I'm going to start compiling a list of these. Last week we had complaints from people not wanting Apple or Facebook to do stuff they didn't like to their websites - excluding content and the like.
Now we have this story about Facebook's redesign going ahead regardless of some vocal criticism.
OK, there's such a thing as market forces and if enough people think it sucks they'll leave and the whole shebang will go down. (Yes, that's an Englishman attempting to talk American). In the meantime, though, public though it might look, it's someone else's playground and if they want to change the furniture around they're entitled to do so.
This and the conclusion of a piece I wrote for the UK's Sunday Telegraph published last weekend. It's a case study about a language school which is using Skype and Microsoft Office Live.
They're about to upgrade to the new version of Office Live and the thing is, it already does what they want it to so they're not quite sure why this represents value. They don't object, it's just that they're kind of used to something that works OK as it is.
The thing is, they've opted for the software as a service model, using both this and Skype. So if Skype or Microsoft decide to upgrade and the customer doesn't want to, it's tough - the customer is renting space in someone else's environment and has to put up with it.
I'll bet we'll get more of this sort of story as people realise, increasingly, the implications of the fact that the services they're buying into aren't on their computer at all but in someone else's space, no matter how personal the PC might feel.