Google can't do it period. They would have to change their licensing in order to change it. They would be violating their own licensing by not allowing manufacturers to do so.
Personally if it wasn't for the custom UI's Android would have never made it this far.
I'm not saying they can't be there, but make them removable...
I disagree with your last opinion though... I would say that things would have started better if the UI was inform. There would be less confusion on products for the general public.
Google wants open phones.. non of this locked down crap.
When Sense UI hit the scene it out sold the G1, and the MyTouch by miles. Almost everyone with a G1\MyTouch hacked their phones just to put Sense on their phones. People today are still straying away from the stock UI. Pandahome, ADW.Laucher, and whatever they are. If people really wanted a stock UI those would not be as popular.
Google doesn't want open phones like you think they do. If they really wanted to be open and didn't care about their code they would have went with a GPLv2, instead of ASL. They want the appearance of being open. Yet they have already sent out C&D orders to developers using their code. It would be removable if Google didn't lock out root(Even the Nexus One you have no root even though it was easiest to root it, but if they were open why not give root in the first place like Linux).
Sure if you want them removable, but you have to bring that up with ASL that Google chose. Under GPLv2 they couldn't lock apps in if they wanted to. As it would truly be 100% open, and not 85% open, and ASL allows you to change the terms as soon as you put your own code into it. At least with GPLv2 you have to release the code to the public at some point.
Not saying anything negative or anything towards you. It's just one of things I feel the "Google can do no evil" is just a front. You should not listen to OHA, but rather listen to OAA(These people know what's going on under the radar).
I don't have a problem with the way things are now, though options are always nice.
I don't pay any attention to the additional software, I don't want to use it so I don't. Sure it would be nice if you could remove it but it isn't actually harming anything so I don't see the big deal.
As to the interface, it doesn't bother me a bit I don't see why everyone complains about blur. Someone please tell me what it is I'm supposed to hate about it.
I currently use launcher pro, but the only reason for the change was to have the ability to get my home screens in landscape without having the keyboard out.
There are only 2 widgets that I use, news and calendar. How one set of widgets looks immature (for high school students) vs adult looking widgets, I don't understand.
You should know that adwlauncher>launcherpro
I have 2 widgets that I use, they are the only ones that I want to use. I have 7 home screens, 3 of which are blank because I only use a select few apps daily and the secondary ones are on a different screen.
What exactly can it do for me that I'm not already doing?
I can set LP to use fewer homescreens too, the default is 3. It can also resize widgets, not icons though.
I can set the 4 LP buttons at the bottom to use the apps I want, giving me 1 more row of icons or 1 fewer, however you want to look at it.
I can change rows and colums, and it has an experimental setting for a 3D app drawer.
Not sure I care too much about themes. I change the background periodically and the default app icons.
Sounds like 1 vs the other is nothing more than a matter of preference, not necessarily better vs worse.