Both decisions were made over security concerns, and they aren't impossible to understand. Application developers are often careless about what they leave in the logs. It's not unusual for logs to contain passwords, account numbers and other information which be used to do a lot of harm if it gets into the wrong hands. A common solution is to restrict access to the logs. But ultimately, someone needs access to the logs. Sometimes they are quite useful in troubleshooting.
It appears that wakelock information was mixed in with a lot of other system information, and Googles most direct option to keep some of that other information safe was to restrict all of it.
It seems to me that Google must think of these Android devices as phones with some other nifty capabilities. Looked at that way, do the consumers to by these phones really need access to potentially sensitive data?
I have to say, though, that the palmtop computer that I often hold in my hands is tens or hundreds as times as powerful as the mainframe I used some times in college. There's no doubt that this device is a computer, even if it happens to function as a phone. I can easily run applications on it written by people neither I nor Google knows. Those applications can, and sometimes do drain resources a lot more than they should. And Google set up the ecosystem this way.
Setting up this open ecosystem of applications was the right move, I think. But given the devices and ecosystem that comes with them, the owner of the phone is often the only system administrator that the phone has. And I think Google is not taken that fact seriously enough. Google is not offering support for these palmtop computers. For the most part, customers must support themselves, or they must turn to other customer for support.
So I have to ask, why isn't Google more serious about making sure we have the tools we need to support ourselves and each other?
I have to admit, part of my frustration is due to the fact that Google gets so much right. If we were talking about an iPhone or a Windows Phone, I don't think many of their users would even understand why I'm asking that question. I suppose Google will simply have to live with the fact that, the better they get, the more their customers will get frustrated by the things those customers need to see get better still.
With all that said, Google, why are you making it harder for me to support myself? What kind of sense does that really make?