Your original claim was these package software setup cannot exploit the features on the radio the way native software can. Now you're changing your claim to only native software can provide a pleasant graphical user interface? Are all the pleasant GUI mechanisms locked away within the radio, inaccessible to all but native software?
No not at all, example the control software for my 480 lets me control all manor of operation and even more than I can with radio directly but I have not seen another "brand" software GUI that supports all these features and then some. So, again the GUI (Graphic User Interface) and the easy with ALL f radios features are available and the easy with which you can access them is what brings it all together.
There is no question that some transceiver control applications provide more control than others - but this is function of focus
, not some proprietary exclusion as you implied in your original "these package software setup cannot exploit the features on the radio the way native software can"
claim. An application focused on remote control will undoubtedly provide more control than one focused on station automation. In the remote control scenario, the developer will consume as much screen space as necessary to assure that all radio functionality is remotely accessible in a convenient, easy-to-use manner. In the station automation scenario, the developer will only consume screen space to implement radio functions in support of station automation; replicating functionality already accessible from the radio's front panel would make no sense.
In summary, whether a transceiver control application focused on remote control meets your needs has nothing to do with whether it was developed by the radio manufacturer or by an independent developer; what matters is how competently the application was designed and implemented, and how well it's being supported.