[Roritharr]

This is potentially great news because it reverses the recent trend that legislature is used to revoke freedom where possible.

That the iPhone 4G is hampered by this is just a pill apple has to swallow. As if there weren't more bands that could be used to serve non-free phones.

[Stwerner]

I don't exactly see how this is great news. While some may enjoy seeing Apple squirm, what about the consumers who prefer the iPhone over any android offerings?

[chapel]

I am all for consumer choice, but if Apple complied with the rule, that would only give consumers more choice when it comes to applications on the iPhone. Imagine people being able to install applications without Apple approving them. Yeah I know, crappy apps, security, blah blah blah. Giving people the choice to install 3rd party applications is a good thing, for consumers and app makers.

[rbarooah]

Obviously not everyone agrees that devices that can install software from anywhere would be a good thing.

Why not let the market decide? If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win?

It seems to me that using laws to force Apple to change their designs to be more like their competitors is an admission that the competition just isn't that good.

[bad_user]

     If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win?

No, because the effects of openness, or lack thereof, are very long term ... just as smoking, or lack of it, just as eating lots of candy or not. Even if "open" is so great, people choose shiny/tasty (i.e. short term gains) over "open" all the time.

This is actually the greatest example of capitalism I've ever seen or heard.

In corner A we've got companies that benefit from closed gardens. In corner B that want to keep the Internet free, because they recognize that it's an essential ingredient to their bottom line.

That's how capitalism should work, that's how consumers benefit; and YES, the market will decide. We are used to companies lobbying for their own selfish interest, but in this case we've got companies on both sides, which will make the consumers voices heard.

The only question is, what do you gain from a the closed iPhone environment? If you're an iPhone developer, why do you fear an "open model"? Wouldn't you be happier in that environment?

Myself, both as a consumer and as a developer, I know I would be happier.

[rbarooah]

I am a developer. With Apple's model I gain from having an environment where users feel safe to buy apps.

I don't fear an open model, but it has not been proven to be better for users - windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'. Seems like a pretty diseased ecosystem to me.

As a developer I want an environment where everyday users are not afraid of software. Maybe Google can create that too, but maybe not. I think it would be a disaster if we don't get to see both models tested. History hasn't shown that open is better - quite the contrary. I'd like to see the curated model get a chance to play out.

I have a feeling that in a decade's time we'll be looking at which curation model worked best - not whether open or closed was better.

[bad_user]

     windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'.

I don't know at what you're hinting at, but openness wasn't Windows' problem. You're setting up a strawman.

The problem with Windows was that Microsoft, by means of this monopoly, could force its entry into other markets. The problem with Windows is that Microsoft could force the hands of computer manufacturers to bundle it, forcing competition out of the market. The problem with Microsoft products in general were the closed protocols that only worked right with other Microsoft software.

     ... pretty diseased ecosystem to me

References please.

Secondly, for all its flaws, its openness allowed for the birth of Corel, Adobe, Autocad, SAP, Yahoo, Mozilla, Hewlett Packard, AMD and countless of others.

    I want an environment where everyday users 
    are not afraid of software

You either have a wild imagination, or you're setting up another strawman.

Everyday users wouldn't even know how a computer looks like if the only company from which you could buy one would be Apple or IBM. And everyday users are only afraid of software complexity (i.e. things for which they cannot form a mental model / not working the way they expect to). If you want to save the world for everyday users, build less shittier apps and set a standard in your domain.

This is actually interesting: you obviously are a software developer that built his skills and even reputation by relying on open systems; and yet you obviously preach against doing whatever users want with the hardware they've bought, even if you did so yourself while growing up. Will that "save the children" in the process?

That's a double standard.