[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.

[rbarooah]

I'm not going to bother to look up references about malware or scareware etc. on Windows. Seriously? You've never heard of spyware or people having to reinstall windows, or registry corruption, etc. etc.?

Also several of those companies were actually born on the Mac (Adobe), or NeXT (Mosaic->Mozilla), or FreeBSD (Yahoo). And the fact that you think Windows enabled Hewlett Packard to be born suggests you have little grasp of history. I was AT HP when the decision was made to standardize on Windows - it seemed like a multi-billion dollar corporation at the time - not something that was just being born.

I don't have a wild imagination - I've encountered lots of everyday users who've messed up their systems by installing software that caused them problems. One of the reasons the App store is so successful is that users don't have to worry that installing software from it will mess them up.

Sorry, there's no double standard.

Firstly the Apple ecosystem includes the Mac, which is open, and would have enabled me growing up to write software for my iPhone or the web or whatever I wanted, much as I do now. I'm talking about the world as it exists now - not some imaginary world where only iDevices exist.

And more importantly, my point is that there IS a very real benefit to the App store for end users. We might not like it, but deceiving ourselves that there is no value to it doesn't help anyone.

I'm not arguing for a world where all devices are closed. I'm arguing that open devices need to actually be better and really open - not just in principle. Competition from the iPhone is why Android devices aren't just slightly better Blackberry's today.

If you don't like Apple's way of delivering that benefit then as you point out the solution is to build better apps and set a standard in your domain. That's why I'm critical of Android. I want Android to be better.

The solution isn't to legislate against Apple or make false-in-practice claims about the openness of Android. It's to make Android genuinely better and more open.

It's also worth pointing out that if it were really open, the community might be more involved in making it better.

[rbarooah]

Oh - and why do you care about what Apple does, when you have Android giving you what you want?