[cooldeal]

Two ways I can think of now.

Microsoft got docked for just bundling IE with their OS. I just installed Netscape back in the day(before switching to IE coz Netscape started sucking). Apple bans all competing browsers. (Windows RT is a different story).

The iOS app store forces developers to use their in-app purchasing with a 30% cut for Apple and bans any links to the developer websites to sell services. The Windows App Store does not require this.

[Tloewald]

Sigh. This meme.

1) plenty of non apple browsers in app store, try searching. No HTML rendering engines because that's a security issue.

1a) Microsoft did a heck of a lot more than bundle IE. They made it impossible to remove or avoid or even hide. (you can hide Safari on the tenth home screen in iOS -- IE was locked onto your desktop). They also did similar things to screw around with Java, QuickTime. Borland, Paradox, etc. etc. all of which is on the public record. And all while owning 95% of the desktop market and even more of the app market.

Apple simply has some fairly clear up front rules about how to play on its minority platform.

You. Have. No. Idea.

2) iOS was incredibly open compared with predecessors. It's less open than WebOS was and Android is precisely because they came after and used "open" to try to compete.

Again, people coming after iOS and trying to set competitive terms to attract developers are meaningless. Where are the guyS who were nicer than Apple when they were in top position? Amazon pays much less to writers than Apple, is the dominant player, and cries to the government.

[JackC]

No HTML rendering engines because that's a security issue.

It's not a security issue; there are plenty of apps that download and render content, just not HTML content. You're not allowed to publish browsers on iOS because it's a business model issue. Browsers download and run code. Apple likes being the only one who can decide what code runs on an iPhone, so Safari is the only rendering engine.

Apple simply has some fairly clear up front rules about how to play on its minority platform.

Minority platform? They're outselling all smartphones combined on AT&T and Sprint, and running neck and neck with all Android phones combined on Verizon. They hold 85-90% of app store revenue. The fairly clear rules are "you cannot do anything with your phone that we do not approve of, and we do not approve of anything that potentially interferes with our business model." This should not make you a happy customer.

iOS was incredibly open compared with predecessors.

It was incredibly open compared with J2ME and BlackBerry. It was and is incredibly closed compared with other computers. The iPhone isn't a big deal because it's a better phone; it's a big deal because it's the first usable pocket computer. Why should it be a deliberately crippled one?

Now here's why this is important: Apple is making amazing pocket computers, and teaching people that it's cool for a computer vendor to lock down what software people get to run -- to pay engineers to actively try to prevent people from running unapproved software. It's dominating the cell phone market, and making monopoly plays to lock down its position. It's trotting out a line of bogus claims about why we can't opt out of the walled garden (it's a security issue!), when there are millions of computers with un-locked-down access to cell modems that somehow don't pose a security threat.

I've owned nothing but Macs my whole life; I doubt I'll stop any time soon. But I'm not going to high-five them for taking my money and using it to make my phone less useful, while promoting the idea that computers are too dangerous to let just anyone write software for. Screw that.

[Tloewald]

Downloading data and rendering a ui around it is very different from providing a general purpose HTML renderer. One is going to make you vulnerable to attacks on a single custom protocol, the other to any security issue in the rendering engine for all users of that browser. It may well be that Apple derives both business and security benefits from sticking to one HTML rendering engine, but it's simply untrue to argue there is no security benefit.

As for the iPhone being crippled — it's the only significant computer platform with no malware in the wild. And it's not for lack of interest - jail broken iPhones are not free of malware. It's a tradeoff that some customers choose to make. It's also a trade off apple thought made sense for a device we carry around, communicate with, which can track our movements, and so on.

Personally, I think the security model apple is pursuing on Mac OS X is better than that for iOS (an opt in walled garden which is what I think you want). Maybe they'll converge. But I don't think there's any evidence (so far) of insidious intent behind Apple's moves. They're figuring this stuff out as they go along, and they're being careful. One thing is pretty certain -- they can't put the genie back in the bottle, so as they ease up on security and other restrictios they need to figure out what works and what doesn't.

[vetinari]

> iOS was incredibly open compared with predecessors.

Not true. The first two releases of Series 60 were wide open, you could develop whatever you wanted. The third one required certificate signing, so it was as much "open" as iOS.

Windows Mobile had optional signing. In effect, it was wide open for development too.

That was all several years before iOS.

[fpgeek]

Don't forget Palm OS. Wide-open development plus free ringtones from whatever music you want (if you know the trick).