[kwantam]

Flash on every device is not diversity.

And Apple's walled garden does nothing to promote either diversity or interoperability.

Separate your dislike of Flash from your reasoning on this subject for just a moment. What if it were Sun wanting to deploy a JVM for the iPhone? How about a .NET CLR? These certainly promote both interoperability and diversity.

Now, would Apple allow them? Why not? Because they'd impact battery life? Hardly. They'd disallow them because it would loosen their grip on the iPhone software ecosystem. The bottom line is, Apple's business model with respect to the App Store relies on being the only game in town.

Downvote away. No matter that I'm on topic and making reasonable, if contentious, points. My karma isn't so important to me that I'll let y'all's fanboiism gets in the way of actual discussion.

[ynniv]

I never downvoted your comments, and do not I think that my points are fanboyism.

> And Apple's walled garden does nothing to promote either diversity or interoperability.

I want diversity of full device stacks. Many competing operating systems. Microsoft's business plan and the previously high cost of computers has convinced people that hardware and software are separate things. Apple's take is that they are not - they come together to form one device. Apple produces devices that while internally sealed, interoperate with well understood file formats like HTML, Doc, PDF, and MP3/AAC. This is better for the consumer, who honestly shouldn't care how these complicated systems work.

> What if it were Sun wanting to deploy a JVM for the iPhone?

Well thats great, they can, just like Adobe can release Flash for the iPhone [ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashcs5/appsfor_iphone/ ]. The issue at hand is whether MobileSafari has a Flash plugin. I personally do not care for one, and Adobe hasn't gone the extra mile to make it compelling.

> The bottom line is, Apple's business model with respect to the App Store relies on being the only game in town.

Silly, unsubstantiated remarks aren't as interesting as they sound in your dorm room. Apple doesn't need to make any money at all from the AppStore, they're sitting on a $40b pile of gold. From what I can see, they're trying to make a great product, and everyone else who failed to do so on their own wants a piece.

[kwantam]

Silly, unsubstantiated remarks aren't as interesting as they sound in your dorm room.

Snarky, wildly inaccurate drivel doesn't lend you any much-needed credibility. If you're unaware of Apple's obsession with lock-in, I'm impressed you can get an internet connection from whatever planet you live on.

Apple doesn't need to make any money at all from the AppStore

Oh really? They just take a 30% cut because they're kind-hearted? True, it's not a huge chunk of their revenue, but it's a very high margin business and you can be damn sure they will fight to grow it as much as possible.

Moreover, your comment about a "pile of gold" is naive. Most companies in the tech sector, Apple included, are expected by investors to maintain a "growth" attitude. If you don't believe me, look at the incidence of dividend payments in high-tech companies versus the market as a whole. Sitting on a huge pile of gold does little to nothing for your stock price[1]; investors want to see up-and-to-the-right. This is a simple, if unfortunate, fact: Apple is on the prowl for every new revenue stream they can find, especially those that print margin dollars, because they must always appear to be a growth company, even though you and I know this is a noble lie at best.

[1] other than establish the "ground floor" valuation for your stock; point is, it does relatively little to drive investment when, by comparison, your peers are shoveling their cash hordes into idiotic buybacks and low-return R&D just to keep the illusion that they're taking over the world. I have substantial experience with this phenomenon at the company I work for.