This is more along the lines of, what if all cars had locks on their hoods, but there was an 'open' car with no locks, but it was only a Pinto.

Then people point to the Pinto and say, "See no one is buying it! No one cares about openness!" The real conclusion is the there are relatively few people that are willing to go extremely out of their way to remain on the side of open-ness. If there were two products that could compete at the same level, people may skew towards the open one.

People also assume, in the car case, that the law will be rational about allowing them to circumvent restrictions. Locks on the hood? You bought the car, so cut 'em. It can void the warranty, but it can't be made illegal.

In fact, the law usually goes in the other direction: it's illegal for manufacturers to actively put in some kinds of restrictions, like first-party-only replacement parts or only-serviceable-by-manufacturer vehicles. Putting a lock on the hood, if it's intended to prevent third-party servicing, is probably illegal in the first place.

So why not do that to software too?

I don't think that can happen, though. The investment required to make something like the iPhone needs to be recouped somehow. If it were free, people would be able to clone it, reducing the ability for the original developer to create v2.

I would drop my Apple household if I could have a free environment that worked as seamlessly as my Apple environment, not just for me but for my wife and kids as well.

I am making a tradeoff between free (though I don't believe a free phone exists, no matter how open Google claims they are) and easy. I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Calling me immoral (RMS, not you :) is insulting.

That said, I am grateful for everything RMS has accomplished ideologically. I use emacs daily, but more important, things like GNU/Linux exist thanks to his work. I just want nothing to do with him.

This is what frustrates me so much with all the rabid "ZOMG, they want to take over the world!!!" fear mongering against Apple. Is is so hard to believe that Apple has just found that most users want their machine to just work as easy as possible? Is it so hard to believe they are just doing what their customers want?

It is.

Their system could be just as usable if they gave you the root password. They could have provided the App Store by default, as a seal of approval, and let the users get their software from elsewhere as well. The garden is still walled, but you have a door for when you want out.

Now without this App Store exclusivity, they probably wouldn't have been able to squeeze 30% out of the developers. But it wouldn't have affected usability.

this adds complexity. Maybe you think that complexity is warranted, but you have to understand that there is a cost to it.

You can always buy a product from someone else, or make your own if you think there is a demand that isn't being filled.

What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user? Surely allowing direct download of apps from the computer won't complicate things for those who don't want to bother?

Don't say "if you don't like it, don't buy it". Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy. Heck, even I used GMail until two years ago. Plus, even if they are so capable, there is a tragedy of the commons here: if you surrender your data, it could be crossed-reference with the other's, and it may end up affecting even those who didn't surrender their data (GMail is an obvious example: they collect data about whoever writes to their users, even when they host their own mail server). This is way, way more serious than your comment suggests.

"What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user?"

It certainly is. The implementation from apple would be more complicated and more risky.

"Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy."

Um, we aren't talking about privacy, but if choice isn't enough then what exactly are you recommending?

Complexity: Apple already let 3rd parties in, so I'm not sure it would be significantly more complicated for anyone. Unless the presence of an additional icon is significant complexity, and there are some inherent complexity in letting the user have root permissions. Of course, 3rd parties applications could crash, but that is already the case.

Choice: to some extent, it is about privacy: Apple knows exactly what Apps you purchase. Anyway, I recommend regulation. First, the owner of any device whatsoever should be allowed to do whatever he wants with it, provided it wasn't illegal in the first place. We should also allow reverse engineering (doing it as well as publishing the results), even when it involves the discovery of "protections" such as cryptographic keys.

General-purpose computer system (which may include the OS) should be subjected to a more drastic regulation: as soon as there is any way to add or change functionality (mere firmware bug-fixes don't count), then the end user should be allowed and given the means to do it, at no additional cost, with no artificial restriction. Among other things, that would outlaw the monopoly that the App store currently enjoy over non jail-broken iPhones, and the restrictions Blizzard put over the creation of user-made maps for Starcraft 2 (they host the maps, and have discretion to delete them if they don't like it). Note: I don't mean to outlaw proprietary programs and OSes. But a program that is a tiny bit open should be at least that open to the end user.

The privacy side of things is more complicated, but boils down to one thing: private shenanigans should be kept private, end of story. E-mail is private. Chatting is private (even in a chat room with 10 or so people). Visiting a web site is private (between you and the web site owner). Restricted publications ("friends only") probably should be considered private as well. Servers who host private shenanigans should not be allowed to: log them, look at them (even if it is "just a machine"), aggregate them (except maybe in a reliably anonymous way, which is very hard to do). Well, you see the trend. Note that GMail, Facebook, and probably Blogger, in their current form, should totally be outlawed (heck, it applies to nearly all mail providers out there).

Note that privacy violations aren't less serious if they are performed by machines only. I don't care that "only machines" looked at my e-mail before sending me that specific ad. They still influenced me by using my private information.

"Complexity: Apple already let 3rd parties in, so I'm not sure it would be significantly more complicated for anyone."

I completely disagree, but I don't feel like spending 30 minutes writing a good explanation.

Please. This is my killer argument, and if you know of a way to defeat it, I really want to know. I wouldn't want miss such an opportunity to actually change my mind.

I agree, but the larger point I'm trying to make is that there is a reason we don't see good open devices in the market.

So many tech people complain about this issue, yet none have succeeded in making one. If so many people are sure there is a need that isn't being fulfilled, then why don't they fill the need?