OSNews

People always take the line, when any of Apple's business practices are questioned, that if you do not care for them, don't buy the product.

Its not a valid argument. People who have no intention of buying the product object to the practice of limiting what software you can install on it. They object still more to the practice of limiting what software can be installed with the sole aim of maintaining a monopoly of certain kinds of software on the device.

Is this reasonable? Yes, because what they are objecting to is the consequences of a business model, should it either become widely adopted, or should Apple itself obtain major market share.

Let's suppose that everyone starts to behave the same way. Do we really find it a desirable situation if all phones have browsers, calendar apps, games, music etc, but each manufacturer locks his phone to his particular software? Probably then makes sure that the format of any data stored is proprietary and encrypted, that any interface with other devices like PCs is also via proprietary closed packages.

Are you getting a bit uncomfortable now?

Well, it could get worse. Imagine one of these manufacturers has over time got about 60% plus market share. Now you are in the situation you'd be in if MS would not permit any but its own approved software to run on Windows. Office or Works would be the only WP or spreadsheet allowed, because it would not allow any apps that competed with its own stuff. No Filemaker, because it competes with Access. As for competing with Exchange or Outlook, forget it.

People who object to the Apple tactic are not really objecting to Apple, they have a reasonable objection to a step toward an industry structure for software and devices which runs it which they feel limits choice and personal and intellectual freedom.

Apple has always wanted to control the hardware and the software both. The early days of Mac were marked by great tension and suspicion between Apple and the Mac developers. On the PC it got away from them totally. But they are revisiting that war with the mobile phone, as they have with iPod - except, with phones, they are going one step further.

People object reasonably enough because they think its in their interests to have a different industry model: one in which I can play my content on multiple clients, run my OS on multiply sourced hardware, generally, not be locked in to buying every aspect from one vendor. Not objecting to being able to do that. Just objecting to being compelled to do that.

Because of, at bottom, a horrible feeling that if this model takes off, the next thing, after the vendor tells you what you can install, will be the vendor telling you what you can read or play. Think about it.