Okay, I’ll admit it. Like many of you, I’m easily impressed by shinny, beautiful objects. Apple products typically fit that description to a tee.
So far, I’ve done my best to not buy Apple products, for the simple fact that Apple doesn’t trust me to do what I want with Apple products that I pay for and own. (Note, my wife owns an iPod and I borrow it from time to time). I still find it shocking that Apple can get away with such a closed stance.
Reading about the “iPhone kill switch”:
“…such a capability exists in case Apple inadvertently allows a malicious program to be distributed through the App Store.
Jobs is quoted saying: “Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull.””
Just imagine if Microsoft or a hardware provider such as HP had put in an equivalent “feature” on PCs. Seriously, talk about a double standard when it comes to Apple!
I was going to argue that Apple should have learned the lesson from the early PC vs. Apple computer market. But the truth is, Apple is happy to remain a closed ecosystem and not face the downward pressure on prices that ultimately results from an open marketplace. Apple must have realized that closed and beautiful wins out over open. They’re just applying that learning to the iPod/iPhone applications market.
I’m pulling for RIM to offer mobile application developers with an open development platform without restrictions on the applications that developers can build and users can freely choose to run. It remains to be seen how/if RIM can offer the user experience of the iTunes store for RIM-based applications and content.