1st:
“Before the iPhone, getting your app on a phone meant doing complicated and expensive business development deals with wireless carriers”

- Not true.. you were free to develop a Java based application for a looooong time across the globe and people could install them without problems. Sure, there were issues with problematic applications but unfortunately such is the nature of choice. As soon as the market is free you will have those with malicious intent but at the end of the day we have the freedom. This is what counts.

To talk about “closed” better than “open” is to discuss dictatorship vs democracy. Same thing. I can tell you that a lot of people love living in dictatorship because everything is provided from them, they don't have to think and things just work. Unfortunately it comes with one big sacrifice, if you want something else or freedom or a say in anything you don't have it.

2nd:
At the other end of the spectrum: If the iPhone OS were completely open, would we really have better apps? What apps are we missing today besides viruses?

- Look no further than Cydia and unlocked iPhones. Applications developed for the “black” market for iPhone provides much better and free applications by design. The reason is that people don't want to pay $99 to Apple to develop for the platform plus be tossed around by Apple with the approval process and always be in fear that if you come up with something great and goes against Apple's interest your app will be prevented. Look at Google Voice just as one simple example. Closed, stifles growth and innovation and even though I do like some products by Apple I don't want them telling me how I should use hardware I paid and be at the mercy of Mr. Jobs and what he thinks is good.

Google's Android platform will steamroll over Apple in the next couple of years. The reason? It's free, it's open and allows unhindered improvements and evolution. It's not interest based but user based. I can take Android and put it on my prototype of machine tomorrow and build upon it a unique interface that will blow minds and offer possibly a better experience than iPhone OS or anything out there (hypothetical). That's the beauty of open. Innovation. Sure it comes with a price that there might be those who have malicious intent but such is price of freedom. To say that it's ok to be controlled for the sake of not worrying about viruses or malware is to say “it's ok to live in a dictatorship because nobody can do something harmful to you but the dictator”.

I strongly disagree that closed is smart. Actually, the better question is, smart for who? Certainly for Apple it is because it makes them unlimited amounts of money as they tie you to their platform and don't let go. So tomorrow when you buy a book or a movie or some future digital asset Apple sells you will only be tied to their devices. That's not something I consider smart or good for a consumer.

Now let's look at an open platform. Buying non-DRM stuff, open source and overall collecting assets for your mobile or any type of device will allow you the freedom to transfer it to something better, more intelligent or more stylish down the road, which is again a choice. I may like iPad for example (i don't but let's say I do) and i buy a bunch of stuff from their store, tomorrow I'll want some new tablets that are better spec-ed, better technology and overall more advanced and I would want to use what I bought on the new device. With Apple this most likely won't be the case. The only reason they liberated music from DRM was because they started getting endanger by other stores like Amazon because they sold non-DRM stuff but in essence as long as the platform is closed to Apple you will always be at their mercy and choice, not your own.

…I think a lot of folks are not fully appreciating what apps really are and why they're changing the game when it comes to accessing internet-based services.

Android & iPhone are different beasts and most of us will support both to get at slightly different audiences. But there are a couple of reasons developers need to calm down about the approval process and quit bitching:

1) like you say, as someone who launched mobile product pre-iPhone (and i'll add took it to market leadership position) it was a nightmare… really, really hard, and so open to random glitches that success one time round was almost certainly not replicable with a second application/service

2) you get paid

It's number 2) that is really underappreciated. The system for simple payments, with a not-egregious cut being taken by apple is amazingly powerful. It got people paying for content, services and applications. In fact some of our users are knowingly paying for content they can get free online!

If you want to get paid, Apple is still the bigger priority when it comes to development resources.

http://stevecheney.posterous.com/apple-ipad-a-w…

Chris: Overall, I agree with you. What core apps (when you set aside open principles) are we missing? It is a good question. The one thing I would say is that there is an element of “you'll never know” what innovation could get blocked by it being closed. That is the danger of a closed system.

But from a business perspective. This strategy has worked for Apple, created a unique marketplace and works for them. Why should they change it?

1. Google is not serious about building a platform – they built Android to ensure Microsoft won't control advertising / search in mobile. Plain and simple.

2. Android has small install base right now, we know that. once it takes off, we will see all the latent problems of permissive platform management – these will grow into serious problems (security threats, commercial legitimacy, interoperability across devices / OS variants) These are not even on Google’s radar right now. The history of Windows suggests these will not solve themselves. Android is actually patterned after WinMo (which was based on desktop Windows).

3. Apple forces developers to follow OS upgrades and controls app approval accordingly. OK so let’s look how this worked in PCs – MSFT didn't exert pressure on developers – this resulted in a fragmented platform always trying to accommodate too many variants of applications, poorly coded SW, SW for the wrong screen resolution etc.

4. Security issues will befall Android. On the iPhone SW must be co-signed by the developer and Apple as trusted parties. Apple can pull rogue apps from the store or shut them down remotely by revoking the app’s certificate. None of these practices have been applied under Android. Trouble is, this “fix it later” strategy may crash and burn (let’s talk after the first major security breaches on Android)

5. Ecosystem – in channeling all app development thru Cocoa, Apple has severely weakened mobile app development under Java ME, Flash, .NET etc. These are no longer the base dev tools. Cocoa apps are not trivially ported to other mobile platforms. This network effect is beyond powerful and creates a halo around iTunes, the iPod, and will do so with iPad..

I think apple's decision to use self developed microprocessor is a good example of this. For some uses the tegra processor would be much better then the iphone A4.

So maybe the right way to build would be a competition between internal team and external suppliers.

Or in a more generalized way, to break the dichotomy between open and close in a more dynamic way.

Something we founders would all do well to learn from.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment…

Who does the App store really favour (sic)?

Developers? Sure, it must be great fun having a different SDK for every mobile phone. And what about product alignment across all platforms? Perhaps for a few milliseconds – between Apple authorizing 1.2 and 1.3 hitting Android.

Users? What about all the posts from iPhoners saying they would seriously consider switching to Nexus if they hadn't already dropped their wad on iPhone apps. We call that lock-in down my way.

The App store favours Apple and only Apple. That's why they don't want Flash, that's why they've been dragged screaming into exposing the localisation, touch, and accelerometer functionality to the browser.

They know the browser will commoditize their franchise – and relegate them to a supplier of smooth-corned, brushed aluminium (sic) boxes.

I really hope that you're right

On Facebook, for example, you can create any app you want, but Facebook proactively verifies that those apps comply with their TOS and shut them down misbehaving apps. I think this kind of model makes more sense.

From a developer point of view, this whole approval process just kills the joy of development. After being used to the rapid development I can do on the web, who wants to wait 2 weeks before pushing a bug fix to the user (or just a new feature)?

And I wouldn't mind much a “closed” phone, but this is very unacceptable on a more generic device (like a Tablet). And what I'm mostly afraid of is that once this practice of AppStore/approval process becomes common in their products it will leak to the Macs too. Imagine if your computer was as crippled as your iPhone…