This argument sets up a false dichotomy. Comparing the internet to the app store and claiming that just because the internet is a free for all, every service that is built on top of it 'should' also be a free for all is simply illogical.
Because the internet is as free as it is, we have the fortune of being able to choose between a heavily curated store - the apple app store, and some competitors who claim they will be more open - e.g. the Android Market.
This is analogous to what happens in the high street. I could rent a retail space, and then allow anyone who wants to come in and set up a table selling any legal goods, or I could rent the same space and carefully choose products that I think my customers will value.
Some people will prefer the trading hall, and others will prefer the department store.
The point is that it's a good thing that Apple can provide this more curated option for those of us who want it, and that others can provide alternatives for those who don't like Apple's approach.
The real tyranny would be if Apple were forced to stop being the gatekeeper for the iPhone - that's when a choice would be lost to us.
For right now, I think Apple has the best model by a long way, even though it's not perfect.
I'm quite prepared to believe that I'll be buying an Android phone in a couple of years if the more open ecosystem turns out to be better at producing useful applications, but I'd like to see that determined empirically - by allowing both approaches to be tested, rather than having the App store torn down or undermined because of ideology.
Because the internet is as free as it is, we have the fortune of being able to choose between a heavily curated store - the apple app store, and some competitors who claim they will be more open - e.g. the Android Market.
This is analogous to what happens in the high street. I could rent a retail space, and then allow anyone who wants to come in and set up a table selling any legal goods, or I could rent the same space and carefully choose products that I think my customers will value.
Some people will prefer the trading hall, and others will prefer the department store.
The point is that it's a good thing that Apple can provide this more curated option for those of us who want it, and that others can provide alternatives for those who don't like Apple's approach.
The real tyranny would be if Apple were forced to stop being the gatekeeper for the iPhone - that's when a choice would be lost to us.
For right now, I think Apple has the best model by a long way, even though it's not perfect.
I'm quite prepared to believe that I'll be buying an Android phone in a couple of years if the more open ecosystem turns out to be better at producing useful applications, but I'd like to see that determined empirically - by allowing both approaches to be tested, rather than having the App store torn down or undermined because of ideology.