Peter Redmer said: First of all, I agree with what you have said. Closed systems are not really preferable, and in the end Apple does want to control the user experience and through that, make money. I highly recommend reading Ben Parr's viewpoint, which is really very similar to mine. Here's a short excerpt from his long and detailed post: "This is a free market though, and that means companies have the right to choose to build their platform in any way they want. At the same time, we as customers have the right to choose which devices we buy and use. Apple wants to control the user experience at every level, and we can't blame them: the experience between PCs varies wildly and is prone to errors, shutdowns, and frustrating load times. The iPad is a strong answer to these issues." [quote via Ben Parr at Mashable] Not sure how much more I have to add to that. I don't think there's any BS here. People know the iPad is a closed system, and they'll buy it anyway, and they'll love it. I think this is because, really, the iPad isn't a true computer. Just like the iPhone isn't a computer. It's something else entirely, and should be treated as such. It's intentionally designed that way. Also, there are advantages to closed systems that lots of people seem to ignore. - quality control (sometimes) - a well organized software searching process (unlike the Android marketplace, apparently) - a consistent user experience for all - low prices due to a mass market All of that being said, the day that "real" computers such as netbooks, desktops, and laptops go to a closed system, I'm switching to Linux :) I would be pretty pissed if all of a sudden, my Mac Mini desktop was locked to an App Store and a closed environment. I want to be able to sideload indie apps and access the Terminal. It adds to the experience on my iPhone, however.

Overall, I don't completely disagree with you (or Ben for that matter). There are some benefits to closed systems, for both the maker and the consumer. But... there's a line.

You yourself brought up video game consoles as an example to me offline yesterday, and it's hard to argue the 360, PS3, and Wii all operate in closed systems. I don't want to dive too deep here (though that would be a fascinating discussion), but Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft (other than MS's rediculous requirement of XBOX Live Gold membership to stream Netflix content) don't restrict me in ways that cross that line. 

Apple, in my opinion, has.

Now, I can forgive the fact they don't want to add a standard USB port so they can sell licenses to accessory makers. At least there's competition there. Heck, I can even overlook them crippling Bluetooth so I can't use my existing BT keyboard... I don't like it, but I can deal with it.

However, restricting access to a significant chunk of the Internet (by refusing Flash in any form and locking out any other web browser) solely because it "might" compete with their store? Not just that, but then lying about the real reason they do it? That's pretty low in my book. Really, how does that add to anyone's experience?

Mind Over Matt'er - Technology musings, opinion, and more straight from TechLore's head geek.