This really won't work. The iPhone itself is still a closed platform. Just because people can sell apps in an "app store" does not in itself make the iPhone open. If it were truly open, anyone with tech know-how could write an app for it and load it onto any iPhone without going through any sort of "app store". A cd with the application and a computer connected to the phone (or better yet, a memory card with the application that one could insert in the iPhone) is all one should need to load an application in an open platform.

May I suggest you have the idea for a really great app. Sell an app through the iApp store that allows people to add apps without the store. Write a business plan and I wouldn't be surprised if you have venture capital funding before the month is out.

I don't (yet) own an iPhone, but thank goodness it's not a completely open platform. The principle function any phone serves is phoning. An open platform is going to draw virii, spyware, and every other bad thing that can ruin using a laptop or desktop computer. Having a gatekeeper to ensure that applications aren't malware is a good thing, even if it slows innovation a bit. I doubt any phone will remain an open platform for long. Phone companies won't support phones that end up with security concerns. MS and the rest will eventually try to come up with their own AppStores because customers don't want an open handset. They want a phone that works every time.

MacAdvisor:

May I suggest you have the idea for a really great app. Sell an app through the iApp store that allows people to add apps without the store. Write a business plan and I wouldn't be surprised if you have venture capital funding before the month is out.

Right, I'm sure Jobs would let that slide through. Let's face it, if their market shares were switched, Jobs would've been far less of a benevolent dictator than Gates. And Gates was hardly benevolent. Hell, I'm tired of Apple acting like a g** d*** spyware company and trying to sneak crap like Bonjour and Safari onto my system during security updates.

dizzyj:

...An open platform is going to draw virii, spyware, and every other bad thing that can ruin using a laptop or desktop computer. Having a gatekeeper to ensure that applications aren't malware is a good thing, even if it slows innovation a bit. ....

I see what you're getting at: closed platforms are harder to write code for (or against). But harder does not mean impossible. And I don't think Apple's control of what gets put in the store means they necessarily do much testing on the apps. I certainly don't expect the apps I install on my iphone to have undergone a rigorous testing process by Apple.

I think in general closed platforms delay the reporting of vulnerabilities (which is quite different than the existence or exploitation of those vulnerabilities). This hurts the good guys much more than it hurts the bad guys.

foole:

I see what you're getting at: closed platforms are harder to write code for (or against). But harder does not mean impossible. And I don't think Apple's control of what gets put in the store means they necessarily do much testing on the apps. I certainly don't expect the apps I install on my iphone to have undergone a rigorous testing process by Apple.

Closed platforms can actually be easier to write code for.

1. You don't have to worry about coming up with an innovative UI, because the UI is strictly enforced and automatic.

2. You don't have to worry about different hardware or drivers. Even though OS's like Windows are supposed to hide HW/driver details from you, they can still often require application workarounds.

As long as the API is developer-friendly (i.e. the PS3 API doesn't fit into this category), then I would say a closed platform is much easier to write for.