You say that Apple stands to gain from removing restrictions b/c a more open product would render the iPhone and iOS more attractive to consumers (this would be esp. important in China, for example). You also note that some argue such openness could hurt Apple's bottom-line or, at least, damage its relationships with the telecom companies that carry the iPhone--indeed, this may be more true now that Sprint has entered the market b/c whereas AT&T and Verizon used to be able to recoup any losses by raising data charges, Sprint now acts as a check on their ability to financially insulate themselves from changes in Apple's policies. Presumably, Apple's rejection of openness is a product of its own cost/benefit analysis--while it may stand to profit more from an open product, it's simply not worth it for other reasons. If Apple values its relationships with the telecom companies more than the prospect of increased sales flowing from fewer restrictions on its product, should Apple reduce its restrictions on functionality? What if, by removing these restrictions, Apple incurred costs--such as reduced cooperation from telecom companies hurt by Apple's openness--that killed or delayed the production of other products that users stand to greatly enjoy and/or benefit from? Why isn't it right to defer to Apple's decision to do X versus Y when that decision is ultimately a business call between two different sets of costs and benefits for the company, its shareholders and users?

-- MatthewLadner - 25 Oct 2011