A platform is called a platform because you build stuff on top of it. It might not be an open platform, but it's still a platform. (It's all semantics anyway, but the assertion doesn't make sense.)
This is a good example why the industry as a whole is always salivating for [software as a service | client-server apps | web apps]. It puts control squarely in the hands of the vendor, rather than the user (I count developers as being the users of a platform).
Only if there is only on of the service. There is only one Amazon cloud storage, but there are thousands of other online storage places so switching is easy.
On the other hand there is only one IPhone, and because it uses coca switching is difficult.
In an era of crowdsourcing, you'd think we could have 100% open platforms that automatically self-correct.
Bad apps should be rated lower. Great apps should be rated higher. Like Yelp, perhaps there should be a class of "super raters" that are selected by the owners of the community -- and perhaps they get moderation privileges -- kill spam, kill viruses, kill bad apps.
* iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones.
* iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology.
* iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to track you without your knowledge.
* iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis and Theora.
* iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.
* iPhone has a tiny market share across 2 devices and requires you to learn an entirely new development, deployment and management environment compared to Symbian, Blackberry or Windows Mobile.
On facebook you can release any app without approval. The only time you need approval is to be added to their app directory. I don't think facebook ever bans apps without a tos violation.
So is consensus that the RockYou app disabling was legit? The power to ban for a ToS violation still seems strong -- this isn't something Microsoft or Apple (or any Linux distro) has on the desktop, right?
It's strong, but as a developer I'm ok with it. I know going in what the ToS are. I know what I'm getting into. There's certainly a tradeoff there still, because on one hand, there's some form of editorial control (unlike Windows or OSX), but on the other hand, it's as close to transparent as possible, and is there mainly to preserve quality.
I look at it kind of like the salary cap in the NFL. On one hand, it means some players aren't making as much as they would be if it were lifted a week ago. On the other hand, it means all players are making far more than they would if it were lifted a decade ago.
well, in RockYou's case, you could get around Facebook's privacy settings, which is seriously not cool. Imagine the outcry of Facebook's initial newsfeed, and multiply it by 10, and you'll find that shutting down RockYou was a good choice.
Its really about the platform owner's stance and what's at stake - for Facebook's TOS, breaking it means that Facebook could be sued for privacy issues, etc. Its ironic because Facebook has more sensitive information to protect than the iPhone, but is overall a more open platform.
