True platforms that scale are more than just their physical manifestations of phone or computers. They are like ecosystems, marketplaces, economies, even societies. In the end the strength of a platform is the combined efforts of all it's 'citizens'. The systems that govern how those participants relate to each other is much like a government. As such I'm arguing that the iPhone has a poor system of government and will intimately be about as successful as the other large scale totalitarian systems.
Now if you were to argue that the iPhone shouldn't be viewed as a platform then you might have a valid point.
I always wondered what sort of tortured mental gymnastics were required to rationalize a sense of entitlement for flash runtimes. And all this time I thought I was picking up a faint whiff of Marx, and the muffled whimpers of baby-proletariat hungry for mother government to expose her teat.
Thank you, but I'll just vote with my consumer dollar for platform B if I don't like platform A.
Nice sentence structure. Bad Logic. Successful products usually DO fulfil a sense of entitlement for their consumers.
Some structures scale and others don't. Time wasted with a poorly structured system holds things back, just like Marxism did. Think of all those poor soviets with great ideas (for apps?) only for them to be rejected by central control.
I just want good stuff and in the long term, a locked-down system isn't going to deliver.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Successful products usually fulfill expectations of legal rights or just claims? Really?
It may fulfill some needs or desires, but only rarely a sense of entitlement. If that's what you want a product to do, I suggest that you buy an Android-based phone, and perhaps contribute to the project. After all, if you think that's the recipe for product success, we'll soon see it eclipse the iPhone, right?
Now if you were to argue that the iPhone shouldn't be viewed as a platform then you might have a valid point.