His argumentation is weak. He says it [is] of outmost importance that the platform that grows to be the dominant one for native applications is an open one And

His argumentation is weak. He says it [is] of outmost importance that the platform that grows to be the dominant one for native applications is an open one And why do he think this so important? Is it because On the Internet it's (somewhat) safe to say that the philosophy of open is winning or is it the rhetorical question do we want this to be an open world or a closed one controlled by one company. He never considers that a completely open platform will be very open to trojans and other malware. There are so many (Windows) users that happily download trojans from web sites, that it is no fun at all. A fully open platform might not be the best for phones to most users. The optimal system might be only be semi-open, where all apps are sandboxed and vetted by some party. Just like cars: the government make restrictions on the cars (e.g. requires seat belts, ability to brake, strength when crashing) and can take cars off the street if the government deems them unsuitable. The government has solid institutions for this: Department of Transportation, NHTSA, etc. Apple's vetting is far from perfect, but some kind of vetting is probably required to avoid ending in the situation we would have if cars were not vetted at all. So, if we find Apple's vetting bad, then let's discuss how the vetting process can be improved instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. (please fix the headline).