The problem is that the apps that are the most interesting, the most important, are the ones that take the most work to create. And the apps that take the most

The problem is that the apps that are the most interesting, the most important, are the ones that take the most work to create. And the apps that take the most work to create are the ones that are most likely not even to be made in this environment, because the risk is greater. I find this argument appealing because if Apple took it seriously, it would lead to a more open development process. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the logic is sound -- innovative or important applications aren't necessarily big, so the development cost of one needn't be much more than any other application. If innovative applications are more the product of chance and insight than long development cycles, Apple only needs to attract many developers, not big developers. However, if you assume the logic is correct, then Android may end up helping the iPhone: If a developer has an idea for the iPhone that requires significant investment, they can develop it first for Android for some payoff, then (with development costs largely sunk) they can port to the iPhone. The net result is that the iPhone would get a large, innovative application that it wouldn't have gotten had Android not existed.