I never complained about Google's business strategy, in fact I use Gmail and Google Maps all the time and I love using them. The only thing I was saying was that they are not some benevolent company out to serve your desires. They are out to make money, just like Apple and everyone else and they sure as hell make tons of money when you use their "free" services like Gmail and Google search.
The difference being that Apple gets most of their money straight from consumers rather than corporate entities.
Wow, way to completely miss the point. I know that Android is free to use but just as you said, you need to have a "special licensing agreement" with Google in order to use the Android Marketplace. That doesn't sound very "open" to me which is a bummer considering how all you Android fanboys love to clamor about how "open" Android is.
You are misunderstanding and misconstruing what "open" means.
1. Google has minimum requirements for devices (any device) to access the marketplace. Among them are requirements that the device have a compass/accelerometer/GPS and a few other features. There is NOTHING keeping for these devices from having their own markets (which some companies and providers are doing) and there is NOTHING keeping programmers with apps on the Google Market from also offering the same apps outside of the market. Android lets you side-load applications to your heart's content. Only AT&T has blocked this feature. As an iphone user, you should know all about AT&T restrictions.
2. You can tweak Android almost however you like. Google reserves the right to control how they license their core apps (Gmail, Maps, etc), but the source code for the Android operating system is freely available to anyone who wants to inspect it and tweak it as they see fit.... meaning you can replace the keyboard, launcher, dialer, etc..... This is the definition of open that most people are referring to.
In contrast, Apple has a policy of disallowing any applications that "replicate functionality". iOS source code is not available to anyone but Apple themselves and if you have a problem with how a particular aspect of the software is designed, then you are usually stuck having to use it as Apple intended.
In addition, iOS devices do not have USB ports or flash card readers built in. Anything put onto these devices must be imported through Apple's iTunes software. This is so that Apple can regulate (and get a $ cut of in most cases) any software or media that is put on the device. This way, they can make it easier for iOS users to purchase digital goods from Apple (or companies Apple has agreements with) and erect artificial barriers from obtaining digital goods from non-Apple sources. This is the definition of "closed" that most people use.
Also as far as I'm concerned, open just means that carriers and OEMs have more control over the device and not the customer. If Android were truly "open" to the customer, Google would have made sure that every customer had access to stock Android on every phone, not just the Nexus One.
Since google does not make any hardware, they have little control over the policies that carriers and phone manufacturers enforce on their devices. At the end of the day, carriers and service providers will nickel and dime customers as much as they can before they go so far as to hurt sales.
The Nexus One was Google's attempt to give consumers an option and to see whether a truly open and unlocked handset was commercially viable in the mobile phone market. The problem wasn't the phone itself... the problem was distribution. No one could put their hands on one and try it out before buying one at full price. I don't know about you... but spending ~$400 on a phone that I will have to keep with me everyday without being able to test it out first is a big leap of faith.
Is it so surprising that instead, most people opted to spend $200 on subsidized phones they could go down to the store to try out first?
And that's why the iOS App store has the highest growth rate with quality apps as opposed to some of the garbage that gets peddled on the Android marketplace. Just compare the Facebook app on the iPhone with the Facebook app on Android.
Your information is out of date. As of Tuesday the iPhone and Android facebook applications reached parity. Also, regarding the market vs App store... there are a lot more free, quality apps for Android than for iPhone. If you are willing to deal with advertisements then you don't have to spend a dime on most apps at all. Angry Birds is one example of this model.
I think all the developers who make tons of money from the iOS app store as compared to the developers who make nothing from the Android marketplace will agree with the sentiment that Apple is a more valuable partner than Google.
Programmers trying to sell programs will go wherever the users are, period. As for getting programs onto the Market or App Store, then there is no question.... the process is far easier, cheaper, and less of a hassle with Google.... especially since you don' t even have to sell your program on the Google market (you can sell it off of your own website).
$25 is all it costs to become an Android developer. As I recall, Apple charges ~$99, which carries no guarantee that your program will be approved and make it onto the app store.
That the fact that Apple treats its customers with so much disdain is very surprising for a company that makes most of its money from their direct purchases.
Marketing is Apple's last bastion when it comes to iOS. Looking objectively at function, features, pricing, and availability, there is little reason to go with iOS over Android.
This is why people refer to iPhone enthusiasts as 'fan-boys' so often. They can no longer claim that their phones are the best at anything. Their preference for the iOS platform is rooted in emotional subjectivity. You know this to be true, just read this forum.
There is nothing wrong with that (people have different opinions), but its when they deny that that is the case that arguments start.
