This argument sets up a false dichotomy. Comparing the internet to the app store and claiming that just because the internet is a free for all, every service that is built on top of it 'should' also be a free for all is simply illogical.<p>Because the internet is as free as it is, we have the fortune of being able to choose between a heavily curated store - the apple app store, and some competitors who claim they will be more open - e.g. the Android Market.<p>This is analogous to what happens in the high street. I could rent a retail space, and then allow anyone who wants to come in and set up a table selling any legal goods, or I could rent the same space and carefully choose products that I think my customers will value.<p>Some people will prefer the trading hall, and others will prefer the department store.<p>The point is that it's a good thing that Apple can provide this more curated option for those of us who want it, and that others can provide alternatives for those who don't like Apple's approach.<p>The real tyranny would be if Apple were forced to stop being the gatekeeper for the iPhone - that's when a choice would be lost to us.<p>For right now, I think Apple has the best model by a long way, even though it's not perfect.<p>I'm quite prepared to believe that I'll be buying an Android phone in a couple of years if the more open ecosystem turns out to be better at producing useful applications, but I'd like to see that determined empirically - by allowing both approaches to be tested, rather than having the App store torn down or undermined because of ideology.