It was not all that long ago when hardware was proprietary and 99.999% of software was closed source. (GNU existed then too, but as an odd collection of tools without an OS of its own.) That should have been his utopia. But guess what, developers were screaming just as hard about piracy then as they are today.

This is the old "open source is insecure" argument in slightly rehashed form. All open does is make security through obscurity impossible. Closed platforms harden the target, but they eventually do fall. Queue Alexey Borodin: http://www.theregist...s_ios_inapp_hack/ who found a way to pirate content entirely within the operational parameters of iTunes, the paragon of closed.

In the end, he is free not to develop for Android. If enough follow his lead, Google may be moved to fix the deficiencies he perceives. (I guess that would be "Unbreakable DRM". Good luck with that.)

And the sensible defaults thing is a separate religious war altogether. That has nothing to do with open vs. closed.

they can be misread ;-)

But in the end, it doesn't matter, at least not in the context of mobile vs. desktop. The walled garden is always preferable to one looking to extract maximum profit. The platform is irrelevant.