In all of the fuss, hype and obsession over the iPhone/iPad app store, people seem to forget that when the iPhone first launched, it had no app store and no ability for third party developers to create native apps. Instead, Steve Jobs suggested the high quality Safari browser on the iPhone meant the end of native apps, as everything could and should just be done in HTML. And yet, a year later, Steve Jobs totally changed his tune, the iPhone app store was launched, and suddenly this obsession with everything "apps" began. Of course, the media industry fell in love, because they thought that they could regain an element of control, thanks in part to Apple's incredibly arbitrary iron fist over what got into the store.

And yet... in all of that, it seems that many people forgot that original promise of apps all just being created in HTML. Indeed, if you look beneath the surface, you would realize that many iPhone apps really are just made in HTML and then compiled into being native iPhone apps. Using HTML alone, you can access many of the phone's features and certainly create all sorts of apps. But still, there has been general anger over Apple's mercurial gatekeeper activities. Back in January, we noted that Google had remembered the ability to create apps via HTML and had simply routed around the App Store. It made us wonder why others weren't doing it too.

While there have been a few "independent" app stores for the iPhone, they've all required jailbreaking the phone. And while that's now officially legal as per the Library of Congress, it's still not something your everyday iPhone user wants to do. So I've been somewhat fascinated by a new offering that's launching today called OpenAppMkt, which effectively creates a brand new app market for iPhones all via HTML (both the openappmkt app itself, and all the apps in it are HTML based). The experience is very much like the regular app store, with the small exception of having to tap the "add to home" button: While many of the initial offerings in the OpenAppMkt are free, it does let developers charge for their apps as well. Effectively, this is an entire "app market" for the iPhone that simply routes around Apple as a gatekeeper, and there's really not much that Apple can do to stop it. And, of course, since the apps in the OpenAppMkt are just HTML, it likely won't be difficult for OpenAppMkt to extend this to other platforms as well, such as Android (even though Android's much more open market means that there's less of a reason to developers to use OpenAppMkt for Android).

Overall, this fascinates me for two reasons. First, it's good to get more people realizing that HTML is already pretty damn good at creating app-style experiences, without having to create special compiled code and, second, it's a really clever way to totally route around Apple as a gatekeeper (without requiring a jailbreak), and is a reminder that even on "closed" systems, openness will often find a way.

There's a new battle brewing between Google and Apple over where the internet is headed next. At recent developer conferences for both companies, execs took very clear potshots at each other, and now they're directly sniping at each other over openness.

Google recently purchased AdMob, a mobile advertising platform, and AdMob execs are upset at Apple for prohibiting the use of other ad providers for the iPhone. Basically, you're locked into Apple's own iAds platform. This is a bit ironic, given Apple's recent claims that it won't support Flash because the platform is too closed. It seems that Apple is against closed platforms... unless they're Apple's closed platforms.

But, while Google plays the open card -- and very often is quite open -- some of the claims that Google/AdMob execs are making could be pointed right back at Google as well. Take this one, for example:

This change is not in the best interests of users or developers. In the history of technology and innovation, it's clear that competition delivers the best outcome. Artificial barriers to competition hurt users and developers and, in the long run, stall technological progress.

I agree with this point, wholeheartedly, but Google doesn't always act that way. Google's main product, its search engine, is still a very, very closed platform. If a developer wants to innovate off of Google's search, they currently have two options the AJAX search API and Google's Custom Search Engine (CSE) -- both of which have tremendous limitations. The AJAX API limits results to just 8, and really just keeps trying to drive users back to Google's properties. For CSE, the terms are quite limiting and only let you display Google ads on the results page -- not all that unlike Apple's limitations. At one point, Google had a SOAP API that let people develop on Google search results, but they killed that off. And, Google has never offered anything like RSS on search feeds.

If Google were truly "open" to "the best interests of users or developers" by encouraging more competition, why not let others build on top of Google's platform as well? If it were open, then Apple could innovate on top of Google's search and make money by selling its own ads, just as Google now wants to be able to run ads on iPhone/iPad apps. The reverse is true as well. If Apple were really open, then Google could innovate on top of the iPhone/iPad apps and make money off of its ads.

But the truth is neither company is that open when it comes to products it believes are core to its business. For many years, we've wondered if Google would make its search engine into more of a platform that others can build on, but to date, it remains very controlling on that side of its business, which I think is a loss for the wider internet. Now, obviously, this is Google's call to make, but to whine about Apple not opening its platform while keeping its own just as closed is a bit hypocritical.

We've been getting on Palm lately for the widespread mistakes the company made in building out a strong developer community. Despite having had strong developer communities in the past, with the Pre, it seemed like Palm decided to simply copy everything (even all the bad things!) that Apple did with the iPhone app store. It was a terrible case of iPhone cargo cultism, that seemed to assume that if they just copied the iPhone's every move with developers, things would be just like the iPhone. Now that that's backfired, it looks like the company has come to its senses. It's brought in some Mozilla developers and opened things up wide. It's done away with the fee for developers. It's openly allowing people to offer their apps directly to Palm users without having to go through an insane and arbitrary approval process. And, the new folks promise this is just the beginning of a much more open offering. It's about time. This is the sort of thing that Palm should have done before it launched.

In the meantime... there are still other problems showing up, including odd complaints about hidden limits on how many apps you can get through the Pre app store, without any clear response from Palm. So, for every step forward...?

The EFF is trying to get a DMCA exemption from the Library of Congress for people who jailbreak their iPhones (if history is any indication, this won't happen -- the Library of Congress never seems to care about consumer rights). However, Apple's response to the Library of Congress, suggesting that open or jailbroken iPhones could be used by terrorists to bring down cell towers is both preposterous and totally unrelated to the issue at hand. First it's preposterous, as there are plenty of "open" devices out there already, and there has yet to be a single report of anyone taking down a cell tower with their mobile phone.

But, much more to the point: the point of copyright is not to protect us from terrorists taking down cell towers. If we, as a country, are relying on the DMCA to protect us from terrorists who don't want us making phone calls, we've got bigger problems. Even if it were true that terrorists could take down cell towers with an open mobile phone, does anyone actually think they'd shy away from doing so because it violated the DMCA? It's not like that's going to make much of a difference at all. It's entirely meaningless to the question of whether or not legal buyers of a mobile device should have the right to place whatever legal software they want on the device.

Over the past few years, mobile operators began to get annoyed at being called "soviet ministries" for their preference towards being extremely closed off with high garden walls. So, they suddenly started to claim they were throwing their doors wide open. Verizon Wireless kicked it off in 2007, by declaring a plan to open its network. It got a ton of press attention (especially from Verizon Wireless, who had been more closed than others). However, when the details finally came out, there was little to get excited about.

And, indeed, Broadband Reports checks in and notes that for all of the hype surrounding Verizon Wireless' declaration of openness it's meant a whole lot of nothingness in terms of actual products and services. In fact, Verizon's own phones and phone service remain pretty closed. Effectively, Verizon Wireless got a PR coup by suggesting they might possibly allow more open devices on the network -- should there actually be any businesses that wanted to offer that. It did work to stop criticisms and threats of regulatory interference, but it hasn't resulted in much in the way of actual openness.

Mike Arrington offers some unsolicited advice to Amazon about how to expand the market for the Kindle. In a nutshell, he thinks Amazon should aggressively license the Kindle hardware specs to third parties, and allow authorized vendors to use the Kindle brand. Amazon would require licensees to use the Kindle store, and would share the associated revenues. There's a lot to be said for a plan like this. The key to long-run dominance of many high-tech industries is to be the platform around which other firms build their products. Amazon's got a solid product with a fair amount of buzz at the moment, but that could easily evaporate if another company comes along with a more compelling product. Getting a lot of third-party vendors to build products around the Kindle ecosystem could help establish it as the standard e-book platform.

The difficulty with opening up the platform is that the Kindle business model—particularly the wireless aspect—depends on limiting the Kindle's functionality. Amazon is able to offer free cellular access for the life of the product in part because it controls the applications that will run on it, and can therefore guarantee to cell carriers that users won't start running bandwidth-hogging applications on it. And Amazon is willing to pick up customers' bandwidth bills in part because it charges premium prices for content, some of which is available for free off the open Internet. So if Amazon licensed the Kindle name to third parties, it would have two choices. It could tell the vendors they're on their own in terms of negotiating their own wireless plans, which would be a headache for the vendors. Or, if Amazon wants to bring third parties in under its own wireless umbrella, it will presumably need to impose some draconian restrictions on the functionality of the Kindle clones. And how many vendors are going to want to sell Kindle clones that have all the same limitations as the original?

Originally I wasn't going to write about Nokia's decision to purchase the rest of Symbian and then open source the code, but a few people have written in to ask about our take, and the more I think about it, the more interesting it becomes. There's certainly been a palpable fear lately among some that things like the locked-down iPhone represent a dangerous "future" to be avoided.

But that doesn't seem to have much historical support. New markets often are driven initially by locked down and proprietary solutions, but openness tends to prevail in the long run. The reason many markets start out with closed and proprietary solutions is that you need a comprehensive enough solution to address the market, and it's often difficult to do that in an ad hoc manner. A proprietary solution gives control to one person or a small group of people who can easily drive the project to where it needs to be to drive adoption. However, in the long run, more open solutions then win out, because competitors realize that the real game is being a platform, which is more important than being the comprehensive supplier. And the way to become a platform is to sign up as many developers as possible, and free them to make your platform much more valuable. That's much easier to do in an open or open source environment.

This is why we're seeing this particular decision to open up Symbian, and also explains Google's open approach with its Android offering. It also explains why Apple's iPhone, which was totally closed at the beginning, has been slowly opening up to try to combat the rise of more open competitors.

Finally, this move by Nokia is a recognition of the economics of infinite goods. Just as IBM helped massively boost its services business by betting big on Linux, Nokia recognizes that freeing up Symbian helps turn it into a services company as well. Freeing up that infinite good (the software) helps generate more demand for the scarce "services" provided by the company. There may be some stumbles along the way, but on the whole this is exactly the type of bet the company needs to be making. And, at the same time, it shows that there's little to fear concerning a future world of "closed" systems a la the iPhone. Every such closed system is merely an opportunity and an invitation for competitors to become more open.

The recent announcement that Verizon Wireless will support Android, Google’s new software platform for mobile devices, is an early warning sign that the traditional network operator model is fast becoming obsolete. To some this move seems to contradict a widely held presumption that two previous announcements (the choice of LTE with Vodafone and the inclusion of non-Verizon phones on the Verizon Wireless network) were a competitive strike at Google’s position in the upcoming 700 mHz auction. In conjunction, these three publicly declared commitments to openness are indicators that fundamental changes to the Verizon Wireless business model are set to occur over the next 3 – 5 years.

Verizon Wireless is preparing to compete in an industry that will resemble more of a free-for-all where innovation and customer value are the rule of the day. Verizon can no longer afford to maintain strict boundaries between the devices and applications “inside” and “outside” their networks. By embracing openness on several different fronts the company is seeking to offload a large chunk of the costs associated with developing devices to a wider ecosystem of participants. Inclusive device policies will retain the same effect that outsourcing the development and support costs for new phones would. It is no longer tenable to develop devices and support customer issues for every single customer on its network, so the company is looking to basically exchange network access for ownership of support issues, with a larger group of handset and application providers.

Particularly, the Android move is to ensure that an assortment of niche devices powered by Google’s platform will have a home on the Verizon Wireless network. The company should begin to feature an increasing number of programs and incentives for an increasing number of handset makers and wireless application developers. Meanwhile Verizon will begin to slash the high costs associated with developing phones with the Samsung and LG types. As a result, the number of phone models actually supported by the company (currently at around 50) is set to drop significantly by 2012 even as the total number of models running on the network will escalate.

As the most profitable U.S. cellular business, Verizon Wireless also has the most impetus to begin the process of expanding a revenue base limited to subscribers who are content to choose from 50 or so the company’s handsets. Spurred by a shrinking number of first time customers it is fast becoming critical to find ways to attract subscribers from rival carriers and open access policies are a good start towards that end. Along the same lines, the aforementioned Vodafone LTE announcement is key to the company’s strategic play for subscribers who, in the past, shunned Verizon Wireless for carriers that enable easier roaming. The goal is to extend the availability of “America’s most reliable network” to both sides of the Atlantic to boost the value proposition of becoming a Verizon wireless customer.

Verizon’s open evolution is a response to the limited growth opportunities faced by US mobile carriers in the face of market saturation (250 million across the country already have cell phones). Over the next 2-3 years what is now a rumbling from consumers will expand into smoldering demand for choices on wireless networks that reflect the nature of those provided on landlines. In effect the company realizes that it must adapt to an open-centric marketplace to compete and survive over the long haul, not just in the upcoming 700 MHz auctions. In doing so, Verizon has begun the transformation from staunch gatekeeper of a closed network into the heart of a more open wireless ecosystem.

Verizon Wireless is making big headlines today by announcing that it intends to open up their network to third party devices next year. This is great news. As Columbia law professor Tim Wu documented in an excellent paper earlier this year, the mobile device market has long been hampered by the "tar pit of misery, pain, and destruction" that is the wireless carriers' process for approving mobile devices and software. Wu found that Verizon Wireless was one of the worst offenders, micromanaging which devices could be used on its networks and insisting the vendors cripple features like Bluetooth or WiFi that might undermine its own business strategies. In our write-up of Wu's paper, Carlo argued that Wu's heart was in the right place but that talk of "wireless network neutrality" regulations was premature, because sooner or later companies would be forced by competitive pressures to drop their walled gardens.

That appears to be happening surprisingly quickly. Back in February, Carlo noted that Verizon Wireless was the last hold-out for the old "walled garden" approach, with the other carriers having already taken steps to open their networks. Two recent announcements—Apple's iPhone and Google's Android—likely spurred Verizon Wireless to follow suit. The iPhone is far from an open device, but it is a clear example of what can be accomplished if a technology company is given the flexibility to design a mobile computer without having to kowtow to wireless carriers' whims. The success of the iPhone has put pressure on the other carriers to come up with a competitive response, and building a device as compelling as the iPhone almost requires that technologists be given a free hand in making design decisions Sprint and T-Mobile's support for Google's relatively open Android operating system strengthened the impression that Verizon Wireless was the last hold-out for the walled garden approach.

Today's announcement is a smart business decision for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the way to succeed in high-tech industries is to be the platform that other companies use to build their products and services. If Verizon follows through on its promises and opens up its network, it will dramatically reduce the time and frustration required to get a new device approved for use on Verizon's network. That will make it the logical partner for innovative small companies seeking to launch a new mobile device, service, or software product. It will also make Verizon Wireless an attractive partner for firms wanting to make non-phone mobile devices. This announcement also takes the wind out of the sails of advocates for government-mandated open networks. Verizon Wireless doubtless prefers to open its network on its own terms and its own schedule, instead of having its hand forced by government regulators.

There are still a lot of questions to be answered: most importantly, how much the bandwidth will cost. If it sets the price too high, it will be hard for Verizon Wireless' partners to make a profit. Additionally, we won't know until we see the exact terms how open their "open" network really will be. It wouldn't be the first time a technology company started using the word "open" to describe fundamentally non-open products. But if the terms and price turn out to be reasonable this announcement should provide a big boost to innovation in the wireless space in the coming years.