I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's more that he sees the moral hazard in the OS vendor also being the only official store on the platform.
Newell has a store that is essentially competing with and which will probably feel pressure from the existence of a built-in Windows store. It's a pretty easy logical step to take to assume that he is mostly against it because of these things, and not because of some ephemeral high-mindedness about how things ought to be done morally, which he hasn't exhibited in any other way.
As an owner of an iPad 1 that is blocked from getting iOS 6, it's tragic that iTunes won't automatically keep the last version of my apps before they upgrade to iOS 6. So as time goes by I'm going to lose all my software for my iPad if I update apps in iTunes. :(
You really hit the nail on the head with this post. I still like the polish iOS, but Apple proves that there is indeed such a moral hazard when one vendor is controlling everything.
What I'd like to see the mobile space into is some kind of 'commodity era' like with the PC:
Apps
====
Appstore <- Each OS has its default appstore but others can be installed
====
OS <- can be licenced with no strings attached to device. When you buy a new handset you will be asked "would like Android or Windows or XYZ?
I wonder whether there is any market pressure into such a standardization. Why did IBM create PC as an industry standard back then, was it for licensing value? Couldn't this be an interesting model for someone like Texas Instruments or Nokia nowadays? (Player in non dominant position with stakes and experience in the hardware business).
