Let's assume for the sake of argument that all of Steve's points are a smokescreen for what ultimately boils down to "Apple is in business to make money for Apple and Apple's shareholders, not to appease peers, developers, or even customers beyond the extent that they continue to give us their money, and anyone who stands in the way of what Apple believes to be its clearest path to profits can get bent." Why is that not okay?

I feel as if there's this weird assumption that Apple must make other considerations, that as the dominant player (for now) they have some obligation to make room for everyone at the table, lest they become evil, unsuccessful, or both. Why? What evidence do you have that Apple's exclusive culture and persnickety habits will result in anything but more money for shareholders, more opportunity for developers to put software in more pockets, and more sophisticated but accessible products being made available to more users?

I wrote far too much on the first pass, so I just excised a bunch, and here's the salient point: Apple didn't luck into this. They're not a clumsy giant who happened to end up with a market advantage despite themselves. They're in the position that they are because of the decisions they've made; they've deliberately created this reality for themselves. Apple doesn't wield authority over developers because tens of thousands of you decided to do Apple a solid and start writing iPhone OS Apps out of the goodness of your hearts. They managed, against really unfavorable odds and heavy competition from longstanding incumbents, to create what is arguably the best and indisputably the most successful device of its kind. Because they made decisions which resulted in that reality, should you choose to play by Apple's rules you have access to a large installed base of users—many of whom have indicated with their credit cards that they're willing to pay premium prices for premium products. I mean, how many normal humans do you know who would consider buying ANY software for a cell phone before the iPhone? I have many friends and acquaintances who have either told me outright or given the impression that they don't understand why one should need to purchase any software for their DESKTOPS beyond what comes bundled, yet each time I see them they have new paid apps installed on their iPhones. But, if you want access to them, you must play by Apple's rules. In the event that Apple adjusts 3.3.1 to state that developers must submit video evidence that they wore tricorn hats for the entire development process, if you want access to the users, you must play by Apple's rules.

You're free to determine that Apple's decisions of late are unsatisfactory to you, and that the potential business isn't worth the development time/unsavory feelings/brain cycles/whatever to play in Apple's game. But to imply that they have some obligation—moral or otherwise—to consider any interests but their own isn't just inaccurate, it's lunacy. Apple doing exactly whatever the hell they wanted is what created the marketplace to begin with.

An aside: I'm not super pleased that I have to post under this inane pseudonym, but I work for Apple Retail in the Family Room (One to One, Genius Bar, etc) and I'm prohibited from discussing Apple on the web. Yet another compromise I've made with Apple, but (for me) making decent money and having the opportunity to work with people I don't hate while I finish school is worth attempting to resist the temptation to be sucked into silly arguments on the internet...most of the time. In an attempt to preclude fanboy assumptions/accusations I will note one compromise I haven't made: I use an Android phone because I've had horrible experiences with AT&T in the past, and I refuse to pay them one red cent, though I still hold out hope that on one of these hardware revisions the iPhone will be made available on other carrier(s).