You seem to think I'm arguing that Apple's approach is better than Microsoft's. I'm not at all, just pointing out that there's internally-consistent reasons behind Apple's culture of preferring tightly-controlled, closed systems. The lesson learned from that brush with bankruptcy was that the cloned-hardware approach degraded the user experience.

Steve seems to think that the benefits of closed systems (standardised UI, fewer crashes) outweigh the costs (more expensive, less software). I don't have to agree to recognize that he's making a rational trade-off.