Harvard professor Jonathon Zittrain, law professor and fighter for free speech, has taken some time to warn us of the possibilities that these closed platforms possess. We know that the some of the these platforms have revolutionized their field. Look at Apple's iPhone and Facebook as examples. Shortly after these platforms launched and proved their popularity, competitors followed suit. We've all seen the iClones and the imminent release of Android, and even MySpace now offers a platform of sorts for development. It's obvious we as consumers want apps, and we want those apps right where we are.

But as time has passed, we've seen these types of platforms exert their control in a few ways we were unprepared for. No one expected Box Office to be pulled from Apple's App Store. Scrabulous was tossed by Facebook, and told that they didn't even have the opportunity to challenge the decision. These are things we, as consumers, really did not expect. We took the platform creator's word that they would only really exercise their app destruct buttons if there were malicious code involved. But here we have two popular applications that were dropped with little, if any, explanation to us or the developer. I can understand that there might have been copyright issues, but shouldn't that be between the app developer and the copyright holder?

As Zittrain points out though, the platform developer may not be the sole subject of the blame here:

"What I object to is that these companies have put themselves into a position where they can be bullied into making decisions that leads to taking stuff down," Zittrain said. "It's becoming commonplace that code is either prevented from reaching an audience, or once it reaches an audience it can be yanked back because of the architecture."

"You can see where outsiders might want to force (Apple and Facebook's) hand for business reasons," Zittrain said. "The last thing Apple and Facebook want is to be embroiled in court fights for some app that hasn't taken off yet with a big audience. So it's rational for the platform owner (to remove the app), but it's not good for the ecosystem."

So the concern is now more of the pressure from big business partners. Say I develop a book shopping application, and so does Amazon. Amazon could place huge amounts of pressure on Facebook to pull my app down, even if my application is more popular or feature rich, which then prevents the forward progression of application development. This is obviously bad for a few reasons, but mainly because it then stifles creativity. So why not switch to another platform? Because the Facebook is the most popular platform for this type of application, so I want to be there. Sure, I could also develop for Windows Mobile instead of the iPhone, but the market there is just too big to pass up, as well as the press opportunities (when was the last time you read about a killer WinMo app?).

It's not just Apple and Facebook. Video game consoles are in the same boat, according to Zittrain. Nintendo is notorious for hiding the functionality of their consoles until they release a game taking advantage of that new function, and then restrict which games can use it. It's not as bad in this environment yet though, as there is still plenty of competition, but imagine a world where Nintendo is the only console maker, and the stifled game development that would come of that.

So how do we fix it? First and foremost, demand a fix and stop accepting mediocrity. We as consumers have demanded much more of the products we consume before. Let's not forget that it was the continued dissatisfaction of some with Windows that has led the Mac OS to where it is today. Hell, even the Apple App store is a direct result of consumer demand. So why not demand more openness in the approval/removal process? Zittrain offered these thoughts as well:

In the case of Apple and Facebook, Zittrain wants to see developers band together to pressure those companies to provide guarantees. He would also like to see platform creators get some protection under the law.

"There's plenty of people who argue to let the market solve the problem," Zittrain said. "That's fine. It's not like I'm racing to have the UN to send in the helicopters. The market will sort it out once they know the problem. They just have to know. I've been trying to bang the drum and rally the nation's developer communities because I think the platforms aren't yet fully dug in. So you could actually see flexibility."

We should be demanding an open development environment. It's not just Apple or Facebook or Microsoft that spend time and money developing their platforms, but it's also the developers that create apps for those platforms and the consumers that use those apps and test and report bugs. For a developer to spend time and money making something just to have it pulled down without cause or justification seems to me to be unethical, and as a consumer, I don't want to see the developers driven away. They are the reasons I come back to the platform. The developer's apps are what I use on a day-to-day basis, not the platform. It’s a scary idea that the platforms could seize total control, but it is a possibility that we need to push against and try to stop from happening, for our own good.

Should software developers fear Facebook, Apple? [CNET]