I'm not rejecting your statement here, I'm simply interested in hearing your rationale:
> PCs need to be open, cell phones less so
Why is it more important for PCs to be important?
I'd argue that, because PCs and smartphones were open and closed respectively when they gained popularity, we've been conditioned to assume those states are permissible. I think if those initial conditions did not influence our perception of the products so strongly we would value openness equally across both. Since we are influenced though, we seem to be inclined to focus on the negative of the each's alternative option (anti-competitive PC market places and virus-ridden cell phones, respectively).
> PCs need to be open, cell phones less so
Why is it more important for PCs to be important?
I'd argue that, because PCs and smartphones were open and closed respectively when they gained popularity, we've been conditioned to assume those states are permissible. I think if those initial conditions did not influence our perception of the products so strongly we would value openness equally across both. Since we are influenced though, we seem to be inclined to focus on the negative of the each's alternative option (anti-competitive PC market places and virus-ridden cell phones, respectively).