On the right - the 3G iPhone. The left? Openmoko FreeRunner.

The iPhone is a delight to use and look at. The FreeRunner is neither, but it’s open source.

Now, choose one.

Struggling to pick? Here are a few more points to consider:

• the iPhone costs $200 less to purchase and use (in the US)
• the iPhone is 3G enabled, FreeRunner is not
• the iPhone has a multi-touch interface, FreeRunner does not
• the iPhone has a camera

And if that weren’t enough, the iPhone is beautifully designed inside and out, and developers are treated to a powerful development framework.

So why would anybody prefer the FreeRunner?

The FSF (Free Software Federation) gives 5 reasons, bemoaning barriers to free development on the iPhone, as well as its association with DRM creative IP protection. Most of these contentions happen to be entirely misrepresentative, but let’s assume for a minute that the argument is accurate, and that Apple dictates the terms on which others may interact with their invention. Is this such a bad thing?

The differences between the iPhone and FreeRunner is a perfect illustration of the power of “closed”. Without closing the iPhone platform and charging developers 30% of their application sales, it would have been infeasible to build and sell the iPhone, or at the very least, invest so much in its development.

I personally don’t agree with DRM (or indeed with treating creative products as property) and I would prefer if developers weren’t vetted (and charged) by Apple, but if such is the price to pay to use such a well-designed product, then so be it.

When barriers to free-use are for the purpose of enabling awesome product development, the strategy should be treated as a success, not a failure.