I bought Nokia because they designed the phone, selected and assembled components for me, tested them and maintain a centralized software reference. That's it with these new phones, they are modular, so basically you just compile a phone and cram it in. Add design and sell.

I did NOT buy Nokia hoping to use their Phone app and be unable to switch.

If the inability to patch, fix, enhance, replace or understand closed modules is added value, they added it the wrong way.

I see what you are trying to say, but really, consider this: Android uses Google Maps. Nokia uses Nokia Maps. Now, should Nokia open up and allow me to choose, wouldn't that push me MORE to buy a Nokia, since Android is now closed and limited by comparison?

Ok, it's a poor example. But I can't really see a case-in-point where making a closed app open would hurt Nokia. If anything, they don't want a Nokia Maps client ported to Android, so IT sells better based on THEIR maps. That, however, is hardly added value.

If closed software is added value, then their value means nothing to me. I like the phone, not the Phone app, and if I had a ready-to-go flash image with Windows CE with similar implementation, I'd switch. For you Linux fans out there, swap that for a different distribution.

Are any of you saying that if open source replacements for Nokia closed source would be available you wouldn't switch because Nokia's have better value?