Interesting topic, but possibly some oversimplified assumptions. E.g. Macs are more closed. In some or many ways they're more open than Windows PCs. At least I can go to a command line, get some text-based POSIX-compliant/Open Source software and run it. You can dig pretty deep into the system if you want. I only used a Mac recently for a few months, so this is a shallow impression, but my strong impression nevertheless.

I generally think we err in two different directions when looking at PCs (including Macs) vs. devices/appliances. Most people want PCs that are more flexible than they need. Most device builders cripple the devices to be less flexible than many people would like. Please understand that I'm generalizing about the majority of users, not power users.

The vast majority of people use PCs as virtual appliances. They crank up a few applications like a web browser, email reader, word processor, etc. and rarely do anything else. Web-based applications get better and better. Many needs would be (mostly) satisfied by a browsing appliance. It should be cheaper to build such a device, and be easier to use.

Our MP3 players, cameras, smart picture frames, etc. are generally embedded computers with firmware and software written to provide the limited functionality envisioned by marketing departments and design engineers. Despite it running on software code you almost never can write your own code or load programs written by others. It saves on support costs, avoids copyright violations, and generally maintains a monopoly on the device's guts. You'll have to buy the next generation to get more features. If you could load your own software you might keep and enjoy the device longer, but less profitably for the manufacturer.

I just don't get why we don't see other models beyond the overly flexible and complex PC and the underly flexible and crippled iPod-like thingies. What do you think?