Never. It's Gruber.
Linux, Blackberry, Firefox OS, I would be happy developing for if they had worthwhile market share.
[1] Note that this isn't an absolute and if the market conditions dictated it I would swallow this preference and live work with them but while there is a choice I would prefer not to. If I had a mega-hit on iOS I may port it to cash in, while I put non-zero dollar value on avoiding Google/MS it isn't unlimited either.
But as I said its a preference rather than a hard black and white line for me, major corporations have their own interests at heart not customers/users where they conflict.
I dont write native apps, so I dont know if push came to shove if I would avoid writing apps for iOS or not.
Yes the services are only available on their hardware but hardware choice is far from the biggest issue with this sort of freedom, ability to leave the supplier entirely is the power I want and precisely because they offer less (or at least I use less) than the full Google ecosystem I have a lower barrier to exit.
I use iCloud only with some apps that support it and the photostream functionality but I have all my photos offline too. I don't buy DRMed media so could transfer my music elsewhere. I don't use Apple or Google mail services, but pay for a separate IMAP provider. I have some documents in Pages but they could be exported as a different format and there doesn't seem to be difference in lock in to Word or even Google Docs.
Regarding open vs. closed I prefer open too. I like open source and have a Linux server. However I don't see Google as that much more open than Apple. Both release large amounts of Open Source software (LLVM, Webkit if you struggle to think of Apple examples) but only in areas where it benefits them. Open has reduced benefits where a single corporate interest has full control of the direction of the project.
This might be why we differ. To me it's a huge issue - that I can continue to buy from a range of hardware manufacturers, and install my own OS and software. My computers all have Linux + Windows 8, and my phones have always had custom ROMs on there. I get that not everyone needs that, but Apple stopping me from installing OS X on my laptop, which is perfectly capable of running it, just strikes me as "evil".
If you go out of your way to avoid Apple services that lock you in, then I suppose that you could be reasonably free to exit. But on an iOS device you can't get out of using default apps like Apple Maps, and services like FaceTime and iMessage encourage people to connect with their family and friends through a system which is almost unique in only working on one manufacturer's hardware/OS (the only other example is BBM, which I also avoid).
> I don't see Google as that much more open than Apple
I see them as much more open than Apple, probably because it is in their best interest to be. Google's continuing existence is based on people's ability to use their services from any platform. They are trying to make hardware and operating systems less relevant by moving everything onto the internet. In order to do this, they need everything to be interoperable, and they do that through openness. Apple's business on the other hand is about getting people into their walled garden and keeping them there. Microsoft did that to an extent with trying to lock everyone into Windows, but in my view Apple are a million times worse, as they are trying to lock people into their OS and their hardware - and in many cases their software as well (eg. Maps and other default applications).
With respect to Android, you can use it without using a single Google service.
Perhaps the answer to your question is inside your question itself.
More money possibly, but its hard to imagine it is not worth the cost of porting these types of apps - and that's what is relevant. Unless it is an ideological thing.
Do you choose your own activities, necessarily not choosing others, out of spite?
His prior partner in spirit, Arment, however, has only entrenched more than ever in his bias.