I don't think your portrayal of the argument is entirely correct. Here's the one I've usually seen:
- Apple claims that the language restriction is intended to increase the quality
of apps in the App Store.
- But the App Store is full of crap.
- Apple knows this but still repeats their quality defense.
- Therefore, Apple is being disingenuous and in fact has another motive for their
restrictions on developers.
I've yet to see a plausible ulterior motive, so I take a skeptical view of the whole thing.
You don't need to hypothesize an ulterior motive, they told you what it was straight out during the "It Must Be Objective-C" kurfuffle. It is to maintain control over the platform and ensure that as they update the platform the apps can easily track it because they are all on the same basic framework. That they later loosened this restriction doesn't really change the point.
I hate to call that "ulterior" though, because while I disagree with it, I can not say it is evil or invalid. It's their strategy.
- Apps won't use iPhone features not present on other phones
- Apps will be available on other phones, thus making iPhones less attractives (that card can only be played while iPhones have this incredible momentum)
- They might be ugly, targetting the lowest denominator
In the long run it's stupid idea (IMHO), but it let's them milk the iPhone current gigantic success.
It's not evil, I mean it's not actively causing harm in the ultimate scale, but it does suck.
Your first claim is false (apps might do that or they might not, and either choice is possible regardless of cross-compilation) and the third is a statement of mere possibility, which is uninteresting (Objective-C apps might be ugly and target the LCD as well — the iPhone has proved this). Only the second is true, and that reason is simply a long-winded way to say "ulterior motive of lock-in."
