I think the author has missed the point on a number of levels. Two representative quotes are:
> Android is and has always been the choice for people and companies that don’t have the option of getting an iPhone.
> iOS is, in fact, being used as a platform by Apple and independent developers, while Android is fulfilling the role that the simpler phone OSs used to
Speaking for myself (anecdotes != data, etc.) I bought my first Android phone because it was the most advanced phone at the time with a physical keyboard, and had great integration with Gmail. My organisation has a fairly even split between iPhone and Android, and there are a lot of non-geeks with Android phones. So such a general, sweeping statement dismissing Android as "for people who can't have iPhones" is incorrect and mildly amusing.
I agree with the author's point that most non-geeks do not care about the OS a phone is running, but the second quote above makes me think he/she has their iBlinkers on. Android phones range from cheap and cheerful to feature-packed shiny-fests. There are some Android devices that are less advanced than the iPhone, and some that are more advanced.
This, in my opinion, is Android's key strength - the wide variety of handsets means Android is engaging in asymmetric warfare with iPhone.
I hate the divisive nature of articles like this - it smacks of "my toy is better than your toy", although I suppose my response is little better than "no, my toy is better than your toy, but let's agree to disagree".
> Android is and has always been the choice for people and companies that don’t have the option of getting an iPhone.
> iOS is, in fact, being used as a platform by Apple and independent developers, while Android is fulfilling the role that the simpler phone OSs used to
Speaking for myself (anecdotes != data, etc.) I bought my first Android phone because it was the most advanced phone at the time with a physical keyboard, and had great integration with Gmail. My organisation has a fairly even split between iPhone and Android, and there are a lot of non-geeks with Android phones. So such a general, sweeping statement dismissing Android as "for people who can't have iPhones" is incorrect and mildly amusing.
I agree with the author's point that most non-geeks do not care about the OS a phone is running, but the second quote above makes me think he/she has their iBlinkers on. Android phones range from cheap and cheerful to feature-packed shiny-fests. There are some Android devices that are less advanced than the iPhone, and some that are more advanced.
This, in my opinion, is Android's key strength - the wide variety of handsets means Android is engaging in asymmetric warfare with iPhone.
I hate the divisive nature of articles like this - it smacks of "my toy is better than your toy", although I suppose my response is little better than "no, my toy is better than your toy, but let's agree to disagree".