But the article has a perfectly good point to make. That it's couched in the usual rivalry terms is unfortunate, but hey, that's the way of the world.
It's legitimate to say that Android will be the driving force for commoditizing smartphones, however. iOS will not be that force, and I think that's fine. That has never been Apple's goal, and it shows. It's like saying Mercedes won't drive commoditization of the latest feature in their car (e.g., HUDs or auto-parallel-parking). No, that'll be a smaller company. Mercedes is in charge of being up front putting it in to begin with for the people willing to pay more to get it. Once it's become cheaper, Ford can then integrate it in their upper lines, and then their mid-levels, and then it becomes a standard feature for pretty much all cars.
Similarly, Apple basically rewrote the book on smartphone UIs. There is very little you can say to truly countermand that. They may not be the 100% originators of all of the ideas, but the iPhone was the first phone of its kind. Android followed along, and started out expensive, then got cheaper, and now they're moving towards ultra-cheap smartphones running Android. Same evolution. The products have different purposes and different targets, that's all.
The only reason I bring this up is that I really don't often see flamewars between Mercedes drivers and Ford drivers. I suppose this might be because car companies differentiate tiers by brand, while in the case of Android, there are both high-end and low-end Android phones that are marketed under the exact same name, and these will obviously provide a different experience.
> It's legitimate to say that Android will be the driving force for commoditizing smartphones, however. iOS will not be that force, and I think that's fine.
I'm not sure about that, cheaper iPhones have been available with every new release, last year european operators already offered 0€ iPhones with 2 years contracts, and the 3GS has gotten one more year lease on life being advertised as a $99 phone in the US.
edit: -1 without any discussion because I point out iphones are available "for free", which seriously sounds like commoditization? That's an interesting HN dynamic.
Subsidy purchasing is not free. Most low end markets are hugely bias to pay as you go due to income variances from agriculture incomes. iOS devices in that regard are a much higher price of entry point than alternatives.
Not that I down voted but this is may be why.
Yeah, masklinn, you make a decent point in richer markets, but I think it's unlikely we'll see a $25, no-contract iPhone or iPad, while we've already seen (extremely crappy) Android devices that are remarkably close to that range. frankydp is right in that the free 2-year-contract iPhones are still quite expensive without a contract when we're talking about poorer nations.
Or perhaps I should hedge and say I think Android will get there first, and probably much before. Who knows whether Apple will decide to go after that segment or not in the long run (though it's not exactly their style).
It's legitimate to say that Android will be the driving force for commoditizing smartphones, however. iOS will not be that force, and I think that's fine. That has never been Apple's goal, and it shows. It's like saying Mercedes won't drive commoditization of the latest feature in their car (e.g., HUDs or auto-parallel-parking). No, that'll be a smaller company. Mercedes is in charge of being up front putting it in to begin with for the people willing to pay more to get it. Once it's become cheaper, Ford can then integrate it in their upper lines, and then their mid-levels, and then it becomes a standard feature for pretty much all cars.
Similarly, Apple basically rewrote the book on smartphone UIs. There is very little you can say to truly countermand that. They may not be the 100% originators of all of the ideas, but the iPhone was the first phone of its kind. Android followed along, and started out expensive, then got cheaper, and now they're moving towards ultra-cheap smartphones running Android. Same evolution. The products have different purposes and different targets, that's all.
The only reason I bring this up is that I really don't often see flamewars between Mercedes drivers and Ford drivers. I suppose this might be because car companies differentiate tiers by brand, while in the case of Android, there are both high-end and low-end Android phones that are marketed under the exact same name, and these will obviously provide a different experience.