The problem with this analysis is the writer defines quality as stable, easy to use OS but neglects the fact that the phone manufacturers define quality slightly different. Sure, it's great to have a nice OS and a phone that does not crash but if the OS ties their hands (design-wise), they may not have room to innovate as they would see fit.
This reminds me of the story about when then phone companies wanted to get into web hosting. They decided that uptime was their competitive edge (when last did your land-line go down?) and thought webmasters would see that as valuable. However, for many webmasters, cost was the big issue but the phone companies could not deliver at the same cost as lots of mom and pop webhosts who had (comparatively) horrendous uptime.
This is a classic strategy mistake. Value is in the eye of the buyer. The maker cannot decide something is valuable just because it is good. The buyer decides what is good and then the maker follows suit.
This reminds me of the story about when then phone companies wanted to get into web hosting. They decided that uptime was their competitive edge (when last did your land-line go down?) and thought webmasters would see that as valuable. However, for many webmasters, cost was the big issue but the phone companies could not deliver at the same cost as lots of mom and pop webhosts who had (comparatively) horrendous uptime.
This is a classic strategy mistake. Value is in the eye of the buyer. The maker cannot decide something is valuable just because it is good. The buyer decides what is good and then the maker follows suit.