There are phone models that run some variant of Android from ultra-cheap to ultra-high-end. That clearly makes Android-based phones applicable to a wider audience. But what's more is that some manufacturers have developed their own operating systems based on Android source code without the Google services -- basically using Google's code as their own jumpstart. All these phones are counted as "Android" -- the sheer size of the umbrella that is known as "Android" clearly makes this the new defacto standard for any manufacturer other than Apple, Nokia or HP.
The problem with these statistics is that they make the assumption that there is an "Android Experience" and an "iOS Experience" -- this is hardly the case since the Android experience is varied, and Google does not benefit from every Android device sale, where Apple does benefit from every iOS device sale.
Certainly, one can cite the fact that every manufacturer puts their own spin on "Android" and they run a specific version with a specific UI overlay and they have a specific set of supported resolutions with a specific set of apps that will work for that device (hardly the Microsoft Windows scenario of the 1990s). These manufacturers will likely be falling in line with Google's new rules with regards to timely access to the latest Android version and will continue to produce good and better phones with less-varied experiences.
But looking further than that, Android (pre-Honeycomb) is open source and many have taken the opportunity to force Google completely out of the Android equation.
- Verizon sells Android phones with Bing Search
- Barnes and Noble updates Nook Color with Android-sans-Google variant
(including their own marketplace)
- Tapas and OMS are Chinese "rivals" to Android that are in fact based on
the open-source Android code base (again removing Google services --
and their millions of sales are counted among these numbers).
I think if you told Steve Jobs that in 2011 he would only have 25% market share with the iPhone he would be ecstatic. However, he would not be ecstatic to know that somebody had ripped off his iPhone experience and was attempting to commoditize it. Google only cares about one thing: inevitability. Android innovation will cease once they have enough market share of Android devices that actually push the Google services and advertisements. Google is not in this to make the best mobile OS -- they are in it to ensure they are not locked out of advertising dollars (or having to pay Apple for the right to advertise) -- it seems they have done that.
Steve Jobs said of Google "they want to kill the iPhone and we won't let them". The truth of the matter is that Android will not "kill" the iPhone, but will continue to be the primary competitor and market-share leader for quite some time. In order for Android's surge to change, Apple would need to have phone models at every price point and more frequent releases. But that's kinda like telling Porsche that they don't have enough market-share and need to produce a cheaper car to gain market-share.
Apple should continue to focus on iOS as a computing platform -- where they still have an overall mobile OS lead (when including iPod and iPad). But Apple needs to keep in mind that when those dumb-phone users who just decided they wanted a smartphone since they could upgrade to Android for free may eventually want a tablet as well when the price comes down. Those folks who are Android smart-phone users may opt for the "Android" name even if the actual "Android Experience" differs. Apple needs to have some strategy to secure mind-share for their future buyers.
Remember that 12 years ago many many people still used pay phones to make calls while they were out and about or simply went without. Now you are hard pressed to find a pay-phone because everybody has a mobile phone. Those mobile-phone buyers are now shifting to smart-phones, and the cheap upgrade is clearly "Android". In another 5 to 10 years we may see the same thing happen with tablets being pervasive. If I were Apple, I would want to do everything to ensure that those smart-phone users are hooked on iOS instead of Android.
Now all this is based on the assumption that your motivation is to have your company make billions and billions of dollars. Maybe Steve Jobs motivation is just to make the best darn tech gadgets in the world -- maybe he does not care about owning the entire market, but only a good portion of it. I personally prefer iOS devices so my only vested interest here is that Apple keep producing new and better devices and maintains enough leverage to tell the carriers how things are going to be and enough market to share to ensure the app store continues to flourish. I don't want to go back to the days of relying on the carriers for software updates and I don't want to be waiting and hoping that some app developer may eventually port to the platform I am using -- two things Android users still have to deal with.
