I suppose I can kind of understand slagging BlackBerry , petty as it may be; the new Storm looks like a competitive device right in Apple's niche. Jobs and co., however, don't seem inclined to attempt to follow Android on its current dive into lower-end markets, so is there much point in talking about how "fragmented" Android is? The target market for many Android phones next year won't be the people who buy the iPhone.
You see, Android devices have never really been about providing an "iPhone killer," although that might be the case with some of the higher-end devices. The "killer" tag was always just a simplistic way into a hot story for RF-addled device bloggers and the glossier end of the business press.
Android, plain and simple, is a way for Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) to get the mobile Internet into as many hands around the world as possible. Hence, you're already seeing sub-$100 Android phones and that's likely to easily dip below $50 next year. (See Android Transformation.)
So Jobs and Eric Schmidt can duke it out over which system is best and what is "open" and "closed"; frankly, it's posturing. Apple wouldn't want to work with some of the profit margins that the Android vendors must be working with to deliver decent $99-or-less Internet-capable phones. Can you imagine the howls of outrage from Apple investors?
— Dan Jones, Site Editor, Light Reading Mobile