You seem to interchange hardware and software. Which of the two do you have an issue with? Software and content (which is what you have continually been talking about) is no more or less portable on the iPhone's OS then it is on Android's.
You need to define platorm, are you talking hardware platform or software platform?
Well perhaps this is the disconnect. In my head the distinction is very clear, but after pages and pages of writing it's absolutely possible that I may have used words interchangeably. I'll try and be conscious of using "operating system" and "hardware" instead of the less defined term, "platform."
Let's recap:
1. I concede the point that you cannot [currently] move apps from Android to iPhone. This was always obvious to me. If I gave the impression that this wasn't the case, it was not intentional. However, this doesn't dilute my argument. (More on this below.)
2. I don't have an issue with hardware on its own. I don't have an issue with software on its own. I have an issue when software that is meant to be consumed (apps, games, books, etc) is tied to a specific piece of hardware. Understand that there's a gradient here - I might be able to enjoy my content on 3 devices in one "platform" and 30 on another. The platform that offers 30 hardware choices is better but obviously not perfect. Of course, I'd want to be able to use my purchases on all 33 devices.
3. You need to stop trying to make the point that being locked into the iPhone is the same as being "locked" into Android. It is not. The iPhone is a single device (hardware + software) designed and controlled by a single company. Android is an open programming language that is not centrally controlled and can be run on any hardware. Even though the iPhone OS could
technically be run on non-Apple hardware (I've seen it ported to an HTC phone), the OS is licensed, guarded, etc. The real world implications of this are huge. Even if one were to agree with you that "philosophically" Android is just as restrictive as the iPhone (which I don't agree with, more on this below) the practical difference between the two is like night and day.
Sure, if we all were limited to one OS. But that would stifle competition and lead to inferior products which is at least one of the tenents of your arguments.
There are two issues here, single OS vs. multiple OS and open vs. closed. Don't confuse the two. In an environment where closed systems are the only option, yes - you want multiple companies competing to drive innovation in the marketplace. However, we're not talking about just proprietary programming languages. We're talking about open vs. closed standards. What's the ideal situation? A universal operating system that runs all software, yet doesn't stifle innovation. When software is open and the standards can be improved by anyone, you actually get an explosion of innovation and growth - some might say, too much innovation. Think of Wikipedia, the ultimate success story in the open vs. closed debate. Is Wikipedia perfect? No. Is it better than having a regular online Encarta Encyclopedia controlled, written, and monetized by a single company? You betcha. HTML? Open standard = explosion of innovation on the internet. Single operating system = explosion of innovation of applications. Applications, after all, are what make computers useful - not the operating system.
But you can't switch hardware AND software and expect to take your apps with you, ever, from any company.
No, you cannot do so currently. But you should be able to - and you can, theoretically. This is the heart of the problem. Operating systems should be non-existent or rather, transparent. In an ideal world, you would have a single operating system running all kinds of applications. Perhaps a better way of saying it is that you have a single programming language that can run any software on top of it. It's what Android attempts to do. Note, you would give up nothing in this scenario. Theoretically, you could have a device that looks, runs, feels, operates
exactly like an iPhone, but is coded on Android's language. Instant cross-platform app portability.
To many Apple offers many benefits over competitors, and to many others competitors offer benefits over Apple.
Conventional wisdom (and you) seems to think that iPhone vs. Android is an issue of consumer preference. You would be correct in the sense that your sentiment reflects current market options. However, on some level what I'm trying to do is frame an argument in an ideal sense. If Apple wanted, they could give you the same exact user experience you currently have on the iPhone, even if they decided to code their device using Android's language. Bam - app portability. Of course, this is not in their interest and I don't blame them for their course of action.
All android does is offer more hardware choices, which to be honest is kind of moot.
No actually, it's not. The choice of hardware (keyboard vs. none, 3" vs. 4" screen, 8mp vs. front-facing camera) is HUGE. Dismissing that it's moot is incredibly blind and perhaps explains why we don't see eye to eye. Remember the whole PC vs. Mac war that took place 30 years ago that essentially ended up with Microsoft running 90% of the world's computers? Do you know what it boiled down to? Choice, flexibility, and cross-hardware compatibility. To dismiss hardware options as being "moot" is to be ignorant of the last 30 years of computing.
You also seem to be dismissing the true flexibility of Android. It's not an operating system as much as it is a programming language. You can have entirely different software experiences on two Android phones (the same is true on the iPhone if you decide to jailbreak it, but Apple goes through great pains to block jailbreaks with each software update).
So no, the statement that "All Android does is offer more hardware choices" is absolutely false.
