(disclaimer: I realise HN is full of people who really like their Android so I hope not to get downvoted just to give a different opinion.) I think the problem

(disclaimer: I realise HN is full of people who really like their Android so I hope not to get downvoted just to give a different opinion.) I think the problem with Android, which is behind what the author (a bit confusingly) presents as evidence, is its licence agreement. The iPhone did not improve the freedom for the user, but Apple had managed to distinguish between manufacturer and provider. Basically the iPhone (and all the others that would have followed: WebOS, WP7, etc...) had put the manufacturer back in a position of strength: "Do you want to have a 'modern' mobile on your network? Then don't mess with it". Once the Android came out though, and it got embraced by Motorola, HTC and Sony, the situation change completely. By far and large there is nothing unique to any Android phone. All manufacturers can access the same CPU, the same screens (actually here Samsung has a slight advantage), etc... This past year has shown the result: a fast dynamic hypercompetitive market. Just like for the PC before, companies were left with only one real way to compete: price. And it's this that has suddenly put the providers back in the driving seat. Verizon can request specific changes (like not-erasable apps) and they either accept them, or they lose the massive subsidies. I don't think Google did this with any bad intention. Indeed, and kind of ironically, it seems to me that the Nexus One was the second step of Google's strategy and was a complete failure _because of it_. Google found itself with no power over the mobile providers: as the article say Verizon waited for a similar speced phone to come out and quickly moved to sell that one instead. Android is in a way so good, that now the mobile phone providers don't need to beg the manufacturers to come to them: they know they will always be able to have custom made Android phones, and Android phones are so good that they can survive without an iPhone or a Pre. In the end I think Google tried to avoid having a new Windows (one OS with a massive market share). But they didn't realised that rather than giving the power to nobody (everyone competing) they gave it to the guys with the money: the providers.