Equating fragmentation with choice doesn't do the phenomenon justice. The question isn't if there should be choice: it's quite clear that there should be. I'd s

Equating fragmentation with choice doesn't do the phenomenon justice. The question isn't if there should be choice: it's quite clear that there should be. I'd suggest that Jobs would not object to this. But it's crucial to have sensible choice. Consumers get to choose between iOS, webOS, RIM OS and Android. Well, theoretically at least. Instead they get to choose between iOS, webOS, RIM OS and several slightly different, often incompatible and almost always very much un-free Androids. That's the fragmentation problem - Jobs doesn't advocate NO CHOICE, he advocates GOOD CHOICE for the consumer. I own an Android phone. The stuff Motorola has put on it, without any legal way of removing it, is crap and has nothing to do with vanilla Android. Friends own HTC phones. They have a different half-baked Android-y OS. This fragmentation is bad for the consumer. Choice - between truly different strands of Android - is good for the consumer. Don't conflate these issues. Also, never mention Linux on the Desktop in any discussion. It's like waving a white flag. Personally, I run Ubuntu and Debian on all my systems. Still: not a compelling argument for anything. Especially since fragmentation IS a massive problem for "consumer Linux".