Yep. This is an article by someone who doesn't understand Apple's unique value proposition. Apple isn't really about making devices with the highest specs out

Yep. This is an article by someone who doesn't understand Apple's unique value proposition. Apple isn't really about making devices with the highest specs out there (things like retina displays are the exception, not the rule), nor are they about innovating brand-new types of devices (there were plenty of Mp3 players around before the iPod, plenty of tablet PCs around before the iPad, and plenty of Palm and Windows Mobile smartphones around before the iPhone). What they are about is building things that do what they do, extremely well. Part of this is design, part of this is their legendary supply chain (though that's a relatively recent advantage) but in my opinion the most important part of this is an intentional willingness to sacrifice features for user experience. My first iPhone was the 4, and when it came out, I was debating between it and the Evo 4G. On paper, the Evo 4G was a higher spec device. Hell, it's right in the name. It had 4G. I'm very glad I went with the iPhone. I have friends who didn't, and now, 2-years out, their Evos last for about 4 hours before they have to plug back in. My iPhone can still go happily for 2 days of normal use between charges. Could Apple have included a WiMax radio in the iPhone 4? Of course! But they had the foresight to say, "It's better to have a phone that lasts for 2-days without having to be recharged than one that has faster download speeds." That's a single example of a very "Apple'esque" decision, and the type of decision that makes most of the hardware they make, very good hardware. There are valid reasons to criticize Apple, and be concerned about its future. But this article didn't touch on any of them.