>Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet... I didn't say they didn't, nor did I even imply it. Understand th

>Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet... I didn't say they didn't, nor did I even imply it. Understand that this doesn't change the fact that Google witheld app features from other OEMs and kept enhanced versions for its own partners for competitive reasons. Just because Apple did it too doesn't mean Google didn't (as I already pointed out). >Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. I was talking about walled gardens, and wasn't making an arbitrary distinction of "vendor" lock-in. As I was saying though, from the standpoint of a walled garden, Android as a free operating system has been remarkably successful as a soft wall for Google, getting their advertisements on more handsets more quickly than any other method. Instead of risking consumers switching, they are eliminating competitors before consumers even get the option to switch. OEMs have been keen to adopt an OS that cost them next to nothing and played nice with branding and in house apps. Clearly Amazon and Samsung modifying the OS is a concern of Google's, and they are combating this with native apps, web apps, and their own competitive offerings (hardware included).