I completely disagree that Apple needs to compete on features. They need to compete on the overall experience. Also, I'd avoid putting too much stock into: 20

I completely disagree that Apple needs to compete on features. They need to compete on the overall experience. Also, I'd avoid putting too much stock into: 2009=1991, iPhone=Mac and Android=Wintel. Yeah, there are some similarities, but there are big differences. For one thing, AppStore scandals aside, Apple's managment seems to be much better suited for competing with a strong rival than it was back then. Second, the customers are different. Part of the reason for Wintel's success is that they captured a growing # of departmental and institutional buyers. The decision makers weren't, by and large, the end users. They were more focused on up front costs. If they were even thinking of ongoing costs, many probably saw it as a way to grow their empire further. Phones are a consumer item. The buyers are almost always also the end-users, or at least in the same family. They have different priorities than corporate buyers in the early 90s. Phones are also cheaper now than PCs were then, and people can buy an iPhone in the US for $99. Fourth, the cost of the phone is just a small par of the total cost of ownership. The majority is the cost of cell service + a data plan. An android phone isn't going to be any cheaper, unless Google subsidizes the cost of the service plan with mobile advertising revenues (something that will likely bring antitrust scrutiny). Fifth, the hardware ecosystems are different. Apple largely uses the same chips and ODMs for the iPhone as anyone else. That means they get to take advantage of many of the same economies of scale as any other handset maker.