This depends on the position; smarts are not a replacement for (domain) experience, because certain knowledge can be learned only through trial and error and/or through long-term exposure to a domain (in other words, experience).
I believe that domain experience is the more necessary the higher level the position is (e.g. seniors who can decide on architecture, leads, architects...).
Having said that, I certainly agree that in the (hiring) industry it's common to be excessively attached to the specific tools used; I also suspect that smaller companies tend to think like this more than bigger ones.
Hiring someone willing to learn a new field filters for generalists and people who need jobs. Neither of those qualities are bad.
Specialists, or people in love with a stack, don't want to use 'some other tech'. As a senior, I pick the stack, because I have an idea where the industry's at and what's best for the type of software I'm experienced with making.
These hidden filters are interesting.
I think the more appropriate question is about the relative effectiveness of someone who has been leading Android development teams for 10 years and someone with the same experience but in a different (but related) field.
How much time would it take for a smart, competent and self motivated person to get up to speed on this new but related field? Given that number of hours, is it worth accepting that period of relative 'unproductivity' in order to hire them?
That seems like the right heuristic to answer your question.