Profit
Selling more of 1 device or less of others
Market Share
Features/Benefits
Price
Experience/'Freedom'
I disagree about not caring who 'wins' though. If Apple wins, all developers have to build to Apple's closed platform. If Google wins, anybody can take Android and run the same apps (see: Amazon). Google winning is good for everyone. Apple winning is only good for Apple. Microsoft winning is also only good for Microsoft - so I wouldn't want them to win either.
You seem to be rooting for some sort of open source monopoly rather than a Google monopoly, but I think even that would be a bad thing. I'd much rather see a world where different business models and different development methodologies (open source vs. proprietary vs. hybrid, walled gardens vs. Wild West vs. everything in between, etc.) are all doing what they do best and competing with each other and learning from each other.
It's absolutely true that Android as you know it now simply would not exist if it didn't originally have the iPhone to draw inspiration from; this is pretty incontrovertible. I'm not saying that to denigrate Android in any way, but rather to point out that different approaches to product development have different pros and cons, and having all of those approaches coexisting and competing and evolving is a much better situation for everyone than having only one major player or one development methodology industry-wide. This is includes the seemingly-positive-but-not-really outcome where some form of "freedom" or "openness" becomes the monopoly.
Also, you should check your facts - Samsung has not exceeded Apple in smartphone profits. They have exceeded Apple in phone profits overall. You might as well throw washing machines into the mix if you are going to include profits from single purpose appliances that are not general purpose computers.
So basically because you "want Google to win" because you believe they are somehow different from any other corporation, you are trumpeting a false statistic in order to convince others that destiny is somehow at work, going in the direction you want.
If this isn't shilling for Google, I don't know what is.
As for your last point, I don't think regular consumers cares about open/closed platforms. They probably don't even know what that means. We're talking about mobile devices, not desktop computers. People want devices that just works, especially if those devices are built to make their lives easier, not harder. Android used to have a lot of problems but now they caught up to iOS (even surpassed it). Android is not where it is today because it is open[1]. Android would've had the same success if it was as closed as iOS.
In the general scheme of things, I agree with you. Android is not completely open and definitely not a free software, but it is better for consumers than iOS (and I'm an iOS user). But as long as there's a competition and either of those companies (Apple and Google) don't get to do whatever the hell they want, I'm saying that the consumer wins. It doesn't matter which company has the more open OS.
[1] Android had a lot of options in terms of devices, so their openness was a factor in their success, but it was not a major one.
Profits matter to the company. Not to you or me (unless you or I work for the company or have stock in them).
On the other hand, market share does affect consumers. The more popular your particular device is, the better it is for you (in terms of app availability, web compatibility, tech support etc...).
Profits matter for consumers as much as market share does, even if they don't realize it. The phone hardware business is a very expensive and difficult market. Companies like HTC demonstrate just how hard it is to stay in the game, and just how expensive it is. Being profitable is a requirement to produce at the massive economies of scale necessary to compete in the smart phone market (or you have to sell less units while charging a lot more for them, but you still require that profit to keep churning out new phones). The only reason Blackberry, for example, still exists at all is that they were so profitable for so many years, and able to build up a cash hoard; without that, they'd already have disappeared.
Absolutely. I wasn't trying to say that profits matter to consumers (Indirectly it may effect them though, because more profits means more freedom for a company to try new things without being too worried about wasting money).
>On the other hand, market share does affect consumers. The more popular your particular device is, the better it is for you.
I agree, but I don't think it matters all that much. Just look at the current situation. Can you honestly say that Windows' ecosystem is better than Mac's, despite the indisputable market share of Windows? Same goes with Android vs iOS (although they're pretty close). An argument could be made that Microsoft only makes the software while Apple does both software and hardware, but Mac support, ecosystem, app quality is miles ahead of Windows, in my opinion.
My point was that market share doesn't exactly translate into better services, better app quality etc. It is certainly a factor though, no point in denying that.
I'm not trying to overlook Samsung's success, but they _do_ sell tons of different devices while Apple only sell one (but 3 different versions), and profits _do_ matter.
I'm not sure about this but I believe Apple still beats Galaxy S4 in terms of profits and iPhone 5 released last year in September.
I also don't get this type of discussions. Technology evolves everyday. Apple used to beat other companies in terms of profits and market share, now Samsung is at the helm. Let's see what Apple can do this fall. As long as us, the consumer wins, I don't care who makes more money.