I think overemphasizing the Google brand is a mistake. Apple did this because they want to vertically control (and profit from) all stages of the user experience. Rather than focus on mass adoption of their platform, Apple's objective is to maximize their share of the premium market segment only. This comes from their Mac/PC days when maximizing every amount of profit from a tiny market share was essential to the company's survival. So their brand identity is a central part of everything Apple does, their App Store, devices, websites, etc. Apple has succeeded in creating an army of loyal premium users that have an Apple logo ingrained in their mind when anyone mentions something that an Apple product can do. Great consumer loyalty, but market share... not so much.
I agree with your assessment of Apple's marketing philosophy but disagree about the potential for market share. Case in point, the iPod.
Likewise I think overinforming the consumer is a mistake. Microsoft does this with many of their products because they consistently overestimate the degree that consumers care about the nuances of their business. Instead of releasing one version of Windows, we get five. Instead of one smartphone platform, we get two. For some reason they seem to think that burying consumers in unnecessary choices is the way to maximize profit.
Last year's Bing lock-in agreements are probably the closest threat to the platform's growth that exist today. Basically Microsoft wanted Verizon to agree to preload and lock all phones with Bing search, even those that run non-Microsoft OSs. I would gamble that Google came the closest to locking down their platform when this arrangement was revealed, because it directly threatens their revenue stream by co-opting search engine hits being generated by Android users.
There is definitely a place for a more open platform which is what Android is. The ability to configure more aspects as well as use it in more ways makes Android an OS that can be used to create a potentially a device that can be used in more diverse ways.
The problem is that the lack of a rigid lock on certain aspects of Android can help to create a negative opinion of Android as the OP states. This is something a lot of fandroids will never admit. That the potential for diversity actually be a negative. Look at some of the custom UI's that are out for Android. Some of the Android users actually hate them and have to root the devices in order to install a more usable UI.
The problem is people who frequent places like Anandtech are more tech savvy. Joe Consumer will not know how to root an Android device and can have a negative opinion of Android when it's not really the Android OS's fault but the OEM putting a crap custom UI on it.
Don't get me started on Microsoft's commercials... Honestly, the best Ballmer can do for Microsoft at this point is to retire. They are lost with him at the helm.
You don't want Ballmer to retire my friend. Almost every few weeks we can count on some outrageous Ballmer news to come out. It's entertaining as all heck.
Android is in good shape, and being adopted far faster than iOS. Why? Because Google doesn't want to iron fist it, and let manufacturers and more importantly the community drive the innovation of the OS. There's a real benefit to doing it this way, rather than handcuffing end-users into a static and immutable platform that only gets minor updates year on year simply to drive revenue. iOS is the one that needs to be worried.
I'd argue that a major reason for Android's growth is OEM's have a ready made OS that is cheap to customize and integrate with their phones. The OS also gets regular feature updates at practically not cost to them. They don't have to bother with the hassle and cost of developing a custom OS, though many create a custom UI.
Also, cost to consumers is a major factor. Look at the top end Android phones and the iPhone. They're $200-300 on contract. There are a lot of Android phones that are sub-$100 which people can get a modern smart phone OS on but without the larger upfront cost.
It's going to be interesting to see how lower end WP7 phones affect Android's growth but we won't really see how that shakes out for a while.
The recent announcement of an iPhone on Verizon will definitely help Apple sell more iPhones but to really match Android's growth I think Apple needs to consider three pricing tiers on current models. A $100 lower end model. A $200 baseline model. And a $300 top of the line model. Currently the iPhone release is, last year's phone at $100, this year's base model at $200, and a top of the line at $300. They need to replace the lower end tier with a current phone and not last year's model.
