This can change of course but wouldn't it require some effort from Google? I'm also not at all sure that the basis of competition is shifting to software. It's akin to saying that the basis of competitions in the car industry is shifting to wheels. People buy phones, and the phones must be capable, finger friendly or what not, which requires a modern capable OS, sure, but the OS capabilities are increasingly becoming (and will be even more) similar. Like I said earlier, I see zero signs of brand effect in "platform-based" phone sales, and Android is moving in a direction opposite from the one that is needed to create some serious positioning and identity.

An interesting thing to think about here is that Google's not-so-exciting UI endeavors and the messy Market are probably not so much an execution failure as a result of Google's priorities and modus operandi as a whole.

If you think about how they make money, it's by being a gateway between a disorganized chaotic mess which is the internet and everybody on Earth with access to internet. They are (consciously or accidentally) recreating the internet in their phone OS, with its anarchy and "business darwinism" because it's essentially who they are. Their primary instrument is being everywhere (browser search bar, phone, TV, refrigerator, anything), and being ubiquitous is so much more important than being polished that they just won't waste time on such minor stuff. They also don't care about differences between customer segments as their purpose is serving each and every living soul on the planet - how can you polish something that's for everybody? And above all - the messier and more disorganized the environment the more familiar and benefitial it feels for them - they genuinely don't get why people talk about fragmentation. So Android is and probably will be huge, but it's not much more of a brand than "internet" is. And it's not a failure on Google's part, it's just what they do for living. They thrive from diversity and complexity, these are the cornerstones of why they are necessary in this world. Branding and image and what not is just fluff for their data-driven "numbers game".

Microsoft is a totally different company - one of their most used words is "partners". That's who they work for, that's who they get feedback from, and that's why they time after time fail to get the consumer and "miss whole cycles". Their necessity for the end user comes from the mere fact that they manage to be so important for everyone in the food chain. In theory, OEMs could remove Windows and put Linux instead on all PCs, consumers would whine but learn to live with it. It just doesn't happen because everybody is in this Microsoft's web making money. This obviously doesn't work for smartphones, and MS is now trying to do something of epic newness for them - doing a product for "partners" yet trying to market it to consumers. If any platform has a chance of becoming a brand at all, WP7 is it. It's just hard to imagine Microsoft excelling in this area.

Overestimated, yes, I haven't seen a "valuation" of Android as a brand, so shouldn't have used that term - something like that (I'm talking about the brand, not the platform as a whole). Wide name recognition doesn't say anything about customers' attitudes, emotional attachment, loyalty, anything of that sort. I don't see it allowing OEMs to price handsets at a premium, or even additional sales effect. If you take the number of Android devices sold and divide it by the number of handset it's on, you'll get sales per model similar to those of WP7, accounting for distribution and availability differences. If you further subtract sales of hits such as SGS (they aren't huge because the phone carries Android, otherwise it would work for others as well), you'll get VERY similar sales per handset. That's a very rough metric, I agree, but it just shows that Android behaves like a typical commodity platform - i.e. its overall sales are a function of number of handsets and distribution rather than the platform's unique branding.

Whatever, "anti-Apple smartphone" is just as meaningless unless you are somehow religious about all this openness/control stuff.

I suspect that the value of Android as a brand may be somewhat underestimated. It is strong in that it is very well known, of course, but I seriously doubt it conveys a lot of meaning and/or has a well-defined and entrenched positioning in the minds of the general public. It basically means "non-Apple smartphone" at this time, which is great only insofar as there's nothing else really. There's obviously a very loyal group of followers who are very emotional about it and are very vocal, but I don't think that their share of voice is proportional to Android's share of minds.

Carrier billing will always come with a surcharge. I doubt there's anything exciting in it.

I can't say I hate it, but the speaker is an absolutely useless gimmick for me personally. I won't use it but it'll make the device thicker, which is bad. So I'll pass on this hardware (and all other HTC phones leaked so far).

Well yes, but they won't do it.

IE's interception of the Back button is really annoying.

There could be a solution though, hitting Back in IE could bring up a page with visual history (like it does in Opera when you enable this hidden option) so you can swipe back and forth to find the page you need, but hitting the Back button once again would immediately bring you to your previous app.

Whatever. This, and video calling, are probably the most overtalked features ever. I've never in my entire life been able to use any of the systems, be it TellMe, iPhone's thingie or whatever. Not to mention that it looks utterly stupid when you try to talk to your phone in public, and there's probably a couple dozen weirdos who use it on a regular basis.

They certainly have more important areas to focus on.