IMO, we might be pawns. I read a story about a game that came out on iOS 1st and the developers were paid to NOT develop for Android for a period of time.
IMO, Apple knows what it's doing and the advantages it has:
- fast native OS and language
- richer following that prove to spend more per person
- small number of products (less fracturing)
- advanced group of developers that use tools that don't work on Android.
I think the "winning move" for Apple would be when the cycle slows, the devices become appliances and they become the "last phone" people buy because at that point, people won't mind paying a bit more for a quality product because it's some how considered better.
What promotes this is better apps, Apple has an edge in that most malware is on Android and iOS is faster which is needed for more advanced apps.
If Apple wanted to play nice, they could have made cross-platform easy. This would help the developers, but hurt Apple.
Apple is (IMO) still challenged in the area of volume, they are liked in Asia but expensive to them. Becoming the last phone people buy for a longer time (longer cycle) makes the phones cheaper because they aren't outdated as fast.
I'm sure Apple is paying very close attention to the cycle and what's being offered so they at least don't drop a lot of market share because they know they can change the market share once the "last phone people need" (for a longer cycle) is determined.
My guess is that it's Apple's game to lose because people will want the last phone to be perceived as the best, and Apple has enough money to add exceptional value to that phone without dropping the price or the perception of the product.
