“Three Reasons Android Could Terminate Apple Despite the Hype, iPhone Isn’t the Only Mobile Platform in Town”
All three reasons he cites apply to the incumbents Windows Mobile, Symbian and Palm OS of old PalmSource. Android therefore is a symmetric response to the incumbents whereas iPhone is an asymmetric response. To suggest that Android has a chance to defeat iPhone implies that the incumbents do as well. If the incumbents do have a chance, why would they not destroy Android as they have vastly greater resources in a symmetric match-up? (Incumbents always win sustaining battles).
His argument depends on Google “being better”. History suggests that resource-based matches always benefit the incumbent.