[ergo98]

>That is becoming a more accurate description of the Android market by the day. Nexus One, EVO 4G, Droid X... they're all pretty similar.

So then why buy any specific one of them?

Because they aren't similar, your ridiculous statement aside.

The whole point of the Android hardware ecosystem is that it's a disparity of often very different phones. Some have fast CPUs some have slow CPUs. Some have great cameras with a Xenon flash, some don't. Some have keyboards, some don't. Some are big, some are small. It is the absolute opposite of commodity, and only the most ludicrous, superficial analysis could even imagine using that word.

An iPhone, on the other hand, is a commodity as far as iPhones go. It's an iPhone, you know. Just an iPhone.

[ZeroGravitas]

I've never seen commodity used to refer to products from the same range, from the same manufacturer. Basically, you've just claimed that anthying that isn't a hand-made one-off creation is a commodity, massively weakening its actual meaning which you're supposed to be defending from misuse.

Commodity isn't a totally binary state, even with fuel or coffee you get variations in quality and brand. It's just that these factors do not dominate. At the other end of the scale Apple is trying very hard to stop iPhones becoming commodities by stopping cross platform Flash apps, not allowing access to iTunes etc. which prevents similar devices from other manufacturers being swapped in without disruption. Saying you want to move your complements down the scale towards being a commodity doesn't imply that they will end up at the extreme, just that they'll have less market power over you, the definition of commodity often being given as an item being sold or bought at a market rate.

[natrius]

There is absolutely no confusion when people talk about the commoditization of phone hardware. No one is saying phones will become coffee. You can get pretty much any combination of features from any vendor.

Feel free to be frustrated by imprecise usage of technical terms.

[ergo98]

It isn't just imprecise -- it's completely the opposite of reality.

It's as logical as saying food is a commodity item because ultimately you eat food. Or cars are a commodity item because you use them to drive from a to b. Only an utter moron would use it in such a context.

[reeses]

Food is pretty much the archetype for commodities. Not because "you eat food," but because it doesn't really matter where your apricots, rice, or baby mice[1] come from. You'll buy the one that is either freshest or least expensive, and rarely focus on the provider unless it happens to have an advantage that relates to those two criteria.

[1] What, you don't like three screams?

[natrius]

Ok, the car comparison is good. I agree now that phones can't really be a commodity.

I still think it's okay to refer to decreasing differentiation in a market as "commoditization". People understand what's being said, and there's no other concise way to say it.