[eloisant]

No, it's not the same arguments, because Android and iPhone are two very different things.

The reason why Android won is because the iPhone is just one phone from one maker. There's a limit in market share you can reach with just one phone because you can't please everyone. Heck, even with a single brand there is a limit in the market share because you can't build a brand image that appeal to everyone (in particular you'll never appeal to the "I don't want to go mainstream" people). This is why car makers sometimes create entirely new brands - like Lexus from Toyota (luxury cars) or Dacia from Renault (low cost cars).

Android, on the other hand, is dozens of phones from dozens of makers. Just like Windows on desktop PCs. So it can reach a quasi-monopoly status. Now that Android have this market leader position, the only thing that can displace it is not a slightly different system (like Windows Phone) but a full paradigm change. That's why Linux failed to displace Windows as the market leader, but tablets are in their way to do it because they're completely different beasts.

...And by the way, for the same reason iPhone can't hold a monopoly, the iPad is losing its market leader position to... Android.

[gurkendoktor]

Your posting assumes as a fact that a) winning means having more market share, and b) Android's combined success stems from a very diverse ecosystem. Most of Gruber's blogging in the last months has been about questioning these assumptions.