I do not get what the problem is with having carrier applications on the phones. It is non-sensical to argue that things forced on you, the consumer, by a corporation A are bad but things forced by corporation B on the same consumer are somehow magical.

Leaving aside everything - let's stick to the case of Android carrier customizations and their impact on user experience. I have used 2 different Android smartphones and my wife has used 2. I had a Nexus One and now have a T-Mobile G2. My wife had a EVO and now has Epic 4G. We never felt like the carrier customizations (or lack thereof in case of Nexus One) made any significant negative impact to our user experience. We actually liked some of the differentiations of both software and hardware (Music/Video player and physical keyboard on Epic, HTC UI on the EVO etc.). Having a few extra icons or having the Sprint Navigation app instead of Google Navigation wasn't actually a big deal in any way.

Plus, for those who prefer close-to-pure-google experience - there is Nexus S or G2. If you are on VZW and are a bit technical or know someone who is, Droid Incredible and Cyanogen is another choice. Optimus S is also close to stock Android and on multiple carriers.

For years Windows computers have shipped with vendor customizations and no one seems to have cared enough to give Apple the 50% market share. Microsoft had made some effort recently to work with the vendors to fix the outright problematic stuff and you can buy a laptop with clean Windows install from Sony for example.

The problem on Android is not nearly as bad or annoying as Windows bloatware and there are plenty of choices available that go either way - fully stock to fully customized. It's not as if the customized phones are bogged down to the point that they don't function or anything like that. It's just a minor inconvenience if you want to make it one.

So who is complaining about Android customizations? Technical people with a certain taste to see uniform world view. The reviewers that measure everything by Apple standards. Normal users don't seem to be caring - they buy one Android phone and use it for 2 years - if it doesn't work they are just going to return it and buy something else and it is very much doubtful that users are returning Android phones because of the carrier customizations.

On the other hand - if I don't happen to like iTunes on iPhone I have no other choice in the iPhone land. If I need wireless syncing I need to wait. With Android I can choose which media player I like - Samsung's or HTCs, which wireless sync I like - DoubleTwist Airsync or WinAmp etc. So I would argue that the benefits of Android approach pretty much outweigh the little consistency issues it poses.

EDIT : I actually went and read the original article and it struck me that the main point it made was the dawn of ultra cheap ($85 retail) Android dual core smartphones for the 3rd world! If it does work out well (and I am not sure why it wouldn't) Nokia and other dumb phone makers are in for huge trouble and we are going to see Windows vs. Mac all over again with the iPhone finding itself restricted as a luxury brand at the best and at worse they will see some erosion even in that category. Apple now a days do most of the things on their own - including the CPUs. It will be hard for them to keep up with the likes of Nvidia/Broadcom/Samsung who will bring out dual core CPUs for Android handsets - not quite PPC vs Intel but sort of.