Not a great article belabouring a pretty tired argument.

> That's just in the US, of course, but it's likely that the rest of the world will f

Except that the iPhone is on only one of four major US carriers (it hasn't shipped a single unit on Verizon yet).

Also the economics are different elsewhere. In the US there isn't actually much handset subsidizatino. Most handsets, iPhone included, are $199. Some are $99. But given the typical bill likely be $70/month+ for 2 years, $100 difference on ~$2000 total is likely not a huge difference. If anything, I would argue that US consumers are largely basing their decision on carrier first, then handset.

What would be an interesting and insightful stat is to see what AT&T's handset breakdown is because you can expect that Verizon will follow a similar trend.

> ... it also has a major downside. It means that users have only a limited choice of handsets

For most consumers, lack of often confusing and sometimes meaningless decisions (eg what is the practical difference, for the user, between an Evo and a DroidX?) is a plus not a minus.

Price matters in developing countries, sure. But the iPhone is a premium product. No news there.

As for pricing outside the US, let me give an example from Australia. I bought an iPHone 4 ~2 weeks after launch on Telstra, the nation's largest (and best) carrier.

For the 32GB model I paid $299 upfront and then $49/month for 2 years, totalling $1500 over 2 years. The retail price of the handset is $1000 so for $500 I get 2 years of service.

What does that $49/month buy? 2GB of data and $400 of "credit". Basically unlimited SMS, that credit can be used for data overages (at a pretty exorbitant rate mind you) and of course calls (at about 60c/minute).

Also, in Australia, like pretty much all of the developed world outside North America, you only pay for MAKING phone calls and SENDING text messages. You pay nothing for receiving either.

But the economics mean that my phone service, after you factor out the handset, only costs me ~$20/month. The HTC Desire, a similar handset, is priced at about exactly the same.

> The rise of Android in the smartphone sector nullifies Cook's arguments against Android in the tablet world because precisely the same dynamics are at play

Uh... no they don't and no they aren't. For one, many if not most iPad users use the iPad on wifi only, typically only at home. I would also argue that many who own 3G models (like myself) don't even have a 3G service attached to the device. What's the point? The nearest Starbuck's with it's free wifi is never far away.

The entry point for the iPad is $500. The competition seems to start at $700 (Xoom) with everything thrown in. Thing is, not everyone wants that extra stuff.

And let's not forget--and this is important--that Apple's competitors are always chasing last year's model. Comparing these new releases to the iPad are pretty meaningless since the iPad is about to be replaced and those products (excluding the Samsung Galaxy Tab) aren't even shipping yet.

Lastly, Samsung claims to have sold >2 million Tabs. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out where and to whom because I've yet to see one in the wild. Korea? I'd love to know how many they've sold by country and also a qualification saying they mean sold and not just shipped.