While it could maybe be phrased better I think this is the crux of the matter. I'm typing this on a US$200 (roughly) phone. I don't particularly care about, or have any affinity to, the OS. I don't even remember the manufacturer, Xiaomi maybe, but I use it because it cost slightly under 200 dollars.

The choice for a lot of people I imagine is more between no phone vs Android rather than iOS vs Android. On the island I'm living on currently the bottom tier but usable Motorola or Samsung phones are like local$600 and I think Apple devices start around local$4000+.

Until Android reaches 100%, it'll have two directions to go

> Android enables tons of people all over the world to communicate and do things.

This... sounds like an ad.

It's the truth. Go to Africa, go to South America, a bunch of places, people running businesses and whatnot off their phones. Hardly anyone uses iOS outside a few rich countries. Because most people use them to do stuff, so most open/ubiquitous (and yes cheap) wins.

People somehow worried about an OS given away for free that is still the #1 OS of all user devices including desktops...

They use android because they can't afford iphones, not because "you can do more" with androids

You can do more with Android because you don't have to sell a liver to afford an Apple device.

And where did I say that?

You said that "people use [androids] to do stuff" as if you couldn't do stuff with iphones.

I said the open, cheap and ubiquitous nature gets it into the hands of people who care about doing things. The implication is not that you can do more rather that you can do the same without spending as much on an iPhone (especially since in most of the world people buy devices outright).

And it's the truth. You can do the same with a $400 Android as a top of the line Samsung/Apple device save some games...