"It’s not that Google changed course and got into the phone business, period. It’s that they got into the iPhone’s segment of the phone business. This is what Android looked like in 2007. Here’s an actual hardware prototype from then. It didn’t look anything like an iPhone, nor like anything Apple would ever be interested in making. It looked like a BlackBerry or Windows Mobile phone — hardware keyboards and non-touch screens"
His highly flawed assumptions are
1. That the hardware was the competition. 2. Google bought a software company to compete in hardware 3. HTC was not making touch screen phones before. 4. If you see a successful trend you stick to something unsuccessful in order not to compete.
He goes on to say
"I don’t believe Apple would have unveiled iAds. Maybe I’m wrong, and Apple would have done it anyway, because it always comes down to money, and there’s soon going to be an awful lot of money in mobile advertising."
sigh!
He speaks about the absence of comments on his blog. I think he can do whatever he wants regarding that.
What surprises me is the amusing weakness of his arguments. This is the first time I have actually read a full blog post of his (I mainly see bits of his writing in rebuttals) and I go away wondering how he has been made into a thought leader of some sort.