I think what has helped Android's uptake is that it's freely alterable without having to ask someone's permission.
Networks and handset manufacturers can use Android as a base and push whatever features they like without having an Apple or RIM complaining.
A major part of making it freely alterable is that the manufacturer/network can make it locked down to the end-user, even if Google doesn't mind people having root on their handset the networks hate it and the networks are the handset manufacturer's customers, not end-users.
I think that's why most comparisons to the desktop PC market break down for me: Dell and Apple's PC/Mac customers are almost always the end-user of their device (corporate sales excepted), so the driving force behind what goes into those products is very different. The network is the one paying the handset manufacturer, so phones are designed to meet the needs of the network.
Apple and RIM have done some good work to try and change this by taking ownership of the relationship with the end-user and reducing the network to a mere carrier of data. Android is pretty much the exact opposite: by being free it becomes 'free to suit the networks' and 'free to make it match network branding'.
That's not to say that Android is bad or otherwise technically lesser than BB or iOS, but I'm pretty certain that it's free availability was a huge factor in the uptake from multiple manufacturers.
Networks and handset manufacturers can use Android as a base and push whatever features they like without having an Apple or RIM complaining.
A major part of making it freely alterable is that the manufacturer/network can make it locked down to the end-user, even if Google doesn't mind people having root on their handset the networks hate it and the networks are the handset manufacturer's customers, not end-users.
I think that's why most comparisons to the desktop PC market break down for me: Dell and Apple's PC/Mac customers are almost always the end-user of their device (corporate sales excepted), so the driving force behind what goes into those products is very different. The network is the one paying the handset manufacturer, so phones are designed to meet the needs of the network.
Apple and RIM have done some good work to try and change this by taking ownership of the relationship with the end-user and reducing the network to a mere carrier of data. Android is pretty much the exact opposite: by being free it becomes 'free to suit the networks' and 'free to make it match network branding'.
That's not to say that Android is bad or otherwise technically lesser than BB or iOS, but I'm pretty certain that it's free availability was a huge factor in the uptake from multiple manufacturers.