According to the article, the Android smartphone business has become increasingly commoditized — i.e., "phones is phones" and aside from looking for a larger vs smaller phone, there's not a lot to distinguish competitors. Being a major name like, oh, Samsung doesn't matter as much (indeed, the push toward non-skinned Android phones makes the manufacturer even less meaningful).
There are areas where the actual handset manufacturer does or could make a difference, but those areas are shrinking, esp. as budget Android models thrive.
In a sense, this is akin to what's happened to PCs. Yeah, you may have a "favorite" brand, but most are less concerned with the manufacturer than with the specs and (especially) the price, and in the process a lot of manufacturers have simply gone out of business. Companies care about HP vs Lenovo vs Dell, largely because the support costs decrease (and purchasing leverage increases) with a company standard, but the average home PC purchaser cares less and less as long as the thing turns on and runs the game / app they want.
I can see arguments over whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is, basically, a thing.
The exception in all of this — PC and mobile — is Apple, because they've kept a lock on who can carry their particular operating system, and have managed to stay at the front of the pack in terms of styling and cachet. You can't buy a generic Mac or iPhone, and both are nice enough (and different enough from their competitors) that people are willing to continue buying them for now. But just as Macs are something of a niche product, I expect iOS mobiles to become that way, too, over time.
Samsung’s Future Is Bleak Because Phones Themselves No Longer Matter | WIRED
Samsung leads the world in smartphone market share, and at a time of ascendant mobile computing, that seems like a great place to be. So why does the future look so glum for the South Korean hardware giant?
