I don't understand your point at all ...

You're claim is something similar to saying that "Since Windows runs poorly on a $250 netbook, and Mac OS runs really well on a $2500 Macbook Pro, Windows is a bad operating system while Mac OS is fantastic"

Now, I'm of the opinion that an operating system being able to scale down to low powered hardware is important because 3 years from now the phone I bought today will be low powered compared to the recently released hardware. I haven't seen how Android devices run on newer operating systems, but I have seen what happens to old iPhones when updated to the latest versions of ios and what you get isn't exactly "fast".

Android is not the problem here, it's the phone manufacturers that make crappy devices, and cheap (uneducated) consumers who buy a low end device and then act surprised when it behaves like a low end device. This is similar to Windows, if you buy a $300 laptop from Walmart, it's going to run like ass, especially compared to a $900 ultrabook from Best Buy, this doesn't mean Windows is the problem in that case, your crappy device is. Android 4.1 runs like a dream on my Samsung GSIII, and I'd put it up against an iPhone 5 any day of the week. To be clear, ANDROID IS SOFTWARE, YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT HARDARE HERE, on top of all that, your garbage Android phone is probably running a horribly outdated version of Android, again, not Google's fault. This would be like comparing the original iPhone (slow garbage with old software) to the Samsung GSIII (brand new high-end device), not even close to a fair comparison.

EDIT: I would agree with you about the Lumia 710, runs great even on cheap hardware. This is because the WP7 OS was designed and optimized specifically to run on cheaper hardware, while Android is more demanding and requires faster hardware to run. This does not make Android bad, they're just different. Android is great on high-end devices, WP7 or 8 is great on any device (mainly due to Microsoft's tight control on hardware specs). I have a GSIII provided by my job, and a Lumia 710 that is for my personal use, both are awesome.

When was Google Android ever about business?

yeah thats why samsung sold more than 30mil units of their Galaxy 3 already... stop talking BS

also for the people that dont pay 600.. Im one of them Im good with my 150bucks phone. you know why? because I use my money for things I really care about. so would you kindly shut up

You have a shitty phone, my S3 works just fine and so did my Atrix 4G, as a matter of fact, I moved from iOS to Android and I'm never going back since it hasn't been the best since 3GS.

As a former IT manager, I can state that dealing with Android devices was a ****ing headache. Too many variables and time spent doing simple tasks because everyone's phone operates differently. I can only imagine what it would be like if I had to set up the phones to do more complex tasks like VPNing or more complex internal data management.

In short, this isn't the least bit surprising. I've always said that Google's biggest mistake was not unifying their operating system. Down with skins, down with carrier and manufacturer specific customization. It's just a bad idea.

I run the IT consulting division of a small company. If one of the companies we work with want to use Android, we usually settle on a known 'good' phone, then deploy the same phone to everybody (for example, we just had one company decide to go with the GSIII). We also have some companies that are iPhone only (don't get me started on the massive headache that every iOS upgrade gives me, their update process is garbage), or have a list of approved phones, such as iPhone and a small number of current Samsung devices. We're starting to push the new Windows phones since they're going to integrate very well with existing Microsoft products. Policies and standardization within a company regarding  smartphones gets rid of much of headache.

From this article, I only see it is good news for Apple. MS still has a long way to go....

I don't think Google or handset makers have done a good job of selling the Android phone ecosystem to business. When in fact it's easier customisability actually makes it a better option. And I think the other thing the article points out is that execs want the shiniest toy, which is iPhone.

My organisation has only approved iPhones for staff use, if staff pay for the phone themselves. Otherqwise the stock smartphone is the Blackberry. Naturally I stuck with the Blackberry because I'm one of the dying breed who doesn't like touch screen only phones. I don't know what I'm going to do when my Milestone gives up the ghost. Slider QWERTYs are the shizz as far as I'm concerned.

That's the only way to do it with Android (and mobile in general, really). The problem with my old company is that they were cheap bastards and didn't pay for ANY phones so employees would haul in whatever piece of shit they found on the street for $5 and expect me to make it work properly.

Still, I think Google allowing manufacturers to skin Android is a huge mistake. It destroys any semblance of a consistent UIX. Which means that people would bring in phones and say "I can't get this to work" and even though I owned an Android phone, it would take me far too long to figure out their problem even though I owned a phone with the same OS.