"Platform success"? Or marketing, sales, business management, capitalism success? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think it's an indication of platform success. Market share -- numbers of phones -- and the ability to retain market share (I'd like to see that number) would both be better indicators of platform success.
Now, I'm not either saying that Apple is a bad product -- I don't feel the need to badmouth the competition, like you do, Mr. Trash Talker. It's a good product. It's a very very good product. But it's also an expensive product. Let's not mince words. The have a very large overhead. I'm not going to compare them to Bose, because Bose is over-priced mediocre shit, whereas Apple is highly-priced good shit, but it's a similar strategy. And the converse of this, as you should know, is that expensive isn't necessarily better. Vetted better is better. Now, Apple is, indeed, vetted good. But better? Sorry, vetting still going on.
Nothing you argue is talking to the power/price ratio, which I think Android wins handily. Even if you could legitimately say that Apple was better -- which you can't, repeating yourself doesn't count, it's Goebbel's Law of Propaganda, "if you repeat something enough times, it becomes true" -- it's not four times better, but it's four times more expensive.