Limited distribution? I bought my Nexus 7 on Amazon. There was no shortage of them and they were easy to buy, and cheap, which is why I chose it. Agreed on the promotional issue, but it's not as if they were unknown, niche items.
OK - enough avoiding the technical issue. The discussion started with the question of whether the iPhone battery would be damaged (i.e. shortened life) by charging with the (higher current) iPad charger relative to the iPhone charger. The answer is no, but not because the iPhone battery life is unaffected by charging current - it is because the iPhone's internal charging circuit limits the current during the CC charging phase. The iPhone charger was designed to supply...
That is certainly the message that Google would like to project, but I'm not sure that it holds up to scrutiny. So we have a pure Android, testbed device intended to showcase the platform and its capabilities. Presumably, to that extent, they fulfilled their purpose. But, sales were not production limited, and the resulting sales were much lower than the iPad. So - again - what should we conclude?
That explanation may be correct, but does it fundamentally change anything except, perhaps in the most generous sense, to say that it should not even be included in the comparison. If they never intended it to be a commercial success and it still failed to compete significantly with the iPad, what should we conclude?
Also - the iPad essentially created a market where none, of any significance, existed before. So it is inevitable that after satisfying that market with first-time sales, subsequent sales would slow down to a sustainable upgrade rate. The proliferation of cheap, subsidized tablets from other manufacturers undoubtedly took some sales, but there is really nothing that Apple can, or probably should, do to combat market demand for low-performance, low-cost devices.
You should probably take some time to read the posts before responding. I haven't made any contentions or assertions - my only post in this thread was the one you are replying to, and I posted only because I was unimpressed with the almost complete lack of substance in your hectoring responses to others. It's not even that your position is wrong - it's more that you appear totally unable to defend it.
The security/intelligence branches of all governments tend to focus on what they can do, often with fundamentally good intentions, rather than on what they should do. Remember that they are tasked with keeping their countries secure, and they get the blame when something happens. It doesn't surprise me that their priorities end up looking skewed.