I wouldn't say that - I have no doubt that Android is very high quality spyware. If you don't mind Google knowing everything about you and selling your soul to advertisers, then Android is for you.
As for myself, I plan on staying as far away from Google's evil as I can.
Back to the topic of the article, I don't get the Nexus hype. The Nexus is only 1.12x to 1.2x faster in CPU tasks, which nobody will even be able to notice without running some type of spec diagnostic on it, yet the 4S is 2.5x to 2.7x faster in GPU tasks, which should be extremely noticeable.
The peculiar thing about the CPU benchmarks is that they are both based on dual core ARM Corete-A9, but the Nexus operates at 1.5x the clock rate of the 4S yet achieves only 1.12x to 1.2x the performance (according to these specs). If true, something else in the Nexus hardware or in Android is really dogging it down. Given the dramatically higher clock rate of the Nexus, one would expect it to have noticeably shorter battery life. (But of course the 4S has some yet-to-be-overcome battery issues of its own that may negate its efficiency advantage.)
Given that the A5 in the iPad2 has 1.25x the clock rate of the 4S and given the commensurate GPU performance advantage over the 4S as shown, I wonder what its CPU numbers would look like compared to the 4S & Nexus? I rather suspect it would be on par even though the Nexus still has 1.2x the clock rate of the iPad. All the more remarkable given that the Nexus has 2x the RAM of the iPhone & the iPad.
More to come I'm sure, but taken at face value this spec report does not look like an endorsement of either the Galaxy Nexus or the OMAP 4460 powering it. Given the strong similarities in the hardware other than the clock rates, RAM, & GPU architectures, I'm inclined to think this indicates that Android is much less efficient than iOS.
At least as far as user performance is concerned. I'm quite confident that Android is the more efficient spyware for its masters.
In all fairness to Galaxy Nexus, Google smartphones aren't designed for (near) console-quality gaming. Apparently, Google App Market doesn't offer any games rivaling Call of Duty, Galaxy on Fire 2 HD, Infinity Blade, Real Racing 2 or any of the other high quality games on the iTunes App Store.
In fact, as far as I can discern from Android proponents, Android is primarily designed for "customization" and "connectivity." Beyond occasionally reading email, I don't see Android users actually using their smartphones. I have heard a few say that customization is outstanding but they became bored with that quickly and many wanted a real smartphone soon after. I find it interesting that anyone needs to connect their Android smartphone to anything with HDMI or USB considering they don't have anything on the smartphone to share with few exceptions. Of course, while they are fumbling with wires, I just connect wirelessly like others living in 2011.
These results are quite intriguing since the primary benefit (to the community) of open source software, which Google claims Android to be, is software quality. Given the issues with Android, the software may well be better off not being "open source." I fail to understand how "open source" software on hardware with 200% the RAM and 150% of the clock speed but marginally better performance can be considered "quality."