Ugh. More of this "Apple versus cheap low end devices" nonsense that has never been true and never will be true. It is a rant about the monoculture that existed when Microsoft was at its peak, but it ignores two things:
1. Corporate managers and workers aren't stupid. If the Wintel "cheap low end devices" were incapable of reliably doing the heavyweight task-intensive work in corporate America (not just word processing but programming, CAD/CAM and lots of other heavy duty stuff) they never would have adopted it wholesale and stuck with it to this day.
2. The reason why Apple never really made a dent into the corporate market was that until recently it wasn't suited for it. Even the companies that were willing and able to pay the premium for Apple products found it unsuitable for most corporate tasks. This isn't the case now, but it was certainly the case in the 1990s and the 2000s. Work was either done on Windows machines, or if Windows machines were unsuitable, on workstations running some flavor of UNIX (Linux wasn't much of a player back then because Fedora and Ubuntu weren't out yet, so it was more likely to be Sun Solaris, HP-UX or something like that). The only people using Apple machines for work were using it for things like desktop publishing, animation, graphic arts, music etc. not business, programming, tech etc. because at the time the Windows machines - and the UNIX workstations - were better at it. It was not due to the Apple hardware, of course, but back then the Apple interface was difficult to work with (the ability to customize Windows and MS-DOS and UNIX was necessary for work back then) and there was a real lack of software tools to do work available because most of the software development was for Windows.
3. The dichotomy between the "great Apple machines and the $500 Windows machines" NEVER EXISTED. The cheap Wintel machines with the slow CPUs, barely adequate RAM and tiny disk drives were only bought by home users for playing games and word processing (usually with the free Microsoft Works, not Word.) Corporate users always bought good machines with hardware that was at least ballpark with Apple machines. A corporate Windows machine today likely has 4-8 GB of RAM, a 500 GB hard drive, and an I-5 Intel processor running at about 2.8 GHz. In other words, similar to the specs that those MacBooks that the side panel of this site is advertising. The difference is that you can get a $1000 Toshiba or HP machine for that very capable hardware instead of having to pay $1800. If anything, Windows is holding the hardware manufacturers back these days. It was certainly the case with Windows Vista, and is also the case with Windows 8.
4. Likewise, the $50 tablets that you are showing is nonsense. Samsung's enterprise tablet, 12.2 inches, great specs and capabilities and $750 price, goes unmentioned here. Why? It doesn't fit the "low end Android with bad hardware" agenda. Neither does the many $200-$350 tablets that are much more capable than 600 MHz kids toys. So "The result is a commodity market where all you can buy is junk, and any efforts to compete with better products are undermined by price dumping that effectively destroys innovation" never has been true and never will be true. It is just garbage to make people who make the CHOICE to spend $800 more on a PC or $100-$150 more on a tablet or phone feel better about themselves. You want to feel better about buying a $500 I-Pad instead of a $350 Android device, so you tell yourself that the only Android products are either Samsung copyright infringements (when Apple isn't even challenging the newer Samsung models, just the older ones) or garbage. Look, I don't know why people aren't buying the Google Nexus, the HP Slate or the other quality tablets, but there is no denying that they are capable tablets with hardware comparable to the older I-Pad models.
5. Proof of this? That Microsoft is making Office for the Android AT ALL. Had Microsoft come out and said that they were only going to do Office for the I-Pad, THEN you would be able to claim that Android is unviable because the hardware on the Android devices that actually sell is incapable, and the Android devices that have capable hardware do not sell. But that is not the case at all. Instead, Microsoft merely released Office for I-Pad FIRST and will come out with it for Android LATER THIS YEAR. Why? Because they know that it will make money. As Microsoft does have these internal sales figures, they know that enough mid-range ($200-$350) and high end (pricing comparable to Microsoft) Android devices sell to justify the not-too-insignificant cost of developing and maintaining Office for the Android platform while undercutting their own.
6. More still: the Android platform is about to go through a major "next phase", of which Microsoft is fully aware. In 2015, Google is ending the Nexus brand, which Google was primarily using as a "demo" for other Android OEMs to follow. In other words, it was used to "introduce" the product. The introductory phase is over. In 2015, Google is going to discontinue their Nexus line in favor of their just-launched Google Play tablets (and phones). They are also going to start taking tighter control over Android itself (making it less "open") including coming up with a superior update process. That is going to make the platform more viable for those who have a bigger interest in it than as a child's toy. It will have to be in order for Google to continue to compete with Microsoft. That's right. Microsoft is wounded but by no means dead. Android tablets aren't competing with Apple tablets or (giggle, giggle) Windows tablets, but with Windows PCs. So people aren't choosing between a Galaxy/Nexus and an I-Pad. They are deciding between an Android tablet (or a Chromebook) and a low end Windows PC. For that to continue - especially now that Windows is fighting back by practically giving away Windows 8 to low end OEMs to keep the cost competitive with Chromebooks as their "Scroogled" campaign was a total failure (great idea Ballmer!) - Android is going to have to be as good as or better than the low end Windows PCs that still to this very day dominate the consumer PC market (fewer such PCs are selling, but of the ones that do sell, 7 out of 10 of them run Windows 7 or Windows 8).
Again, stuff like this is just propaganda to make Apple consumers feel better about themselves. It is not reality. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't bother with Office for Android at all. They WOULD NOT give anyone a reason to spend $300 on a quality Galaxy or upcoming Google Play tablet instead of a low end second Windows laptop that people are going to carry to meetings and whatnot while their primary device - be it a Windows PC or MacBook - remains tethered to their desk, but that is EXACTLY what they are doing.