You point to a page which starts talking about smartphones as if they were melons, but in this case you are not talking about melons. Overall the article shows a serious lack of knowlege about the industry. These are smartphones and they work differently. In the case of smartphones, market share really is winning and you should remenber that that is exactly what kept Nokia dominant in the market from around 2000 to 2012 even as their technology lead was quite dubious. So far in the industry, market share dominance has only been lost not won; In Motorola's case by failing to transfer to digital. In Ericsson's case by failing to secure their logistics supplies against disaster. In Nokia's case basically by suicide. Apple doesn't count since they never actually achieved dominance; their situation is closer to that of HTC, Sony-Ericsson or Motorola recently which fought hard, came close, but could never defeat a bigger opponent.
The main point is simply the scale effect. There are a huge number of costs in the smartphone market which are fixed. These are, for example, development of hardware and underlying software. Some of these, such as making a new device driver for a camera, have to be done once per model of phone. Some of these, such as adding a bluetooth device driver, or improving the user interface, have to be done once for the entire OS type. Since these costs are spread across all Android users, that reduces the cost of the phone massively which means that the manufacturer can sell it cheaper whilst at the same time making more profit. Note that Samsung made a huge profit on Android phones.
Android manufacturers, like the PC market around 2000, are somewhat fragmented and use a number of different processor and technology vendors. At small scale that could be a problem since they have to go individually and negotiate prices. However, the Android market some time ago went beyond this to the stage that there are many different competing suppliers. This means that the producer of an Android phone could just sit there making small design changes and adding new technologies as they are delivered by the suppliers. Their phone would still improve as fast as the competitors using other systems.
The final most important point is that, Android just has become the standard software platform. If you are a big company and you want to reach 60% of your customers with a new App, in most countries you can simply produce an Android application and you will get there. All other platforms, even iOS, will just be a small incremental change that frankly isn't worth it until you know exactly how successful your app will be. Android just is, now, the standard platform to start on. New App development will be done there and so all other platforms will lag behind.
The biggest weakness of market dominance would be if, like Apple, the Android manufacturers became lazy and stopped improving now that they are dominant. Samsung might sit there doing nothing for a year or two, just producing an S5 slightly upgraded from the S4 and raking in the profits. However, that's the great thing about Android being multi-sources. Since HTC stopped concentrating on Windows phones and went back to Android seriously, there's a real alternative to Samsung. With Motorola actually looking like they might comeback, there's another alternative. All this means that, even with market dominance from Android, there will likely be more advances.
This is a bit sad in a way. Android is not the best mobile system ever (that goes to Nokia's old Maemo/Meego on the Nokia N9) I think that the system which challenges Android in future will have to be Android compatible.