Re: Android didn't get to number one by people not standing it
That's baloney...Android is flexible and powerful but as pointed out by Andrew, it needs quality hardware to run well. Ever used a HTC Wildfire or a Samsung Galaxy Ace? I have, and they are frankly shit. The people who buy these handsets buy them because, as Andrew again pointed out in his article, Android is a known, safe choice. They have heard friends/relatives/coworkers mention Android, the salesperson in the shop bleats on about Android so they buy the crappy Ace/Wildfire/etc because as far as they know it's the best thing they can get for £15 - £20 a month. If they had the money/wanted to spend the money they would buy an iPhone because that is the aspirational handset to have.
The people buying these handsets are not "very attached to Android indeed" either...anyone who actually knows much about Android and has a keen interest in tech is going to be in the more expensive end of the shop and wouldn't touch the low-end models with a barge pole.
Unfortunately people like you assume that because something is common and sells a lot then it must therefore be the item that the customer most wanted out of all the items available - don't let ownership figures confuse you. Look at all the shit underpowered laptops/netbooks that were sold a few years ago to families that picked them up with their weekly shop from Tescos...does that mean that they all very attached to Windows indeed? How about Ford Focuses (or is that Foci?)...do you think Focus drivers are very attached to Ford indeed?
The crying shame for Nokia is that their low-end WP devices run extremely well - little to no lag, reasonable screen res (well, better than the aforementioned Android handsets anyway) and would probably be a much better fit for these £15-£20/month consumers, who just want a reliable, smooth experience with a few games to play and a browser. However the sales people don't want to push WP and people aren't talking about WP so it will never reach middle mass at this rate.