Not if you're comparing a Prius and an f350. They both do the same task of 'people moving' but have very different appeal and featuresets. Most people could get away with either, regardless of their situation. But there are edge cases where their differences shine.
Prius and F350 are specific models. Android and/or iOS can be on small phones, big phones, tablets, Televisions, etc... So I think the analogy is broader - Ford and Toyota.
If build quality is my main factor, than Ford is not a substitute for Toyota. If having a Hybrid SUV as big as the Highlander, Ford is not a substitute.
There are lots of reasons people want a Toyota, and Ford doesn't have all those things.
It is either a substitute or a complement as they both are in the automotive industry. A complement is like peanut butter and jelly -- buying both makes life that much better. Clearly this isn't the case here. So let's drop the misapplied definition for "substitute" and move on. Your point is better made by identifying perhaps unjustified cost increases in purchasing (i.e. Toyota unionizes and causes a 0.002% increase in the car price, analogous to the increased difficulty in communication these insurrectionists now have in communicating with their proto-terrorist cells).
