As it happens, nobody that I know personally cares about turn-by-turn navigation at all. I probably use that capability twice a year just for shits and giggles. A marginally better turn-by-turn implementation would have no impact for me or anyone I know, but that's because there's nothing terribly complex about navigating around my region.
It also happens that the display resolution on the latest iPhone was a major selling point for me, as I end up doing a lot of reading on my phone for the simple fact that I read a lot and it's always with me when I have those random, spare minutes throughout the day where I have nothing else to do but kill time. I just want the internet in my pocket, and not to strain my eyes.
I suspect I'm not alone in my priorities. Did you really not suspect that there are people out there who are dissimilar from you?
I guess you're saying that the article suffers from selection bias? Maybe.
But then you go on to state that "nobodody that I know" ... which is just the same kind of selection filter.
There are well over 50 million Garmin style GPS units in the market offering turn-by-turn navigation. While you may not have a need for them, they are providing widely adopted functionality, and since Android is the first mobile platform doing this, it is potentially disruptive.
Is the higher resolution display of the iPhone 4 disruptive, or an enhancement?
For example: I said that Android's turn-by-turn navigation will lower the chances of you getting lost on the way to the airport.
Or that the pictures and videos you take on an iPhone will look better.
What I'm trying to get at is that a lot of these reviews (like Gruber's) focus on irrelevant or marginally relevant issues for real users.
It's great that the iPhone 4 has a hi-res display, but what is the impact?