Best Argument: No
Audience Favored: Yes (67%)
Why pay more
For a long time, these were the only games in town. Now competition -- primarily from Android -- has enabled us all to enjoy these great innovations without it causing too much pain in our wallets.
It's your money
I'm a big believer is allowing people to spend their money the way they see fit. Just because I prefer tea to coffee doesn't mean coffee isn't right for you, and just because I prefer iOS doesn't mean that Android or Windows Phone or some other lesser-known operating system isn't better for you.
Pick what works for you.
One-size-fits-all is rarely the answer, and this is doubly so in the case of tech. People put their tech to a variety of uses, and have different wants and needs. Some are home users, other commercial or enterprise, and thanks to the growth of BYOD, smartphones and tablets have to adopt multiple personas.
Bottom line, if whatever you spend you money on works for you then that's cool. And whether that's an iPhone, and iPad, or something completely different, it doesn't make you a sucker.
It's the market value
This debate was highly subjective and middle ground was highly unlikely. That's what made it fun. I'm a firm believer of free markets. If someone is willing to pay for something then that's the market value. Matt Baxter-Reynolds did nothing to sway that view. At last check, Apple customers were pretty damn happy. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes had the easier argument and delivered it well. He gets the win.