Yes... the "geeks/techies" he talks about are the normal people. As opposed to the "if its purpose is something I want, and it's expensive enough, it can't real

Yes... the "geeks/techies" he talks about are the normal people. As opposed to the "if its purpose is something I want, and it's expensive enough, it can't really suck" crowd that Apple is able to tap into. The second group of people would have significant reservations to buy a copycat design if they can afford the original. The first group is concerned about bang for the buck. And they only know how to measure "bang" in terms of numbers - because, among nondescript gray boxes (or small packets of shiny black) that all run similar software, those numbers are all you can easily find out. Care to see how good the camera is? Either take a standardized benchmark to try out in controlled lighting conditions, or ask for the numbers. Do you want to know how well the microphone does? Either take your oscilloscope with you, have very good hearing, or ... well, people are not eagerly asking for numbers, they just assume that the microphone is always good enough for talking and not good enough for serious music recording. Apple can work towards their targeted pricepoint by selecting which features/experiences to include such that the product as a whole is a pleasant experience. (Even though, among the "experience" crowd, no one would go for the quality of earphones that the iPod comes with, if they were to shop for new ones). The "commodity" people have a given feature set (the industry standard) and a pricepoint (or even worse, compete based on price) and all they can do to preserve their margins is squeeze hard.