I think his argument can be fairly summarized as - (1) The tablet platform war is like the smartphone platform war. (2) In the smartphone platform war, Google

I think his argument can be fairly summarized as - (1) The tablet platform war is like the smartphone platform war. (2) In the smartphone platform war, Google has more marketshare than Apple because their operating system is on a greater variety of devices. Both premises are invalid in that they naively omit the central role that carriers and subsidies play. In the phone world, Apple is playing a complex game where they squeeze as much money as possible from carriers. The iPhone isn't even available to millions of customers on dozens of large global carriers and is almost always (sometimes hidden by subsidies) much more expensive than a comparable Android device. The tablet market may be much more like the mp3 market, where Apple was more sensitive to competitive pricing (they lowered pricing year after year), enabling them to maintain an overwhelming lead in market share which they leveraged to corner the market on many critical components.