> And only having this level of power for a decade? Again, why is that important, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Frankly it’s been much less t

> And only having this level of power for a decade? Again, why is that important, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Frankly it’s been much less than a decade. Apple (for one) was far less dominant a decade ago, indeed many people were still declaring them to be doomed. What this means is that we may well be looking at a transient phenomenon. You simply do not know how stable this ‘power’ is. If they had been entrenched for a few decades, the case might be stronger. Consider how long it took for Apple to develop their iPhone business. Years of theorizing, followed by 5 years of serious R&D work before it was even released, then more than a decade of growth before reaching a market penetration of less than 20% globally. Why would you expect a competitor to take any less time than that to unseat them? If we use Apple themselves as the model, we’d expect a competitor to be a product that is two years away release today, and 12 years away from being taken seriously as a threat. Consider that in 2005 during the rise of the iPod, most consumer electronics manufacturers considered Microsoft to be the dominant force in their space, and ‘does it work with windows’, was what they thought mattered. The cloud was barely relevant, and Apple, was still considered a boutique vendor. Apple is now a ship whose direction is slow to change, and they are ripe for disruption. This all applies to the others equally. FB in particular already shows obviously signs of losing dominance. > Apple, I dunno, I don't know much about how they got to the position they're in. If you don’t know how they got into the position they are in, how do you know how stable it is, or how vulnerable they are to competition? I.e. how can you analyze their business?