"You are the company that names your beta builds after candy, ice cream, and sugared cereals. Apple names their betas after things that will eat your things alo

"You are the company that names your beta builds after candy, ice cream, and sugared cereals. Apple names their betas after things that will eat your things along with the tasty human wrapper that eats that crap. Do you honestly think anyone can take you seriously?" Funny, because Android has 20% of the market. (http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/12/android-tablets-peel-away-20-of-ipads-mega-market-share/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/12/android-tablets-peel-away-...) And that's without having a compelling price point. Right now a rooted Nook is the only value product point out there in Android, and Google still has a 20% OS share. When somebody inevitably figures out how to pump out an equivalently featured tablet at the sub $200 range, volume market shares will change dramatically. This does not, of course, mean that the iPad will not continue to earn the vast majority of the market's profits. But that's a different story... As to the main thrust of the argument, I think that disruptive innovation from Apple's competitors will continue to be exceptionally rare (rather than the norm, as it is at Apple) as long as product development is feature driven rather than UX driven. Please correct me if you think there are other structural factors in play.