I am curious about this because of the recent comparison between the iPod market share and what can happen to the iPad.
For reference, here's an article by David Heinemeier Hansson about it: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1397-why-an-ipod-killer-will-never-kill-the-ipod
In short, DHH talks about the three things a competitor needed to do in order to beat the iPod:
- superior industrial design
- iTunes-beating catalogue of content
- better desktop experience than iTunes.
This got me thinking. The iPod was overpriced when compared to the alternatives and did pretty much only one thing: play music. Even with only one task, the competitors took a lot of time to actually beat it experience-wise (and that's if we are optimist enough to consider the Zune a better experience).
Fast forward to the iPad, it does a lot of things so it's even harder for the other companies to beat it.
So why did the iPod win its battle? And does it make sense to compare the two markets?
Though usability had a significant affect on the initial strength of the iPod, I believe it was Apple's HUGE marketing effort the created exponential growth.
I see the same thing in the current market. As Apple is selling both hardware and software, and taking all the profits, they invest heavily in marketing and create a single consistent message. If we compare that to Android, who is responsible for marketing? The hardware manufacturers are doing most of the marketing, which creates a fragmented message re: Android, as each maker is trying to sell their hardware. People can only absorb so many messages, and I think it gets confusing for people.
I think comparing the two markets is a bit simplistic. Due to the app ecosystem, and a stronger demand in OS capabilities, I think this will be a different market. But Apple's strength in marketing and current 'darling' status should be considered in any market comparison. The market gives Apple a halo, and Apple has been exceptionally good at keeping it polished.