Despite all the hooplah and endless praise, analysts still manage to under-credit Apple for the iPad. They do it by describing the iPad as a "tablet" PC, as if it somehow lives in the same category as all the tablet PCs that came before it.
In a physical sense, sure, it does and it is. But to consumers, it's not a tablet; it's an iPad. That's a crucial distinction. Consumers just weren't buying tablet PCs before the iPad came out. They didn't grok the tablet category, full stop. They didn't see a need for a PC-like device that wasn't a PC. Apple changed all of that. It breathed new life into a stillborn category by tearing down that category and reinventing it. That's a monumental accomplishment.
So, while it may be technically correct to lump all of the pre- and post-iPad tablets into one category, such analysis misses the spirit of the matter. And that's what Apple understands that its competitors do not. Apple doesn't market its products as part of existing categories; it markets them as categories unto themselves. An iPhone isn't a "smartphone;" it's an iPhone. An iPod isn't an "mp3 player;" it's an iPod. And so on and so forth. As for Apple's competitors? They see themselves in the "mp3 player" category, or the "smartphone" category, or the "tablet" category. They've lost the battle by misunderstanding the battlefield.
i agree with the concept of your post, but i think that the market can change. the iPad is definitely a market unto itself, and the iPhone used to be. but not anymore. the iPhone basically cracked the doors open to the smartphone market, and while it used to be the only real choice, it isn't anymore. plenty of normal people are buying android phones, because android phones have gotten good enough to compete with the iPhone on an even footing. in the same way, i have faith that mass-market tablets will eventually catch up to the iPad. it might be win8 instead of android that prompts this change, but apple will eventually have a competitor.
I think that's a fair critique, and I agree with your assessment over the long run. The iPad, like the iPhone, can't stay uniquely compelling forever. Sooner or later, the market moves toward saturation, and from there, commoditization. Even the most diehard fanboy, of which I fully confess to being, would be negligent in dismissing the Mac vs. Wintel Clones battles of the 80s and 90s.
In a physical sense, sure, it does and it is. But to consumers, it's not a tablet; it's an iPad. That's a crucial distinction. Consumers just weren't buying tablet PCs before the iPad came out. They didn't grok the tablet category, full stop. They didn't see a need for a PC-like device that wasn't a PC. Apple changed all of that. It breathed new life into a stillborn category by tearing down that category and reinventing it. That's a monumental accomplishment.
So, while it may be technically correct to lump all of the pre- and post-iPad tablets into one category, such analysis misses the spirit of the matter. And that's what Apple understands that its competitors do not. Apple doesn't market its products as part of existing categories; it markets them as categories unto themselves. An iPhone isn't a "smartphone;" it's an iPhone. An iPod isn't an "mp3 player;" it's an iPod. And so on and so forth. As for Apple's competitors? They see themselves in the "mp3 player" category, or the "smartphone" category, or the "tablet" category. They've lost the battle by misunderstanding the battlefield.