Apple's iPhone benefits from a learning pattern while its competitors (alternative platforms) are simply jockeying for temporary advantage.
The iPhone, in other words, displayed the same characteristic other breakthrough-products released by Apple (McIntosh, Apple-1, iPod, and yes iPad(s)); it harnessed perceived needs that were not defined.
This is consistent with the way Steve Jobs approach to product design (show them what they need). It also answers the question of why Apple seems to make incremental changes to its winning products. Once you have a winning formula (which helps with its product diffusion) why break it?
This also explains, in my opinion the success of Android and Samsung phones, all resembling the form factor, large touch screen trend set by Apple.
How about that? The competition is still catching up with Apple, in spite of their recent gains; and even though Apple is dominant the only way to loosen its grip is to have a phone the marks a new inflection point in the industry; by definition that means, according to Andy Grove, a 10X factor shake up in the industry. Apple's competitors have hardly come close to that.
Further, by signing up on the iPhone bandwagon Apple's competitors have relegated themselves to be followers for a long while; in which case persistence and deep cash reserves would help, but ultimately won't be enough
From the article:
It’s an interesting hypothesis. To be developed further we need to answer what any learnable advantage might be. I suspect it has to do with the ability to solve unmet and unarticulated needs. In other words, that the winning product solves a set of “jobs to be done” which are difficult to pin down and are perceived rather than defined.
