I see what you’re saying, and I would essentially rephrase it as Apple is remarkably good at producing highly polished products that are free of the limitations of the products that came before them. People liked MP3 players but they disliked the limited storage (even though there were a few hard-drive based systems before the iPod) and most MP3 players were odd-devices with awful user interfaces; and with smart-phones and PDAs most people’s complaints were that these devices had great potential but limited use because there was little/no software for them (and what was available was very expensive). The iPod and iPhone entered into markets where people saw great potential but were unimpressed with current offerings, satisfied most people’s desires and made the products really cool which drove strong sales.
In contrast, Apple TV was a product produced by Apple that didn’t seem to acknowledge how people look at video entertainment and because of that it limited its appeal. For the most part people have a Buy, Borrow, Rent, Watch or Record mindset when it comes to television and movies, and the only mindset that Apple really appeals to is the rental mindset; Buyers want a physical copy, Borrowers and Renters want it for a short period of time and the primary difference between the two is whether they’re willing to pay for the television/movie, Watchers and Recorders take what comes to them with little effort and the difference between the two is whether they adjust to the source or the source adjusts to them.
I don’t see an obvious product that the iPad is really trying to replace, which makes me wonder if it is going to be more of an iPod/iPhone or an Apple TV.
