Before the iPod was on the market, I owned a Archos Jukebox with 20GB Harddisk. What do you want to tell me about the storage? That's not the point. Then the iPod came on the market, many MP3-players existed, with identical or even superior technical specs.

There are MP3 players (more like video players) with as much if not more space than my iPod 80 GB, but they're bulky, and heavy.
 I didn't buy an iPod because it was cool, but because it was the more convenient, despite Apple not supporting Linux.

 Besides, white is NOT the new black, shiny black is still the 'best' color, the one introduced later to increase sales. White is the 'introductory' color. Black iPod was introduced later, black DS Lite was introduced later, black Wii will be introduced later. Black PowerMac (or whatever the names) are more expensive than the white one, just because of the color. Perhaps this color costs more to make.

Erik Aston : reducing consumer electronics  and software to the 4 companies you cited is nonsense. These companies would not even be succesful or exist without several others you missed (IBM or Philips come to mind, without these two, the four wouldn't even exist).

It was the user experience mostly. The ease of integration with iTunes, the one-finger operability. With great marketing. The iconic white earbuds were the key piece of "marketing", if you can call them that. But they were a true viral marketing tool. I hate them; they hurt my ears, so I use some old headphones from a Sony Walkman.

iPod just recently passed the 100 million mark in sales... A number only reached by Sony Walkman, Game Boy, PS1 and PS2 among all consumer electronics brands. DS will "copy" iPod's success by reaching that 100 million mark in under 6 years, and though its early, I think Wii will too.

Thank god somebody understood my post. Sometimes I think it's pointless to discuss business strategy here. 

I almost added IBM to the list. But they've taken a different role in recent years. The 4 I listed are the ones that have been slugging it out with huge brands in many different arenas and in a very public way recently. So I guess, yes, I am guilty of just mentioning the obvious current players.

You could just as well add Motorola. Apple was almost certainly tipped off to the disruption possible in the cell phone world by Razr.

Regardless, the interplay between all those companies is fascinating. And those 4 in particular in the 90s and 00s.

One marked difference would be the price though. Nintendo has been the low-price guy at least since 2001, while Apple is always a premium brand.

Well, Apple is all over the spectrum. They are largely high-end, but work from that position to capture a huge market.

iPod attacked the low-end with the shuffle and nano as well as the high end. They captured the whole market. Having high-end and low-end MP3 players that work with the same software and same interface was a great move... People who love their 2G Nanos will upgrade to the 30G... People who use their 80G iPod as a USB harddrive buy a shuffle for jogging...

iPhone is obviously high-end, but don't be surprised if they work from that spot to a more low-end phone too. The cell phone market is so huge, though, and its the low end which has been tapped. iPhone can create the high-end cell phone market and own it right away, and given cell phone sales, thats going to be a pretty significant market.

Apple TV acts as a replacement for a stereo and a DVD player for an iPod owner or any iTunes user, and its starting just outside of the mainstream at (I believe this is correct) $250. That price will come down too, and make Apple TV a legitimate mainstream device. (Edit: It also would be an interesting entry point to the videogame market... All ready for digital distribution and cross-platform gaming.)

Mac computers are only going to gain ground as prices keep plunging. Developing great consumer-level media management and creation tools was a great move for Apple, as it puts them in position to get into more and more homes as prices fall. Microsoft has a stranglehold because schools and businesses can buy thousands of cheap PCs basically only used as word processors and maybe internet browsers. But people might be willing to shell out 3 times as much for the superior design and media center aspects of Macs for home use when PC prices are low enough.

The common thread between all these examples with DS and Wii is that they all aim to carve out a market which didn't previously exist. Nintendo figured these markets existed at or around traditionally established price points, while their competitors were raising prices due to expensive features and specs aimed to wow the existing audience. Apple has carved out mostly high-end markets, but still are clearly an influence on Iwata-era Nintendo.

Very true.

 On price: iPods are always more expensive than other players with comparable hardware inside. The Sandisk Sansas are $50 less then the iPod nanos. [Apple has been price leader in mid-range flash players for Christmas 2005 though, when they killed the iPod mini in a surprise move]. So iPods are higher margin than other players, and that's a similarity with Nintendo after all: The Wii is the only new system that is priced to make a profit right out of the gate.

Actually, PURPLE is the new black. Sony should have released a purple PS3, a la Gamecube.

WHY PURPLE, Nintendo? WHY?

p.s. I have a platinum GC, the coolest color by far

Why does the $399 iPod have more storage than a $599 PS3?

wrt topic, it's more based on Blue Ocean Strategy than Apple playbook