OT:
I don't want to clutter the thread with too much rambling about apple, but I do think you're being a bit obtuse in regards to this topic.
Yes, you may have a Rio MP3 player, and Sony may still make an MP3 player, but really? iPod is now synonymous with MP3 player... people don't ask if you have an MP3 player, they ask if you have an iPod. And if it was mostly marketing, then Apple would have been sunk 6 months after releasing the first iPod* because, as you state, neither was it first on the market, nor was it cheap in any way was extremely expensive ($400).
I think you're confusing the establishment of a market with real innovation and exploitation of the market.
Re the iPad: "provides nothing new and actually does a lot less than what they can do on their phone and laptop."
This encapsulates what Jobs understood about technology and what tech nerds (I'm one) didn't at first. People don't care if a product *can* do more or less than another; people care if the product does the things they want while doing it well. Jobs took the hardware discussion away from processors and ram to an all-in-one consideration of form and function. There is a reason why the tablet competitors still trail the iPad... the majority of customers don't care if the tablet has a better or worse processor, but rather they care if the UI is smooth, intuitive, consistent, functional.
And yes, you may have had a smartphone starting 10 years ago (and perhaps earlier). But take the latest smartphone offering from that manufacturer who made your first smartphone and compare it to the iPhone 4S today. Which one wins?
* This does happen. See RIM and the Playbook for one example.
