People miss the point regrading the Apple revolutions. Apple do not bring new hardware to the market, they bring complete solutions. I had many conversations with people when the iPhone came out regarding the idea that Apple had no idea what it was doing in the market: the argument (even from Nokia) was that Apple was new. My argument was that the lack of adoption of n technology in the smartphone space was a software issue, not a hardware one and that Apple had been in that game longer than most.
I hate to say it, but I was right. Other smartphone manufacturers only showed signs of surviving against Apple when someone else provided the software. RIM and Nokia did not embrace that new software and they are failing.
So the question is, did Google innovate or did Eric choose to start the project based on what he thought was a threat he saw coming in from Apple? Let's not forget that he was on the board at Apple at the time and would have been privy to the project. I am not saying that he copied specific ideas, but was the project concept as a whole? Nobody discusses this point much.
So who will win? Both. There is room in this market for both.
PS as for the tablet comment: it made me laugh. Again you see the old tablets as being different to the new. You miss the point: some old style tablets sold because people with money were trying the experiment, knowing that they wanted something like the device they we buying, but not understanding how they would use it. It took Apple to define that piece of hardware and software and now people are buying the in their millions. You miss the whole point about what Apple does and why it succeeds. So do most of the anti-apple posters here: you all seem so pent up and determined to prove that we are all mindless sheep with little intellect and valid opinion of our own that you forget to see what is clear before you. If you were phones I would brand you all Nokias. ;-)