The reasonably rational person would infer from my comparison of Apple's two high-end product offerings vs Nokia's balanced offering and my saying that the former leads to a more tenuous market position that the intent was clearly to advocate introducing a lower-end unit with a cheaper data plan (the analogue to the $999 macbook).
Well, for what it's worth, I inferred that what you were saying was that Apple, betting everything on a single, high end product was risky, and that if people decided to start focusing on value purchases, or Apple couldn't convince people that their brand/product was so much better, that they would have come crashing down.
No, they wouldn't, because you didn't say that. They would instead infer merely that you were suggesting Apple wouldn't remain in their position long, because that's all you said.
I think unalone has a point. My reading of your comment was along the lines of "With only 1 product (essentially), Apple is in a tenuous position because if the iPhone is unsuccessful or is beaten (by Android or whatever) then they're completely out of the market. Whereas if Nokia had 50% of their phones fail completely, they'd still have 60+ phones to enable them to compete in the market."
So if a handset manufacturer manages to build a better iPhone then suddenly Apple will sell no more iPhones? I don't think so. None of the handset manufacturers have the Apple ecosystem: App store, iTunes Store (video+music), nice desktop integration, OS X.
A phone with worse camera, less memory, slower processor, more expensive etc. than the rivals, from Apple I think could still outsell them, because of the Apple ecosystem. Oh wait... ;)
