5:32PM Q: How do you view the iPad's competitors?
5:34PM A: Tim -- if you look at what's out there today, there's not much. There's the ones that use Windows, they're generally big and heavy and expensive. They have weak battery life, they require a keyboard or a stylus as an input device, customers are frankly just not interested in them. Then you have Android tablets, and the varieties that are out shipping today, their operating system wasn't designed for tablets. Google has said this, this isn't just Apple saying this. That means you have the size of a tablet that just isn't reasonable for what we call a 'real tablet experience.' That's just a scaled-up smartphone, which is a bizarre product category. If you do a side-by-side with an iPad, you'll pick an iPad.
5:53PM Q: Last call, Steve had a lot of comments around Android, some of its disadvantages. Any other comments you'd like to make?
5:56PM A: Tim -- [...] We firmly believe that our integrated approach is better than the fragmented approach. You can see this in a number of ways -- from the number of fragmented app stores with a variety of ways to pay, people will pull their hair out. Who's on the latest OS -- Android always lags ... In net we think our integrated approach is better, rather than making the end user a systems integrator. I don't know a lot of people who want to be systems integrators. And I think the same thing about iPad. It's the same set of issues, at the end of the day.