>Actually, they buy an iPad. Much like you buy a Mac (which is just an exceedingly well designed and built x86 PC). Yet, people don't go to Apple stores to buy a PC - they go there to buy a Mac.

So, in the future, some people will buy a Windows RT tablet. If they want an ARM device, they can buy an Android tablet(hopefully not boot locked like many Androidf tablet).

>And, as we all know, millions of Lemmings cannot be wrong.

I never said they are right. I just stated a fact when you implied that the OEMs can sell dual boot as a feature for a premium.

>Like Commodore, Atari and Apple never existed, because, of course, because computers started to become useful with the advent of MS-DOS

Why is it not clear that Dell and Compaq are different from Commodore, Atari and Apple?

From Compaq's Wiki entry:

In November 1982 Compaq announced their first product, the Compaq Portable, a portable IBM PC compatible personal computer. It was released in March 1983 at $2995, considerably more affordable than the Canadian Hyperion. The Compaq Portable was one of the progenitors of today's laptop; some called it a "suitcase computer" for its size and the look of its case. It was the second IBM PC compatible, being capable of running all software that would run on an IBM PC. It was a commercial success, selling 53,000 units in its first year and generating $111 million in sales revenue. The Compaq Portable was the first in the range of the Compaq Portable series. Compaq was able to market a legal IBM clone because IBM mostly used "off the shelf" parts for their PC. Furthermore, Microsoft had kept the right to license the operating system to other computer manufacturers. The only part which had to be duplicated was the BIOS, which Compaq did legally by using clean room reverse engineering at a cost of $1 million.[12][13][14] Phoenix Technologies would shortly follow their lead, but soon "clone BIOSes" were available from many other companies who reverse engineered IBM's design, then sold their version to the PC clone manufacturers.

What about Dell then?

Dell traces its origins to 1984, when Michael Dell created PCs Limited while a student at the University of Texas at Austin. The dorm-room headquartered company sold IBM PC-compatible computers built from stock components.[7] Dell dropped out of school in order to focus full-time on his fledgling business, after getting about $300,000 in expansion-capital from his family.

In 1985, the company produced the first computer of its own design, the "Turbo PC", which sold for US$795.[8] PCs Limited advertised its systems in national computer magazines for sale directly to consumers and custom assembled each ordered unit according to a selection of options. The company grossed more than $73 million in its first year of operation.

The company changed its name to "Dell Computer Corporation" in 1988 and began expanding globally. In June 1988, Dell's market capitalization grew by $30 million to $80 million from its June 22 initial public offering of 3.5 million shares at $8.50 a share.[9] In 1992, Fortune magazine included Dell Computer Corporation in its list of the world's 500 largest companies, making Michael Dell the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company ever.[10]

>In fact, the x86 PC (and Microsoft) would not exist in its present form if it weren't for Dell and Compaq and a host of other makers who built commodity hardware.

It's clear that there would be no Dell or Compaq without MS licensing DOS to them. I am not saying MS did it for charity(they did it as a strategy that worked superbly well), but to imply that Dell and Compaq shouldn't have let MS commoditize hardware is not correct either. They didn't ship hardware to do charity work for MS. They made huge profits doing so.

>It's possible to differentiate around Android

Like what? Install bloated skins and junkware that can't be uninstalled? Atleast most Windows junkware is uninstallable. See HTC, their customers have zero loyalty to them and switched to Samsung.

Which Android OEMs are differentiating with great software and beating their rivals? Why are they utterly failing at competing with the iPad?

> It's simple as that.

>If you could grasp the concept, you would have by now.

You mean the concept that people are so sick of the OEMs Android modifications that they're willing to pay a premium for stock Android and still the OEMs ship their crap unless it's a Google device? Sounds like the reverse of what you claim is true.