When the first netbooks came out at lower price points it was due in part to a severely reduced Windows XP licensing fee, which Microsoft was using to assert its domination as the OS of choice on mobile devices over Linux. [1] The cost of netbooks has since risen as licensing fees have been restored with the introduction of Windows 7. In addition, margins on netbooks are razor thin, judged to be about 5%, in contrast to the typical standard of 10% to 15% (on a higher cost devices, mind you). [2] It’s just difficult to see this form factor being sustainable in the long term without creative cost cutting, likely to be at the consumer’s expense since customer services is always the first feature put on the chopping block.

I know none of this is really of the general consumers concern. Certainly we do not owe a hardware manufacturer or software developer our loyalty just for the sake of their prosperity. At the same time, Apple doesn’t owe us anything either. They will continue to create products on their own terms and the free market will dictate whether they can continue to thrive off this “selfish” philosophy.

Lastly, music players and smart phones existed well before Apple introduced the iPod and iPhone. This remains true with the iPad. Tablet computers have come and gone (Apple Newton, numerous Windows-based hybrid laptop/tablet devices), but what the iPad exists to offer is to seamlessly integrate hardware and software in a way no other company appears capable of executing. Any single isolated aspect of the iPad may be inferior to its competition but it’s the complete package that will set this product apart from wannabe devices.

[1] http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/04/19/ms.asks.15.for.xp.netbooks/
[2] http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/technology/cheap-netbooks-bad-for-business/

The ability to carry over 140k applications is no small feet. Perhaps I should have emphasized it more.

Secondly, I was merely trying to argue that Steve should not have come out and bashed Netbooks altogether. They serve a purpose; though it may not be to run Adobe Suite. You can survive on a Netbook alone. Keyword: survive.

At $499 I was blown away. I just feel like the event was a let down for a lot of people. I have been scouring forums at regular intervals. The general consensus is that the iPad is “wicked”, “cool”, “I want it now!” device.

The hype surrounding the keynote (not Apple’s fault) made some of us believe that the tablet would do wonders man couldn’t perceive yet (iPhone-2007, iPod-2001). Also, I was venting frustration for lack of evidence for new MBP line-up and the bad luck I’ve had with the 27″ iMacs recently (AND lack of acknowledgment from Apple), without even realizing it.

I have to strongly disagree with your take on this device.

Firstly, the iPhone OS is a stripped down version of OSX – one which is already optimized for touch navigation. Why add a third OS in between what Apple has already established that dilutes software developer’s resources, introduces device-connectivity obstacles, and generally fails to leverage the iPhone ecosystem Apple has already managed to establish?

The ability for immediate carry-over of nearly 150,000 applications itself cannot be discounted. It can be argued that the insurmountable lead Apple has created with regards to the number of applications available for the iPhone OS platform is the sole reason why the iPhone can continue to fend off competitors with its seemingly inferior hardware (closed OS; low resolution screen; integrated battery; non-OLED display; inferior camera; slower processor). Sure, “porting” Apps designed for the small iPhone interface cannot be considered an effective long-term development solution. It will, however, give the iPad a boost in the critical first stages of its life and help further differentiate it over all the “slate” devices unveiled at this year’s CES, if they ever manage to see the light of day.

Secondly, your comparison of the iPad to a netbook is unfair. Netbooks are seemingly full-featured, but what’s the reality? Sure, I could install Photoshop CS4 on a netbook but what good will that do me when then the screen is far too small and the processor far to slow to do anything but the most basic photo editing? Why is it necessary that I duplicate my primary computer’s functionality with a device that’s obviously designed for convenience and mobility? Much like the iPad, netbooks are companion devices. I fail to see how anyone could be satisfied with the functionality of a netbook as a sole means of computing, regardless of its openness and hack ability, and not strongly consider the iPad as suitable alternative.

Thirdly, I think you overestimate the importance of so-called “fan boys” in the market. They are a vocal and loyal bunch but far too small to carry a product to any kind of success. If fan boys were the only ones supporting the risky Wii console we’d probably be looking at a severely downsized Nintendo at this point, akin to what Sega became. Although Apple can do wrong (they’ve had a few flops), their track record is pretty solid lately and they now have the industry clout needed to push a device to likely prosperity.

The market for the iPad will be people looking for a travel device, those who only require the most basic computing needs (like my parents), and those who see this as more of a content consumption device than a traditional computer; using it to read books and magazines, browse the internet and watch TV shows (through legal means) at the breakfast table or in bed.

Fourthly, I think you (although you are not alone) are overlooking the importance of the greater form factor of the iPad over the iPhone and how that will help differentiate it from Apple’s current mobile devices. You said it yourself, “iWork ‘10 for the iPad is most definitely the best office suite for any mobile device.”. Would this suite of applications be possible on the iPhone? No. The simple fact that the larger screen and snappier processor will bring a new dimension to mobile applications, which will be more evident once developers have some time with the device.

Fifthly, a lack of direct Flash support is a shame but it sure hasn’t hindered the iPhone all that much. HTML5 is seen as a suitable alternative to Flash and it should address the issue of not being able to play embedded video from sources other than YouTube in the near future.

I could go on.

Yes, the name sucks. The lack of a front-facing camera sucks. Apple has left things to be desired (don’t they always?). For a first iteration though, I think they have created a compelling device. Maybe it doesn’t appeal to you directly but that certainly doesn’t mean it will be a flop. A Kindle DX (also a 9.7” table-like device) costs $489 CDN (compared to the iPad’s introductory $499 USD) and it’s only a black and white, dedicated e-book reader for heaven sakes and it found a market. The Harmony 1100 universal remote costs $399 USD and it found a market. Both devices can easily have their functionality addressed by the much more full-featured iPad (judging from the fact that an iPhone can be used to take pictures remotely with a DSLR) at almost the same price. Sounds good to me.