I thought this was awfully shallow by O'Reilly standards.<p>I didn't catch a single compelling reason that anyone should want to use this device, particularly in preference to iPod/iPhone or a larger netbook. A statement like<p><i>But the final bit of noteworthy, and compelling, good about iPad is that this just feels like the device that real people (read: non-techies) are going to flock to.</i><p>really doesn't come close to a real argument.<p>Also, the paragraph<p><i>the iPod and iPhone that came before it were truly revolutionary devices, offering wholly new functionality, delivering new value chains, and fundamentally changing the relationship that consumers had with, first their media ... and then their communications.</i><p>Seems incorrect to me. iPod was another MP3 player, of which we've had a zillion. iPhone, too, is just evolutionary, in its melding of phone + PDA; really, is it that much of a revolution to add a better UI (even if that UI is great by all accounts)?<p>And if it's this UI revolution (if it is one) that is going to carry this, then -- as the article admits -- it will do so by cannibalizing existing Apple customers. In that case, how does this affect Google's prospects at all?