I contend that you're being hyperbolic about the dissimilarity because you personally disagree with Apple's business decisions with regards to the App Store. Maybe, just a little?<p>In point of fact, the DynaBook is quite similar in many respects to an iPad. No larger than a notebook, less than four pounds (the iPad is almost exactly the size of a standard composition book). He says it should have a liquid crystal display of at least 80-100 ppi, taking up the whole surface, with a touch-sensitive on-screen keyboard. He suggests using a cassette for storage...and on that point, the iPad certainly misses the mark.<p>The idea of <i>"vending machines which will allow perusal of information (from encyclopedias to the latest adventures of wayward women), but which will prevent file abstraction until the fee has been paid."</i> sounds familiar, and surely the iPad does not embody the exact opposite of this scenario: <i>"A combination of this "carry anywhere" device and a global information utility such as the ARPA network or two-way cable TV, will bring the libraries and schools (not to mention the stores and billboards) of the world to the home.</i> Again, this was 1972.<p>Where they differ is that one was conceptually driven by a still-questionable pedagogical theory (which Kay even here describes as "abstruse"), while the other is driven by economic reality. If you've made it to the year 2010 without realizing that the latter is a more powerful force for change, I don't know what to tell you, but I can point to the OLPC, which for all its merits still doesn't fulfill much of its promise, as an example of what the other approach gets you.<p>Let me be clear that I think guys like Papert and Kay are <i>very</i> right about a lot of things--Kay is always worth reading and I think "Mindstorms" should be required reading for anybody who has ever programmed a computer (it will give you words to describe that thing you get that people who have never programmed don't).<p>But if you're coming away from these ideas with the belief that programming is the singular essential way that a computer can engender curiosity and epistemological insight in people, and that anything doesn't put programmability front and center is some kind of degenerate canned experience, I'm going to have to ask you to explain all of human history prior to the invention of the computer.<p>It isn't as though we made some terrible mistake and have squandered all hope of future genius. (Whence did Alan Kay come if not a world sans DynaBook?) We just haven't figured out how to get make a computer that lets everybody be a genius. The DynaBook wasn't it: it was an idea, a vision. The iPad isn't it either: it's a product constrained by the need to economically justify its own brief existence, a mere stepping stone on the long path to the ineffable "Better".<p>Y'know, several <i>hundred million</i> people got online for the first time last year. Some of them wanted to check out Wikipedia. Others wanted to learn more about the latest adventures of wayward women. I have a hard time seeing this product of the computer revolution as a mis-step just because they aren't yet universally manipulating arbitrary symbolic notions to construct new mental models of the world. There is still a lot of magic happening there, and I don't see any reason to be disappointed that <i>all of human thought</i> hasn't been revolutionized in the last 40 years. These things take time.<p>Kay (in '72) is right when he frames the discussion in terms of science fiction. The DynaBook never <i>would</i> have happened exactly like described. It was fiction. It was a vision based on observation of trends and possibilites. <i>But nobody went out and built the thing.</i> (If you adjust the target cost of $500 for inflation, you'll understand at least one reason why.)<p>They did build other things, though. A lot of other things. Some were great, some sucked. Business as usual. And now we're sitting on a few decades of actual real world collected experience (experience being something you get from making mistakes) about personal computing--with actual people using actual devices with an actual network--and what do you know, it's 2010 and what <i>can</i> you get for $500 but any number of <i>actual</i> devices that can not merely approach that grand vision but in some ways exceed it.<p>And yet we still have people who want to dismiss everything in between as having not "gone right"!