&#62; So to say it's unethical to create a device like the iPad you'd have to argue that people who don't buy the iPad are directly harmed by it somehow<p>There is a not so far-fetched way to argue this: the device is ultra-closed. If its concept become successful enough, people which want to use open system may be denied the possibility. Not directly because of the success of closed platforms but because this success may allow regulation to happen without too many people complaining.<p>I have an actual example: how web mail harms me, even when I am not using it.  Web mail is pervasive. The direct result was that many ISPs felt they could block the outgoing SMTP port (to stop evil spam). "Everyone" is using web mail or the mail of their ISP, so not too many people complain. Now, I can't set up SMTP server at home. Depending on the workaround, either my privacy or my wallet is harmed.