&#62; <i>"can do the same as the above"</i><p>I heartily disagree. There's a <i>big</i> difference, <i>huge</i> difference between "can barely" and "does it really fucking well". The iPad shoots for the latter (we'll see if it hits), the netbook's mere existence is predicated on the former.<p>If your definition of "can do the same" means "someone willing to bang their head hard enough and willing to live with a substandard user experience can do it", sure. But IMHO we need to strive for a higher standard than <i>that</i>.<p>After the iPod, the Mac, and the iPhone, I don't think geeks still get why Apple is successful: they build devices that <i>normal people</i> actually want. I think there is some collective head-in-the-sand in the geek community because what people apparently want is not at all like what geeks want. The average user doesn't <i>want</i> freedom, doesn't want an open kernel, doesn't give a shit about standards, they want to have a slick, usable, and intuitive user experience, and so far netbooks are failing hard at it.<p>The average user doesn't <i>want</i> the ability to hunt down zip files on obscure websites, downloading the file, and being able to run whatever app is inside. They <i>like</i> having a central place where all apps in the universe reside. This may or may not be good for the industry as a whole, but it <i>is</i> what our users desire.<p>IMHO the constant spec-based wankery is why nobody has yet caught up with Apple. I'm seeing a lot of internet chatter about how netbooks do more (does more, poorly), how the cost is too high, how the CPU is too slow, blah blah blah, but conveniently ignores what is IMHO the <i>one</i> defining reason Apple has succeeded in the last decade: user interface.<p>"My Android phone isn't locked down!" &#60;-- Your Android phone also crashes all the time, emits strange cryptic messages that only developers understand ("a process has been forced to exit"?)