Most fundamental when thinking about the iPad is to realize that this is a third device, meaning simply that it neither replaces nor competes with (smart)phones or computers. It may compete with netbooks, eReaders, and devices like those but this platform is much more flexible than either of those and appears to provide much more promise.

As a third device, if the iPad will survive it will survive by creating a new market, not replacing an existing device. More specifically, it will replace analog or paper devices a digital alternative. The walkman transitioned to the iPod and the rolodex/dayplanner transitioned to the PDA then smartphone.

The iPad may fail historically, but not because is misses expectations but only if it misses imagination. Challies’ review is by far not the worst of any I’ve read, but any review that is based upon expectation misses the point and is ultimately narrow, even if it is later true.

The best imaginative reviews I’ve read have been by the New York Times and Tyler Cowen. Cowen thinks this device may compete with the University (bold) and could see a device like this attached to every hospital bed.

They could have added more features and the cost would have been closer to a Macbook. I think the device is exceptional for what its designed to do, and I was anticipating not liking the thing when it was released.