Disclaimer: I have never seen anybody use a tablet with a keyboard. I don't own one nor do I expect to get one in the foreseeable future.
The (retina) iPad's screen is easily more than 3x as good as that on any netbook I've seen (and in fact better than any PC laptop), even a good phone has better resolution, color and viewing angles. If they sold them as computer monitors I would buy one. If we weren't stuck in the dark ages of fullHD TN panels I'm sure there would be more demand for computing power on desktops, too, but what good will it all do if your photos, websites and games won't look any better? If you can't even have a whole page of a book shown on-screen at once without the text being rendered at such low res as to make it genuinely difficult to read? There are diminishing returns on computing power when your user interface devices are the limiting factor.
I think part of the success of tablets has to do with how advances on traditional PCs have been made too difficult. Windows isn't resolution independent. Netbooks were intentionally marginalized. Outside linux-style package managers you still had to hunt your software down one-by-one from all over the internet until Apple's App Store. The trends for easier and more mobile computers have been apparent for decades. Perhaps "general use" computers aren't all that general use after all if they can't keep up?
Doing everything that iTunes does is part of the problem. Why would you want that?
Not that iTunes's bloat and suck can be attributed just to having too many features.
I have trouble relating to your position on this. So you can decide you don't want to follow some particular god, fine. What does this have to do with actually believing in him? Have I been misled into thinking that people who "believe in god" actually believe he exists, instead of just playing along with the ceremonies because it's what their culture does?
As for them releasing new patents shortly before the old ones would expire, that is a risky strategy if they held off on purpose - because someone else could have filed a patent before them.
Wouldn't others be prevented from patenting such things because of prior art?
Where do you get music that has frequencies above 22kHz? Is it not more likely that you would get unwanted noise than actual signal in supersonic frequencies because they cannot be deliberately mastered? Even if the high frequency signals came from the recording as intended, AND the speaker could play that high, they would just produce intermodulation distortion on the speaker degrading the quality of the actually audible spectrum.
There is individual variation of course, with claims going as far up as 25kHz. 100kHz however is clearly overkill.