consumers will never know. Do you know any non-geek consumers that have the slightest clue about the GIF thing?

Video providers will simply re-encode their videos and the consumer will be none the wiser.

This analogy makes me think you're missing the point. If the iPhone were a car, you wouldn't be allowed to open the hood, change your own oil, pump your own gas, or change the tires. you wouldn't be allowed to drive to certain places and you could only use your car for pre-approved purposes. independent mechanics would be forbidden to touch the car, etc...

BUT... if we were to extend the analogy a bit, the car that Apple produces would likely be an order of magnitude or two easier to use (how? I dunno, that's an alternate universe I haven't visited yet). And people would say "you know, I don't mind having to go to a special Apple gas station because the car is _exactly_ what I want in a car. And I don't care about repairing it because Apple cars don't need repair nearly as often as Chevrolets. It's easier to park and I can go way longer between fillups.

It's not really all that far fetched -- electric cars are coming down the road (so to speak) and you'll be forced to get "fuel" at care-specific electrical charging stations, and you probably won't be able to get it serviced by the guy down the streat. People will put up with that because the car delivers more of what they want in a car.

One mans "lock you out" is another mans "push for open standards".

Apple isn't trying to lock anyone out of anything. They are trying to sell as many devices as they can before the competition catches up. In their mind that means they must block flash so people don't get the impression that the iPad is dog slow (which is what would happen if flash was enabled, most likely).

This plan will almost certainly work. Lesser companies will come out with tablets sporting fancy UIs, usb ports, video cameras and Flash support, and they will be slow, heavy, and with limited battery life. And once again the consumer will be slapped in the face with the reality that Apple really does know a thing or two about making consumer devices after all.

You lost me on the "just as fancy" part. The wePad will be heavier. It will be more expensive. It will have less battery life. It likely won't have a UI finely tuned to the multi-touch experience. How is that "just as fancy"?

re "If this thing can run Firefox and VLC then it will beat the snot out of the iPad for those of us that are interested in more than just the Walled Garden."

Hard to believe, I know, but you're actually in a very, very small club. Apple knows where the money is and it's not people who particularly care about open software. It's people who are actually quite happy in a walled garden, for better or worse.

What is the problem with making the platform open in the first place? Possibly because that will end up creating a product that is harder to use and not deliver a satisfactory end user experience. We've been down this road for a decade and I've not seen a single line of people clamoring for tablets that run some sort of open OS. The market just isn't there, and like it or not Apple is in business to make money. Seriously. Look at the facts -- nobody wants the type of tablet that swims in your head. At least not enough people to justify the expense of building it. Those types of tablets exist and nobody is buying them.

I really don't understand. Seriously. Why is it absurd? Apple, as a company, should have the right to make whatever products they want (within the realm of public safety, I suppose). The market will decide if it's a worthwhile product and vote with their pocketbooks. If a large percentage of people want a locked down device, why can't a company provide that? Who are you (or the government, or anybody else) to force Apple to make a product to match _your_ vision rather than their own?

Not a more open iPad, a more open desktop-in-tablet-form. The iPad isn't really a tablet based on the traditional description of a tablet. All it shares with "tablets" is the tablet form factor. The user experience is decidedly non-traditional-tablet-like.

They did it for the iphone, didn't they? I recall prices dropping rather dramatically shortly after launch.

I recall Apple saying that. I can't remember where I saw it, but they actually said something to the effect the price could drop if there's not enough demand. Apparently, that won't be necessary.

By your logic I must assume the iPad isn't a tablet either. Apparently your idea of a tablet is "runs software not designed for a tablet and doesn't have a keyboard".

If you got a normal tablet you wouldn't have all the functionality of the ipad. Kinda like saying "if you get a toaster oven you get all the functionality of a two-slice toaster". Sometimes what you want is just a two-slice toaster that is implemented really well.

To many people, the "fits in your pocket" argument is a detriment. I don't want to read books or watch movies or surf the web on such a tiny screen. For the types of things I want to do with a mobile computer, size does matter. And I don't want to have to go the route of a netbook or laptop and be forced to deal with a keyboard 100% of the time when I'll use it maybe 1% of the time.

... but if those 30%-40% are all websites I _dont_ read, I don't care. Surfing, without having annoying animated flash advertisements sounds pretty nice to me.

*sigh*. The ipad isn't about technical prowess. Nor is it something to compare against a netbook. The ipad is about the user experience. Period. The #1 goal was probably UI responsiveness. In a manner of speaking, the very embodiment of eye candy. Nobody (*) cares that a netbook has more storage, faster processor, etc. Unless it has the same user experience it's not a competitor, and nothing on the market so far has even close to the same user experience.

* by "nobody" I mean "nobody who is open minded". The anti-ipad non-fanboys care, but not much we can do about that.