Of course it would be. It could run multiple programs at the same time. It could run Photoshop, or AutoCAD, or Allscripts, or SAP, or whatever other fill-in-the-blank application is needed. Or all of them. You're going to have a hard time convincing me, or, I think, anyone, that, even though there are a lot of iPhone apps, there are enough to seriously compete with the flexibility of Windows, or MacOS X, or even Linux. Or that there are applications available for the iPhone that aren't available on another platform.

Actually, what do I mean "would be"? I mean is.

Part of this argument is that while the convertible tablets from PC manufacturers, like, say, the HP TouchSmart tm2t, the Lenovo ThinkPad X200 Tablet, or the Dell Latitude XT2 may cost more (a lot in most cases), they are able to do basically everything that the iPad can, plus have very desirable features that the iPad is unable to replicate.

Almost the same argument can be made for netbook from the Asus EEEs to the Dell Minis to the Sony P-, W-, and X-series.

I came across an interesting quote from a few months ago:

And now Apple's released the iPad, which is the same price, and looks like it was cribbed off of the JooJoo. Yeah, there are some differences: the JooJoo has a slightly higher resolution screen, supports Java and Flash, can play videos from Hulu and Vimeo, and has a camera, for instance. (Okay, the iPad has iPhone apps, too.)

Also, you say that I needed to see the video in order to see it being used, but you earlier pointed how awkward it looked when Steve was using it, and how that contradicted what he was saying about it.

I think our whole point is, though, this is merely an embiggened iPod Touch. It has no additional features that aren't directly related to its bigness, and that bigness is frequently a drawback.