During the keynote, they presented the iPad as "magical and revolutionary". Of course, this is marketing, but I was thinking about it to try to see what could b

During the keynote, they presented the iPad as "magical and revolutionary". Of course, this is marketing, but I was thinking about it to try to see what could be so magical and revolutionary about it. For the magical part, sure it's a wild hyperbole. But I suppose you could say that, in that it feels like it's the real beginning of the kind of interfaces that have been imagined and dreamt of for many years on TV, in movies… and considering the size of it, it is pretty amazing. As far as revolutionary, my first impression was "how is that revolutionary since everything it does an iPod Touch has been doing for a couple of years on a smaller screen?". But I came to a similar conclusion as Joe Hewitt, in that it's revolutionary (though it's also hyperbolic) because it shifts the paradigms of computing and the way we think about computers. Yes, the iPhone/iPod Touch are similar technically but the apps were still apps for an advanced mobile phone and the size of the screen was in fact very limiting. In a way, I feel that the iPad is what computers should have been from the start if it had been possible at the time. For example, take the mouse. It was a great invention to interact "directly" with what's on the screen, but if it had been possible to have touchscreens then, I doubt mice would have been used. Applications have always been a bunch of files in the filesystem and we got used to that, but really that's something we don't really need to know and something that Apple has been removing for quite some time on the Mac even, with app bundles. So, of course, we'll see what happens. But I think it's an interesting step. PS: yes, I think I drank too much kool-aid