I think this person has missed the point. The assumption here is that the vast majority of >5-year-old PCs are crap, and that the reason for continuing with th

I think this person has missed the point. The assumption here is that the vast majority of >5-year-old PCs are crap, and that the reason for continuing with them is that a new full PC replacement is too expensive. The iPad is supposed to be disruptive because it's a lower-cost machine that can nonetheless do everything the user used to do on a full-fledged PC. You might disagree that the iPad succeeds in this, but it is nonetheless the way Apple thinks about where the iPad sits in the market. This was the point of Schiller's remark. It has nothing to do with mocking the poor.