Yes, there are compromises involved in iOS and the iPad, but I don't think they're the kind of compromises Sinovsky is talking about. Find me one place where t

Yes, there are compromises involved in iOS and the iPad, but I don't think they're the kind of compromises Sinovsky is talking about. Find me one place where the touch UI of the iPad was compromised in any way to provide affordances for people who want to hook their iPad up to a keyboard. If there is one, I'll be floored. An iPad means a sealed box where you don't have to mess with file systems or insecure code. Can't we have a compromise for those of us who want the ability to use a Finder to move files around and load them up in different apps? No, we can't, because that would compromise the experience. Can't we have a cool little local scripting development environment for doing nifty interaction design work. No, we can't, because that would compromise our sealed, secure box. Sinovsky is saying that Microsoft is flatly refusing to provide a "tweener" interface, where the utility of the tablet is compromised to provide more of a desktop-like experience. I don't know whether Microsoft can deliver really excellent tablets or not, but (as with most of the things they've done with Metro) this part of their approach makes sense to me.