> "a $150 monitor is going to be far more useful to you than a $700 tablet" That's going to heavily hinge on workload and day-to-day schedule. Which is the en

> "a $150 monitor is going to be far more useful to you than a $700 tablet" That's going to heavily hinge on workload and day-to-day schedule. Which is the entire point: you're willing to accept 'a luxury' as useful when it fits your computing schedule, but you don't seem to recognize that anyone else might be buying a different luxury because they have a different computing schedule. Tablets may not be that great for you. But that doesn't mean they're not that great. Your argument is blurring your absolutely legitimate personal opinion on tablets with a judgment about everyone else's opinion on them. And that's where you're wrong. Your line of thought rests on a logical fallacy. Not everyone computes like you. And here's a test for your theory that "people are buying iPads for social status reasons": How many people? How many tablets have to sell before you'd concede that maybe people are buying them because they find them useful? How many people have to upgrade those iPads before you'd be convinced? How many people have to let their PCs languish for how long, in deference to buying/upgrading tablets before you'd concede that you were wrong? How many years do tablets have to continue to sell before you'd accept them as evidence of something other than fashion? Is there any amount of data that will change your mind? Or are you already reflexively rationalizing how your theory could continue to be true even if a decade from now, and billions of tablets from now, they're still going strong?