Cogent rebuttal to <a href="http://www.marco.org/441168915">Marco Arment's realism post</a> by Neven Mrgan.

Jeremy Keith thinks the iPad will be the best-selling device for Christmas this year as people realize that using normal computers is actually really hard. Also, he hates Flash.

Mike Davidson just said "price elasticity." You know the way to an economics major's heart, Mike.

Jack's right. "Democratization of content product is a powerful force." Let's hope the centralization of that power in Apple's hands doesn't make us regret it. (For the record, it will and it won't. There will be controversies, but there are plenty of places to read things online without resorting to the iBook store.)

Good advice for any platform.

Zeldman weighs in. Little new to add, but it's another voice in the chorus.

Omni, one of the most revered Mac development companies, is betting the iPad is going to be huge. They could be wrong, of course, but it's a very healthy sign.

Let me be the most-recent among many to second Fraser Speirs' diatribe. Computers are supposed to make your life easier not just provide you with a powerful but capricious robotic servant. While the iPad (and whatever class of computers it ushers in) will not eliminate the frustrating user interfaces, incompatibilities and general shoddiness of old, it re-lays the foundations and renews the possibilities. Eventually entropy demands the system make allowances for complexity and weeds will inevitably creep into Mr. Jobs meticulous garden of computing Eden, but the pre-iPhone OS purge has been necessary and good. The future awaits.

Miguel de Icaza nails the reasons the iPad ought to be a runaway success regardless (or thanks to?) its closed nature: price, multi-touch centric, standard hardware, the App store, and the new, larger form factor.

Dave Winer distrusts Apple. It's hardly newsworthy, but his challenge is laudable. "Is it possible to create an iPad-like platform that has none of the drawbacks of Apple's offerings?" I say no. The coordination, taste, planning, and resources required have thus far proven quite beyond the open-source community's wherewithal. If Winer's white-knight exists, it can only be Google, and let no one doubt, Google has its own agenda that will eventually conflict with the philosophical purity held dearly by him and his ilk. (I wish that weren't the case, but it is.)

Gina Tripani claims people will hack regardless of the security measures in place or the legality of such actions. I suppose they will, but these restrictions certainly put a damper on the community. Looking on the bright side, the Internet has made communication among like-minded hackers exceedingly easy.

A useful counter-perspective on the iPad from Mark Pilgrim. Sanctioned hackability is one way Google can steal developers and users from Apple.

Alex Payne's dismayed by the closed system Apple is perpetuating. I agree, but isn't our new prison beautiful? Apple is dragging users and developers into the next century whether they like it (users do) or not (a few outspoken developers). I say, good for them. Let Canonical or Google or Microsoft step up and provide an equally compelling but open alternative, if such is possible.

Buried beneath the avalanche of iPad specific news, it appears Apple has removed the VoIP restriction for native apps. Naturally, this is a big deal for the iPhone. If we're lucky, we'll even see Google Voice arrive soon. I'd argue this is potentially an even bigger deal for the iPad, you know, the big iPod Touch that ships without the ability to make phone calls. Now if Apple will just enable applications to run in the background …