A camera with flash meaning to take pictures in the dark, or a camera, and flash (the API) capability? For picture taking, I see it as useful, but not necessary, but mostly because I only use my phone's camera to take occasional pictures. But yes, I can see it being useful.
Running Flash(tm), that's a big meh... would be nice, not necessary. There are a ton of threads about why it isn't support. Primarily because it's a close API and not standard. But I can see it being nice to have.
This one I don't agree with. 99% of the people I know who have cameras on their computers don't use them. I use mine to scan barcodes, that's about it. MOST desktops do NOT have cameras, most laptops do. Thus a huge percentage of computers don't have cameras. I find them a waste (for computers), thus remove it and save me $100 on the pricetag and I'd be happier.
OK, agreed.
Correct every Phone to every SMART Phone and you may have it. But most standard phones don't. BTW, we don't want Windows 3.1 or OS8 multitasking, we want real, protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking. That takes power, Windows got it with 2000 (ignore NT for now), and Macs got it with OSX. Those level machines were more powerful then many phone processors of today. Plus the phone OS's are quote a bit more complex in their abilities meaning the power to truly multitask is more limited. I'm not saying it CANNOT be done, just that maybe we aren't ready for it yet -- or at least not in Apple's eyes. They won't put it out until it give a good experience for the user.
There are also realistic capabilities. Understanding the details of the hardware/software environment and the interface to the user to produce a clean, easy to use, friendly experience is sometimes more important then having every bell and whistle.
I know my iPhone (3G) can stutter at times, sometimes lag majorly when just opening the SMS app, or checking email or something. I don't have a ton of stuff on the phone, but enough. If it got 25% slower because they updated the OS to have multitasking, it would be REALLY frustrating and degrade my enjoyment of the phone. Apple has become sensitive to the end user experience, something that many companies have neglected.
Look at the iPod. It wasn't something new when it came out, but they polished the interface and came up with the click wheel to make it sweet. You could have purchased a Creative Labs player for less, and not deal with Apple; but Apple made the experience of the iPod NICER. The Zune is a nice player, but the iPod Touch is NICER.
The reality is that the iPad is, right now, in a class by itself. There is nothing else out there trying to do what it is doing. It isn't a netbook device, it wasn't designed that way. It isn't a laptop, it wasn't designed that way. It is something in the middle. Will it work, will people buy it and will it be successful? Only time will tell, we'll see how it does. If it works like Apple has shown, I think it will do well. But being better doesn't always mean success; Beta was better then VHS, but VHS won.
There is the KISS method of design, and Apple seems to have it down. Sure it may not do EVERYTHING, but what it does do, it will do very well. And, often, that is what it comes down to.
If you commute every day to work, do you want a car that is reliable and gets good gas mileage, and a very nice drive but lacks some of the other features. Or do you want a car that gets decent gas mileage, is mostly smooth, give your Sirius radio (but not XM), Navigation system with maps from 1992, power windows that only go 1/2 way down and is not dependable?
Remember, be careful for what you wish for, you might get it.
