Thanks for the whole explanation 😉. But that’s the point I’m making… it’s how it’s physically used. A computer comes in many forms… an iPad by definition is a computer (however limited it might be in comparison to a Mac/PC), if I choose to attach a keyboard with it… I’m technically using it as a laptop. If I decide to hook it up via external monitor with mouse and keyboard… I’m using it as a desktop.
While »can it compute in any form«, »are I/O peripherals connected«, »is it placed ON a surface« as checkboxes look initially like a valid classifier - this is like: "when you hear hoof beats, think zebras, not horses." - it’s the inverse of Occam's razor! 🤓
IMHO it misses totally why computer exist in the first place:
the computational use IS the main thing that separates smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktops, et cetera.
Yep, no doubt - members of one of these device classes can for sure occupy an "ecological niche" (or even several) of any of the others. And within this niche it will offer e.g. desktop-class experience, heck, might simply be better due to its interface properties on application level.
But this is clearly a case in which classical idioms enshrined in the general awareness aren’t applicable… they have to be modified:
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
it is a duck we can probably assume we're in the presence of a member of the
Anatidae family. Wether it’s a goose, a swan, a duck or even a member of the
Anseranatidae isn’t defined by these descriptors."
Okay, quite a mouthfull 🤣… I beg the indulgence of the readers, it’s my first shot at an idiom… and english isn’t my first language. 🙃