Or those that love semantic battles.

As far as it goes, tablets have grown from the 4.1 inch marvels we used to love - the 770, N800/N810 - and that's now a phone size with better resolution (screen and device).

Phones are coming in with 5.3 inch screens at resolutions that make the prior generation of NIT's look anemic. So tablet now seems to be defined as 7.x, 8.x, 9.x and 10.x+ higher in terms of inches and phone are mostly 4.x and 5.x now.

What bothers me the most is that the 770 and N800/N810 had 4.x screens, yet the N900 had the smaller screen that followed phone trends at that moment - namely the iPhone. That was sorta a bad call because Nokia could have had the phablet market (god I hate that term) and beat Samsung to the punch instead of releasing a "me too" device in regards to screen size.

That me too mentality spilled over into the N9, also with a smaller screen in terms of inches instead of going up in screen size and resolution like the Nexus series have been pushing.

Back to the semantic battle over what constitutes a tablet. To me, it was never the screen size. Too many sizes to hit too many different needs for people. It was moreso about the resolution and the radios inside.

Give me wi-fi only, it's an internet tablet. Gimme a 3G radio in that allows only internet access away from my desk, it's an internet tablet. Add a 3G/4G voice capability and you've described a modern smartphone regardless of the size. Add a name like phablet only if it makes you feel good.

That's my take. I'm sure you can find some semantic hole in there somewhere. I just wonder if you'll notice who really cares in the end.

Not Nokia. Not Apple. Not Samsung. Not the marketing departments. Not the CEO's. Not the board of directors. And definitely not I. We all can have varying ideas of what is what and ultimately all be varying degrees of right and wrong.