Speaking as a techie, you want to know what one of the differences is between a techie and a marketing person? Techies build a device and make it want to do everything it can possibly do, and then try to sell that device to whomever wants to use it in any way it can be used. It doesn't matter to the techie that generic consumers don't know about, nor care about, a concept of a technology. They're going to build it, and people who understand it will use it effectively. The drawback is that only people who understand it will buy it. The advantage is, people who understand it will have an art-like appreciation of how the thing takes on a life of its own, adapting itself to uses that the creator never envisioned. Marketing people define a product idea and then build a device that implements that product idea. The fact that the device might be capable of acting as more than just that product is irrelevant -- they have a vision, and they're going to adhere to that vision. The advantage being: you can communicate a vision to a generic consumer, you can't communicate a technology to them. Once you communicate it to them, you can sell it to them. Guess why it is that marketing people run successful companies more often than techies do. Guess why that, in a natural-selection kind of way, determines both the cutting edge of each new era of technology (where everything is all potential and revolutionary), and the more practical phase after the cutting edge passes (where everything is about practical applications and narrow product definitions). Whether or not the NIT can be more is irrelevant. What is relevant is: what kind of product Nokia wants to sell. It's sad, but it's true. If you want to change the landscape, you're not going to be successful by saying "this thing is a piece of crap as a PDA, why wont Nokia fix all of its weaknesses as a PDA?" because Nokia doesn't sell a PDA, they sell an Internet Tablet. If you want to change the landscape, you have to convince Nokia that they want to sell a PDA.