I'm going to attempt to answer gerbick's question (the overarching one) as succinctly as possible. However, I will have to dance around some touchy parts so bear with me.

The 770 paved new ground. It was a risk on Nokia's part because it portended a new business model: a low-cost commercial computing device that deliberately embraced open source software.

It was unheard of.

I can't imagine any company wanting to invest much in an unproven device and market. Far better to manufacture a number small enough to minimize costs but large enough to create a reliable, robust data set from which to draw and analyze.

Let this sink in.

It would behoove any such same company to aggressively analyze said data so that, if the test device proved its worthiness, a follow-up could come quickly on its heels. A more polished, performance-enhanced follow-up.

Although that follow-up would be a little more mature, keep in mind its development cycle would overlap the market test device's-- meaning not all lessons learned could be processed in time. Still, there was a *potential* new market to be captured and if the data from both initial devices demonstrated that market's validity, and the ability to fulfill a new need (read: desire), then certainly any respectable company would want to own that market-- just as Apple owns the portable MP3 player market.

I've used the chicken-and-egg scenario to describe the N800 and its ecosystem and that's a good one I think. Nokia could have waited until a decent wifi infrastructure was in place in key markets before moving, but wouldn't a competitor take advantage of such hesitance? So the 770 and N800 emerged into an immature ecosystem, outfitted with stopgap measures such as bluetooth phone-pairing to deal with the dearth of ubiquitous wifi.

Now, all the tablets had to do was gain *enough* traction in order to rationalize further support and development of the platform. So who defines enough? Well, it isn't this community. That's of course Nokia's decision. The fact that more devices are coming (a la Sprint/Wimax) indicates a strong belief that there IS a future for these tablets.

That's despite the hardware problems. Despite the software problems. Despite the apparent poor sales.

A lot of wannabe consumer electronics pundits with a failure to grasp and process context rabidly leap to proclaim the death of these devices every time something even remotely similar comes out. It wasn't just the iPod Touch-- the iPhone was supposed to kill it, too... along with a whole host of products with a related form factor and purpose, some of which are still vaporware.

The fact is the Nokia Internet Tablet isn't going to die because Apple came out with a nifty new media player. That is one aspect of the NIT's broad offering. The NITs are Long Tail products with a completely different intent and goal in mind. I doubt many people will jog with an N800 tucked into a sweat band, as they might with the Touch. Conversely, I can't see anyone playing Flash videos on their iPod. That contrast could go on and on but surely any reasonable person gets the picture.

Nokia has exhibited patience with the NITs progress, which should speak volumes. The devices may not be the commercial success that iPod Touchs will be in the immediate future, but then, the iPod already has a robust ecosystem, doesn't it? It doesn't have the same hurdles to overcome. It isn't the same device. Give the NITs a few years, though, and I'm betting they take off. And Nokia has already admitted to a mistake in the 770/N800 transition, one that won't be repeated.

Patience, folks. Curb your pessimism. There is more to come.