Yes, but would the cut of your jibe have been so sharp? I re-read what I wrote earlier and I could almost see the crimson dripping from between the sharp lines of my criticism. I can't help feeling as if, even without reading what I'd said, somewhere out there the author of that article probably felt it.

Wellllll... I don't know about that. As I'd pointed out, I think a tablet is a generally accepted idea of a flat "tablet-like" form factor that you use a stylus or finger on. I would argue that everything from the old Newtons and Palm computers (referred to as PDA's) were still "tablets" in the classic and technical sense.

The main point of argument that I have is that he said it isn't a tablet, not so much that he called it a cellphone. Had he argued that the Palm Tungsten Tx is not a tablet, it's a PDA, I would have made a similar argument of, "What disqualifies this device as a tablet? Why can't a tablet be a PDA?"

It just seems to me that he's disqualifying an apple as food. You can clearly and successfully argue that all apples are food, but you can't successfully argue that all food are apples. Also, Android is eating Apple's lunch and I get the feeling that he doesn't like that.