Because it's ugly and requires a stylus. (You asked.)

Things like the Archos tablets are much more realistic. My Archos 5 is great for web browsing, and I am sure the Archos 9 is a fine computer replacement. It hasn't caught on yet because it's not for sale yet.

I'm guessing that your smartphone probably comes cheap but locks you into an expensive service contract. Not that this obviates your point, but it modifies it. For that matter, the iPhone was very expensive at launch compared to now; I thought that would kill it straight out of the gate, and boy was I wrong. Similarly, I doubt your smartphone has such a large screen - perhaps an advantage when you're on the move (this tablet won't fit in your pocket) but more desirable when sitting down.

I'm a little perplexed at how this device seems to generate such strong opinions and armchair quarterbacking. It seems to me that there is a lot of pent-up demand for a decent-sized tablet but people have been disappointed so many times they're a bit paranoid about it.

My Archos may be much less relevant when the Xperia X10 comes out (which I plan to get) but until then I have a dumb phone and want something to do on my 40 min ride to work. The Archos right now is my only good option.

Even when the X10 comes out, depending on the screen, I may keep using the Archos anyway. The screen size is nice enough to watch a tv show and the resolution is great. The cell phone screen may be too small.

> So you're saying that single convenience is worth purchasing a significantly less powerful device for significantly more money?

Yes. Especially when the more powerful, cheaper device is really bad at whatever this single convenience is, whereas the new product is very good at it, and the single convenience is important to the user.

See: Kindle vs. iPhone e-book reading.