My point wasn't that those regressions make the iPad 3 undesirable, but that it was unusual for Apple to push a technology upgrade in a specific product line at the cost of ergonomics.
This has been the previous rationale for not including LTE in iPhones, has it not?
It has, and it's definitely an adjustment to how Apple typically does things.
When the iPad originally launched, the major selling point was: "I am the Alpha and the Omega. I am the first and only...and I am amazing".
When the iPad 2 launched, the major selling point was: "I'm lighter, thinner, faster." The product released a year ago STILL has not been matched performance-wise by competitors at any price-point.
The new iPad's major selling point: "Not only am I still faster than everything else on the market, I now sport the best display of any consumer device ever, and I'm the first device to offer LTE speeds without sacrificing battery life."
I think at the end of the day, to push iPad 3's, Apple knew that the display and LTE would be the main points they needed to include to future-proof themselves for another year. While other tablets will offer LTE, almost certainly the iPad will have the best battery life of any of them for the rest of this year. On top of that, there is next to no chance that anyone matches the display quality...and if they do, they won't be able to match the battery life.
I'm guessing Apple decided that the battery life was more important at the end of the day than a millimeter of thickness and a tenth of a pound in weight. Can't say I'd argue with those priorities, and it should set them up to have another unstoppable combo for 2012.
2013 should have them back on the traditional upgrade path and keep them out of reach from competitors perpetually from there unless something radically changes.
Look at these congregations of people secretly lusting for Samsung devices.
