I’d argue Apples “insight” was to offer a simplified OS for the consumer for use on tablets, instead of full-strength OSes. An OS with the power of the phone, just in a bigger form factor.
Apple no more created the tablet market than I created jazz or you invented the reciprocating engine.
Apple simplified the OS for the consumer, and decided that giving them “X” percent of the functionality in an easy-to-use package was enough. Clearly it was a good idea!
However, when other alternatives build on that (much like Apple built on the concept of touch screens and tablets), by offering alternate form factors, UIs, or functionality choices, those alternatives are immediately derided as “toys” or “media players slapped together with touch”.
Apparently, Apple can decide to dumb-down the tablet, but no one else can decide to do so.
Can you smell the hypocrisy in that position?
Consumer tablet sales prior to iPad: About zip.
Consumer tablet sales of iPad: Astronomical.
Format of all subsequent consumer tablets to date: iPad clones
My point proves itself.
those alternatives are immediately derided as “toys” or “media players slapped together with touch”.
The first one you touted ran off of a known media player SoC. It was, at heart, a cheap media player with Android loaded. It was the usual rush-to-market cheap Chinese copy attempting to cash in on a successful Apple design.
Can you smell the hypocrisy in that position?
No, but the scent of jealousy over Apple's success is overwhelming.