I on the other hand, had the iPad before the iPhone 4. Yet I will almost *never* use the iPhone in any situation where I have the iPad handy. I can't think of a single thing I would rather do on the iPhone except make a phone call. Loading tons of pages quickly isn't the iPads forte, sure, but most of my web browsing consists of looking at what's on the page I loaded, so that's where the "bottleneck" is as far as I'm concerned.
You might have a point there with certain games where they only offer a separate "HD" version, but anything else should be using the screen real estate of the iPad for a different app, not just a scaled up one.
I've had my iPad since April 3rd 2010. Got it day one. Also got my iPhone 4 on launch day.
There really isn't a single thing that my iPad can do that my iPhone can't. iPhone can't run Pages, but there are plenty of other mobile office suites for the iPhone that could take its place.
However, I can think of a lot of things the iPhone can do that the iPad can't. And if the rumors are true, even when the iPad does get a camera, the iPhone 4 will still take significantly better pictures than the iPad.
The only "Advantage" the iPad has is the "full size keyboard". But even thats not realistic most of the time. You can't type on it nearly as fast as you can on a real keyboard. Plus you have to position yourself and the device absolutely perfect to be able to type on it.
That whole line in the iPad promo video "I don't have to change myself to fit the product, the product fits me" is a load of crap, since you DO have to sit in uncomfortable positions to be able to type properly or you get uncomfortable holding it in your hand and have to change your sitting position to be able to position the iPad on your person in a more comfortable way.
As neat as the iPad is, the more I use it, the more I realize its more of an inconvenience than a convenience product. Especially when I take it out of the house. Its much easier to take my Mac or HP notebook in my backpack than it is to hold the iPad in its little case all day.
Apple doesn't make adjustments to price like others do, so "older" hardware is "more" expensive later in its life cycle. When a product refreshes, it is (and has been) quite competitively priced. The fact that you value component cost and do not value form, function, aesthetics and battery life means you're not an ideal Apple purchaser.
A computer is a tool, not a fashion accessory.
How a computer looks is the least important thing on my list of deciding factors when purchasing a computer.
You also cannot say "function" when discussing Apple computers versus others, because Macs are generally significantly functionally less capable than PCs. Look at a $2,000 MacBook Pro versus a $900 PC. The MBP is lacking blu-ray, high end GPUs, eSATA, USB 3.0, multi-card readers, higher resolution screens, ExpressCard slots, etc.
Macs have not been competitively priced since around 2006. When the MacBook Pros were last updated with dual core Core i7 for over $2,000, true quad core Core i7, with blu-ray readers and GPUs that put the shipping GPUs in Mac Pros to shame could be had for well less than half that in the PC world. And those same systems will still get around 5 hours of real world battery life. They'll also charge significantly faster than Macs and have user replaceable batteries. Sometimes dual HDDs as well.