I agree with your list but this point needs some correction. Speaking of tons of paper it is actually more ecoNOmy-friendly than ecology. Paper is a renewable source and needs some additional sources in the recycling process, but power is pure ecologic waste to let's say 95% worldwide. I am not an everything-must-be-ecological- and see-how-much-hidden-waste-this-has-guy but I think nontheless it is realistic to say that paper is actually much more ecological than power. But power is muuuuuch cheaper than millions of tons of paper. Just wanted to correct that.
This is another thing which comes in my mind: Who has ever thought of all those thousands/milions of employees worldwide which used to control the printing machines? No need for them anymore... When you enter a market, beware of the people making their life with it already. When they are threatened by your innovation, they will kick you out.
Well, designers and especially web publishers will get more market and the whole newspaper/journalism will get a second life so to speak. Content will rule the market, I guess, and they can get more for that now.
The printing machines guys will gradually lose their jobs, of course, but as far as physical things to prints exist, they will never cease, just it means an end to newspapers and magazines in paper (what we already seen).
Its an interesting question about what is more ecologically friendly non-paper or electronic display on power (u have to produce energy for that thing, of course). The accepted truth is that saving paper reduces biomass waste and saves forests; its however might be compensated negatively by increasing power consumption of electronic devices which burn coal and whatever else.
Probably on watt-to-watt comparison, electronic displays are saving energy simply because in a physical book, you need paper for all 400 pages, while electronic display uses energy only to show a current page. As natural resources dry up, probably paper will cost more and as more solar and wind energy is used, watt of energy will cost less in ecological terms (but not necessarily in money terms).
The books of future will probably look lot less than ebooks of current time; it will be an animated, video and sound production which opens new horizons for design. A book about history may have CG drawings of soldiers fighting, and dynamic links to weapons could link you to wikipedia, choose you to learn more about a sword used by an ancient warrior and u could listen to actual battle sounds if you turn on sound. It still will be reading, of course, just much more enhanced and dynamically linked.
Will it be useful or hit? I guess, yes. Apple's power is that it can create a seamless links/OS which just works. Any MS product will be again subject to viruses and will show BSOD
Android will be probably esthetically not too pleasing, though dirt cheap.
Interestingly, Apple could repeat Google's trick and deliver the tablets subsidized - but not by telecoms - but by dynamic ads on desktop. Sony tried that long ago with its first VAIOs, but time for ripe for it then, in 1997. The ads will be just like ads you in magazines - you may choose to ignore the banners on desktop, but they are there if you'd like to read them. And it will subsidize the tablet just like it now subsidizes a magazine.
Apple could win from that model without supporting publishers but supporting cost of own hardware. The revenue could be split with telecoms who deliver the ads. Apple will choose ads, of course, not Google.
So in ultimately mobile world, the tablet should never be connected physically, because the cords break the concept of mobility.
Thats why Apple's tablet will have wireless power supply.
The strength of Apple is that it the table will use iPhone/touch apps and therefore, scale the existing base of its applications. In a moment, number of readers of digital media will be millions. Because the mobile magazine can be delivered on iPhone of course or Touch. And there you have your ad revenue ready
