Naturally, here come the comments about Steve's stylus quote.
I'm sure this has all been said before, but did any of you ever use a device that came with a stylus 10 years ago? They required a stylus. They would not work without one. The screens didn't work with fingers. Finger input (and especially multitouch) changed the game in this market. Styluses then became a simple marker of primitive and limited hardware.
Sure, the Pencil has similarities with a stylus, but a Pencil is not a simple stylus. The Pencil expands the use of the device. I can still use an iPad without it, but there are limits to what fingers can do. The Pencil greatly increases the creative capabilities of these devices.
Remember the arguments about how an iPad is great for content consumption, but not for content curation? Sketching on the iPad with fingers was pretty ordinary, mostly because fingers are not fine or precise. The Pencil gets around that limitation. So what's the problem with expanding what a device can do by adding another type of input?
I simply don't buy the argument by people who rehash the stylus quote. Yes, it looks like a stylus, but the context is very different.
Having said that, would Steve have let the Pencil go to market? Honestly, who knows? Perhaps not. But that's not really the point. The point is that his quote had a specific meaning in a specific context. Things have changed a lot since then.