@timiteh Err, the "new wave of tablets" had nothing to do with any "cult status". Rather they took a revolutionary idea, that of the UI of the iPhone; something meant for fingers, (and sure there were "finger UIs" before, but the iPhone crystallised these ideas, much as the Mac did for the mouse in '84) and applied it for a far larger system. Before this "tablets" were PCs where a pen was substituted for a mouse.
Love it or hate it, the iPad was a totally new KIND of device. The problem for all the "iPad-a-likes" is they don't duplicate the whole vision. For some (Intel in this case) it's the "thin & light" that defines an iPad for others it's the "finger control". The problem is there is more to the iPad than that.
Like the iPod before it, the iPad is part of a whole ecosystem: Where applications are easy to buy and install. Where content (music, video, and "in app" content) is also easy to install. The device syncs back to iTunes. Despite so snippiness here - most end users like this.
The iPad is simple, with very little "computer stuff". There is no user visible file system (and think how many people you know who have no real grasp of hierarchical file systems). Applications are "sandboxed", and any that do deal with files show their own "in app" representations, fully customised to the needs of the application itself. So iPhoto shows pictures, arranged by meaningful user selectable categories. Or your music collection shows music tracks, arranged similarly, by user selectable categories such as "Artist", "Album", "Genre" or "Playlist". The heavy lifting for this is done else where - on a system with a traditional UI.
The iPad is deliberately "lazy", the OS allows applications limited multitasking which gives the illusion of multitasking to the user. Often applications must "hand off" jobs to services within the OS when they are "switched away from". Applications must quit when asked, and have a limited time to clear up - they should restore their state when re-activated. The idea is if the system runs short of resources (RAM) then applications silently quit, saving state. They are still shown as if running. When the user reactivates them they reload and restore state, the only thing the user sees is a slight delay - the illusion is that the app was running in the background waiting for the user all along. When this illusion works (and it seems to always work) the iPad seems like a system without limited resources, where in actual fact it has very limited resources. If this all sounds like "smoke and mirrors"; it is - but what did you expect from "a magic show"? The system ruthlessly limits the demands placed on the hardware, so the user experience is ALWAYS fast and responsive.
Together these things are a revolution in system design. Many, many decisions have been taken away from the user to present the illusion of unlimited resources and constant high performance.
This is no "cult" this is a different way to think about what is important to the user.
"Thin & Light" misses the point utterly.