I don't. No need for any of that crap.

My brother in law always games with a laptop next to himself. He uses it to help him with achievements and other stuff while he plays. I can totally see him wanting Smart Glass.

Me neither, too much garbage I just need it to make "ring ring" when someone calls me and to send messages.

... You do realize this is software, not hardware?

There's a big difference between adapting a piece of software late into a console's lifecycle versus buying a new perpherial. Smartglass costs consumers $0. Every consumer that owns a smartphone or tablet has Smart Glass. That is probably 80-90% of users. That is a huge advantage in the fact that it negates any qualitative advantage the WiiU had with its tablet. Alternatively, it also means that developers will probably put money into adding tablet-based features to games, which may bode well for that aspect of the Wii U's viability. But its a pretty bad thing when companies can counter a major hardware selling point with software.

Just as you seem clueless about SmartGlass because you haven't used either. From what I've seen displayed, I still stand by my post. Maybe you should re-read it because I never said it made the WiiU irrelevant, just that it can achieve ESSENTIALLY the same feel. On top of that, this will allow numerous OS devices to be  compatible with the Xbox 360. But I'm sure we'll see Nintendo show off all the miraculous things it can do anyway tomorrow or whenever their conference is. 

There is no way a phone or a tablet will have the same feel as the Wii U GamePad when in order to use either device with Smart Glass, I need to pause the game and go to my device. Perhaps on a few games, where selecting plays and the like are required, it would make more sense, but it will definetly not feel the same.

Of that I have no doubt.

I do agree the WiiU will be capable of more, but I can't help but feel microsoft is setting up for something big next gen.

Software that is going to be on a multitude of devices of varying capabilities that the user may or may not have. That is setting aside the it would require you to be Shokan to use as effectively as a Wii U Gamepad. Which is a standardized piece of hardware with the same capability for everyone included with every WiiU.

Yet time has proven that given the choice of "Free" and "Expensive", they are going to choose free with a minimal reduction in quality, if or when it is available.

If a device gives you a slightly degredated capability of another system, but at no cost, consumers will buy it up. Look at YouTube. it's not the greatest quality for videos, movies, or music, yet people clamor over it because its free. The same can be said for paid/free gaming apps. When users can get them free, they will clamor over them.

This situation is the same way. Will the WiiU tablet be "Better"? Probably. Will consumers purchase it due to this differentiation? Not any more. Its the same thing with handhelds vs. Smartphones. There isn't enough differentiation between the devices, which has caused a significant reduction in market penetration for the new generation of handhelds. Primarily because they'd rather game on devices they already have than buy a dedicated system for it.

Except, you know, that it HASN'T.  3DS is tracking well above the DS at this point in its life, and Vita is about where the PSP was.  So where is the evidence that is the case, other than a vague feeling that it should be true.

I make games for mobile devices.  I know first hand the limitations a touch screen only provide in gameplay.  The limitations in actual game-play potential on home console games will be astronomical, not "a minimal reduction"