From this website: http://www.winsupersite.com/alt/ipad_preview.asp

Most people regard Apple as an innovation factory, as if everything they produce is magic and has never been done before. But Apple, put simply, is a finisher. They take products that already existed, improve on them, and, in most cases, popularize them. They are, in fact, much like Microsoft: A company that rides on the backs of those who previously pioneered the markets in which they operate.

Apple did something similar in 2001 with MP3 players, though this wasn't mentioned in the presentation for some reason. While others had already made and sold MP3 players, Apple's iPod, eventually, defined the product category and ultimately drove virtually all other competition away. Not invented by Apple, but improved and made into something more popular.

Then in 2007, Jobs explained, Apple "reinvented" the phone with the iPhone. Again, smart phones already existed, but Apple took an idea that was already out there and just improved on it. "It's the best phone in the world," he said. And it is. (At least for now.)

Still, there are major differences between Apple and Microsoft. Apple very carefully chooses which markets in which it will play, and when it does make a choice, it focuses on that market with a laser-like intensity. And Apple, unlike Microsoft, isn't interested in pleasing everyone. Apple makes products that Steve Jobs likes, and nothing more. If you're looking for a logical feature that would benefit millions, tough, because Steve Jobs isn't interested. Therefore, neither is Apple.

I think this last bit explains why Apple really isn't making a netbook, by the way. This isn't a market that Apple can come along and just dominate. It's already full of PC maker players, and Apple's entry, even if popular, would never rule the market. Apple has been much more successful, from a market share perspective, with its non-computer mobile devices like the iPod touch and iPhone.

Although the impression for Apple's first generation devices is mixed, it will eventually improve overtime

I see what you’re saying, and I would essentially rephrase it as Apple is remarkably good at producing highly polished products that are free of the limitations of the products that came before them. People liked MP3 players but they disliked the limited storage (even though there were a few hard-drive based systems before the iPod) and most MP3 players were odd-devices with awful user interfaces; and with smart-phones and PDAs most people’s complaints were that these devices had great potential but limited use because there was little/no software for them (and what was available was very expensive). The iPod and iPhone entered into markets where people saw great potential but were unimpressed with current offerings, satisfied most people’s desires and made the products really cool which drove strong sales.

In contrast, Apple TV was a product produced by Apple that didn’t seem to acknowledge how people look at video entertainment and because of that it limited its appeal. For the most part people have a Buy, Borrow, Rent, Watch or Record mindset when it comes to television and movies, and the only mindset that Apple really appeals to is the rental mindset; Buyers want a physical copy, Borrowers and Renters want it for a short period of time and the primary difference between the two is whether they’re willing to pay for the television/movie, Watchers and Recorders take what comes to them with little effort and the difference between the two is whether they adjust to the source or the source adjusts to them.

I don’t see an obvious product that the iPad is really trying to replace, which makes me wonder if it is going to be more of an iPod/iPhone or an Apple TV.

@Happysqurriel,
Yup, I can't justify why must they have so many names for a product like the Ipad, but it is engineered towards netbooks and e-readers.