I don't think Apple was really trying to pitch office applications on the iPad as an example of what you would do with it, but to be an example of what you could. As if to say: "Don't think of this as just a toy, just a gadget, just a big iPod--think of this as a personal computer."
In that sense I think Apple's message is the same this year as it was last year. Consider Garage Band. It's not about the five bucks. It's not even really about selling more iPads (though it will undoubtedly help). It's really about demonstrating the absence of certain perceived limitations about what a "giant iPod" can do.
I think that's what Apple's overall strategy with its apps is: to keep pounding away at perceived limitations of the platform, both in functionality and performance, with vivid real-world demonstrations of what's possible. Consider that all five paid applications that Apple has demoed at the iPad events are content creation applications, striking squarely at the persistent criticism of it as a "consumption" device.
I tend to agree with the blog author, that Apple didn't yet found the sweet spot for the iPad’s usage. Everyone is different, and for some people (who maybe mostly interacted with other websites), iPad can even replace a laptop.
If I can speak from my experience, I still see iOS as mostly a gaming and entertainment platform. You mention that with Garage Band, Apple removed some perceived limitations about the platform - yes, I agree, but so what, for many it is still an entertainment application.
To sum it up, until now I am not that impressed with what App Store offers - they are just a handful of useful applications there, drowning in a sea of games/entertainment/kill-time apps. We are still far away from that so-called "post-PC era".
I think the popularity of games/entertainment/killing time apps on the iPad is more a reflection of the popularity of those tasks on personal computers in general. For most people this is all they do with a laptop at home, and it's not infrequently a part of what they do at work, too.
There are people who feel the iPad does each of those things inadequately (as with productivity apps), but the point is to demonstrate that it can do those things, whether you do or not. To show that it's not (say) a web-browsing device that can't game or a media player that can't browse the web or an e-reader that can't edit HD video. It can't do everything for everybody, but I think they're trying to expand the capabilities into doing almost everything for almost anybody (as a PC does) rather than seeking a sweet spot.
In that sense I think Apple's message is the same this year as it was last year. Consider Garage Band. It's not about the five bucks. It's not even really about selling more iPads (though it will undoubtedly help). It's really about demonstrating the absence of certain perceived limitations about what a "giant iPod" can do.
I think that's what Apple's overall strategy with its apps is: to keep pounding away at perceived limitations of the platform, both in functionality and performance, with vivid real-world demonstrations of what's possible. Consider that all five paid applications that Apple has demoed at the iPad events are content creation applications, striking squarely at the persistent criticism of it as a "consumption" device.
Maybe next year we'll see Xcode.