What is now the iPad was being considered by Steve Jobs at NeXT in the early 90's as a touchscreen device driving a next generation computer. There were some discussions about us needing such a thing; I assume that later Jobs had such a tablet in mind for the Apple resurgence planning. The experience in miniaturization gained on iPod added to the market potential in phones plus manufacturing challenges for larger devices meant iPhone came first but the iPad was already mature before iPhone.
We really can credit Jobs with the vision and balls to make this happen, and some of his guys, like Mansfield, Forstall and Kiggins. He was quick to buy key bits, like FingerWorks, and to take advantage of opportunities to widen the ecosystem. I greatly admire the grace he brought to the business.
But Jobs had limits, particularly in how he saw software. He never escaped the notion that software controls need to mimic reality. This probably was needed when the mobile devices were new and the interaction model unfamiliar. But we now have half a billion iOS devices and nearly as many from competitors using essentially the same paradigm. People know how to use these things.
That's roughly a billion devices in five years, all designed the same. People know how to use them. We don't need to be pandered to any more.
What we need next is what made the Mac great, a user interaction model for the future, say ten years. Not one that relies on buttons and panels, but one with a new physics.
As it happens, we are designing user interfaces here for a system that evolved from the earlier discussions. We're frustrated by the limits of Apple and Google devices. We've spent time with the true open source options, Sailfish, Ubuntu and Tizen. They disappoint when held against our needs. The problem is that you really do have to integrate hardware with the software controls, and you have to use low level APIs to innovate in the UI. Only Apple can do this.
What has happened at Apple couldn't have been predicted. While goofy pundits worry about whether Apple can survive after Jobs, some of us knew that Jobs and his protege was the problem now. The radical thing that has happened is that Tim Cook inherited a divided company. He did the unthinkable: booting out the Jobs guy. This is big. He did this only seven months ago and chartered something new, something not on Jobs' master plan. He's betting the future of his leading product on this. There is no question in my mind that this is the guy to lead Apple.