1. According to Engadget it was available as capacitive or digitizer. (in 2007 and not 2010)
2. yes it was expensive, so...
3. Low end hardware? Intel Core 2 Duo and 2GB ram- erm... what were the specs for the MBPs in 2007. I don't understand the end of your post, "2 decade old"??? I was merely trying to point out that the overall shape/look of the iPad is not as revolutionary as many would suggest. I am not saying that Apple copied anyone, just pointing out that two different developers can come up with similar looking items without prior knowledge of the other.
1) That's not the model you showed to claim Apple is a thief, now is it? You showed the black model which only has the resitive input display. Also, the demo of the capacitance model came a year after the iPhone was first demoed and there is no mention of it being multi-touch.
2) So? Soooo?!!! Why does the price of a product matter to its success in a market? What a fucking assassin comment to make regarding the success of a given product in a given market.
3a) Two decades old! That's how long people have been trying to make a tablet form factor work before Apple came along. Your comment about the form factor is ridiculous, to say the least. Of course all tablets are going to be most a display on one side and essentially a slab. When you call something a tablet you've got a general idea of the design. Let's not forge that Sci-Fi had described tablets for at least a decade before Apple was even founded. Personal computing was also written about so I guess we can claim Apple's founding was based on prior art?¡
3b.1) And lets be clear about what makes the iPad and iPhone a success. They took many things and put them together in a way that had never been done before. They changed their markets because they make a viable, useful and desirable product. There is no fluke to their success. There is no accident that a concept they started working almost a decade earlier finally came to fruition in 2010. They didn't rush to market with a PPC-based tablet running Mac OS 9. It was about a product they would want to use not a product they can claim "First!" on like a immature commenter on Engadget or Gizmodo.
3b.2) Here is another example that you won't be able to disagree with. Google didn't invent search but they made it great. They engineered ways to make it better, to make it more useful, to make it more appealing. Does Google not deserve their search success simply because they weren't the "First!" to create a search engine? Of course not.