So, that new iPad thing — wait! Don’t go! I promise that this will be the last iPad post I’ll write for a good long while, okay?

I have to admit, I’m a bit cool on Apple’s new wundertoy. And yet, I’m still looking forward to its launch because of the inevitable cavalcade of followers it’s bound to inspire. The serious contenders, the cheap knock-offs, the cynical attempts to cash-in – I can’t wait to see what people will come up with.

The main complaints that people seem to have about the iPad is that it might fall between two stools: It may be too big and clunky when compared to an iPhone, while also being not quite useful enough to supplant the netbook. Be that as it may, the fact that Apple is basically telling all the little consumers out there that tablets are a viable form-factor means that we’ll likely see more people embrace it. And that gets all the other hardware manufacturers dreaming of all the money they could be making selling their own tablets. (And a lot of hardware makers have such devices on the market, already.)

Which is a good thing, because the other big complaint about the iPad is the closed-off, proprietary nature of its software, which allows it to be elegant – but also makes it the best device yet for nickel and diming consumers to death, constantly dunning them for new apps, new content.

It’s a good thing that there’s going to be wave after wave of non-Apple clones of this thing, because at least a few of them will be so, so hackable. The word will get out about which ones are better than others, hobbyists will start cranking out code, prices will slowly start to fall, and then – maybe – it will happen. That dream shared by millions of geeks the world over, might actually come true.

I am referring, of course, to the mass adoption of hand-held, truly general purpose computing. In computer science, general purpose computing is strictly defined as any computer that can follow arbitrary, programmed instructions. (Technically, the iPhone is a general purpose computer, from that point of view.) However, while the chips in an iPhone might be capable of just about anything, the restrictions placed on it by its creators hamper its potential, and betray the spirit of General Purpose.

The iPad is yet another instance of Apple’s dictatorial approach to information technology. This has its advantages, and can lead to some incredibly elegant and reliable products. But, the iPad — its software will be closely monitored, and expanding its capabilities will be costly to the end-user, and ultimately, it still may not do all the things you want, the way you want. We might accept this for a mobile phone (the major carriers and phone manufacturers have trained us not to expect much), but the iPad is half computer; and maybe that’s too much like a computer for us to stand for that sort of thing.

Cheaper, more open knock-offs are bound to emerge. They may never be as popular as the iPad, nor will they ever be as cool, or as easy to use. But any company hoping to seriously compete (or siphon-off the people who can’t afford the “real deal”) will try their damnedest to build open, high-quality machines to face-off against Apple’s new marvel. True wide-spread, hand-held, general purpose computing might actually arise.

And so, the iPad really could change how we think about and use computers.

And it will be all Apple’s fault.