Yes there was. The need to be able to actually view streaming content in a more immersive manner than the teeny weeny iphone screen allowed.....

You think that it takes a lot of imagination to realize that a larger screen will give a better viewing experience? [many LOLs follow]

Maybe they should come out with a huge screen device then...maybe call it an 'iPad'.

riiiiiiiiiiight. Try sticking an iPad in your pocket.....

Try doing the same with some phablets...

Yeah, I suppose if you're going to try stuffing an ipad mini or a Samsung Glaxy Note 8 in a pocket, you'd have difficulty, but then those aren't true 'phablets. Any phablets >designed< as such generally do fit in pockets however. My 5.7" screen Note III is one of the largest phablets out there, and it fits in my shirt or coat pocket just fine.

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

You really are an *idiot*. You don't even know what a 'no true scptsman' fallacy is. What? Did you just get a bazooka joe gum wrapperwith 'no true scotsman fallacy' on it, and now just love to hear yourself use your new $10 phrase?

'duh, ooooh geeeee! no true sotsman fall-uh-seeee....duh, oi geeeeee!"

'When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"),[2] creating an implied tautology. It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements by adding "true" or "real" to the subject.'

Vwery good, you've pasted a Wiki definition which doen't apply.

What 'fallacy' did I assert or "exclude a specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule", or create an implied tautology, or create an unnecessary requirement by adding true or real to the subject?

duh. Oi geeee!

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

You asserted that phablets could fit into a pants pocket, and then when faced with a counterexample, you declared that that example wasn't "true 'phablet'".

What counterexample? ipad mini? Sorry, but the fundamental question is whether it's a phablet to begin with. It isn't so it's an invalid example. Therefore it isn't a "true phablet" either, because it wasn't designed as such. You've still failed to point out any fallacy, also.

"Yeah, I suppose if you're going to try stuffing an ipad mini or a Samsung Galaxy Note 8 in a pocket, you'd have difficulty, but then those aren't true 'phablets."

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
And that is excluding a specific case just how again... *exactly*?

Or creating an unecessary requirement by adding "true" or "real"?

"Samsung Galaxy Note 8" "[isn't a] true 'phablets'".

And it isn't.... just as an ipad mini isn't a cb radio, 8 track player, or even a CD player even though it can perform similar fuctions to all those devices.