I think you're trying to make a joke about how the iPad 2 isn't any better than the first but it doesn't make sense. Any village idiot could tell you the iPad 2 is better than the original. There's not a single feature that got worse.

So then the operative part is was it radical or significant? Well, Gruber's whole point is that Apple launches radical products and then slowly improves them. He even concedes that it's probably not worth upgrading for many people:

Most of the 15 million original iPads sold to date do not need to be replaced by iPad 2s. That’s not a problem for Apple, nor a failure for the iPad 2. A $500-800 device should have a useful life that is longer than a year.

So what exactly are you trying to say?

I think this kind of analysis of Apple's process is far more interesting than the resultant products.