Really? Can you cite a source for this rather absurd claim?
EDIT: I can't reply to the thread below so I'm putting my reply here. I have activated a half dozen iPhones on my Mac for friends that don't own computers. While it may not be the smartest thing (no backups), it is certainly doable and both the iPad and the iPhone are still very much useful without a computer.
The only unbiased, quantifiable data I can come up with is a simple Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22iphone+without+computer%22
It appears that there is quite a bit of interest in using the iPhone without a computer based on the resulting articles and forum posts.
To the best of my knowledge you need a computer with iTunes installed to start an iPad at all. A home without any other computer means that your iPad is a flashy paperweight. Also, it's really far too early to tell if the iPad (which is being sold in huge numbers) will replace other things or (as I think Apple hopes) supplement other devices.
Edit: Please notice I say "iPad" above. You respond by talking about the iPhone. They're not the same in this regard, I think. The iPad requires a computer with iTunes to start it initially.
All of that said, I agree that their current model really should change. (Also, the pop-up message in the blog is stunningly obnoxious in wording. It's approaching the "bomb + ok" level of bad.)
Apple has gone out of its way to make sure the iPad is treated as an additional device, not a sole device for a user. This is important because it allows (or at least helps to allow) the iPad to be judged on its own merit for its own uses, not as if it were the general-purpose computer that some (critically: not Apple) like to claim that it is, much to the iPad's detriment.