After reading the internet's large negative response to Apple's new iPad, I can only remember the same comments about the iPod and iPhone.
In my view, people are reacting to what it isn't, instead of what it is, and what it portends.
The iPod was criticized for being bulky, expensive, and closed; yet the real point was the iTunes Music Store integration. It killed off virtually all competitors (last quarter Apple sold 21 million iPods) and eventually morphed over time into an amazing set of devices.
The iPhone was criticized for being large, expensive, tied to one distributor, and lacking in features; the real point was the fully customizable user interface. Eventually Apple exported the SDK and the App Store then wiped out most of the competition, or at least kept them low. The fullscreen glass interface made it possible for the phone to be a platform that could be modified to do almost anything.
Now I read the same kind of shortsighted criticisms for the iPad, some of which are pretty brutal (check Reddit and Digg). I don't believe things will turn out differently this time. It will be a success, the apps people will write will be amazing, and everyone will forget what they said.
It's not that I am blind or anything, but I like to look beyond the immediate and try to see the future direction of things. Having a wireless glass interfaced device with an almost 10" bright screen with 10 hours of full use time is going to be incredibly useful in the near and distant future, no matter what limitations you might see (or think you see) in the first model.
The iPad is not a computer. At least not in the way we view computers today, as general purpose contraptions that haven't fundamentally changed since I bought my first Apple II+ in 1979. The iPad is an entire blank slate onto which almost anything can be put for people to work with and have no clue how to use a computer at all. Its a generic interface device where the face hides what's inside. That's the future; it won't eliminate desktops computers and laptops, but its not trying to. But all of us are so into the computer-like device mentality that it's hard to imagine something else.
The initial model (and that's all it is) does have many lacking features. The OS is only 3.2, not 3.0. There are only a few new features in the OS; I believe that some features they have in 4.0 simply weren't ready when Steve said go so they went with plan 3.2. One of those was probably some form of multitasking; however you could argue that the "computer" version of general multitasking might be less important if what you are building is not exactly a computer. Having stuff update in background is useful even for this type of GID, but its never going to be generating massive 3D models.
The A4 might be variant of an ARM processor or something different, I don't know yet. There is a massive advantage to being able to control the operation of every chip in a device you design and build. We only know what little Apple has told us so far. We also only know what we see today.
I always thought a device needed to exist that mirrored the pad from Star Trek:Next Generation. It was again a generic interface device which could operate both as a terminal or standalone and seemed to identify the user automatically. I think that is the model of what Steve is getting at, despite the crack at netbooks; the iPad is a whole new thing, and as yet we don't see everything it will do and become.
In other words, I am going to get one, and write software for it, despite my earnest disgust with the App Store. iPad therefore iCode.
Paul O'Brien 01/27/2010 16:36
Glad I found your blog through Facebook! And I agree, there's no point in listening to closely to Digg and Reddit comments. Code on brother.
Eric TF Bat 01/27/2010 17:44
You're right: the iPad isn't a computer. I'm not interested in paying that much money for something that isn't a computer, so I'll give it a miss. If someone comes up with a good tablet computer with a reasonable screen resolution and sufficiently open architecture to run Ubuntu, that will suit me.
But hey, Apple isn't a computer company. It's an appliance company. And it's very good at what it does. I'm not their demographic, but what the hell. Good luck to 'em.
Alex Muntean 01/27/2010 18:52
I need a computer, not a "pad", so I'm not getting one. However this toy might be exactly what my wife needs. She's spending a lot of time with her iPhone and her main complaints are slowness and the small screen. Here's her super-sized iPhone!
Pablo Rodriguez 01/28/2010 00:33
I completely agree. I also remember how everyone criticized the iPhone, but just a couple of years later it has changed the way people think about a cell phone.
I usually read books in my iPhone, and I don't find the screen causes tiredness. I recently bought a e-book reader and I got a bit disappointed about the size of the documents it can manage, and I keep looking for a larger e-reading device - something along the line of the Kindle DX. I think, expensive as it may be, that the iPad mostly accomplishes my reading goals, so I will probably buy one, too.
It seems that people are not aware the the iLiad reader costs around 600€ and it is only a dedicated e-book reader. For the same price you get a customizable, color-screen, video-capable device.
Dan Creswell 01/28/2010 03:57
I think you're right because so far it seems like the people giving iPad reviews are geeks who want full computers and they seemingly are not the audience iPad is intended for. Be more interesting to see what an average Joe (seemingly the target audience for the iPad) thinks....
As an aside I think this behaviour is a fantastic example of why most geeks can't get in touch with their customer-side. They're not sensitive to the simplest concepts such as markets having different customer segments that must be targeted with different products.
ppo insurance plans 01/30/2010 08:57
hate how people are so quick to judge this thing without even having touched it. I have a feeling that this thing really is gonna blow away the competition and, as with the iphone, it won't be based on features but on experience. I am confident that this will be the ultimate web browsing experience, and will be able to do things like word docs, excel and keynote etc., not to mention full webbrowsing (Flash would be nice, but most of what people do can be done in youtube, not to mention HTML5 etc.) Flash is outdated and will be replace soon enough. The ipad is thinking into the future. Simply put, it will be the best at what it can do.
Love poetry 02/05/2010 05:39
I completely agree. I also remember how everyone criticized the iPhone, but just a couple of years later it has changed the way people think about a cell phone.
Tom 02/10/2010 09:18
I believe we are going to see some really neat apps that will transform the way the iPad will be used. Stuff we can't even imagine, programs that you can't make for the iphone, but will work perfectly for the larger screen including office apps that will allow this to transform into a different type of computer.
Vincere al poker online 02/17/2010 04:35
I think they should have cameras on all their mobile devices. A front facing camera for the iPad is definitely in the future, I hope they put one on the iPhone as well
Max 02/22/2010 09:47
The iPad is for millions of people who want internet, email, online shopping etc. but don't want the unbelievable hassle of owning a computer.
My mum is one example. At 77 years old she feels completely left out of the whole online revolution. Until now I have advised her not to get a computer as it would be too frustrating.
The iPad changes that for her and millions of senior citizens. She for one will be buying one as soon as it's available in the UK.
huntsville web design 03/03/2010 17:36
How does the new apple ipad tablet benefit the economy and businesses?