Steve Jobs presents the iPad.
If you were expecting an immediate paradigm shift from Apple’s iPad, you’re probably disappointed with the actual device.
However, if you, like me, were prepared for something akin to an oversized iPod or an overstuffed Kindle, you might be a little more excited by the iPad.
iPad side view.
Apple rarely comes up with something completely new; what they tend to do is improve upon existing technologies to the point that their changes are revolutionary, not evolutionary.
MPMan F10, the first commercially available MP3 player, debuted in 1998. It held about 8 songs, and plugged into your PC with a parallel cable.
For example, there were many digital music players before the iPod, but little traction or adoption. The introduction of the iPod and its integration with iTunes changed everything. Similarly, there were plenty of smart phones before the iPhone, but the iPhone was such a hit that it quickly become the standard against which other phones are judged. Even the failed Newton (the iPad’s ancient forefather) took the idea of the digital assistant to new heights, inspiring an entire category of PDAs.
The iPad is a first generation device, with some obvious and frustrating limitations (no camera, multitasking, or support for Flash, for example). But, given its unique form factor, its substantive application base, its incredible suite of built-in features, and its price point, it might be the first slate or tablet to actually gain sizable market share, and therefore will start the ball rolling yet again for the Apple juggernaut. Or it could be another Apple TV. (Side note: who could have predicted that just a decade after Apple’s darkest years, we’d be able to justifiably call them a juggernaut?).
The Apple TV is fizzling, primarily because it didn't revolutionize any particular aspect of the television experience.
Tablets have existed for a while, and most people agree the concept is great. But no one has cracked the code from both a form factor and feature perspective that would make widespread adoption possible. I think the iPad may be the first device to crack that code, if Apple can clearly articulate, through marketing and demonstration, that the device fills a void no other device does…or does as well.
One huge advantage Apple has is its retail store presence: being able to hold and interact with the iPad may allow the device to sell itself, and certainly Apple knows this. Many great products, like Tivo for example, suffer because people don’t understand what they do or why they are great until they actually use them. Apple’s retail presence is a critical piece in the marketing puzzle.
As I said (and posted here just before the launch), I had low expectations for the iPad. Once I saw it, I wanted one. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone.
I too was very impressed with the iPad demo and immediately decided I wanted one. However wanting one and getting one are very different. At home I’d love to have one but I don’t seem myself spending that much money on one. My initial thought was I’d figure out a way to get one at work, after all almost every meeting I go to I have my iPhone and often bring my laptop and now I could bring something smaller than my laptop. BUT there I hit a snag. When I am mobile I am either doing just emails and in that case my iPhone is for the most part sufficient and if I’m doing something more it almost always required Word, Excel or PowerPoint. While there is a version of iWorks for the iPad it appears I will be suffing with endless compatability issues between iWork and MS Office so the iPad will be of a lot less value than I initially thought. So for it to be truly useful at work it would need better MS Office compatability and I’d love a feature where any files available on my laptop are automatically available on the iPad and vice-versa…
But I want one… … …
Sort of related: It appears Apple is doing some quality brinksmanship regarding Flash. They are trying to build up enough users that sites will be forced to stop using flash and they need this to happen before users become too fed up with Apple for not supporting flash…
Excellent points, Brent. I’m equally frustrated by Apple’s steadfast refusal to allow Flash on its products. It’s short-sighted and may ultimately have a very negative impact on their sales, especially as other players enter the market with Flash capabilities. It’s not like a small minority of sites and services don’t use Flash.
As to your other points, I use iWork in a Microsoft-centric office, and have had no problems sharing files, so long as I save them in the correct format. But, of course, I’m working in fairly simple documents, not complex presentations or spreadsheets.
As far as having your files sync, I use Dropbox on my iPhone and my 3 computers (laptop and iMac at home, desktop at work), and so I have the same files everywhere. I imagine it will only be a very short time before there’s an iPad version of Dropbox. If you haven’t tried it, do. It’s amazing
Finally, an overall comment: I had a similar reaction but I think you and I may, just may, be missing the point. Perhaps the iPad is not destined for offices at all, but is like the original concept of a tablet: a device you leave lying around your house, that you pick up whenever you want, to send an email, check facebook, read a magazine, check a recipe, play a quick game of sudoku. In other words, it’s more for showing than for doing. I think many of the major criticisms (no multi-tasking, no built-in keyboard) are important if you’re considering this as a laptop replacement, but if you think of it as a true media device, maybe not so much. Thoughts?
I guess it’s hard for some to understand the phrase “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” Many companies haven’t learned that every new feature added chips away at simplicity and overall usability of their products. Prime example is my wife’s Blackberry. I can’t use the damn thing. Tons of features and buttons, but I can’t figure out how to send an email or browse the web.
This dude has some interesting thoughts on the iPad: that it *is*, in fact, a paradigm-shift. Just one that more techie folks either don’t get or can’t handle:
http://www.macworld.com/article/146038/2010/01/ipad_future_shock.html
Excellent link, Carl.
Apple certainly has its evangelical base, but those who hate all things Apple rarely see themselves as equally evangelical in their fervor.
The other day, a friend sent me a link concerning everything that sucked about the iPad (in fact, that was the less-than-literary title). It was basically a laundry list of technical features the iPad didn’t have, without any analysis as to why those features might be missing.
Certainly, for those who love tech and features as much if not more than experience, the iPad is a disaster. But for those who can see beyond Apple, and who think the experience is what matters, they can see this as an incredible step. Brave, in a way, to leave some features off. Certainly, the lack of Flash is stupid. But multi-tasking? Really, can’t some experiences (like reading a book, following a recipe, playing a game, or perusing facebook) be singular in focus, only to be interrupted if and when the user chooses?
As the author points out, we’re getting it backward. The dream of technology is to liberate us. Unfortunately, the charge for more features and options, and the resulting learning curve, puts technology in control. If we don’t learn, we fall behind. Fortunately, some people get it. Hopefully more will, too.