iPad (and so will you)
At 10 AM this morning, Apple debuted its long rumored "tablet" mobile device, and with it, a limitless number of easy menstruation jokes. The consensus I'm hearing around Boalt today seems to be that it's underwhelming, primarily because it doesn't do anything you can't do with an iPhone or MacBook.
My response: of course it can't! Why? Because the iPhone and MacBook exist, and this doesn't yet. No software developer is going to create a program that takes full advantage of a large full-color touch-screen with good processing speed when no such device is even on the market. So, for now, we have a middle-of-the-road platform that does most of the things its cousins can do, but hasn't yet come into its own. That doesn't mean it won't.
It's just a matter of time before third party developers come up with all kinds of really cool, super functional programs for this new medium that we, in our limited two-device worldview, cannot even imagine yet. We saw one example today, with the MLB.com App that Jobs said was developed in just a couple of weeks. It allows you to watch LIVE HD BASEBALL with graphical overlays showing stats, links to other games, etc. You can do things like touch a player's image and reveal a baseball card showing his stats and bio, and I don't even know what else. My point is, once you combine touch-screen and full-color on a large enough screen that you will actually use it to look at things, a whole new world of possibilities opens up, and it's a fallacy to say that's not the case just because we haven't yet had access to that world.
My prediction: five years from now, you won't just want the iPad, you'll need it--and not just during your ePeriod. (Sorry.)
My response: of course it can't! Why? Because the iPhone and MacBook exist, and this doesn't yet. No software developer is going to create a program that takes full advantage of a large full-color touch-screen with good processing speed when no such device is even on the market. So, for now, we have a middle-of-the-road platform that does most of the things its cousins can do, but hasn't yet come into its own. That doesn't mean it won't.
It's just a matter of time before third party developers come up with all kinds of really cool, super functional programs for this new medium that we, in our limited two-device worldview, cannot even imagine yet. We saw one example today, with the MLB.com App that Jobs said was developed in just a couple of weeks. It allows you to watch LIVE HD BASEBALL with graphical overlays showing stats, links to other games, etc. You can do things like touch a player's image and reveal a baseball card showing his stats and bio, and I don't even know what else. My point is, once you combine touch-screen and full-color on a large enough screen that you will actually use it to look at things, a whole new world of possibilities opens up, and it's a fallacy to say that's not the case just because we haven't yet had access to that world.
My prediction: five years from now, you won't just want the iPad, you'll need it--and not just during your ePeriod. (Sorry.)
posted by Dan at 2:07 PM
29 Comments:
When I'm a rich lawyer, I'm going to replace the MacBook Pro - iPhone combo with the iPhone - iMac - (hopefully renamed by then) iPad combo. Hell, maybe I'll even scrap the iPhone for a regular phone then, so I don't have to pay the phone company for two data plans.
Everything you've said applies to the HP Slate which was released a couple weeks ago.
Tablet PCs are cool, nobody is arguing that they aren't. The iPad is nothing special however.
To contrast, when the iPod touch was released it was a huge leap forward for MP3 players. I'd never seen the touch interface on a mainstream device that fits in your pocket. Even the flip navigation was cool and new.
The iPad had no such mindblowing, game-changing features. Its just another slate computer. I've seen a bunch of them, and some of them are even cooler than the iPad.
I've always wanted an iPhone that wouldn't fit in my pocket. Thank god Steve Jobs made me one.
Hersh, I don't disagree. This is the first Tablet I have seen that seems at all functional, and that's probably the case for most consumers. That's the fundamental paradigm shift I'm talking about. If other Tablets overtake the market, fine. That could happen. I wouldn't argue with you on that.
But I think a lot of people are saying that there is no point to having a "bigger iPhone," and I strongly disagree.
Also Hesh, I think one thing Mac has proven itself to be very very good at is making something that is both highly functional and very intuitive. The devices you mention might be technically superior, but I doubt they'll have the same market share. And because the ultimate winner of the Tablet game will be the system with the best software "apps," Apple has a huge head start.
To be fair, Apple invited iPhone comparisons by bragging that the iPad can use all of the apps written for the iPhone.
Haha, I don't think they could possible have avoided iPhone comparisons! Not that they should. I mean, they're Apple; of course people are going to compare their products. I'm just saying that the bigger screen makes a big difference, and we'll see the proof trickle in over the next few months.
Once the "New iProduct!" euphoria dies down, I think lots of people will conclude that this is no game-changer. Here are eight great reasons why.
Seriously. No multi-tasking. Awkward keyboard. Closed system. There's no way that I would trade a laptop for that.
The introductory video at apple.com disappointed me. It stretched two minutes worth of substance over eight minutes worth of video. The conclusion I left with was that apple is trying to create a market here, rather than fill a demand.
Maybe they can do it. But here's why I don't think so. First, as James pointed out, I don't want a bigger iPhone. I want a smaller one.
I realize the hope is that the iPad will offer apps with more functionality, sort of like a . . . laptop? That tee's up the next criticism. With its teensy little 1GHz processor and "elegant" interface (read, extremely limited) the functionality seems pretty limited to web browsing and simple apps. If I cannot carry it in my pocket, I want to be able to do more than send email, pull up a web page, or run a bigger version of an iPhone app. I would want it to do things like word processing or text manipulation, and we all know how useful a touch screen is for that. It may be that the iPad allows interface with a keyboard and mouse, which would solve the interface problem, but my guess is that a keyboard and mouse interface would only bring the iPad's slow processor right to the forefront.
Maybe I'm biased toward laptops, and maybe I don't appreciate the ability to "hold the internet in your hand" as Apple's video repeatedly touts. But I doubt it. I completely understand how nice the bigger screen will be, but I suspect it would only make me want more versatility. Sort of like a . . . laptop.
"It may be that the iPad allows interface with a keyboard and mouse, which would solve the interface problem, but my guess is that a keyboard and mouse interface would only bring the iPad's slow processor right to the forefront."
They showed at the announcement a keyboard dock for the iPad (keyboard attached to a mount for the iPad to sit horizontally on), however that is not as mobile as a normal usb keyboard.
I am pretty skeptical as to the possibilities of the iPad, but if I had: a. $500 to spare and b. $30/mo to lay out for 3G, I would give it a whirl. If nothing else it would be good for watching movies on airplanes. But since I lack said funds, that is not happening.
This comment has been removed by the author.
1Ghz is nothing to scoff at. It can handle H.264 decryption, which is likely to be among the more processing-intensive tasks you perform with it. People aren't going to be running regression analysis on it, and especially (unfortunately?) with the lack of multi-tasking, you won't need more.
Aside from this, I agree with Patrick. This is no iphone or laptop replacement. Maybe if it was a tablet macbook, but it isn't. It's much more closed and functionally limited.
Is there a market for this? Maybe. Maybe people will buy it instead of a kindle? Maybe this will complement a non-smartphone? It doesn't really complement a laptop. The battery life is nice, so maybe parents will buy it for children for roadtrips? Maybe the elderly that require simplicity (and are precluded from laptops)? Maybe professors who don't want to haul around a laptop? Businessmen who need something to haul to meetings? Feeble librarians who can't hoist the 3lb macbook air?
It's hard to imagine this catching on, or really even eating into laptop sales. I have spoken.
I agree that this is not a competitor to a laptop. I also don't think it's as necessary as a smart phone. It's a luxury item, to be sure. That doesn't mean there's not a place for it.
It seems like we are having two debates here. The first is whether a Tablet Computer/Mobile Device will ever be something many people will want. The second is whether the iPad is a good example of such a device.
The first question is certainly debatable, but I think there is plenty of room for tablets. Imagine you are sitting at home, maybe talking to your family or whatever, and you need to do some simple internet task--buy movie tickets, grab a take-out menu, look up a location, or share a newspaper article. Yes, you can do all of these things with a laptop. But, assuming the iPad is as easy to use as Jobs claimed, there is a refreshing informality to it that Laptops cannot offer. The fact that it is hand-held means that you can use it without changing whatever else you're doing. That's a small thing, but it's a significant paradigm shift. If it really becomes that easy to use, the phrase "let me go get on the internet" will become obsolete. Tablets have the potential to get rid of the rigidity of personal computers, even if they can't do quite as much. Maybe that's not worth $500-$800 to you, but it is to many people. And once the price comes down, it will be to many more.
As for the second question, if a Tablet market exists, I think Apple will dominate it. The most competition Apple has seen so far has been in the smart phone market, where many people prefer Droid devices and exclusive data plan contracts got in the way of Apple's total control. Still, the iPhone is far and away the leading seller. And the fact that it's the leading seller means that it has the best Apps. Having the best Apps is just one part of the smart phone market, but for Tablets, it's the ball game. And that's why Apple will win.
Saying that this doesn't compete with a laptop relies on the unstated assumption that you use your laptop as your primary computer. Really, it's not going to compete with your primary computing device, whether that's a laptop or a desktop.
If, however, you have a laptop and a desktop, and you use the laptop primarily for dicking around online on your couch, checking email, commenting on N&B, etc., this device could certainly replace that. And it probably would do it effectively.
That, and the plan is that it beats the hell out of a Kindle or a Nook, if you've got one of those.
I really don't think Apple intends this to compete with laptops. If it was a laptop replacement, it would cost a lot more than $500 and probably have better word processing, etc. They're definitely trying to create a new market here. Whether they can do so will depend on whether people start making cool shit for it that you can't use on a laptop. And we have now come full circle back to the point of my post.
Dan - what sort of cool shit could you make for this that wouldn't work on a laptop? Stuff that uses the accelerometer? I can't think of anything else. You can even get a data card from AT&T to copy that feature.
Here's the thing... while I agree they aren't trying to compete with laptops, I disagree on the reason. I don't think it's explicitly to create a new market, but also to avoid cannibalizing their own macbook sales. And to accomplish this end, they removed features found in laptops. If you want a real laptop, you still have to buy one.
What does that leave us with? A handicapped device. Sure, it's cheap. And sexy. But it's still crippled functionally. Maybe they will carve out a niche, and if they do, good for them. It sucks that we have to suffer from an inferior device as a result.
Toney, did you read the post? I'm arguing that touch-screen functionality combined with a good video screen adds a new dimension that enables all kinds of new things.
Check out the NY Times app they debuted today. Or imagine if there was finally a good way to read comics on a computer screen. Or the aforementioned Baseball app opens up new avenues for lots of similar "touch while watching" ideas.
I'm saying that it's hard for us to imagine what it could be used for now, because up till now there has been no reason to create anything that could be used on it.
It might be a waste, but it's way too early to call it.
Sorry Dan, I should have been more clear. I was responding to the point you made in your response at 5:13, re: the ipad doing things a laptop can't do. A great monitor with touchscreen seems functionally equivalent to a laptop monitor and a mouse to me. Reading comics is a good example of something made more pleasant on a tablet, and maybe newspaper subscriptions, but this reduces the novelty to a glorified e-reader (which may be worth the cost alone). Is there something else novel I'm missing?
A good video screen...that doesn't play flash. Checking email...but then going back to your laptop in order to reply because of the wonky keyboard. And don't bother trying to listen to Pandora while doing other stuff. Or trying to customize it or install any software other than Apple-improved apps.
One thought, tying in to a post lower down on the main page, is that since the iPad runs iPod apps, it could also run that bar prep app. So, if someone wanted to use THAT, the iPad would probably be a more convenient medium than an iPhone. There, I found one good thing.
i know nothing about antitrust law but is there any sort of microsoft-esq bundling behavior going on here...
The gizmodo post identifies some major flaws with the iPad, which I wasn't totally aware of at the time (lack of multitasking being the worst), but I think most of these things will be worked out in future versions. My post is more about the possibilities a intuitive and functional tablet opens up for the future. I think that, down the road, once the kinks have been worked out and developers have had some time to experiment, everyone will want a tablet-device. It probably won't be this version, but this is a first step down a very interesting road.
Haven't you guys seen Star Trek?
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/PADD
Can anyone honestly say that someone using this thing won't look like a huge chomo?
As a tech-savvy consumer, I'm pretty disgusted.
No multitasking? No Flash support? No native PDF support? Embarrassing omissions.
In my view, netbooks have already set a high bar in the market space between smarthpones and laptops.
The iPad simply doesn't fit. On one hand, I'd prefer a smartphone. On the other hand, I'd prefer a fully-functional netbook (for half the price).
I hope Apple tries this again with a real OS. It's a shame to see such a pretty piece of hardware so crippled.
Gruber's write-up on why Apple refuses to accommodate Adobe's proprietary flash software is a pretty good read.
Particularly, this part:
"It’s probably pretty clear to regular DF readers that I don’t care for Flash, and that I’m hoping Apple never includes it in the iPhone OS. Might as well make my biases clear.
Why? At the core, because Flash is the only de facto web standard based on a proprietary technology. There are numerous proprietary web content plugins — including Apple’s QuickTime — but Flash is the only one that’s so ubiquitous that it’s a de facto standard. Flash is the way video is delivered over the web, and Adobe completely controls Flash. No other aspect of the web works like this. HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are all open standards, with numerous implementations, including several that are open source."
(Granted, Gruber is a HUGE Apple loyalist, so take that for what it's worth.)
This is somewhat trumped by the fact that Adobe has opened up Flash, done away with license fees, and has brought on many tech gorups to make the standards cross-platform accessible.
This is also completely trumped by the fact that Apple is the very poster child of proprietary software. You can't run OSX on non-apple hardware. You can't develop an iphone app without draconian apple approval. And you can't connect an ipod to non-itunes media players & organizers.
Granted, I like them and all, but Gruber tries daily to impregnant Apple. The dirty way.
Relatedly, ClickToFlash has been my favorite Safari plug-in. It's practically an ad-blocker, and prevents those pesky web videos that play automatically from making noise (accidentally) while I'm in class.
I finally figured out why I really want an iPad.
I was sitting on the throne today, iPhone in hand, taking a long poop, when it occurred to me: I really want to watch video while I do my business. My iPhone is too small, my laptop too large. An iPad would be just right.
500 bucks to really enjoy my few moments of uninterrupted solace all day? Worth it.
Post a Comment
<< Home