Marci Ikeler

The iPad and the future of computing (hands-on review)

Like 300,000 others, I bought an iPad this weekend. For me it was something of an impulse buy - I have already pre-ordered a 64GB 3G version, which is shipping in late April (I’m hoping to sell this WiFi version then, at a discount of course). However, since I make my living by thinking about emerging technologies and the behavioral changes they engender, I’m justified in the silliness of buying not one, but two, iPads. So, the big question: what is it like to own an iPad?

Quite comfortable, actually. Everything from the in-store experience (you are greeted by a personal sales assistant and a line of clapping employees, cheering your valiant efforts standing in line - only 5 minutes long, incidentally) to the experience of typing this blog post has been surprisingly easy and smooth. That’s not to say that it’s without flaws, of which there are many (and to which any typos in this post will attest).

The Positive

As mentioned above, almost everything about the iPad experience is smooth. It shows that Apple has put a great deal of thought into both the device itself as well as all the experiences that surround it - the App Store, the packaging, in-store. The physical device is technologically impressive; the screen is crystal clear and the processor response is snappy. In fact, an unfortunate downside of the iPad is to instantly make one’s previously treasured iPhone feel clunky and old.

Another successful aspect of the device is, of course, the interface and usability. The OS works much like the iPhones, which is to say that it’s highly tactile, elegant, and easy to understand. It is entirely possible to hand the device around the table and see every single person use it and play with it without confusion or hesitation. I compare this experience to when I got my Kindle and took it out at dinner with friends; no one was able to find the book store or navigate from my open book to the home screen (in fact, most people intently pinched and rubbed the screen, expecting an iPhone-like touch interface).

There are a few excellent apps out for the iPad. My favorites so far: Instapaper, Twitterific (TweetDeck is gorgeous but its data connection has been inconsistent for me), Keynote, Brushes, Touchpad, Wordpress (on which I’m writing this), Epicurious, Weather HD, and Netflix. However, one area that I am really impressed and surprised by is the quality of the games. I probably should have expected this, but WOW - gaming on the iPad is amazing. As a gaming device alone the iPad more than justifies its price point.

The Negative

Okay, enough of the Kool Aid. Not everything works perfectly; some of the apps seem downright buggy, and I’ve received a few “out of memory” warnings (fixed for me by deselecting the “fill my remaining space with music” option in the sync settings). The lack of multitasking is a real pain in the ass, and I’ve had some issues copying/pasting across applications (which, again, might be the fault of the app developers and not Apple). While I’d argue that the iPad is already a superb entertainment device, the lack of multitasking really hinders any serious attempts at productivity. Also, I’ve experienced some of the WiFi spottiness that others have reported - this is the only part of the above that feels like it could be a serious bug.

Beyond functionality, lots of folks have raised some serious concerns about what the iPad means for technology. Cory Doctorow wrote an impassioned argument against the iPad due to Apple’s fondness for tightly controlled, closed systems, and he makes some very valid points. In the long run I think that open systems will win out over closed. In my mind Apple is something of a sherpa; they create and lead with new technologies, ecosystems, and devices, opening the possibilities for open systems to follow and flourish in their wake. An advantage to the closed system is the high level of quality control it allows, which is what makes the iPhone and iPad app stores so much more pleasurable than, say, the Android’s. So I guess I’m less moralistic about the topic than Doctorow, although I do understand and ultimately agree with his point.

The second big concern I’ve heard about the iPad is that it reverts our interactions back to passive consumption, rather than active creation. I think that this is mostly, if not entirely, true. First of all, it is fairly convenient to create content on the iPad; I’m quite happy writing this post on it, and last night I made the first of what I hope to be a series of “paintings” with the Brushes program. It is much easier to create content on the iPad than it ever was on the iPhone, and I’ve never heard the active/passive criticism about that device. Secondly, we are still in early days - I fully expect content creation to improve as more apps are created. But with those caveats, I do think that the iPad’s primary usage is for content consumption. What the iPad excels at is not work but entertainment - and what’s so wrong with that?

The Potential

As I wrote in my post reacting to the iPad’s announcement, the most interesting parts of what the iPad means are not going to be apparent for some time. The first potentiality is for a massive media ecosystem that includes television, books, and movies. Right now, all three offerings are rather anemic, but this can only improve. When it does, it will be another strong death blow for the publishing and advertising industries in their current incarnations.

The second potentiality, which I find the most interesting, is how continuous, portable, and usable access to data will change the ways in which people interact with communications and technology. In my group of friends, it is already very common for someone to pull up Wikipedia on their phone to settle an argument. Data access is no longer a luxury; it’s an accepted part of our social routines. As these capabilities become more common place we will have to reevaluate what this new behavior means for communication and socialization.