Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, you heard about Steve Jobs’ announcement of the Apple iPad on Wednesday. However, the response to the device was less rapturous than anticipated, with journalists and tech junkies criticizing the device while it was still being unveiled.
So was the iPad really an iFail? The first question that has to be answered is how we define success versus failure. In my mind there are two major ways to do this:
- Is the iPad good for the technology world as a whole?
- Will the iPad be a success for Apple?
Those are two very different questions with different answers. Let’s break it down one at a time.
1. Is the iPad good for the technology world as a whole?
Device
In defining whether or not the iPad is good for technology, we have to look at a few factors. The first, and most obvious, is the device itself. There are some interesting technical advances in the screen technology, so that it’s easy to see the screen from multiple angles. However, as lots of folks have pointed out, the iPad as a device is really little more than a big iPod Touch.
User Interface
In terms of user interface, the iPad draws largely from the conventions established in the iPhone (they even share an OS). There are some major improvements in individual applications, and the addition of the iWork suite is interesting, but there isn’t a major breakthrough as there was when the iPhone was announced. However, this lack doesn’t mean that the iPad UI won’t be extremely easy and comfortable to use.
Ecosystem
Beyond the device and its interface, there are a few areas in which I believe the iPad is much stronger. The first is the creation of a media ecosystem. The iPod didn’t really come into its own until the iTunes music store was released; same with the iPhone and the App Store. On Wednesday, we got a hint of the iPad’s ecosystem with the iBooks application, which supports book downloads in a similar manner to the Kindle. I can only assume that that marketplace will continue to grow, and will probably replace the Kindle’s (the use of ePub technology is a good sign, although from the prices shown in the demo books on the iPad will be slightly more expensive than books on the Kindle).
However, I believe that a larger opportunity is a streaming television ecosystem. Right now the iTunes Store supports TV episodes and movies, but there isn’t anything that supports free or subscription based streaming. But what about when Hulu and Netflix develop streaming video clients for the iPad, or, better yet, partner with Apple to create a network-agnostic streaming media service? That would be truly revolutionary and might be the final nail in the coffin for traditional cable TV.
Now, this is not to say that the ecosystem is ideal. Like many others, I am concerned about the fact that the all of Apple’s “stores” are closed systems. Apple, and only Apple, has complete control over what types of content and applications we can be exposed to on their devices.
You can do on the iPad only what Apple allows. And if you are allowed to do something, you have to go through iTunes or MobileMe to do it. Apple makes a nice chunk of change on everything you do, but more importantly it gets to play gatekeeper. In OS X, Apple can’t block you from using apps it doesn’t like or competes with. But it famously blocks you from doing so on the iPhone and now presumably on the iPad, which is connected to the same App Store. How long before it blocks movies, TV shows, songs, books and even web sites? Scoff now, but don’t be so naïve as to believe that this isn’t possible. – The iPad’s Closed System: Sometimes I Hate Being Right
Now, this is not a new thing. Apple has never been very open minded about collaboration and experimentation. And, to be fair, thus far I believe that the decisions they have made have been very positive for the vast majority of their users. However, it is certainly a red flag for those of us who believe in data freedom.
New behaviors
This is where I think the iPad really has legs. Its price point and form factor has the opportunity to greatly the expand the number of people who expect to have the internet constantly at their fingertips, even when they’re on their couch. Most of the tech writers and Twitterers (myself included) are already used to this behavior, so it doesn’t seem new to them. However, I believe that it is a revolutionary idea that could vastly change how the average person understands computing and data access, which I think is a great thing.
I think of my in-laws as the typical “non-computer” user. They have desktops (obsolete, underpowered Dells), which they use for internet access, but, like most Americans, they aren’t really immersed in technology. But a device that contains all their books and plays streaming TV too? That’s something they might go for.
A lot of people are complaining that they don’t really need an iPad – they are happy with their laptop and their phone, and don’t really see the gap there. To be honest, I’m not sure the gap is there either. I think that there is a class of people for whom the iPad will actually replace the laptop. No, you can’t code on it. But how many people really want to?
Going back to my family for an example, last year my brother-in-law was looking into buying a laptop. He desperately wanted a Macbook – he loved the form factor and user experience. But, since he doesn’t use the computer for much beyond web browsing, he couldn’t justify the cost. Even if he could have justified it, it would still have been unaffordable. An iPad would have solved all his needs at a price point that works.
Summary
So, my answer for “is the iPad good for tech”, is a net “yes”. Is it as revolutionary as, say, the iPhone? Maybe not. Does it have major drawbacks? Yes, definitely. But I believe that the opportunities for the ecosystems and behaviors make it an overall step forward.
2) Will the iPad be successful for Apple?
This second question is much easier to answer. Based on the possibilities posed by the ecosystem and a new category of consumer behavior, I believe that the iPad will be big.
Apple will make serious bank on the ecosystem they create. Once someone purchases the iPhone, they will be downloading DVDs and books by the handful. This is obviously why they were able to make the price point so low.
This is not to say that everything will be rosy right out of the gate. Success might take some time. Like every Apple release, the first generation will be flawed and won’t have huge sales. But in five years, I am sure this will be huge for the company.
Addendum: A note on Flash and Multitasking
One of the consistent complaints about the device (and the iPhone before it) is the lack of Flash. The fact that people even thought that Flash would be included is absurd.
Let me break it down. Apple will NEVER support Flash. Apple makes its money through its product’s ecosystems, as I discussed above. If Flash worked in Safari, people would program games that never have to go the App Store. People would even charge for them on their own sites. Apple would lose its revenue stream. I’m not saying this decision is morally right, but it makes complete business sense.
Also, if we’re fair for a second, Flash is kinda shit. 90% of the time it’s used unnecessarily. Adobe is even more of a closed system than Apple is. I, for one, am psyched that it is dying out. Don’t worry, we’re not going to lose functionality – HTML 5 is on the way. How will Apple handle that threat to its system? No idea.
Another complaint that has been quieter but more important is about multitasking. Unlike a computer, you won’t be able to have multiple apps open at one time on the iPhone. This is a problem. When I’m reading a web site, I want my Twitter running, IM alerting me to friends’ messages, and Pandora playing. I suspect (and hope) that this might be addressed in a future release of the iPhone OS.
