[ScaryRobot]

Thinking this through (and reading quite a bit of the debate on both sides), I just realized where the criticism of the iPad takes us, if we follow it to its logical conclusion.

If Apple had just called up whatever Taiwanese outsourcing company makes the $350 Mini 10 netbook for Dell, and said “Give us a couple of million of those, but change the cases a little and put Apple logos on them,” and had slapped stock Snow Leopard installations on their hard drives, many iPad critics would have found substantially less to complain about with the resulting product.

Think about that for a few minutes... and ask yourself if you ever want Apple to stop making products people complain about

[turtle777]

Too many ifs.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the iPad hardware. Meh on the camera issue. I don't like the thickness of the bezel, but I understand that you need some way to hold it without interfering with the screen.

What I don't like about the iPad is that there isn't a clear argument that I should get one when I already have an iPod Touch and a MacBook.

[Simon]

Apple was never interested in the $350 Dell netbook.
Apple was never interested in knocking off some cheap generic PC "design".
Apple was never interested in undercutting their competition.

Also, Apple has good memory. Last time they engaged in businesses where they rebranded cheap electronics and sold them as "Apple" products they nearly ended up going bankrupt.

I think there is quite some justified criticism of the iPad. And I know it doesn't replicate a netbook in terms of features or type of use. But I also know that Apple knows that. And I'm certain they have gone this route on purpose. Chances are they'll make a ton of money thanks to it. Just like they have in the past.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What I don't like about the iPad is that there isn't a clear argument that I should get one when I already have an iPod Touch and a MacBook.

This discussion is going to get repeated in every iPad-related thread for the next six months, isn’t it?

If you actually take your laptop with you very often to do things that you couldn’t do on an iPad, don’t get an iPad. But if your laptop sits on the same desk most days and you only move it now and then, and then you only bring it places to do a little more web browsing or e-mail than is comfortable on an iPhone, you might consider an iPad.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug 

This discussion is going to get repeated in every iPad-related thread for the next six months, isn’t it?

Yep, because if it's not clear to people what they're supposed to do with it that they can't do with an iPod Touch or a laptop (at least one of which that they likely already have), people are going to wonder why they should get it.

Why Windows tablets have failed in the past is because it has never been clear what their purpose was. Without a clear purpose, the only things the iPad has going for it over Windows tablet are a sexy industrial design and an Apple logo.

[Tyinturru]

I think a big part of marketing the iPad is that people already trust the Apple touchscreen products that are out there. The iPod Touch and iPhone have already proven to be reliable products with interfaces that make sense. That's the reason I buy Apple products, and I would imagine it's the reason that people will still go for the iPad.
I agree with ScaryRobot, pushing the boundaries is what got Apple where they are now. Windows-based products repulse me because they fail to do just that.

[Wiskedjak]

Except, the iPad isn't pushing any boundaries.

[mduell]

There was no expectation from anyone that Apple would rebadge a netbook. The rumors were pretty clear that it was a tablet, and nobody had one that was very Apple-like.

The iPad is just an oversized iPod Touch with a squarer screen. Nothing more. The larger space allows a couple new apps (iWork, iBooks) to be usable.

I know people who will buy them (despite being iPhone and MBP owners). I know people who won't (despite being iPhone and MBP owners).

I'm glad the iPad is finally announced so I can cross it off my list of things I'm interested in. Next up is the 13" MBP.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yep, because if it's not clear to people what they're supposed to do with it that they can't do with an iPod Touch or a laptop (at least one of which that they likely already have), people are going to wonder why they should get it.

YOU can't figure it out. YOU are not people.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

YOU can't figure it out. YOU are not people.

-t

I'm not the only person who can't see it. I have no doubt the thing will sell well ... these days, anything with an Apple logo on it sells well. I'm just saying it doesn't seem to have a very clear purpose. And, I suspect even Apple is having problems seeing that, otherwise they wouldn't have highlighted it being used as a computer (gaming and painting) in addition to as an ebook reader.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm not the only person who can't see it. I have no doubt the thing will sell well ... these days, anything with an Apple logo on it sells well. I'm just saying it doesn't seem to have a very clear purpose. And, I suspect even Apple is having problems seeing that, otherwise they wouldn't have highlighted it being used as a computer (gaming and painting) in addition to as an ebook reader.

Oh, this thing has an absolutely clear purpose:

It's the home computer for 90% of the entire market.

The original Macintosh maxim was "the computer for the rest of us."

This is it.

As I wrote over in the "designers' point of view" thread:

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

[The iPad] is not the niche. The iPad is the mainstream.

A full-fledged computer is becoming the niche market.

It used to be that you needed a "computer" to write email, surf the web, and keep up with friends. Now, this stuff fits in your pocket. And, it does video and music, too.

The iPad does everything a normal person needs, and it's a book, magazine, and photo viewer/library.

And your grandmother not only *can*, but *wants to* use it, because it's as undaunting as a stack of magazines.

That's why it needs to run iPhone OS, and not a transplanted computer interface.

This thing will wipe out the low-end PC/laptop/netbook market.

You may have an iPod touch and a computer.

Your mother* won't need either, because iPad is perfect for her needs.



*abstract "your mother". Your own personal mother may be a complete computer geek and programmer, for all I know. That's not the point.

[lpkmckenna]

Previous tablets failed because they were pen-based.

As for "what it is for," it's a general purpose device, just like the iPhone or a laptop, but its size makes it great for browsing or reading on the couch, or watching movies in the back seat, or drawing a picture. Sometimes size matters.

[ScaryRobot]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The iPad is just an oversized iPod Touch with a squarer screen. Nothing more. The larger space allows a couple new apps (iWork, iBooks) to be usable..

I think you are seriously underestimating just how much more can be done on this device as a result of the larger screen (and to a lesser extent the faster processor), and that this will become obvious very quickly once third-party apps start to really take advantage of it. The iPhone may have revolutionized cell phones, but this is the first post-desktop, post-WIMP computing platform with a serious shot at the mainstream. I don't think it's at all crazy to say that (even if Apple itself eventually loses control of the market the way they did with the Mac) this is what the future of computing looks like.

Meanwhile, people waste thousands of pixels complaining the first generation device doesn't have a webcam.

[lpkmckenna]

BTW, since laptops are replacing desktops for most consumers, the iPad could replace laptops for them too.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Previous tablets failed because they were pen-based.

That's a complete underrepresentation, sort of like saying the Hindenburg failed because it was covered in cloth.

Previous tablets failed because they transplanted a computer interface onto a device that has completely and fundamentally different needs, resulting in an almost completely unusable mess that cost far too much due to the requirements of the mismatched computer OS.

It's the same reason Windows Mobile/WinCE is such a dismal failure, and Apple pretty much wiped the floor with that.

The iPad is a scaled-up version (in every respect) of an interface designed from the ground up to feel absolutely natural in this environment.

[lpkmckenna]

When I say they were pen-based, I don't just mean the hardware, but the software too. So we essentially agree.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by ScaryRobot 

I think you are seriously underestimating just how much more can be done on this device as a result of the larger screen (and to a lesser extent the faster processor), and that this will become obvious very quickly once third-party apps start to really take advantage of it. The iPhone may have revolutionized cell phones, but this is the first post-desktop, post-WIMP computing platform with a serious shot at the mainstream. I don't think it's at all crazy to say that (even if Apple itself eventually loses control of the market the way they did with the Mac) this is what the future of computing looks like.

Meanwhile, people waste thousands of pixels complaining the first generation device doesn't have a webcam.

This can't possibly be repeated often enough. What we're looking at is a revolution in the interface between man and machine. Of course there are missing features, the product was rushed to market. They will arrive in good time and if they are a dealbreaker for you, vote with your wallet.

In the meantime, watch the future of computing unfold.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's the home computer for 90% of the entire market.
)

that's only if it doesn't need a home computer to be functional. So far, that isn't really the case for the iPhone OS. Especially until users can expand the storage, back up their photos and music and print.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

that's only if it doesn't need a home computer to be functional. So far, that isn't really the case for the iPhone OS. Especially until users can expand the storage, back up their photos and music and print.

You make a good point: right now, the iPad is not really usable w/o a PC or Mac.

However, that can be changed in the future:

* direct photo import from camera (already possible with dongle)
* direct CD import (ripping) with external CD drive connected via USB
* cloud-based iTunes
* cloud-based backup (on .Mac or something similar)
* direct updates w/o needing iTunes

All of these is technically feasible today. I'm sure we'll see a completely stand-alone version of the iPad in the future.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

^ yes.

(what's a "CD"?)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

(what's a "CD"?)

I know

However, consider, if the iPad is to be offered to people w/o a computer, they might have extensive music libraries on CDs that they'd want to be ripped.

-t

[lpkmckenna]

* direct CD import (ripping) with external CD drive connected via USB
I can't see this happening.
* cloud-based iTunes
Maybe.
* cloud-based backup (on .Mac or something similar)
No way. We don't even have wireless syncing yet.
* direct updates w/o needing iTunes
Maybe.
I'm sure we'll see a completely stand-alone version of the iPad in the future.
Maybe.

[mkerr64]

YouTube - Hitler responds to the iPad

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by mkerr64 

YouTube - Hitler responds to the iPad

Not again. Please.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

* direct CD import (ripping) with external CD drive connected via USB
I can't see this happening.
* cloud-based iTunes
Maybe.
* cloud-based backup (on .Mac or something similar)
No way. We don't even have wireless syncing yet.
* direct updates w/o needing iTunes
Maybe.
I'm sure we'll see a completely stand-alone version of the iPad in the future.
Maybe.

Cloud based iTunes is pretty much a certainty, given Apple's recent acquisitions.
Cloud based document sharing, ditto.

[Simon]

And still, it will be a device almost entirely for consumption of content. Anybody who wants to actually create content will still need a real Mac.

[Spheric Harlot]

Of course (other than photos).

People who need a real computer will have to buy a real computer. That includes the geeks who see this thing as a "toy", and content creators.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Simon 

And still, it will be a device almost entirely for consumption of content. Anybody who wants to actually create content will still need a real Mac.

Yes. For now.

However, the technology developed for the iPad will continue to be developed, until gesture based computing will be the defacto way of interaction with a computing device. The death knell for the keyboard and mouse has been rung and I am utterly astonished by how many people are wearing virtual earplugs.

I suggest to stop looking at the feature shortcomings of the gen1 device - of which there are many - and to start looking at the revolutionary shift in interaction design.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

However, the technology developed for the iPad will continue to be developed, until gesture based computing will be the defacto way of interaction with a computing device.

When we get there (in let's say 5-10 years?), I'll gladly look at the iPad again. For now, I need to remain connected and be able to create serious content. In other words, I'll happily stick to my iPhone and my MBP. I'll let others (who want to consume rather than create) play with the iPad.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

The death knell for the keyboard ... has been rung

Not so long as they're still recreating the keyboard digitally. A touch-screen QWERTY keyboard is still a QWERTY keyboard. The death knell for the keyboard won't haven been rung until someone comes up with a way to enter text that is as fast as a QWERTY keyboard and is easy to learn.

[Big Mac]

Who says QWERTY isn't easy to learn?

A person can learn QWERTY in a few days, and getting fast at it is only a question of how much practice and usage time is put in. A person can learn to type around thirty-five to forty wpm pretty easily. I know I didn't put much effort into it in order to gain basic proficiency. Of course, I didn't get fast until I started chatting with my best friend from high school online after school. He was much faster than I was at the time, and it drove me to improve my skill. Years later with little conscious practice, if I push it I can do 80 wpm net with 100% accuracy.

[spacefreak]

I've talked to many people who are Apple users, but not Apple fanboys. An overwhelming majority of them see no need to get an iPad. Most thought the iPad was going to be a full-featured computer, and many have spewed the "It's just a big iPod touch" statement we've heard so often.

I can't remember an Apple product that has had so many negative things said about it, or that was laughed at so much except for perhaps the original MDD PowerMac that sounded like a vacuum cleaner.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I've talked to many people who are Apple users, but not Apple fanboys. An overwhelming majority of them see no need to get an iPad. Most thought the iPad was going to be a full-featured computer, and many have spewed the "It's just a big iPod touch" statement we've heard so often.

So what ?

Let the Apple users continue to buy MBPs and MBAs.

The iPad is aiming at a completely different demographic / market.

I really don't get where all this shortsightedness comes from.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I can't remember an Apple product that has had so many negative things said about it, or that was laughed at so much except for perhaps the original MDD PowerMac that sounded like a vacuum cleaner.

The original iPod looked like it had overpriced failure written all over it.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The original iPod looked like it had overpriced failure written all over it.

That's exactly right. The conversations we were having on this board were almost identical. The vast majority of users were complaining about the absence of features they had been expecting, and the price, a small minority understood the vast shift they had just witnessed.

This is more of the same.

In the words of Henry Ford: "If we would have asked consumers what they wanted, they would have said, a faster horse."

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

...a small minority understood the vast shift they had just witnessed.

This is more of the same.

Oh really?

So either you think the iPad is 100% pure awesomeness or you're just to dense to understand? That's not really what you meant to say, is it?

[Spheric Harlot]

If you don't see why this thing is an absolute breakthrough that will change computing in the same way Macintosh changed it in 1984, then, yes, you are too dense to understand.

Geeks in general have a very very hard time understanding products that aren't built for them.

Rule of thumb: if you're on the net discussing it, you're NOT THE TARGET GROUP.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Oh really?

So either you think the iPad is 100% pure awesomeness or you're just to dense to understand? That's not really what you meant to say, is it?

Who are you and what have you done to Simon?

Because from you of all people I would have expected an understanding of the difference between features and vision.

99% of all the complaints about the iPad are about the lack of features. Which is the least important part of the equation. As I've written in another thread, while the iPad currently lacks features, it has vision coming out of its ears.

Features without vision are meaningless - as Nokia has found out - but vision will always attract features, like the app store proves. And yes, I am stunned by how few people see this.



Edit: Typo.

[Simon]

I don't see all that complaining. Which is why I'm surprised to read stuff like what I quoted above. Most of what I see is praise for a new product. Lots of talk about vision and new paradigms. Most of what I read on the web is extremely upbeat about the iPad. Lots of people (including myself) who are very anxious to try one out.

But what I also see is that those few people who dare post something slightly different than the greatest praise for this device or who simply mention the slightest notion of 'maybe not the perfect device for me' are immediately shouted down and reminded that they have either no clue about what 'people' want or are just to thick to comprehend the genius behind this GodProduct, bla bla. It's that kind of though policing I react allergically to.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Simon 

But what I also see is that those few people who dare post something slightly different than the greatest praise for this device or who simply mention the slightest notion of 'maybe not the perfect device for me' are immediately shouted down

90% of those anti-iPad comments are disgruntled geeks that didn't get their favorite wet-dream: a tablet OS X device for the price of a netbook.

They're throwing a tantrum because they didn't get their pink pony.

I have a hard time taking that seriously.

-t

[Simon]

I was specifically not talking about "anti-iPad" comments.

This simplistic notion that there can only be fanboi-ish iPad love or raw Apple hatred is one of the reasons these iPad "discussions" have become so utterly irrational (and boring). IMHO whenever details and differentiation are shoved aside to make room for zealous rants is when these debates become superfluous.

[Spheric Harlot]

Excellent analysis on what Phileas is talking about: The iPad isn't a third device, but a third revolution | Laptop | iPhone Central | Macworld

I recommend everyone read it. It's really really good (perhaps just because I happen to agree, wholeheartedly, but I think it does a good job of explaining why I think so).

[Phileas]

the iPhone and iPod touch were a virus of an idea, infecting all those users with a new way of doing things. The touchscreen interface was part of that idea, but it wasn’t the whole idea any more than the whole idea of the original iMac was that it was blue. All those competitors just slapping touchscreens on their phones were digging in the wrong place.

This! Somebody gets what this is all about.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Excellent analysis on what Phileas is talking about: The iPad isn't a third device, but a third revolution | Laptop | iPhone Central | Macworld

I recommend everyone read it. It's really really good (perhaps just because I happen to agree, wholeheartedly, but I think it does a good job of explaining why I think so).

I personally think he misses the point.

It's not an epiphany to understand that computing needs to change and be simplified, and that content acquisition has also to be simplified. However, the point is that iPad version 1 isn't really that product. It's an entry product that needs some serious work before it can hope to achieve that goal. It really doesn't add much more compared to an iPod touch, in the greater scheme of things. It's just bigger.

If he's only just realizing that that market needs a change, then he's many years behind the times.

The iPhone was an instant hit, because it was so radically different and it was so much of an improvement. The iPad? Not so much. It's just an extension of the iPhone concept. However, its current implementation leaves much to be desired. Luckily for Apple, they are fairly nimble and very creative, so they can change the product (hardware and software) to suit the needs of the future.

The disappointment is that they didn't bring us the future on January. 27. They gave us a reasonable start, but one that isn't good enough to truly wow most of the Apple world.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I personally think he misses the point.

It's not an epiphany to understand that computing needs to change and be simplified, and that content acquisition has also to be simplified. However, the point is that iPad version 1 isn't really that product. It's an entry product that needs some serious work before it can hope to achieve that goal. It really doesn't add much more compared to an iPod touch, in the greater scheme of things. It's just bigger.

Which is all that was needed to make the iPod touch actually usable to the general population as a "computer" replacement.

Your argument is that a car adds nothing compared to a 1:6 scale R/C model car, in the greater scheme of things. It's just bigger.

Um, yeah.

From the perspective of somebody who NEEDS a large horse-drawn cart for his work, a car is as useless a toy as said R/C car - it's "just bigger".

But for 95% of the population, it's far more than enough.

And the cool thing about it is that it will eventually scale to horse-drawn cart size, and be called a "truck".

So go ahead and focus on what it can't do and claim it can't be revolutionary because you won't be "cutting video" ( ) on this iPad - you're missing the boat for staring at the pier.

In ten years' time, you WILL be editing video on an interface more closely related to the iPad than to what you're using today.

[Eug]

Just because computing will be different in 10 years and might be iPad-like, doesn't mean today's iPad is a revolution.

Using that type of logic, you may as well claim the Newton was the revolution because it has a touch screen and didn't run the usual Mac OS. BTW, your statements like "you're complaining because you can't cut video on it" really don't help your case. You're basically making up strawman arguments so you can knock them down. Unfortunately for you, just about nobody is making these types of complaints.

My major complaint is this is a device I can't actually recommend to anyone, except for some geeks who want a toy to fiddle width. As an internet appliance for the mainstream, its current iteration fails to impress, because its dependent upon another computer, and it is missing a large chunk of the internet, that being Flash. Since the world of tech is dynamic, some of these complaints may no longer be valid in 2014, but last I checked, it's not 2014.

P.S. Car analogies always suck.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Just because my own computing will be different in 10 years and might be iPad-like, doesn't mean today's iPad isn't a revolution for the rest of the world today.

How hard is it really to comprehend that your computing needs represent a tiny fraction of the actual market?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How hard is it really to comprehend that your computing needs represent a tiny fraction of the actual market?

How hard is it really to comprehend that my computing needs having nothing to do with this? My statements apply to the mainstream. Flash is the epitome of mainstream internet computing. You may not like this, but that's the absolute truth.

Today is the most important aspect of this. There are all sorts of people out there saying this thing is great for grandma. Nothing could be further from the truth. As much as some geeks hate Flash, grandma loves it, and unfortunately, depends on it.

For this reason, I cannot in good conscience recommend today's iPad to the mainstream grandma, for use today. I may recommend one in 2014, but that's in 2014, when the tech world will have changed.

[kman42]

My wife won't read links I send her on her iPhone--she finds it difficult to browse the web on on such a small screen.

My wife returned her Kindle because it was unintuitive and the interface was slow.

My wife will only send VERY short emails on her iPhone because she finds it annoying to type on the small screen.

My wife peed her pants with joy when she saw how the iPad worked and it is the first piece of technology that she is absolutely begging to own.

I think there are a lot of people who want to use a computer the way my wife wants to use a computer. Most people own a desktop computer. Many people buy netbooks as a second computer. I bet 90% of the netbook market would be happier with an iPad. All people really want is to be able to do their common tasks in any room of the house, at the coffee shop, or on an airplane. If they want to edit video, they'll go to their desktop. Apple will sell millions of these devices.

The only thing that really disappoints me is that they didn't make it multi-user. I think having one sitting in the living room or kitchen that any member of the family could pick up and use would have been golden. Maybe in rev 2.