iPad == high-end web appliance and that’s it
One of the smartest designers I know gave a typically compact and smart assessment of the iPad:
DOA. Apple does better (in the last 10 years or so) when it re-imagines categories, not when it invents them. I’m sure I will regret saying this, but that’s how I feel right now.
It does a nice job highlighting Apple’s strengths (re-invent what’s out there after drafting on others’ experience in the market and with an unwavering focus on user experience), but it also hints at the bigger problem: it’s trying to be several categories (reader, netbook, bigger media player, game platform, web browser), under one technology (shiny, thin, touch screen, with none of those nasty mechanics that collect crumbs from your lunch) without being any one thing that is clearly needed.
While Apple often wins by delivering better versions of stripped down, less function-laden things like the iPod, the iPad is doing this across too many categories and likely to fail in all but one:
Reader Steve Jobs infamously said he would never do a reader because people don’t read anymore. He’s actually onto something — some people are passionate readers, while most do it casually. This means the number of passionate readers is too small for an e-reader to be as big as the iPod. The iPad won’t serve either audience well. It will suck for passionate readers: the battery life is dubious, the finger smudges will be a drag, and most important, the backlighting will be prohibitive. Jane Jepson, the creator of the OLPC screen and founder of Qi technologies (LED displays) likened reading from a computer screen to putting a flashlight in your eyes, it’s unsustainable for passionate readers. Casual readers won’t read enough for it to be worth dropping a big chunk of change and things like beach reading, subway reading will be dicey with a fancy device that large. The math will look better than the Kindle’s — spending $400 on a Kindle vs buying books is a quick and obvious decision for many — but the all-in-one argument is pretty weak when it comes to the reading.
Netbook Jobs’s digs at netbooks totally miss the value they have for people who like having a portable work device. The iPad doesn’t replace the processing power or precise mousing needed for real apps like word processing or spreadsheets with graphics, and it’s still unclear whether typing on glass for extended periods of time (like writing something longer than an email or entering numbers into a budget) works for people.
Bigger Media Player This one is tricky to guess, but I have a hard time picturing people dropping serious coin on a third screen that is bigger than their phone but smaller than their TV. Where would you use it? To watch something in bed before going to sleep? Is that worth the cost of getting a decent flat screen?
Game Player Again, a risky proposition. What’s the market for people wanting to play games bigger than the iPhone but smaller than their console? What do those games look like? They’ll lack the immersion of a TV or computer screen game because it’s too small, but will they add to the little games of the iPhone?
Web browser Right on! The video on apple.com references the superior web browsing experience of the iPad many many times, and they’re right. Having the iPad in the living room (with a remote built-in) so I can do quick simple email tasks (like writing “you’re very welcome” as in the video, or forwarding with “FYI”, or deleting what you don’t need) and look up baseball stats while watching the Yankees on an iPad is vastly superior to using overheated macbook or my crunched netbook keyboard. I do a lot of web stuff while I watch crap TV and baseball, and, as a reasonably affluent convenience-obsessed guy with some concerns about the aesthetics of my appliances, this might be enough to see my way clear to $500.
But that’s it. The iPad will be a high-end version of the web appliance that we all talked about several years ago. Only it will be too fancy to use while cooking (one of the standard scenarios we all gushed about), and much too fancy for us to call it an appliance.
I am not sure that every device has to be targeted at the most sophisticated users. My parents would LOVE the simplicity of a device like this.
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257&tid=107
Ironically, the one thing you like about it- the web browsing, will actually suck b/c THERES NO FLASH!!!!
Ah well….
OK Kip … Let’s first get it out of the way that you will buy one of these - I have no doubt.
I think we all got fatigued from the hype machine - and how the tech community was feeding us insane headlines along the lines of how the Tablet would improve our sex lives. Especially this past week. Only to have Steve Jobs show us a big iTouch yesterday?! I admit that those first moments of seeing the device were hugely disappointing. For once, all those Photoshoppers out there actually got it right. We always expect Apple to delight us with something we never could have predicted or imagined.
Thus the let down in the early moments of the presentation - for me at least.
So, let’s take a breath and release …
We haven’t even held one of these things yet. A lot of the follow up coverage yesterday was about how great this thing feels in your hand - how natural. I think we can agree among gentlemen to hold off judgement until then.
Now let me pick apart your argument a bit.
Is this really a new category? Ok, well maybe it kinda is. But in classic Apple fashion they’re improving upon (and in this case converging) things that are already out there: Kindle, iTouch, Netbooks, Multitouch computers (my mom just got one of these), portable dvd players.
OK, so maybe version 1.0 isn’t appropriate for the kitchen. But how about when they build in the camera and I can flip the pages without having to touch the screen - or speak to it even!? Not a huge leap there.
Won’t replace TV’s in the bedroom? How many people do you know who sit in bed and watch movies on their laptop? I know a lot. Not to mention the web browsing / book reading that happens in bed too. I guess in that sense it won’t improve your sex life.
Remember portable DVD players? They’re still around. I can’t tell you how many parents I see shoving them in front of their kids during dinner. The iPad is better though. I can load it up with educational games for the kids. My little guy loves my iTouch, btw.
Productivity? Yes, if we equate productivity with intense researching on the web, typing long documents in Word, and manipulating spreadsheets - this surely will not replace the Netbook. But what about a new kind of productivity? Imagine bringing this to Crate & Barrel and using their app to help you decorate and view your room layout - getting large screen, real time recommendations. Or maybe now I can video conference with my repair guy and show him what’s wrong with my whachmacallit - and he can send me the part number and isle number of where to pick up a part at HomeDepot? Point is - there’s another kind of productivity that laptops and smartphones aren’t ideal to solve.
And lastly … the subway. I too always forget that most of the US doesn’t commute via public transportation (or at least the ones that can afford devices like the Kindle). My guess is that Kindle sales don’t hinge on the work commute experience. I could be wrong there though.
The idea of having your Sunday Times (or that pre-ordered Dan Brown book) waiting for you on your coffee table is pretty appealing. Both very different experiences than cracking open your netbook and getting sucked into a black hole. I mean, imagine enjoying the Sunday Times again.
“The Internet in your hands” - once again Jobs distilled the value proposition down to its simplicity. No laptop (macs included) feels natural in the living room. They’re ugly, awkward, anti-social, anti-human machines. Picking up an iPad looks like picking up a book - it looks inviting - it looks social even - it looks fun - it (the video) makes browsing the web look natural.
In that sense Apple just might have truly dimensionalized how we experience the web - and reinvented the midsize-screen computing experience. So, yes, maybe Apple is going out on a huge limb here.
The general vibe out there is “i want this, but do I need this?” My feeling is that the general public is not clamoring to get one of these - yet. The true test will be once this gets into people’s hands. If this survives until version 2.0, I think, it will be (iPhone) huge.
And, no, I’m not a fanboy.
TheGAF — I totally forgot the Flash angle. You’re right - Newton!
DeChez — Nice! I think we’re in agreement on a lot of the points — it’s not a game-changer, it won’t create or alter any categories. My guess is it will sell enough units to stay in the Apple catalog but will be more along the lines of Apple TV — a second tier, adds some value product. I have a hard time seeing iPod or iPhone numbers for it, but it will be fun to watch . . . and perhaps bet a bottle on?
I’m still skeptical of its ability to worm into people’s lives for the other functions (reader, viewer). It’s neither fish nor fowl when it comes to games, and I have a hard time seeing large numbers of people adding it to their arsenals for middle-screen viewing when they could not spend anything and go with the laptop or spend the same amount and get a decent TV. And while you’re right on the utility of iSlab-like devices in other areas of productivity, I don’t think Apple’s price point or brand support an industrial strength version of it, someone else, like Nokia or Samsung will do that.
Let me clarify the huge thing … My rolling train of thought when writing that was more on relevance than revenue. That said, if they get the price point down a bit (which is doubtful, this is Apple), and/or make the 3G free (possible) - this could gain some traction there.
I don’t think it’s fair to put it in the Apple TV category. I don’t think that normal people even know what that is. If it was positioned as a DVR with so much more, they woulda had something - maybe.
The need-factor is where the gamble is at. 15 years ago we didn’t need mobile phones. 5 years ago we didn’t need smartphones. Sure, some were walking around with portable music players 10 years ago - but how many more people got a device after the iPod? Was it really the capacity that got 30 and 40 somethings opening their wallets?
As everyone has pointed out, Apple is great at showing us new things we need.
And remember, the iPod didn’t take off out of the gate. It took them a few years to get their act together - both on the hardware side and on the desktop/store side.
The iPhone was their real magic moment - all the stars aligned for that one.
This is still very much a version 1.0.
The key sign for me will be that initial experience I (and others) have with the device. People LOVED the iPhone when they first got it. Apple just got it right there.
If I love it after I get my hands on this baby - then, yea, I’m in for a bottle.
Hang on, there, the bottle bet was whether it takes off with iPod (instead of iPhone) numbers (you get the bottle), or the numbers are closer to Apple TV (I get the bottle). I’m pretty sure a bet on whether you love it or not is one I’m likely to lose!
yea, we’re on the same page … i just want to hold it in my hands first.
[…] And what a great writer Steven Johnson is. I’ve been scribbling in my notebook, in evernote and two blog entries (this’n and this’n here) to get this idea across: The iPhone revolutionized smartphones, but I think we all accept that smartphones were in our future. There is no equivalent consensus that tablets or couch computers or casual computers are inevitably on the road ahead. We don’t even agree on the aims here: Is the iPad replacing the laptop or supplementing it? […]