Of Pods and Pads
So here it is. The iPad. The lead up to the launch of this device has been filled with speculation and excitement. Probably a bit less than the iPhone, but still the hype engine has been revved.
Ever since using the Wacom Cintiq, I've been craving a tablet Mac. This, however, is not a tablet Mac. Not by a long shot.
It's not all bad, but it could be so much better.
First of all, I've been forced to accept that Apple is no longer developing technology for people who make things. As a certain Akins put it to me today, "It's about the consumption of content, not the creation of content." I do not like this, no sir. The iPad could have been one of the greatest creation devices yet, but everything they debuted today is geared toward consumption.
iTunes, eBooks, YouTube. Watch movies. Show off photos. The features that Apple talks about on iPad features page have nothing to do with the creation of content. Yes, you can use iWork (the Mac version of Office) on it... but that's not enough for me. Heck, the iPad doesn't even have a video camera for iChat or creating YouTube videos or anything. Even the most shallow levels of creation are left out of this device.
I guess the situation for me is this... if I can't run Adobe Photoshop on a tablet, it is a pointless product. I just want a tablet version of a MacBook Pro, with a pressure sensitive screen. I need a 10" self-sustaining Cintiq.
There are a lot of flaws in the first generation of the iPad, the biggest of which are talked about with a good deal of clarity here. The question is, how much different will the second generation be? Will they ever create a true TabletMac? That's what I want. As it stands, I have most of the functionality of the iPad in a pocket-sized form. It's called an iPod Touch.
I'm mostly in your camp, JW, and as for the eBook reader component, if this actually catches on and people are all reading books on iPads, we will be a species of terrible eyesight in no time. It doesn't have a way to revert to a non-lit screen does it?
Is the Kindle obsolete now? Because that's a shame if so... it was actually readable for hours at a time.
I don't disagree with you in the least, Scott (aside from that I think the litl is kinda bunk.) I'm merely disappointed that this is not a device that I want. The iPad will do well and will make a lot of people happy. Hell, just the thought of no-contract 3G almost makes me want it... and that's saying a lot because I in no way need this device.
As for Gruber, I suppose that's a way to look at it, aside from the obvious difference that the iPhone is a phone and does phone things as well as everything else the iPad is doing (aside from iWork). As much as I don't get why people want to watch movies and shows on a tiny-ass iPhone screen while on the bus, they do this in droves. Are the same people going to pull out a larger iPad to do that? Now they have to have a bag, root around in it, and have a device they'll have to deal with when they get off the train, rather than just shoving it in their pocket an moving on.
Real-world functionality trends toward smaller, more portable, easier design. In this regard I don't think the iPad is a better device than the iPhone. As a replacement for a full computer for casual users, the iPad feels much more apt.
And 10-hour battery life on an eBook reader? They'll need to improve that.
You make some valid points, but I think you're thinking about it in the wrong way. It doesn't meet your expectations for a tablet Mac, but that's not what it is; it's something completely new and different. It's also not just a "really big iPod Touch." John Gruber is right when he says it's really the other way around: the iPhone is a smaller, stripped-down iPad. This is what Apple's been aiming at all along.
It's true that this is a device more for the consumption of, rather than production of, content. What I think this really does though is create an entirely new class of product that others (most notably the litl) have been hinting at: a highly portable, insanely easy-to-use Internet/multimedia device. It's geared first and foremost towards that very large segment of the population who want SOME of the things a computer can do, but who have never really needed the full power and flexibility of a computer, and who don't really understand computers. And my gut feeling is, that represents the vast majority of computer users.
Those of us who are power users: programmers, creators, hackers (in the DIY computing sense, not the h4XX0rz n ur bank account, stealin' ur m0n33z)... we'll always need "real" computers, and they'll be there for us. Do my parents need a "real" computer, even the comparatively easy-to-use MacBook I helped them get? No. There is nothing my parents need a computer to do that the iPad doesn't do. It also doesn't do a lot of the things their Mac does that they not only don't need, but that hinder their use of it by confusing them with an unnatural and (for those not raised on technology) unintuitive interface.
I think this thing really IS as revolutionary as Apple is framing it to be. But I'll write more about that on my own blog soon...
Wonder why they chose not to use the OSX operating system for this gizmo? Guess it is not intended as a REAL computer at all- too bad.