The iPad over-explained in a too-long post

Some 9 years ago or so (I think. I may need someone to check the dates out for me) my brother bought my Dad a really unique Christmas present. It was a 3Com Ergo Audrey; one of a crop of so-called internet appliances. It did a few things really well: It surfed the web (with a few significant javascript and flash display issues) and it ran a really good email program as well as a decent calender and address book. And the form factor was simple and beautiful. In fact, one of the first things both my brother and I remarked on was how Apple-like everything was, from the packaging to the unit design etc. This little thing had a cool touch screen operated with a stylized, clear plexiglass stylus that sat in a little divot holder at the top of the unit. And inside the divot was a green LED light that lit up the whole stylus when there was new email or when something else in the unit wanted your attention. It came with a mini keyboard as well and all you had to supply was a phone cord for the built in 56K modem. It was awesome. But the manufacturer suffered mightly when the dot com bubble burst and they discontinued the unit. You can read more about the Audrey here at Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Com_Audrey] and, for the adventurous and nostalgic among you, I actually found a website that still sells brand new units! [http://webpages.misn.com/~toybox/audrey.html] Caveat Emptor on that one, by the way.

Anyway, the point of this little stroll down computer-memory lane is the imminent launch of the iPad. Even if you don’t follow Apple, you’ve no doubt heard about it. And it’s a good bet that you know more about the controversy than the actual product. The essence of the so-called “controversy” is the generally poor reception its getting from people in the tech community who are underwhelmed by most of what the product represents. In order to understand the reaction, you have to first understand a little bit about Apple and the tech community as a whole. This little explanation comes with a bit of a disclaimer: I have and love a MacBook Pro. Its the best computer I’ve ever owned. Most people who own Macs love them. And at the risk of feeding the stereotype at the root of the problem, those who don’t own a Mac fall into 2 camps: people who don’t really have an opinion and people who hate Apple just for being Apple. They think of those of us who love Apple as zombie slaves to Steve Jobs who’d buy a rock with an Apple logo on it if Steve Jobs told us to. I wouldn’t, but that’s beside the point. They also love to point out the higher cost of a Mac in comparison to other computer manufacturers such as Dell or HP or Asus, etc. I don’t want, nor would I consider buying, a “cheap” computer. Here’s a quick comparison of the Mac I have vs. a Windows machine I might consider buying (I picked Sony specifically because they offer a great machine with a form factor that I like alot) -

15-in. MacBook Pro – $2,348.00 (including 3 years Apple Care)
Intel Core 2 duo processor
350 GB hard drive
4GB mem.
SD card slot
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT with 256MB graphics card
7-hour battery life
includes iLife suite of software

VS.

Sony Vaio F-Series – $2,069.96 (Including a 3-year care program which involves shipping your computer out to someone)
Intel® Core™ i7-820QM processor (1.73GHz) with Turbo Boost up to 3.06GHz
Genuine Windows® 7 Professional 64-bit
320GB Hard Disk Drive (5400rpm)
4GB (2GBx2) DDR3-SDRAM-1333
CD/DVD burner
16.4″ VAIO Premium Display (1920×1080) with NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M GPU (1GB VRAM)

Much closer in price than many people think. I’ll admit that I cheated a little here. I added both Adobe Premier Elements and Adobe Photoshop Elements for video editing and photo editing respectively at an additional cost of approx. $150.00 . Why’d I do that and how is that cheating? Well, Windows 7 doesn’t come with video editing software so one of the places where Apple fans correctly point out a major cost difference is in the lack of user friendly photo and video software. Apple’s iLife suite has both of those things built in and they are both suberb products. Windows doesn’t. Although you can download a free Windows movie editor so you really don’t need Adobe Premier Elements. But…if what you really want is user-friendly, relatively powerful, out-of-the-box functionality, then you ought to get Premiere Elements. So while it may be fudging the numbers a little, it’s justifiable.

I also did not add the cost of anti-virus software which is an absolute MUST with any Windows machine. I’m savvy enough to find and install free AV software on my own but many, many average users don’t know how to do that. So they’ll spend the extra $80+ per year for Norton or McAfee. Smart. More money, but smart nonetheless. Also, the MacBook Pro I have is not the top of the line. A 17-in version with all of the bells and whistle is very expensive (around $2,500.00). But I was more interested in the ~15-in versions. Nevertheless, I admit that the bottom line is a MacBook Pro will usually cost more than most average Windows computers. Plus, the average consumer is nowhere near as concerned about specs as I am. If they see a price of $699.00, they don’t stop to think about whether it includes the software they need out-of-the-box. Nor do they care if the graphics are integrated or not. And the sure as hell don’t fuss over design aesthetics. Windows users are generally less concerned over build and design quality than are Mac users. But I do think its important to try a little harder to make an apples to apples (so to speak) comparison. Will Apple get beaten often on price? Heck, yes. But that doesn’t tell the complete story.

Wait…what does all of this have to do with the damned iPad?!?

I’m getting to that.

First, more background. The past few years have seen a bumper crop of what folks are calling Netbooks. These are the miniature laptops, usually around a 7-in screen size and about the size of a standard hardcover book. To the average consumer, they are everything that a larger laptop is, only shrunk down in size and with a price tag to match. The average price for one of these things is around $399.00 and under. People LOVE them. Never mind that they aren’t even remotely close to a full-featured computer. For the vast majority of consumers (and forgive me for co-opting this phrase) it’s the economy, stupid! Honestly, even I think they’re cute. And for the right type of person, it’s a very servicable choice. And it’s a great 2nd computer for the bedroom or the kitchen or something to put on a coffee table and use when you want to surf or check your email. But for everything they seem to have on the surface, they lack a whole lot more. When one looks closely, one wonders why you can’t just have something small and tablet-like to accomplish the same thing. Even though they run a version of Windows XP or 7 (or Linux) netbooks are severely under-powered, have terrible battery life and most have no CD/DVD drive so you can’t install software. And even if you downloaded software and installed it from online, you really wouldn’t want to. Take my word for it. I’ve played with one of these and tried to run PowerPoint. Let me just say that it was a miserable experience and PowerPoint crashed twice. What happened to what looked like a very positive and refreshing trend starting with the Audrey and other devices like it? Why did we take this step backward toward shruken, under-powered computers instead of building on the success of a re-imagined, re-engineered product that focused on doing a few things really well.

What’s really needed is not just the same old operating system forcing you to perform the same old tasks except on a different sized device. You need a whole new way of thinking about the task of computing. You want something that is fast and reliable, runs for hours without recharging the battery, let’s you surf the web and check email, play a game or two (and I’m not talking about Super Mario Brothers or World of Warcraft. I’m talking about crosswords and Sudoku or the occasional game of Hippo High-Dive which is awesome, btw.) You’ll also want to listen to music or watch a movie or TV show. And you want to do it wirelessly. The Audrey was almost all of that (without the wireless part. But had they stuck around, that would’ve happened eventually).

That’s just the stuff that you know you want to do and may even do already on whatever computer you already have in your house. But here’s some other stuff you may not have thought about. Anyone who’s used a computer is familiar with the tried and true paradigm of the menu bar (that’s the thing at the top of your window with the File, Edit, View…etc. commands). And even some less-than-savvy computer users know about the right-click menu. You also spend alot of time coaxing your mouse toward small buttons and links. These are the things that define the standard user interface today. And it hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years or more. But if you really think about it, the standard UI sucks rotten eggs. It always has. It’s lasted this long because it was the best of all possible worlds for a very long time, even when the occasional alternatives were presented. Completing tasks on a computer is a complicated process that requires an equally complicated interface. Until recently, that is. Apple, to much fanfare and cristicism, launched the paradigm changer (christ, I hate that phrase. It’s so over-used) a couple years ago with the iPhone. No more mouse. No more menus. Everything was touch-based. Launch an app with one touch. Drag your finger to scroll. Pinch with your thumb and forefinger to zoom. It’s brilliantly simple. My 2-year old daughter knows how to do it.

There are some sacrifices with the Apple interpretation of simple usability. For instance, there’s no multi-tasking. You’re only allowed to run one app at a time. When you want to switch to another, the first one closes. I, for one, don’t think of this as a drawback. Maybe its a function of getting older but I am trying hard to reduce the amount of clutter I deal with on a daily basis. It isn’t unusual for me to have 5 or 6 programs running at the same time that I’m browsing anywhere from 5 to 10 seperate websites and listening to NPR streaming in the background. It should come as no surprise when I say that I am not that productive. I’m busy, to be sure. But not productive. That’s my argument against multi-tasking. I am sympathic, however when I hear people say, “But all I want to do is stream Pandora while I’m surfing the web.” That’s a good point. I never said that the lack of multi-tasking was 100% correct. As far as I’m concerned, it’s more like 93% correct. Still a grade of A in my book.

The iPad will be based on the iPhone operating system. All of the apps are accessed by touching their icon. The menus have changed, too. You won’t be touching File or Edit or View menu options. Instead, you’ll be presented with slide out option boxes (I think they call them “drawers” or something) that are sized perfectly for fingers. What Apple has done is completely re-imagined how you interact with a computer. That’s a recipe for polarization. The reaction has been one of “How dare Apple presume to tell me how I should use my computer! How dare they take the control away from me!” I’ve even heard some folks prognosticate that this means the end of young kids learning how to program. “This is so radical,” they say, “it’s jeopardizing the very future of computer programming!” Bollocks, I say.

Admittedly, the iPad is missing some very compelling features. There’s no camera. At least not in version 1. I admit that I’m a little dissapointed by that. It would be nice to maybe use iChat or Skype video conferencing with this little thing. More on that in a sec. Also, there’s no Flash support. I’m not going into that. Its a long story. Suffice to say, not a big deal to me but a very big deal to others.

Now, consider that in addition to all of things I mentioned that you probably already do, you’ll also be able to read books and magagzines designed specifically for this device. Its vastly better than the Kindle experience. Plus, from what I’ve read, the iPad is so fast, that it’s almost as though everything happens in micro-seconds. Nothing on the market comes close to its speed. This is, in my humble opinion, the future of computing. It’s elegant and simple. It’s faster than anything else on the market and can deliver media of any kind without any of the complicated mess of computing as we’ve known it for the last couple of decades. And it will not be for everyone. At least not right away. The world will still need actually computers running Windows for the foreseeable future. That’s the bread and butter of a lot of business (my own included). As much as I’d like to see that change, it probably won’t. Also, not everyone needs something like this. Again, at least not right now. As much of an Apple fan as I am, even I don’t need something like this. I like it, but I don’t need it right now. (also, I’m unemployed and broke.)

About that camera thing I mentioned a second ago. If, by some chance, you haven’t seen the iPad, go to the Apple website and check it out. Try to imagine how you might hold it. Now try to imagine how, if it had a front-facing camera, you’d have to hold it up and in front of you to get a good view of anything except the inside of your nostrils if you were going to use it for a video conference. The viewing angle would be uncomfortable for anything longer than a few minutes. So I’m not all that concerned about the lack of camera for now.

There’s more that I could mention about it. But I think that it’s a very important device and coming out at just the right time. And I think, once again, Apple is setting the standard for what’s going to follow. That’s my two cents, anyway. And nuts to all of the people making fun of the name. That’s just silliness.

Many people will say (and are saying) that they can do all of the things the iPad can do on a netbook. Yes, they can. But I reject the premise of the argument outright. Why must you? That’s what I think is far more relevant. In the short history of the World Wide Web, one thing has been made very clear: the real benefit of the technology is in the quality of content it can deliver to the widest possible audience. True, any device can bring you content. But what we need is a device that can do a better job of bringing higher-quality content to a larger population in a way that doesn’t require a predisposed prejudice or exposure to the so-called traditional computing paradigm.

I’m cutting myself off here before I go on for another several dozen paragraphs about books, periodicals, media, media companies, etc. I’ll save it for my next post.