Finding Forrester
What brand do you think is most in need of a makeover and why?
When blogs die
Wall of Same
How Apple’s hot new tablet misses the boat.
Unless you’ve been hiding under an iRock for the past year, you already know that Apple’s got a brand new bag. It’s called the “iPad.” It’s about the size of a small diary. And it’s supposed to be an e-reader and netbook in one, only better.
Apple touts this as its “most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device . . .”
If you watch the product launch keynote, or the promotional video on their site, you could be forgiven for believing they have just unleashed a new technology that will revolutionize the world in the same way the personal computer has.
When I first heard Apple was releasing a tablet, visions of a device similar in nature to the sleek and slim MacBook Air, except a tablet with a really nice stylus, danced in my head. Could this be the perfect computer for the creative mind?
Unfortunately, my hopes were dashed last week when Apple unveiled its tablet.
My first thought was, “Wow – ‘iPad’ – what an unfortunate name.”
My second thought was that it seemed to be an iPod Touch that doesn’t fit in your pocket. The more I learned about the device, the more that impression was confirmed.
So, is it a good product? Depends on what you’re looking for. Here’s my list of iPad hits and misses, divided into “Smarts” and “Stupids”:
Smart – Apps:
Whether the iPad is a “real” computer or not, having access to the Apple App Store is smart. I rarely buy new software for my computers. I used to think it was because I had what I needed and that was it. But after having an iPhone for quite some time I realized it was more about access. And if I had access to cheap novelty apps as a built-in mechanism on my MacBook, it would be making fart sounds 24-7.
Stupid – No multitasking
So there is Steve Jobs, sitting on a couch, talking about how fun and productive you can be using your iPad. Checking email, surfing the web . . . but not at the same time. If you want to come close to competing with netbooks, you need multitasking.
Stupid – No full-featured web browser
Mr. Jobs (which seems like an appropriate name right now) also claimed that it was the best web browsing experience, period. Really?! No third-party plug-in support. No Unity. No Flash. Nothing? 33% of web content is Flash. I’d hardly call not being able to access 33% of the web “the best experience.” Not to mention the lack of support for Hulu (Flash Player). When I was living in The Big Apple (see what I did there?), all my TV viewing was done during lunch watching Hulu, along with millions of other Americans. No Flash = no Hulu = :-(
Smart – iBooks
This goes back to my comment about accessibility to product. The iBook store will make finding and buying books easier than ever. And when something is easy to do, humans will tend to do it. Even when we shouldn’t.
Smart – Same hardware as iPhone
By using the same processor and other hardware elements that the iPhone and iPod Touch use, Apple was able to keep costs on the product low. Given that the product is larger in dimension, Apple was also able to cram in a bigger battery to power low-demand hardware. This translates into impressive battery life. But still not as good as the Kindle.
Stupid – Same hardware as iPhone
Really?! Here is the most anticipated product launch since the iPhone. A product that your customers want as a Notebook/Netbook alternative. And you give it a phone’s CPU? You can’t run anything of substance on it! It is just not powerful enough. It feels like Steve has created something for himself here, not considering the needs and wants of his customers.
Smart – iTunes for movies and TV
The biggest barrier that I have had to buying TV shows and movies from iTunes has been not having a comfortable venue to watch said shows. And I’ll be damned if I buy yet another piece of electronics and attach it to my TV (AppleTV, hello?). Having access to iTunes, a comfortable chair, and an iPad is an intriguing prospect.
Smart – Its screen
Having a big, bright colourful screen will be a bonus to many people. That screen will make movie buying and watching worthwhile.
Stupid – Its screen
If one of the reasons Apple wants you to buy an iPad is to read books, then they should have used a screen technology that is easier on the eyes. The Kindle and Sony Reader’s ePaper screens reflect light similar to paper, so they reduce eye strain.
Stupid – Not a real computer/no stylus or pen
The iPad is not a real computer. What I mean by that is that it is not a full-service operating system. It doesn’t have a full-powered CPU, with proper inputs and outputs (USB). People were looking for a real computer. People were looking for a lightweight Apple alternative to a netbook. What they got was literally an oversized iPhone – except it doesn’t fit in your pocket, and you can’t make a phone call with it. It doesn’t even have a stylus or handwriting recognition. What good is a tablet you can’t write or draw on? The only benefit you get from this device being a tablet is that it is nice to hold.
Stupid – Its name
The “iPad” . . . Really?! What about this device is pad like? Is it like a landing pad? A pad of paper? A feminine hygiene pad? There is nothing pad-like about this product. Or is there? On top of all this, people in Massachusetts are wondering how to differentiate talking about their iPod and their iPad. (Accent joke!)
Stupid – It’s not positioned well against anything
I struggle to try to figure out what the iPad is great for. What is it positioned against? Is it a reader with added features? Well if you were going to buy a digital reader, you would likely want something that is pleasurable to read. The iPad’s bright LED screen can and will cause eye-strain. Let’s look at the iPad versus the Kindle.
iPad has video.
iPad has colour.
Kindle is easier on the eyes for reading.
Kindle is smaller and more portable.
Kindle is cheaper.
For an e-reader, advantage: Kindle.
If you are in the market for a sub-$500 Notebook or netbook, you are likely going to want something that is powerful enough to run the applications you need, and perform the functions you want it to. You would likely want something you can plug external devices into like a USB key, hard drive, or even your iPod. If we compare the iPad versus a netbook . . .
Netbooks are cheaper.
Netbooks are more powerful.
Netbooks have full browsers.
Netbooks can multi-task.
Netbooks have USB and external interfaces.
Netbooks are real computers.
For a sub-$500 computer, advantage: Netbook.
Conclusion
Overall, the iPad is on the wrong side of dull. It’s a product that tries to fill many roles, but fills all of them poorly. It is positioned between two high-demand products, without anything close to an advantage that would make the average person want to buy it.
Apple will likely sell thousands of iPads simply due to the brand following and “cool” factor of new technology. Over the long run, however, unless Apple positions themselves better in the market, I can see the iPad hurting their overall brand image.
Pete Aspros
February 5, 2010 @ 10:50 am
Don’t forget, no built-in camera, either.
Greg Heptinstall
February 5, 2010 @ 10:51 am
The whole thing just makes me miss my Newton. I loved my Newton.
Matt Rogers
February 5, 2010 @ 11:12 am
So angry.
Jim Monteath
February 5, 2010 @ 11:21 am
Oh boy… where to start?
The name: people initially giggled at “iPod” and “Wii”. Then they stopped.
The processor is NOT the same as the one used in current iPhone or iPod Touch models. The iPad uses a new CPU — the “A4″ — designed by Apple. This is very significant and you missed it. Tsk. Apple have never announced “speeds and feeds” for their consumer products (iPod, iPhone, AppleTV). That’s for the big metal. Steve Jobs doing this for the iPad was a clear signal to the market/industry that Apple will have custom silicon designed to perfectly suit their products, which will give them an edge over the competition: especially with power consumption.
Speaking of power consumption: no Flash. No kidding. Anyone surprised by that hasn’t been paying attention. Apple has made it extremely clear that they do not like the performance of Flash, neither the resource consumption nor the stability. It’s also not in Apple’s corporate DNA to surrender the user experience to a third party. Jobs is rumoured to have described Adobe as “lazy”. Have you not noticed how Adobe is suddenly much more vocal about improving Flash performance under OS X and responding to the threat on their proprietary technology by emerging standards like HTML5? Adobe needed this kick.
Youtube has started supporting H.264 video. Hulu won’t be far behind. Given the number of iPhone OS devices being sold, video sites would be foolish to only support Flash for video playback. Web-sites done entirely in Flash are another story.
Of course, the other issue with Flash support is that it would provide a way out of Apple’s “walled garden” App Store. No surprise that Apple is resisting this. Come Adobe CS5, people can produce iPhone OS apps out of Flash, which I think is a great move by Adobe.
Enjoy reading a Kindle in the dark? You will be able to dim the iPad screen to reduce eye-strain, just like the iPhone OS siblings (Settings -> Brightness). Kindle DX US$489, iPad starting at US$499.
Regarding e-books, Amazon has already had to scramble to react to the iPad launch. reversing the percentage cut they get vs. publishers and making public fools of themselves over pricing negotiations with Macmillan Publishing. Amazon needed this kick.
We haven’t heard much about magazines and TV content for the iPad yet. That will be fun too…
Competition is good. Even if Apple doesn’t provide a better service than others, their mere presence shakes up complacent incumbents. Just look at the smart-phone market post iPhone.
The iPad is not a netbook. Apple have been telegraphing their netbook position for years (hint: they don’t like them). The iPad is consistent with that position. Not everyone wants/needs to have another device running a full OS. Your expectations were off: probably influenced by reading poor technology pundits.
It’s a version 1.0 device. Apple will improve it. BTW: You forgot to rail about the lack of camera. ;-)
In summary: You’re not the target market. Don’t buy one. Don’t be surprised when others do.
Disclosure to any readers: I am Grip’s I.T. Director. I work with Jacoub. I like Jacoub.
Stuart Thursby
February 5, 2010 @ 11:41 am
I think that where the iPad’s big gains are going to come in areas we haven’t even considered yet. How magazine publishers adapt to this could be huge, and I definitely see some potential there for a more pleasing reading experience than a website can offer, combined with the immediacy of the internet. In effect, a living and breathing magazine. Who wouldn’t pay $10/month to read Sports Illustrated in a well laid-out, pleasing fashion, with content updated as much as their website? Or People or Esquire or Time or…etc etc etc.
Not to mention the benefit for advertising. Now, for instance, when a reader clicks on a box ad for a car, you see a video of the car: the TV spot online. Now, using the iPad as a steering wheel, you could make the viewer part of the ad by making the ad a game, or a virtual test drive, or anything else. The beauty of the iPad isn’t what it says it can do, it’s the potential for it to be enhanced by others: the content creators, if you will.
The best things Apple have done haven’t been as a result of the initial feature list, they’ve been largely as a result of what they enabled developers and innovators to do. The iPhone’s most defining feature which separates it from its competition is the App Store, something which it created to allow other people to see what they could do with. The same principle applies here, only enhanced.
I’m not likely to buy the first version, but by the time they bring out version two with the kinks ironed out and the publishers/advertisers on board, count me in.
Richard
February 5, 2010 @ 11:58 am
Hitler’s reaction pretty much sums it up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnT0zp8Ya4
Brian
February 5, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
I’m one step ahead of Apple, I already own the iPad Nano
http://tinyurl.com/yd3q4us
james
February 5, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
it should be called the ‘iWasHopingForMore’
muffinczar
February 5, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimates that Apple will sell 6 million iPads this year. By contrast, the market for mobile phones will reach 1 billion units and PC sales will be about 300 million. Hmmm, little wonder:) My question is : When will they be releasing the corresponding novelty sized headphones?
The A4 may be delicious on it’s own, but Apple effectively wrapped a filet mignon of Kobe beef in house brand bologna. This seems to be a high profile public thumb biting from Jobs to Intel and Qualcomm. Surely there will be massive improvements made to upcoming versions. For now, my money is better NOT spent on this uber-beta- like, race-to-the-finish-line quality product.
David
February 5, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
Agree, its not going to set the world on fire just yet, i prefer and love my Toshiba Netbook and Kindle and combined the two are still slightly cheaper and i get 160 gig of storage not just 32gig.
Guess what im able to plug in a wireless receiver to my netbook and use a wireless mouse and keyboard to respond to your blog post, something i can’t do on a iPad… wait i have 3 ports, and i can plugin SD memory cards to upload my photos and a external 23 inch monitor if i want…
Why do i want to use a 10inch iPad screen again….?
I’m thinking of doing some travel so i have my kindle that i can use its applications to read on my iPhone or Netbook… why do i need a iPad again, to read my books i downloaded on my Kindle? Why not just use the Kindle which is easy on the eyes?
Brian Brinkman
February 5, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
Your article is poorly researched and strikes me a naive. Without running down the list of features that the iPad will offer, suffice to say that what it does, it does, well perfectly. Read books, read newspapers, listen to music, write letters, email friends, play games are all, dare I say native like functions of the device. They don’t feel like add-ons, they feel like they are part of the device. It has, like my then soon to be mother-in-law proclaimed about me, ‘unlimited potential’. Think about it. Sit and think and try to concoct a better way to do any of the things that the iPad does, in a better way than it does it. I challenge you. I consider myself a pretty smart fella, and I know I can’t think of any better ways. In our minds we limit what the iPad can do, not vice versa. Anything that it lacks today, chances are it may possess tomorrow, or the day after. Oddly enough, you may forget or not even care then if it does.
The iPad can do everything it was designed to do, quite literally, perfectly. What it can’t do and never will do is be precisely what every gossip and rumor columnist say it should.
mikef
February 5, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
+1 to the last comment!
The iPad isn’t designed to replace your computer. I consider it like a coffee table computer. It’s a reading device for magazines where rich media matters. For primarily textual reading material, the kindle is much better (due to simplicity and ease on the eyes).
Nothing like an iPad column to get the comments flowing!
muffinczar
February 5, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
My cat is designed to, and does an excellent job of licking his “nether region”. He is still ineffective as a tablet.
Jacoub Bondre
February 5, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
I’m not trying to be argumentative here. But you are kind of proving my point.
- “I consider it like a coffee table computer.”
Speaks to my complaint about it not being a full computer.
- “Read books, read newspapers, listen to music, write letters, email friends, play games are all, dare I say native like functions of the device. They don’t feel like add-ons, they feel like they are part of the device.”
Are all things a netbook can do faster and cheaper.
All in all, my observations are from the perspective of a consumer who loves Apple products. Everything the iPad can do my iPhone can do. Everything the iPad can do my netbook and notebook can do. Based on the predicted sales, most consumers will draw the same conclusion. Which is they will not pay $500.00 for a device they already have.
And we can all agree that it is not the “most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device . . .”
Jim Monteath
February 6, 2010 @ 1:33 am
Your “complaint about it not being a full computer” is a strawman argument, since Apple never said that they were going to produce this “full computer” that you fantasized about. It’s also a case of “no true Scotsman” since you think that no true tablet computer or netbook would have all the shortcomings you listed.
This is not the computer you are looking for.
In your article, you wrote “It feels like Steve has created something for himself here, not considering the needs and wants of his customers.” I’m not at all surprised by that, since Steve Jobs once said “You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.”
I urge you to get over your personal disappointment and try to figure out why Apple have staked so much of their reputation on this device, what it might herald for the mobile computing market, how it might influence the way that consumers access media content and what this means to Grip’s clients. The damned thing has already had a significant effect on Amazon’s e-book business and it hasn’t even been launched. Newspapers and magazines seem to be falling over each other to be a part of this. Just wait until TV gets involved. Imagine the advertising/communications opportunities and challenges that devices like the iPad could bring.
If you go back and read what people said when the iPhone was first launched you will see a lot of similar complaints about how the iPhone didn’t live up to everyone’s personal fantasies, e.g., Apple doesn’t understand this segment, no physical keyboard, no CDMA network support, no removable battery, no media card slot, can’t run Flash, no native applications, no multi-tasking, etc.
Apple sold 8.7 million iPhones in the last quarter, representing 100 percent unit growth from a year ago. Smartphone competitors are scrambling to keep up, let alone topple them. Maybe Apple is on to something with the iPad that shouldn’t be dismissed so readily as a failure.
Especially since it hasn’t even been released.
So, no, I don’t agree with your closing statement. There are far too many unknowns at this point to be that unequivocal (either way). However, I am willing to cut the salesman you quoted some slack for his hyperbole. I think he achieved exactly what he wanted by saying it.
Besides, the iPad really is magical: just look at what it has already done to Amazon, tech punditry and this blog’s comment section.
Cat Luvr
February 6, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
My cat also licks its “nether regions” and makes an excellent coffee table as well.
Andrew
February 7, 2010 @ 10:37 am
Hi agree with Jim M. You are making the mistake of assuming that marketing has anything to do with what we (or you) need. This is about marketing something to the masses, which is a psychological operation. Think about the original I-Mac Ads. Their main attraction was that they were cute and came in various colors! Steve Jobs is considered to be a marketing genius (unlike you)- not because he creates useful items the world needs, but because he knows how to market to a population. He knows mass psychology and is tapped into the collective consciousness, which is a rare gift. Do you really think people make purchases based on rationality and common sense? Grow up.
Jacoub Bondre
February 8, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
“Steve Jobs is considered to be a marketing genius (unlike you)- ”
Wow I’m flattered to even be mentioned in such company. I will take it as a compliment.
Jacoub Bondre
February 8, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
Let’s fan the flames shall we?
http://i.gizmodo.com/5458382/8-things-that-suck-about-the-ipad
Jim, you are right, this is not the computer I’m looking for. And maybe the iPad will make a great personal electronic reading device. But a tablet computer it is not. I just think the market that needs/wants this is smaller than the market that expected and wanted more. And I am obviously not the only one.
Also, the iPhone was first to market on a new type of smart phone, and no one has caught up yet ( Save what google has coming down the pipe ). But tablets have been released before the iPad, and the HP Slate is around the corner.
Not to mention new personal electronic devices that are right around the corner.
http://gizmodo.com/5466673/even-at-4%20inches-the-qisda-qcm%20330-dwarfs-the-ipads-resolution
My argument is that Apple could have hit the mark better, hence the smart and stupid motif. No one has yet to convince me, or many other “Marketing non-geniuses”, of the contrary.
. . . even Andrew.
muffinczar
February 8, 2010 @ 10:59 pm
@Andrew:
Congratultions on the peacock like verbal strutting of your superior knowledge and maturity.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to so artfully demonstrate how someone can preach one thing, while personally practicing something entirely contrary. You’re preaching of maturity while making personal jabs towards someone you don’t know regarding impersonal topics really emphasized that. Way to sell it hard.
Campbellina
February 9, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Apple is big enough to take on the criticisms of its customers – I suppose they don’t do anything without a reason and much planning and strategizing. That said, I liked this creative and personal review of the iPad. As a somewhat technically-savvy end user (and Mac convert), I like to research my purchases extensively before spending my hard-earned cash.
Kyle
February 9, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
first
Kyle
February 9, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
oh… wait…
BTW, why do you need multitasking exactly?
Ameet
February 10, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
I agree with Jim.. i forsee a debate in front of a live grip audience???
Jim Monteath
February 18, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
My apologies for reviving this discussion, but Jacoub’s “flame fanning” Feb 8 comment only just appeared on the blog and I wanted to respond to it.
The article “How to compete with iPad” by Matt Gemmell provides an excellent counterpoint.
The Nintendo Wii analogy in that article is apt. Just as Nintendo did not make the Wii as a gaming console aimed at hardcore gamers, Apple is not making the iPad as a tablet computer aimed at power users. Both companies identified a market segment that had been under-served and designed a product accordingly. Nintendo has been very successful with that strategy. Let’s wait and see if Apple is on to something here.
Nobody will be “convinced” either way on the iPad until successive periods of sales results are published. Nor should they be.
Apple sets launch date for iPhad… er, iPad | BeginRant.com
March 8, 2010 @ 10:03 am
[...] Apple will be in a very good position to be a market leader in tablets. So while today it may have technical deficiencies, Apple can start to learn about usability (as a colleague pointed out, typing on this device while, [...]