It’s been fascinating to watch the evolving debate over the iPad over the past week. As with all Apple products, opinions tend to settle at the extremes—the iPad is either a world-changing revolution or an utter failure. All of this before it’s actually for sale, of course, and long before the vast majority of the opinion-havers have ever seen one in person, let alone used one.
Before I get to how I feel about it, a little recap of some of the more interesting discussions going on. Reflexive Apple bashers and defenders can feel free to jump right to the comments.
Tom Conlon of Popular Science thinks the iPad is a doomsday device, ushering in a new era of closed, proprietary systems and devices. Apple’s master plan is to install the App Store in your brain and only let you walk to the store if the walk program doesn’t use any private APIs.
Alex Payne is a little less dramatic, but is also “disturbed” at the “tragedy of the iPad.” He calls it a “deeply cynical thing” and has basically the same argument as Conlon (Payne’s article was published first)—the closed nature of the OS is the problem, and while people can accept a closed phone OS, Apple is pushing this idea further into the realm of personal computers, and that’s worrying. Payne adds a postscript that backs away from the edge a bit, and rightly points out that the argument that Apple promotes the “open web” and this makes up for the closed application system is bullshit. iPhone (and soon iPad) users don’t care about the web, they use apps.
On the other side, Joe Hewitt of Facebook and Steven Frank of Panic both argue that Apple is making a bold step forward in abstracting away of the gutty-works of computers, and that this is a natural and needed evolution.
The dominant metaphor on this side is to manual and automatic transmissions in cars. For many years, all cars had manual transmissions. To drive, you had to know how to switch gears, which implied at least some cursory knowledge of how a car works. The automatic transmission did away with that, and the majority of drivers now don’t need to know about gears, clutches, and the like. They push the gas pedal, the car goes. WIth hybrid technology, it’s even more remote. You don’t even know what kind of engine is powering the wheels at any given time, let alone what systems are translating the actions of your feet into the movement of the car. You’re a driver, not a mechanic. I drove my brother-in-law’s Prius last weekend, and it felt like driving a spaceship. From the driver’s position, it feels almost entirely non-mechanical.
My feelings about the iPad are pretty much in the middle of these extremes. I think the transmission analogy is perfect, and that Apple is advancing the idea of powerful devices for mass consumption that abstract away the details of the computer. The simplicity of the interface and the ease of use belie the power of the underlying system, and app developers can use that power to give users the ability to do pretty much anything while not worrying them with the details. An iPhone out of the box can do plenty, but adding apps makes it a marvel.
Spending 5 minutes trying to teach a complete beginner how to use a computer shows without a doubt that there is far too much complexity in the average computer for many typical users. They want to email, read websites, chat, etc. They don’t need to know about file systems, data formats, extensions, installers, etc., any more than an average driver needs to understand electronic fuel injection.
That said, I’m also concerned about Apple’s closed system becoming more dominant. Open does not have to be the opposite of user-friendly, much as Apple may want you to think it does. It’s easy to imagine the system that runs the iPad and iPhone retaining its slick UI, ease of use, and near-zero learning curve while still allowing those who care to get around these rules without “jailbreaking” or other hacks.
The solution is simple: Allow any app to be installed.
Apple doesn’t have to make this easy, and they don’t have to distribute these apps through the App Store. They own that marketplace, and they’re free to control access to it. But I see no downside in allowing apps to be installed directly, the way you can on Android. A tiny minority of users would do this, and Apple could easily make it clear that any apps installed this way may cause serious problems on the device with an alert upon installation. Apple retains near-complete control over the user experience for the majority of users, while allowing power users to get under the hood a bit, or at least more freely install apps that haven’t had to run the App Store approval process gauntlet.
Apple’s revenue comes from their hardware sales, not from the 30% they take from App Store purchases, so they shouldn’t be worried about cannibalizing that business. More apps, even non-sanctioned apps, means more devices sold.
Chances I think this will actually happen: 0%.
The key point, though, is that we’re entering an age of computer ubiquity, and Apple is trying to lead the way. Computers have been all around us for years, of course, but it’s really only very recently that they’re being integrated into so many people’s lives nearly every minute of the day, and the iPhone and app phones that have followed it have been critical to that change. With the iPad, Apple is pushing this further, and taking a bolder step than anyone else has yet taken. It definitely won’t be the last, and the closed nature of their software may very well provide a great opportunity for Android or another system to beat them at their own game. For now, though, Apple is doing something nobody else has attempted. It will be very interesting.
I have to admit that I’m not personally very invested in the whole “closed OS” debate. I get it…I get why I should care, but I just don’t.
For me, the thing that makes the iPad a fail (beyond the choice of the dumbest name option) is the fact that the device can’t multitask. I can’t listen to Pandora and work? Ridiculous.
The other surprising issue was the lack of any camera, but particularly on on the bezel. This device seems designed to be the platform that popularizes video chat, but doesn’t have the camera to make that happen. I don’t get it.
Yo, don’t overlook the fact that in a couple years, pretty much all your apps will run on top of the web browser, bringing the wild west back to your computing device.
Shit, pretty soon your camera will skip the card and just upload directly to your next-gen flickr account, and you’ll use web-based software to edit your raw files or whatever.
I think Apple will continue to open up the iPad to non-apple-directed-uses.
I think Apple was rightly concerned about launching a phone, which is a mission-critical device for people, and wanting to make sure that nothing interfered with the core mission of the device. Hence, the closed-system of the phone. They evolved their original plan of web-apps into the app store.
The iPad OS is simply taken from the iPhone concept. It was a simple place to launch; in fact, the existence of it has allowed the quick launch of this new device. Of course Apple understands that this is not the same thing as a phone, and I’m certain they’ll evolve the device as well.
The fundamental question is whether this device can evolve in the direction you’d like to see or not, and I think we’ve only just started to see what potential the iPad (and, still, the iPhone) has.
Apple’s closed system for computers was introduced in 1984 with the first Mac. So what else is new? For all the attention that gets paid to this magical world of “apps”, it’s really not a whole lot different than the magical world of shareware on floppies back in the day. 99.99% of it is garbage. mildly entertaining to people who are still warm with that first flush of excitement. In the long run I don’t think apps matter at all, however they’re installed.
The web is still where it’s at. Some apps are sort of little mini-front-ends to the web, but as things change over time, will the app change with it? Or will it fall by the wayside as creators and users get bored, and tempted away by something new, on the web?
Your UI argument is absolutely right, but doesn’t point to apps in the long term either.
@2 – I disagree. While web apps are becoming much more sophisticated, the iPhone shows that actual apps are in no danger of going away and still offer many advantages, like direct access to hardware, better performance, no compatibility issues, etc.
@1 – I agree on the multitasking, but I see it as a temporary thing. I’d bet that some form of multitasking on the iPad will be coming in a future OS release. It has the horsepower to do it, they just need to implement it, and Apple takes their time implementing these kinds of things in an attempt to get it right. See Copy and Paste on iPhone, for example. Last to have it, but far and away the best implementation I’ve ever seen.
el ganador…Apple will add Multi-tasking to the device via a software update. I’ll bet it’s at least announced by the end of the year. And a camera will be added; in fact, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if it’s added prior to the initial ship date.
But, all of this analysis of the iPad as though what was announced is what the device will be forever and ever is naive. Look at the ways in which the iPhone quickly evolved, and much of that evolution was available to the 1st gen device by way way of a software update.
The iPad represents a pathway to a new type of device, and my money says that it will grow into a very valuable device. In fact, compared to what’s on the market now, the device announced is extremely valuable at the price point for me.
@4 – It remains to be seen if the web will dominate in mobile, at least the web in a browser. Many apps depend on the web, but they take it offline, repackage it, provide targeted, direct access to the task you want at the time. The web in a browser complicates these tasks for a novice user.
The web is everything, all at once, and has the same problems for average users as full desktop OSes have. Most users of mobile devices are looking to accomplish a task, and apps provide the most direct and efficient way of doing that. No bookmarks, no URLs, no typos.
And the difference between this world and the world of the Mac is dramatic. You can install any app you want on a Mac, always could. You cannot do this on an iPhone or iPad.
@3 & 6 – Agreed. This first version is just that, and it will evolve quickly. Whether Apple opens the app system further is not so clear to me, though. The model they have for installing apps seems to be fundamental to their strategy, where things like no multitasking and no camera are just minor details.
Fnarf…certainly, 90% of the apps are fluff. But, that doesn’t mean that the Apps aren’t evolving. I think we’re just seeing the emergence of mature apps, where developers have begun to think in new ways about what is possible with such a device/app combination. Already, apps like “One Bus Away” which tells me precisely when my next bus will arrive at my stop are changing the way I live my life.
The other thing that I think the iPhone and iPad are doing is recalibrating the price-point of apps in general. Apple has rebuilt their iWorks office suite, and given the apps as price of $9.99 each. Software on computers is much too expensive and bloated these days. I just upgraded my Adobe suite of products and the price was obscene; certainly, I use the professional features and need them, but I still think there’s room for downward pressure.
As a friend of mine pointed out, why would he buy his son a Nintendo DS with $30 games, when the iTouch games can be had for $.99 cents?
@4 – I would also point out that the fact that many of the apps are junk says nothing about apps as a platform. Most of the web is junk, too. As Timothy points out, the really good stuff is only just starting to emerge, and the iPad will unleash a whole new round of innovation. The One Bus Away app is a great example – you can get this information on the web, but on a phone, the app experience is 1000 times better and faster. It gets you want you want (from the web, but not on the web) right away.
I like for my devices to simply WORK when I turn them on, hence I am an Apple guy. Open or closed, just let me do what I want when I want to do it without involving blue screens, drivers, wizards or any other nonsense. Not every computer user needs 2.2GHz of chip with 8GB of RAM and a TB of storage. For a large number of just plain folks who want to web surf, e-mail, look at flickr etc., this promises to be a splendid, economical device.
@6 is correct. Plans currently are for a camera add on that goes with the stand, also.
The A4 chip can handle the load. Not that I’d try it on the sub-$500 version.
@9, One Bus Away is brand new. What happens when the underlying data structure changes? What happens when the browser version gets better all of a sudden? Are the app developers even going to be around?
Maybe I’m old and out of touch, but what I do on devices isn’t encompassed by apps. Like Eric says, “web surf, e-mail, look at flickr” — not apps.
Open v. closed doesn’t matter; never has. Keeping up with the new matters. The web is full of old sites by elderly pioneering “information wants to be free” diehards protecting their antiquated vision. Nobody cares about them; they’re looking at Facebook. Facebook itself has probably already had it; what’s the next one? An app? Not with zero percent of the market — soon to rise to, uh, what, three percent? Thirty percent (where iphone is in their market)?
The success or failure of the iPad has little to do with the real future of computing. It’s a niche product, ultimately. The web is ten times bigger than any Apple product, or even all Apple products combined. Apple users tend to forget this fact.
Isn’t the iPad just another device? I never got why anyone thought it would change anything…
I can’t wait for whatever replaces computers and the web.
@13 – well, yes, the iPad is just another device. And so is the Woz’s electronic ignition system.
Both are closed source. Both are hacked.
Information just wants to be free.
@11, er. isn’t the only difference between the pricepoints storage and 3G?
It’s odd that people are so up-in-arms about this closed system, yet probably own a Wii or Xbox with no complaints.
My beef about the iPad is no Flash support. Yes, HTML5 does everything Flash can do, but everyone still uses Flash, especially for embedded video. I can’t imagine a good web browsing experience without it. Apple kept it off the iPhone for fear it would eat into their Apps business. I hope they give in on the iPad.
@15 – Yes, the only difference is storage and 3G. There’s no performance difference between the models they’ve announced.
@16 – I highly doubt Apple’s reasoning on Flash has anything to do with the App business. Again, they don’t really make any money on apps. Maybe a tiny bit over break-even.
Apple hasn’t allowed Flash for the same reason they don’t allow any other plugins—stability, performance, and control. Apple has no control over Flash, and it’s a very power-hungry part of the web. They’ve decided it’s not worth it, especially with the gradual and accelerating decline in Flash use around the web. Games and video are the only serious uses of Flash that haven’t already been made obsolete, and both of those are heading into the sunset, too. Nearly all major video sites are already providing alternatives to their Flash interfaces, and that will only increase. Those that don’t do it on the web will make apps or do whatever they need to do to deliver their content to users. This has already happened a ton with the iPhone, and the iPad will just be another nail in Flash’s coffin. Game developers are thrilled to have these new platforms.
Apple’s iPad isn’t just an “automatic transmission” computer. It also tells you which seat covers to use, which radio station to listen to, and which route to take to get to the library.
“From the driver’s position, it feels almost entirely non-mechanical.”
And THAT is what’s wrong. They’ll have to pry my manual transmission car out of my cold, dead hands.
@17 – why if that were true, than Cafe World on FB might be written very very badly and run very very slow …. oh, wait, it does.
You can transfer files to your iPad – it has no way of knowing HOW you got the file into your other computer’s iTunes that it shares – did you create the content (possible even on a Mac Mini) or download a pirated MP3?
Seriously, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.
@16
There are a lot of reasons why Apple’s kept Flash off the iPhone. I’m fairly sure worries about their app sales isn’t one of them. They’ve regularly said they break even on app sales; it’s not a money maker for them.
I don’t care how great the web becomes- until the day that wifi is everywhere and free, or 4G/5G is cheap and easy, the web won’t be the exclusive or even dominant OS. If you’ve ever had an iPod touch as your primary form of entertainment in an environment without wifi, you know already why that is… Without standalone applications like music, games, word processor, etc., the device turns into an expensive paperweight.
And that’s not acceptable.
@22, that’s why the iPad has 3G. The internet’s always on. Whatever happens in the future, the internet’s going to be always on. This is already the case in every country in the world except ours, where we’re a decade behind; other countries don’t even understand the concept behind those coverage maps you always see on the TV ads, because coverage is universal (except in the Australian outback, where no one lives).
I expect, and Apple expects, that standalone anything is going to be meaningless in the future. That’s why there’s no storage capacity on this thing, and why Apple’s various gizmos have been REDUCING storage capacity in some cases. iPods for instance; they don’t make my 160 GB iPod anymore, and the whole iPod concept is a legacy thing at this point.
@20 – Huh?
@19 – Yes, manual transmissions are more fun, more efficient, and lots of people love them, but that doesn’t change the point. Most people don’t care, they want a car that just works. This has been missing from the world of computers. All computers are pretty technical, and require knowledge of a lot of systems and terminology that the average user doesn’t care about or need to know.
There will always be computers for tinkerers and developers (you can’t create iPad programs on an iPad) just like manual transmissions have survived. But the dominant platform became a niche in transmissions, and Apple is betting that will happen with computers, too.
I think what 16 meant to say was that having Flash available would eat into their iTunes store business. When you’re offering episodes for purchase via that portal why let users jump over to Hulu on the same device?
SOME iPads come with 3G… And even then you have to pay $30 a month for it, on top of the fees you pay for your cell phone, and cable. Are you saying that you like the idea of paying $30/Month forever, else your device is worthless? That makes me feel like my data is being held hostage.
@20: Zynga just can’t code their way out of a paper bag. The fact is that it taxes my CPU almost to the same level as a modern video game, and that is fucking ridiculous for something that could’ve run just as well as a native app a decade and a half ago.
@23 Fnarf…ummm, they still sell a 160 gb iPod. See here:
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/sh…
Anthony, nice post. I agree with pretty much everything you said, and really hope that Apple will open up development (and doubt it, though they may look the other way with hacks).
Just want to point out that the device isn’t only appealing to computer-illiterate noobs. I love tech, am constantly using my computer and iPhone…my first real job was in IT… and I don’t like tinkering, don’t care what’s under the hood most of the time, and just want my machines to do their jobs. I’m an Apple geek. It’s a different kind of geek, but a geek nonetheless.
@28, crap. For a while there, the “Classic” was dropped down to 120 GB, I’m sure of it. I checked a while back when I thought mine was stolen (wrong coat). So I’m dumb.
ALL Facebook apps are coded like shit, most especially of all Facebook itself. It’s a miracle the thing runs at all. But, as Anthony says, nobody cares. They just want to see their profile.
@26, no, I don’t like it at all. I’m not going to buy one. But most people who buy one will get the 3G. It’s a brick without it. Look at all the people who pay $100 a month for their iPhone — it’s a trivial number compared to all phone users, but it’s enough to make Apple a shit-ton of money and lead the smart-phone market, which is all they care about.
@29 – Oh definitely. I think the iPad will appeal to lots of people. I guess what I mean is that this type of device where the OS and all the tech are hidden will appeal to noobs as their only device, while geeks will likely own one of these and another, more full-featured machine.
@30…I’m going to buy the base model. My primary use of it will be as an eReader…but when I say that, I include the concept of reading online material such as SLOG, etc. in addition to books.
So, for $10 more than I’d pay for a similarly sized Kindle, I’ll get an eReader that does a hell of a lot more than the Kindle. Seems like a deal to me.
@1 multitasking is a software feature, which means it can always be added later. On the other hand, there is a reason Apple doesn’t support multitasking for 3rd party apps now, its bad for battery life. Granted, many of the use cases for background processing shouldn’t be too demanding, but I’m not sure there is an easy way for Apple to enforce the issue, yet. As for the lack of camera, it seems a little lame, but rather than putting a camera onboard (or selling ugly, clunky USB dongles), I’d rather they have a standard USB port (or two) on board. As for being the device to popularize video chat, I think the iPad has more important things to do.
@3 & @6, I agree, the iPad is just the starting point. I thought the iPhone was cool when I first learned about it, but I wasn’t going to buy one, because I was sure that all the various deficiencies of the first version were going to break my heart. Then I used one for about 30 second and it was all over, I had to have one. I’m on a 3gs now and I’ve had no regrets about either one. Computers suck, bad. They are way more complicated than they need to be (which I’m reminded of whenever I try and help less-geeky friends with their’s) They are still tied to 40+ year old UI paradigms, which themselves were based on metaphors of physical workspaces. The iPhone and iPad are a chance to actually bring real physicality into computer interaction, rather than forcing us to use dated simulations.
@16, you can have a good web browsing experience without Flash given the present state of technology, (whether sites are making good use of that or not is another question). You can’t have a good web browsing experience and 10 hour battery life in something the size, weight and performance of the iPad with Flash given the present state of technology.
I think the idea that Apple is keeping Flash off the iPhone because it will eat into their business is ridiculous. First, most of their business is selling hardware. Lots of people make it sound like the lack of Flash support is costing Apple hardware sales. If you are talking about the media business, keep in mind that people can stream audio and video to the iPhone now with no extra software using standard formats and protocols. Second, I’ve seen no real indication that 3rd parties aren’t welcome to release their own players for their proprietary media or DRM systems. Amazon has a Kindle app that let you read ebooks you’ve bought from them on the iPhone. Pandora and lastFM have a streaming audio app. Joost and TV.com have video apps. It isn’t clear to me that there is anything stopping Hulu or Netflix from creating their own iPhone apps other than their own reluctance.
@32, except that the Kindle is always on. It’s always connected to the net. It can’t browse the net for shit, but it can snaffle up books from anywhere you can get a signal. An iPad with no 3G can’t do that. An iPad with 3G can, but also costs wayway more than a Kindle. The devices are not precisely alike.
Neither is the iPad precisely like a portable DVD player, which is the closest analogue to Anthony’s model currently in use (a media device that doesn’t require tinkering under the hood). Portable DVD players are ubiquitous these days and have probably outsold smartphones. The iPad is going to have to take some of that market — but if you’re not on 3G, you’re going to have to tinker with it, which loses you some of that magic advantage. Will people watch movies that they have to fuck with iTunes to get, when they can get DVDs at Wal-Mart or RedBox for very little?
@34 The kindle and iPad both use wifi, so yeah- they’re both “always on” as you put it.
@35, the Kindle is using AT&T’s mobility network for its “always-on” capabilities by default. You have to pay extra for an iPad that will do the same thing. I am actually interested in getting an iPad, but paying an extra $100-and-something for the 3G capability is rather bullshit.
Another piece of electronic crap to add to the pile that will just be obsolete in six months time. Fuck Apple (and Dell, and Microsoft, etc.,) and the horse it rode in on. They and the iPud are all just hype to continue on our already dulled senses.
I think the fundamental difference between people who can accept the ipad, and those who can’t, lies in the free software movement. I see absolutely no value in a piece of technology that won’t let me do whatever the fuck I want with it. I may get jealous of the people playing all the cool iphone games, and it’s really great that apple was able to do that, and I’m happy for them, but I can’t help but laugh at the people who buy technology they can’t customize. I know that not all users want to customize, some, if not most based on the iphone sales, want to be told what to do and how to do it. I don’t see the world that way, and I don’t want my technology to be that way. It was one thing to do it with a phone, which understandably cannot play flash, but a tablet computer, without flash support? Without being able to install your own programs? I fail to see how the machine is even a computer at that point, it’s like it’s some kind of networked device that lets you interact with the world but only the way it wants to you (a phone ha). To some people that has great value, I on the other hand would love to turn the thing into a universal remote, or a mobile wi-fi hub, or some kind of toaster, whatever the fuck I want, but apple, and more importantly, Steve Jobs, doesn’t think I…deserve the power? I dunno, I don’t care, and Apple has a long way to go before they can earn my money, like making a product that doesn’t look like a giant pile of shit.