[NTLK] iMessagePad (was: Einstein running on iPhone)

[Riccardo Mori]

quoth James Fraser:

> That's one way to look at it.  Another viewpoint is that the iPad is the first version of a device five months old that's primarily derived from a product that just turned three -years- old: the iPod Touch.

That's one way to look at it :)

Actually a couple of months ago I read on the Web (probably on Daring Fireball, which is not a bad or uninformed source, usually) that the first idea for a multi-touch device was in the tablet form. In other words, the iPad concept came before the iPhone's. It was Jobs who, fascinated by a in-house prototype, thought about making it smaller and turning into a phone. So the project changed direction and iPhone debuted first in 2007.

> They do run the same OS, after all, just different builds.  Whether or not the extra screen real estate the iPad offers is worth spending money on when you already own an iPod Touch is up to the individual consumer.

The user experience of an iPad is quite different from an iPod touch. I heard and read many people objecting that it's all a matter of a bigger screen, but there's more to that. The bigger screen is the starting point, then you have an increasing number of applications designed for the iPad taking advantage of that and creating a different experience, something that's simply not possible or impractical on the iPod touch. The iPad is a great device for reading newspapers (see apps like The New York Times Editor's Choice) and e-books, it's a better device to display information, browse the Web, create content (can you imagine the iWork suite on an iPod touch?). The iPad is better than an iPhone/iPod touch at replacing a laptop for certain, lighter uses -- thanks to the bigger screen and to the applications specifically designed for that screen real estate. 

> The thing is, the Newton was introduced by Apple with the intent of single-handedly creating a -whole new product category-.  The iPad seems to be, to me at least, largely an attempt to capitalize on an -existing- product.  

As I said before, I think it's too early to say. But since the iPad's introduction in April, I witnessed an interesting phenomenon: a lot of people I know, and a lot of people I've heard about, people who were underwhelmed and utterly not interested in the iPhone/iPod touch, jumped on the iPad bandwagon at once. Especially non-tech savvy and older people. Even my parents, who were never interested in computers and who still haven't got an Internet connection in their house, have manifested serious interest in the iPad for the potential, the portability and the ease of use.

> That's not to say that the iPad doesn't have its good points.  It's just that the Apple of 1993 was willing to take an enormous risk with the introduction of the MessagePad (and they got kicked in the crotch for their troubles).  The Apple of 2010, on the other hand, seems content with wringing as much as it can out of existing product lines as opposed to constantly releasing products that are so innovative, consumers aren't quite sure what to make of them, as they are so different from any other product.  

The Apple of 2010, in my opinion, has a different concept of revolution than the Apple of 1993. The perfect example is the iPhone: it's not so much the device itself (other companies could have made it before, and surely a lot of companies still try to copy it today with similar devices), it's the impact on society, on the mobile phone industry. The revolution is outside the device, in its application, in the human-device interaction design. That's why products like the original iPod, and the iPhone/iPod touch later, despite their limitations and the absence of certain features that are present and common in competing devices, have been a huge success.

> The impression I was left with re the iPad was that Apple had decided, "Hey! Let's take an already existing product, tweak the form factor a bit, pass that off as an innovative move, and watch the cash roll in!"  They had the part about the cash rolling in right, certainly, so it's hard to argue with that outlook.  

People are less stupid than we think. It's not enough to put an "innovative" label on a product to sell millions of units. The product itself has to have some merits. And, as I said before, the iPad is the first Apple product I saw attracting people who not only weren't interested in Apple before, but weren't interested in _computers_ altogether. I don't think it happened just because of the hype.

> True innovation entails substantial risk.  I'm not sure if the Apple of today still has the stomach for substantial risk or not.  I guess we'll have to wait and see about that one.

I still believe the risk Apple took with the first iPhone was huge. The iPhone came out after a lot of anticipation and a deafening amount of rumours on the Web and in the tech world in general. It could have been a complete fiasco. Sure, you can say "OK, the iPhone was innovative, the iPad is derivative", but I think that the iPad's derivativeness is a strong feature to build a user base already accustomed with iOS and its UI. Once you have that user base, you can take a different path -- and this is what I think it'll happen.

Cheers,
Rick




...................................
System Folder - The Platinum Days
<http://systemfolder.wordpress.com>