iPad: The Greatest Disappointment in Human History

Challies.com ^ | January 28, 2010 | Tim Challies

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Yesterday I sat and watched liveblog coverage of the long-awaited announcement from Apple. To no one’s great surprise, they unveiled their newest device, the iPad. While everyone knew this tablet device was coming, everyone had wondered exactly what it would be. Apple has high standards when it comes to devices like this one and I, for one, was prepared to be amazed. Alas, I was disappointed. iDisappointed, even. I’m ready to declare that the iPad is the greatest disappointment in all of human history (at least since The Phantom Menace).

Let’s get this out of the way. The thing looks really nice. It’s a giant iPod Touch—glossy, pretty, aluminum. Visually, it presses all the right buttons. We may have been hoping for something a little more innovative in form, but nevertheless, the Touch works well, so there’s no reason to think that the iPad won’t work just as well on a macro scale. We know as well that the operating system will be solid, that the app store will provide many excellent applications, etc, etc. What the iPod Touch does well when it’s not being an ultra-portable device (or what the iPhone does when it’s not being a phone or an ultra-portable device), the iPad should do just as well.

But it could do a whole lot of things a whole lot better if only Apple had not deliberately handicapped the device. They did two things that annoy me to no end and make me declare it a massive disappointment. First, they held back features so they could play the hero when they add them later on. And second, they deliberately left out features, handicapping the device, so you would have to continue to buy their other hardware.

Features They Held Back
We know that Apple has a long road map for future versions of this product. They are a company of smart people who have to look far beyond product launch. So we know that in an office somewhere they have a document outlining iPad 2, iPad 3, and so on. And we understand that they have a product spec arranged for each of them. Apple knows what they will add to each of the next three or four generations of the product. This is well and good. But it seems evident that many of these innovations are things they could easily have added this time but held back deliberately so they could add them to future generations.

So rather than allow future versions to be driven by genuine innovation, they can assuage their users by adding features that should have been there from the beginning. In future versions they will add a camera. But the camera should be there now. What possible reason is there not to have a camera now? In future versions they will add more storage capacity. But it should already have more storage capacity. In future versions they will add some great new input abilities. But that should have been one of the fundamental features right from the start.

All of these things will come. But they will come as reasons to make us buy into future generations of the product. It was not for lack of ability that Apple did not include them this time around. It was just to wring more money out of us later on.

Features They Cut
That is one annoyance—that they handicapped the device so we would buy future versions. But they also cut obvious features of it so it would not replace any of our existing Apple devices. Though I understand this from a business perspective, it offends me as a consumer.

You can look at the iPad’s feature list and see all of the places they deliberately handicapped it in order to make sure that people wouldn’t buy it instead of one of their other products. Apple wants you to buy the iPad, but they need you to keep buying the MacBook (or iMac) and iPhone.

Here are just a couple of examples.

The iPad has no compelling input abilities beyond the on-screen keyboard or an external Bluetooth keyboard. And the device is really only as good as its inputs. The on-screen keyboard looks great, but I would expect it to be useful only for brief periods of time. You cannot use it effectively with one hand which in turn means that you need to lay the device on a surface in order to use it. But then you’ll find yourself hunching over the screen and that can’t be comfortable for long. You can use an (expensive) external keyboard, but then you need to be able to prop the device upright (probably using an expensive cover). And do you really want to bring an external keyboard to class? Or to a meeting? Where is the stylus so you can draw on the screen? Where is the input innovation? Why the lack of innovation? And all of this ensures that it will not replace the MacBook or the iMac. Further, the device still needs to sync with something, so it will be severely hampered as a standalone device. A student cannot head to college with only an iPad and an iPhone. He will still need something to sync them with.

The iPad has no phone abilities so it will not compete with the iPhone. I understand this decision as it vastly reduces the complexity of the device and its pricing. Plus, you’d look awfully silly holding a device that size against your ear. But what about giving us some kind of innovative way of using this as a communication device? Surely there is a way of using the Wifi and 3G capabilities to communicate with others. At the very least, offer some Skype-like ability and make that a key component of the device. But no, that would bring it into conflict with the iPhone.

It goes on and on.

Lost Opportunity
I wanted the iPad to do lots of neat things but to do one thing exceedingly well. Speaking personally, I wanted it to be an exceptional reading device. Why Apple didn’t position it as a reading device baffles me. Why didn’t they work with textbook manufacturers to make this the future of reading, the future of studying? Think of a dry history text that could come alive with interactive features (I know, I know. Neal Postman is rolling over in his grave. I’m not saying I agree with interactive learning like this—just surprised that Apple didn’t try it on us). This device could have been an amazing way of taking reading (which even Steve Jobs knows isn’t really going to go away) to the digital world. Kindle has tried and has done some good things. But the whole field is still vastly underdeveloped. Apple had its chance and, by what I can see, has completely blown it. Sure the iBook application looks pretty, but it does not look at all innovative beyond a few visual effects.

Apple’s lost opportunity was to create a device that did one thing amazingly, exceptionally, innovately well. Instead they chose to make a giant iPod Touch that I can’t carry in my pocket and that I can’t use to call my wife when I’m going to be home late. I can’t take it on my morning walk to listen to music. I can’t take it to a conference in place of my MacBook, either. Now there is a chance that I could throw it in my bag in place of my Kindle, but I don’t know if that’s likely to happen. After all, the Kindle does one thing and it does it well—better, I think, than the iPad. It can do it for two weeks, rather than eight hours and doesn’t require a monthly contract.

Even if the iPad was never going to be a Kindle-killer, Apple should have targeted it squarely at one audience. The iPad does not seem to have a really obvious audience. Who, exactly, were they pitching it to? Is it for students? Stay-at-home moms? Businessmen? They never said and I still don’t know. It seems to be a device without an obvious user. My guess is that they are hoping to sell it to Windows users who currently have neither an iPhone nor a MacBook (or iMac) but who want a taste of the Mac experience. But that’s just a guess.

Conclusion
I could go on with annoyances. There is no tethering between the iPad and the iPhone. The battery life is simply not sufficient (if they say ten hours, they probably mean six or eight with a bright screen and heavy use). There are so few input and output possibilities. I will stop there. No I won’t. How hard would it have been to smack an SD card slot in there? Seriously! It’s great to show a pretty photo application, but why not allow us to quickly and easily get the photos on there in the first place.

I guess it comes to this. If they are to maintain their share price, Apple needs you to continue buying an iPhone and a MacBook (or iMac). Thus they cannot allow the iPad to replace either one of them. And so it is a device between. It’s a device lots of people want, but nobody needs. What Apple should have done is to create a device that is spectacularly good at one thing—one thing that neither of the other devices does particularly well (like reading!). Instead, they went with the kitchen sink approach, trying to make it passably good at everything—things that the iPhone and MacBook do just fine.

I’m disappointed because the iPad could have been so much more. There are areas of my life it could have jumped into and done well, justifying its cost. As it is, I don’t see that happening. I’ll grant that ultimately I’ll need to use it and experience it to really know for sure. Maybe the experience of it will show me how and where it can find its place in my life (as happened with the iPhone). I would not be half surprised if, in the end, I end up with one (at least for R&D purposes). But it is going to take a very compelling argument for it to change my mind and find its place.

[steve-b]

How hard would it have been to smack an SD card slot in there?

How can you charge people $100 for 16GB of memory if they can add it themselves for $40, silly?

[TheBattman]

How can any product released that is essentially exactly what the pre-release hype and rumors said it would be.... be disappointing?

Apple did exactly what was expected (with some pretty neat and innovative parts - including the iBooks store). This device is essentially what the Kindle should have been, along with a carryover of many cool iPod Touch features (including the massive app assortment).

I don’t have a need for this product, but then again - I also never found a need for an iPod, so didn’t purchase one. I do own an iPhone now and love it (and every so often use it as an iPod).

Unless the price is absolutely WAY outside of what makes any sense (if it is higher than a MacBook), then this device makes sense.

[Richard Kimball]

Good points.

While complaining about Apple phanboys, there are a lot of people out there that when Apple releases something, shout "THAT SUCKS!" Then, they try to figure out how it sucks.

There were certain expectations that were going to be impossible to meet, such as a 10" screen that fits in a shirt pocket.

A couple of thoughts:

On the subscription service to magazines: The content delivery methodology is unique, but is there anything there that exceeds what a web browser does? Part of what is nice is that the information services can concentrate on content delivery, but the challenge will be to provide unique content in an environment with millions of content providers.

I see a real need for a pressure sensitive stylus that does not mar the screen. This makes it a sketch pad, note pad, etc.

I don't see the lack of camera as being as big a deal as some others do.

Here's what I see as the ideal setup. The iPad is in a folio case with a bluetooth keyboard and stylus. The folio could flip around to make a stand with the keyboard sitting on the table, or flip all the way around and allow the device to function as a typical ereader. It could be used on a table top or sitting in your lap. Typical notebook computers feel awkward when reading, as having the hinge horizontally in the middle is not a good ergonomic solution.

There are a lot of applications that the iPhone is currently used for that weren't envisioned when it went on the market. This includes having a card reader and using it as a credit card swiping and verification device.

It's a mistake to see this as a finished product. It's a platform. Where it goes depends on how much it can be expanded.

[Sir_Ed]

Yeah, they’re using their phone OS, not the Mac operating system.

Which is okay in something like an iPhone or Touch, but not in a full-size computer you’d want to do work with...

It’ll sell to people not into computers, who do nothing more than surf the net and check their email, but even for them the iPad is severely truncated, as it doesn’t have a webcam, nor does it multi-task.

In this day and age EVERYONE multi-tasks, they listen to a podcast or watch Hulu or such while composing email or designing Christmas newsletters. The idea that you have to shut down one app before you can use another is absolutely absurd.

Bigtime error, in my opinion.

Not to mention the lack of Flash support, of course, which Jobs wants to restrict as it allows functions that directly compete with Apple.

Gosh darnit I hate closed systems...I hope Google comes out with a competitor slate if Jobs doesn’t change some of these specs before the release date.

Ed

[Swordmaker]

Who said it doesn't? Exchange is part of the iPhone OS... which is on the iPad. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that is FUD. Nope. I am a developer. Not there.

You've already got the iPad SDK? Exchange is supported by the iPhone mail system, why wouldn't the iPad?

[Tzfat]

You've already got the iPad SDK?

Yes. It was released Wednesday.

Exchange is supported by the iPhone mail system, why wouldn't the iPad?

Good question. Apple screw this one up.

[Wright Wing]

Article is complete rubbish. The iPad is not supposed to be a personal computer, or laptop, or e-reader. As Jobs said, it is supposed to fit somewhere between the iphone and the laptop.

Battery life is 10 hours of continuous “VIDEO”. One month of stand by time. That is a lot.

There is an external keyboard. This is the perfect device for the travler/commuter who does not want to lug a full blown laptop.

No new apps have been developed for it, and the device does support headphone mics, so who is to say it won’t support VOIP apps.

A lot of these fanboys are just upset that they didn’t get the “happy ending” they were hoping for from the ipad.

[Wright Wing]

If this thing were so bad, why do I want one the more and more I see of it. A complete FUD article which is factually innacurate and when the author says he can “go on and on” he doesn’t...

Seems like a lot of these articles are coming out of the woodwork to try to minimize sales.

Amazing that people wanted to call the iPhone just a phone and when the iPad comes out, it is called just an “iphone”.

JUST...Ha Ha

[Cyber Liberty]

Have we hear of the unit price yet? If it’s $2K, then it’s dead as a reading device.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Starts at $499, tops out at $899. For comparison, the first iPod had 5 gigs of memory and cost $400.

[P.O.E.]

So the iPad is the Jar-Jar Binks of hand held devices?

[Cyber Liberty]

That’s a good price.

[ctdonath2]

It does support VOIP. Confirmed already.
...though no multitasking means no notification when someone calls you.

[ctdonath2]

Seems people are mad it doesn’t include what non-Apple pundits claimed it would. Apple said NOTHING before this, and delivered a good solid entry point (remember kiddies, Apple is usually behind the bleeding edge; it’s that they get it RIGHT, not _first_).

Lesson: don’t get your hopes up by people who you know don’t know what they’re talking about, and don’t get mad at someone for not delivering what they didn’t say they would.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

This guy is so full of crap.

Surely there is a way of using the Wifi and 3G capabilities to communicate with others. At the very least, offer some Skype-like ability and make that a key component of the device. But no, that would bring it into conflict with the iPhone.

There's already Skype for the iPhone, and Apple has said that it will be available to the iPad as well.

After all, the Kindle does one thing and it does it well—better, I think, than the iPad. It can do it for two weeks, rather than eight hours and doesn’t require a monthly contract.

Really? So the Kindle has 3G? Because that's the only thing you need a monthly contract for.

I do love how, at the end, he admits that he's been converted by the iPhone, and someone else linked to how he'd been converted to the MacBook and iMac. But this one, this one he'll resist. Maybe.

[Wright Wing]

Agreed on the multi-tasking and VOIP notification. Then again, it isn’t meant to be a phone. :)

[o2bfree]

I’m sure I’ll be gettin a few Ipads just for fun and to keep the kids entertained during long trips.

Most netbooks out today can’t play HD video worth a squat... and the iPad can do it without breaking a sweat. Netbooks for the most part are really slow at everything they do.

[o2bfree]

The iPad supports multitasking nicely for Apple apps, but not third party apps, yet.

[word_warrior_bob]

Hey Sword, does the ipad use the e-ink technology for reading books?

I thought this was going to be primarily an e-reader with a bunch of apple goodies on top, without the monthly fees for data.

I was hoping for an Apple Kindle Killer. I’ve already got monthly data fees for my iphone, I don’t want another device with more monthly fees. I’m really interested in e-readers.

[Crusher138]

The iPad is very well suited to be what it was designed to be - an internet accessing media device.

It will do eBooks - in full color and with inbedded video. Does the Kindle do that?

It will access new subscription services - think digital magazine. Imagine getting Popular Science and, instead of static images, it is full of video snippets. How about being able to interact with a 3D photo of fighter jet - stripping off layers, rotating the image, zooming in to an interactive display of the cockpit - the mind boggles.

I have it on good authority that Apple will release iPhone OS 4.0 just before the iPad goes on sale. There will be multitasking and maybe Flash support. My source is cagey on this, hinting that there may be an alternative to Flash introduced. I am also told that there will be a camera that you can plug into the connector port. It is VERY low profile and will be very unobtrusive.

As for the Christmas release - existing models will drop $100, a camera will be built in, colors will be introduced, and an OLED version with LONG battery life (but a substantial hike in price) is being worked on, but they are having manufacturing issues with the screen.

Things that are being discussed - a portable accessory that includes a keyboard that makes the iPad look more laptop like, a built in “projector” using “new” technology that won’t involve traditional lighting sources, auto-detecting wireless linking and syncing with other Apple devices, biometric based security...

So I asked my source about where all of this is going. He explained to me that the iTouch and iPhone were just the first steps in redesigning the ENTIRE Apple line. Imagine a flat screen “TV” hanging on your wall that is really a large iPad-like computer. It has some motion sensitive controls, but also accepts input from a remote control that looks a lot like an iTouch. The “TV” is the computer - although they are going to make more and more of an effort to get away from calling their devices “computers.” These devices will do everything computers do today, but with better, easy-to-use interfaces.

Saying that they kept features out of the iPad to protect MacBook sales is almost funny. If all goes according to plan there won’t be any MacBooks in 3 to 5 years. Desktop computers will be iPads (of various sizes) in docking stations. OSX and the iPhone OS will be “merged” into a single, scalable OS.

Apple is not just introducing a new device. This is the continuation of a process started with the iPhone and iTouch to totally change the way we think about computers. It is brillant, in a tangental way - if you can’t beat Microsoft (in market share) - change the game entirely. Instead of trying to make your devices ubiquitous by making them cheap (the Microsoft way) focus on making them easy to use and innovative. Introduce accessory devices (like the iPod and the iPhone) that are innovative and user friendly and then, over time, evolve them into devices that perform tasks that once only computers could accomplish. Before you know it the “traditional” computer will be a nitch device.