The iPad Cameth. And...I Am Not Sure It Mattered

Last week was another big Apple moment. In classic Apple fashion, Steve Jobs announced the launch of the iPad. Over the course of 90 minutes (though only once some of the giggling stopped (insert feminine hygiene joke here), the audience was given the traditional Jobs-show on how this new tablet-based PC would create an entirely new market segment....which of course, Apple would dominate.

So what does the bloggerati think about the iPad? Well, there seems to be a split decision regarding whether or not the iPad is the "magical" device that Steve Jobs described, or something neat, but not nearly that interesting. Some, such as Slate, love the device, covet it, and want it. Where as others media outlets such as PC World, Wired, CNN, and CNET express disappointment and raise lots of questions regarding the iPad, its positioning, and even the existence of the market for which it is targeted. In fact, even Gizmodo, one of the biggest "Apple polishers" that exists, expresses some reservations regarding the iPad.

What do I think? Well, frankly, I side with the disappointed crowd. As I first wrote a few weeks ago, in order for the iPad (I called it the iSlate then) to be a success, Apple needed to create something remarkable. In order to create something remarkable, Apple would also be required to do some very un-Apple things. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Apple took that "advice" and so I am left wondering how the iPad will fit among the crowd of gadgets that we all can choose from today. 

It is not that the iPad isn't interesting. And admittedly, they did get a lot right (For instance, Apple did decide to rely on the iPhone OS for this device and they also priced the basic version of the iPad under $500 (just barely)), but there is a lot missing from the iPad too. In fairness, the iPad does have some unexpectedly cool things too (such as its ability to play games and watch TV), but I am not sure that those things are enough. 

Certainly one could argue that this is just the first version of an entirely new class of devices, but given Apple's stated interest to entirely redefine the market place for computers, this was not the time to be shy.  In fact, I see a lot of real misses in the iPad 1.0 such as:

1) No Flash: This is a huge issue. 99% of what makes the Internet go around is flash dependent. For a device that is supposed to be basically a computer, not having flash is a major bust.

2) No USB: Again, a huge gap. Why? Well, the iPad may be a great device to access the Internet or App store or viewing pictures, but it sure makes it hard to add things to the Internet (e.g. upload photos from your digital camera). This is one example where I think Apple took the "big iPod" theme too far.

3) AT&T: I am really not an AT&T hater, but it stuns me that they would continue down this path with a new device line up. Perhaps their contract with AT&T required it, or perhaps AT&T made it really worth their while, but fact is, this was the change to break lose and drive users in another direction. I wasn't in the room when this fact was announced, but apparently, there was an audible sigh of disappointment when it was announced. I don't blame them.

4) No Camera / Video Conferencing support: So...this is supposed to be the computer of the future but it doesn't take pictures? Or support video conferencing? Huh? This alone would be a major reason to keep me from moving to the iPad.

5) Closed Application Environment: I love the App store. Its awesome. But I also like the option of using other applications. The iPad doesn't do that. When you buy an iPad you basically become part of the giant Apple environment. Fine if that is all you want to do. Ugly, if you want to do something else.

6) Pricing: $499 is a good starting price, but practically speaking, that doesn't give you much. If the goal of the iPad is to displace Netbooks as a choice, it is already on shaky ground at $499...and way out of market at $829 (64Gig and 3G wireless). If they wanted an entry-level model, they needed to do better on that one.

7) No GPS (if you don't buy 3G):  Maps and presence are the new "killer app," but their relevance is directly related to how they interface with GPS. Yes, you can get that with a 3G card embedded, but honestly, paying that much more ($139) for just a 3G card seems ludicrous.

8) Strategy / Positioning: Jobs made a point of positioning the iPad as a cross between the iPhone and a Mac book. I don't think that makes sense. The iPad is really a cross-between an Amazon Kindle and a Sony PS2. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but lets not try and sell this device in the wrong place.

Time will tell if these issues are minor bumps in the road, functions of iPad 1.0, or major issues. Right now however, it seems to me that it is best to sit out this version and wait for the next version of the iPad to come out.

Five Changes That Apple Must Make to the iPad in Order for it to Succeed

January 27: Blog has been updated to account for the latest announcement from Apple regarding the iPad name and a photo of the device.
--------------

Well, it is official. On January 27th, Apple is set to announce their latest creation...which, assuming everyone has been correct, will be their new tablet PC the "iPad." In true Apple fashion, the combination of their carefully placed media management techniques and the love of all things Apple has brought the hysteria around this upcoming product launch to near hysteria. Of course, no one knows anything about the product itself, but the fact that Apple is about to launch a brand new product line has certainly gotten everyone excited.

So...will the iPad succeed? Will a new device by Apple that singly-handedly opens up an entirely new category of products and solutions that consumers the world-over enjoy?  Or will it be like the recent launch of Google's Nexus One? A good product, but certainly not iconic and with only limited appeal (more on what is good, bad, and indifferent on the Nexus One here). A device that could, should, and might be a winner, but the combination of hubris and mistakes in execution hurt its appeal? I am not talking Apple Newton here...more...well...Nexus One.

Well, without seeing the iPad, it is impossible for me to know for sure. I did postulate on its launch a few weeks ago, but regardless, I do believe the iPad could be a winner if the following five things are done.

1) Focus on the secondary computer market: Rumor has it that the iPad will be priced at around $1000 when it is first launched. While Macbooks have become the choice de jure device for techies everywhere, the fact is, they get away with this price because they are capable of being your primary computer. In my mind, the iPad will never be your main computer, but instead, has the possibility of being a fantastic second device. A device that you use for all sorts of reasons including watching videos, updating Facebook, Twitter, etc. and web browsing. In other words, take the lessens that made netbooks so popular and make the experience better.

2) Price the iPad under $500: It is virtually guaranteed that the iPad will cost around $1000. Frankly, that is way to high to make this product a must-have by a large enough percentage of the market to make a difference. Sure, it will sell...perhaps even a million (probably not)...but in a market where world-wide annual sales are more than 65 million the iPad will be a drop in the bucket. But it doesn't have to be that way. Price this device at $500 and I guarantee millions will be sold.

3) Embed the iPad with 4G wireless date: The iPad is rumored to include 3G services from one of the major wireless carriers, but that is not enough. 3G works pretty well, and has good coverage, but it is simply not capable enough to supply the download speeds of the multi-media / video capabilities that would differentiate a tablet in the market. Equally important, to take advantage of the 3G service, you will have to sign-up for an annual contract at ~ $60 / month. So, in addition to the $1000 device costs, you will be looking at another ~$700 per year just to use it! So where does 4G make a difference? Well, first it solves the bandwidth problem by supplying download speeds 3 - 5 times higher and second, the pricing model for 4G is significantly different (at least from Clearwire)...generally offering per-day and no contract options.

4) Run the iPhone OS: Admittedly this is a bit of techno-babble, but the fact is, the iPhone is incredibly easy to operate. So easy in fact, that millions of relatively non-technical individuals use it every day. A Mac OS? Well, not so easy. I am not saying it is impossible to use, but for people used to window-based PCs, the difference is significant. If the iPad used the iPhone OS a lot of those hassles would disappear and the potential market for the iSlate would significantly grow.

5) Include a keyboard: Admittedly this sounds counter-intuitive, but first of all, why can't a tablet be a tablet with a keyboard? After all, the biggest complaint about a tablet is its form-factor and associated user experience. Sure, it is awesome to watch a video, but type an email? Write a document? Or this blog? Not so easy. The iPad could solve a lot of these issues if it simply included in the package a keyboard. Sure, most people wouldn't use it for a lot of what the iPad is to be good (video), but when it came to writing-intensive activities a keyboard is the difference. And for a cost of $10 it seems worth it. Heck, including it would likely be hailed as another example of Jobs and his brilliance!

Let me know what you think of this list and any other ideas I missed. Of course, the list above includes some very "non-Apple" things....so the probability of them happening is very small. That being said, some of the technorati also have their own misgivings and recommendations, so perhaps my ideas are not so crazy after all.

The iSlate Cometh. Rumormill on Apple's Tablet Computer Starts to Really Heat Up.

Let the blogosphere ignite! While 2009 ended fairly quietly for Apple, 2010 is sure to begin with tremendous excitement for the much-rumored tablet-based computer from Apple. No one except the good folks in Cupertino really know the truth, but every one seems to have an opinion, idea, thought or just plain gossip to share.

So...what do we think we know? Well, the LA Times and MacRumors.Com have done some serious sleuthing to try and piece things together. What we "know" is that the name of this device is the "iSlate" and that it is expected to be a combination computer, book reader, iPod, Internet device in the form of a traditional tablet-style computer. Also, we know that Apple has reserved the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco in late January (presumably for the announcement, but could also be for a big team meeting). Finally, we know that Apple's stock is going through the roof. For better or worse, the folks on Wall Street usually know something the rest of us don't when it comes to money issues. Beyond that...it is anyones guess.

So, what does the launch of a tablet-computer mean to the market? Well, potentially nothing at all. Not to be a downer, but tablet PCs have been around for a while with only limited success among general consumers. Throw in the likelihood that an Apple machine will cost ~$1000 and this device may only amount to a few percentage points in market share for Apple. Great to see, but far from the iconic device that the iPod has become (billions and billions served) and the popular iPhone.

Of course, the opposite could also be true. Just as the Netbook market was created from virtually nothing to a major portion of the market, the iSlate could also become another iconic device. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds given that Netbooks are already under pressure from "tweener" devices (e.g. more computing power, but low cost) as well as, devices like the Amazon Kindle (perhaps the first fully accepted "tablet" computer...if only for books).

One thing I do know is that whatever Apple does, we will all benefit. Regardless of what you think of the success of Apple's iPhone, iTunes, or the iPod, one indisputable fact is that they each changed consumer expectations and experience for the better by showing the market what could be done when solid design work combined with great execution and vision. While not everything Apple does wins, they can still move the market in incredible ways through their design and delivery. It is always possible that Apple could still strike out, but even a solid double will go a long way here.

Thoughts?

How to transfer iTunes music from an old to a new computer

Wanted to share a recent post I made on eHow in preparation for Christmas. As many folks are about to get a new computer to go with their new magic device from Apple, it seemed appropriate to answer the question on how to transfer music from one computer to another.

This step-by-step process should help things make sense of that process. And don't worry...it is pretty easy to do.

Raportt

LINK: How to Transfer iTunes to a New Computer

In the end...there can be only one... Apple seeks to cancel Cable TV

Interesting article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal purporting that CBS and Disney may join with Apple to stream video and television directly to consumer's homes. In a typically Apple-like move, they are providing a pretty nice carrot (e.g. they are offering more money) in the hopes that these content providers are willing to operate inside the closed garden of Apple.

Questions remain though. Among them...

1) Will anyone really buy Apple TV instead of Cable? Sure it is cheaper ($30 vs. $70 typically charged by cable companies), but is that enough? In some ways, this is an extension of the cut-the-cord argument we are seeing as subscribers move from traditional local phones to wireless-only...but the parallels can only be taken so far. Sure, Apple has 100 Million iTunes subscribers (me included)...but that doesnt mean anyone will pay an extra $30 / month for Apple TV. Honestly, I am not sure about this one.

2) Will it really work? One thing Apple has been really good at is rock-solid user experience. A lot of that has been anchored in near total control around user experience, delivery, applications and devices. When it comes to video delivery however, Apple really only owns the end-points (device in your house and server housing the content) with someone else handling the cables in between. Time will tell if that experience is up-to-snuff...or if Apple TV will be doomed by the people in the middle.

3) What about other video options? The internet (Youtube, Hulu, NBC.com) is full of lots of free TV / video content options that will serve to undercut the reasons to buy from Apple. In fact, the only way to ensure people pay more is to cut off options elsewhere. Honestly though, that is going to be tough for folks to swallow. And by folks, I mean everyone...you, me, governement, advertisors, etc.

4) Wait a minute...what if my Internet comes from Cable too? File this one under the "explain it one more time" argument. The best card the cable companies have is that they already control many of the Internet pipes into a person's home. That is of tremendous advantage for any war based on price...and where the playing field has been leveled. Don't get me wrong, Cable TV can be beaten (see Internet, FIOS), but it requires a superior experience to do it. Can Apple pull that off?

For more information, here is the original link. Appreciate any thoughts you may have.

LINK: Apple Seeks to Knock-out Cable TV