Lets get one thing straight: if, after todays press event, you still think the iPad is an oversized iPhone, you’re being stupid.
The iPad is Apple’s reconceptualization of what a computer is to a regular person.
Therein lies the challenge of todays event, and one of Apples two biggest failing with the iPad launch. First off, in the iPad, I feel even more strongly than I did Monday that what Apple has on its hands the 2010 vision of the 1997 iMac, or the 1984 Macintosh. It is basically the computer most people should own. It’s Apple’s first computer in a long time targeted at regular people with average computing needs, and the price really drives that home.
But that was also the first hurdle they needed to get over that they didn’t. Today’s event was the first time in a long time that Apple has launched a product that not just not targeted at core Apple customers (the kind that watch these events), but actually the type of product that the core would be predisposed to both not understand and not like. If you work all day making videos, working as a photographer, making websites or designing products, the current interaction models for computers either works pretty well, or you’ve invested so much time in learning it, that it’s hard to see another vision of a computer. But for most people, the metaphors a lot of us take for granted are not just non-obvious, they’re downright confusing.
As I pointed out Monday, something as seemingly basic as the file system is a total mystery to most people. And forget keyboard commands. For the vast majority of computer users, keyboards are for typing and nothing else. In the iPad, Apple has a product that addresses the idea that in 2010 everyone has – or needs – a computer in their lives, but almost all of the interaction models we have are based 30-year-old concepts of keyboard and mouse as primary input devices. Why? Keyboards are, again, really about making words, and a mouse is a legacy pointing device that is mostly not ideal.
So, Apple has this device, this “new” computer.
This fresh way of seeing the world.
This third option.
And what do they do?
They spend the entire presentation NOT saying that.
This was, without a doubt, the single worst product drop I’ve ever seen from Apple.
I came into this morning so clear on what the iPad could be, and by the time the event was over, all I could think was “Jobs did everything he could to make this sound like a giant iPhone.” In my mind, what he needed to do was come out, explain the issues surrounding computers in 1984 and how the Macintosh overcame them. Talk about the issues facing computers in 1998 and how iMac overcame them. Talk about the issues facing computers in 2010, and then spend the rest of the presentation explaining how this is the new Mac, pounding the message: “if you need a computer for your LIFE, this is the one.” The price should have come much earlier, and should have been much more tied to the product’s reason d’etre. “Thinking about buying that shitty Acer laptop for $700, let me show you this Apple for $500.”
This needed to be an event about the concept of the iPad, not the specific features.
Maybe he’s been pitching to fanboys for too long, I don’t know, but this is most assuredly NOT a spec sheet device. From that point of view, it is basically an over sized iPhone. But in re-concpetualizing the computer, size matters. Simplicity matters. Access to both content and software, easily, matters. iPad is about the computer in your life, just like the Macintosh, just like the iMac, and I feel that Jobs totally failed to bring this concept home.
Literally nothing else mattered…
…and he missed.
He set out to reintroduce a product category – the computer designed for home life – and he failed to bring that single point home.
What makes this critical is that while you can rev the hardware and software feature set, as we saw with the iPhone, you can’t rev whether or not people believe in the idea. The brilliance of the iPhone introduction is that while people could and did rip on the initial features, or lack thereof, every single person knew exactly what the iPhone meant conceptually. That didn’t happen today, and I’m worried it may be fatal. If the average person – not the person who watched today’s event, but the person at whom this device is targeted – can’t understand why this for them, they’re probably not going to come back to it. At the very least, that is a profoundly more steep hill for Apple to climb than explaining or revving the object specifications.
The second huge flaw, and single point that broke my heart about the device itself, is that for everything I just stated above, Apple seems to also view this as an accessory. What this needed to be was a computer. A new, better, more relevant computer, but a computer. That Apple expects people to sync this to another computer is either profoundly short sighted, or just stupid. Neither of which feels like the Apple I know. By positioning the iPad as peripheral, Apple took what should have been a really cheap, amazing computer in a world of terrible cheap computers, and instead positioned it as a really expensive toy.
My mom, my dad, Megan’s mom and step-dad, they all want Apples, but always felt like they were too expensive. To be fair, you have to either buy into the Apple aesthetic or understand computers in a deeper than average way to justify a $999 13 inch MacBook in a world of $700 17 inch Toshiba’s. But with the iPad they have a chance to charge right into that space. It’s the exact same price point, with a totally different, and in my mind, clearly better experience. That concept has been severely damaged by leaving the Mac as the center of the Apple universe. Im guessing that you may not need to sync the iPad, but it says a lot about how Apple will position this and it feels like a terrible choice: it reduces the importance of the device, and again, muddles the ecosystem for the average person.
Anyway, it’s done with now and we’ll see how things shake out. I still love it, and I’ve talked to a number of people who are genuinely excited by it. At the same time, I can’t help but feel that today was a critical day for iPad, and what should have been easy, breakaway slam dunk, instead put up as many obstacles as it took down.
Justin, a few points on a well-thought argument. The audience for this presentation was techs and developers. They need to know what the device can do so they can build apps for it.
This was not a consumer launch. When Apple releases the consumer marketing plan for this device, I believe it will accomplish what you describe above: This is the netbook killer.
To that end, Apple was not ready to call this “the new computer” as that would be SO disruptive to users that it would turn everyone off with such a bold claim.
I think it’s easier for people to swallow this way, as an accessory, and one that you soon will not be able to live without.
Also, on the iPhone launch, I disagree that everyone knew what that device meant conceptually AT LAUNCH. It took time for the app store and the brilliance of users using the device for it’s impact to be felt.
The Ipad is an extension of Iphone’s influence on personal computing. I think they missed big on two things:
1. Camera
2. Multi-tasking.
And I think that this is not as groundbreaking as expected is a sign that Apple is simply trying to do too much to be as disruptive as they used to be “out of the gate”.
I think they are obviously relying on developers, game designers, publishers, etc… to do the groundbreaking part.
Thanks
VRL
Thanks for the feedback Vince, you make some good points.
You’re correct, this was an event for techs and developers, but I have to think that Apple understands that while that may be the audience in attendance, everyone is watching. While relatively few people read even mainstream tech sites like Engadget; CNN, MSNBC, the Times, and even local news will all be reporting on this today and I still worry that Apple didn’t give them the sound bite they need. As you said, Apple will continue to develop their message on the iPad, but my feelings as that after today they have damage control to do rather simply development.
As for Apple not being ready to call this a new computer, I think you’re right. But I’m also not sure it matters for a lot of the same reasons Im concerned about above. The bar Apple needed to clear today was to make it dead simple to understand why this isn’t a giant iPhone. While I’m very satisfied it’s not, I feel like Apple message around this is so wrapped in nuance that it’s going be lost. I hope I’m wrong and just underestimating people, but I feel like the general public doesn’t do nuance very well.
also, Im with you on the camera, among other things, thing for sure. WTH Apple? WTH?
Hey Justin,
I think you’re spot on with this criticism. This should’ve been revolution. No, it IS revolution, but it was told with the same old story.
What was majorly missing for me was revolutionizing the world of publishing. I wanted a new file format, a standardized way of creating interactive text without pulling teeth to do it, and the publishing tools therein. Maybe iWork on the iPad is setting the path for it, who knows. But the McGraw Hill leak last night and the lack of publishing mentioned today is really odd.
What this story needed to be was absolutely not a bigger iPhone. It needed to be the iTunes + iPod story, but for reading. Subscribe to books, publishing model for authors, etc. That’s the revolution I want. The guts are here for it, just not the brains.
Bill, yes. At Fight we’ve come up with 3 or 4 significant narratives Apple could have gone with instead of their choice of “nothing.” Publishing, as you point could have been one. I tend to have a negative reaction from what I see as an over-reliance on narrative from companies (and ad agencies) instead of genuine innovation. It rare to see a case of so much innovation last because of the lack of a clear narrative.
Justin, I’d love it if you were running Apple.
You do seem to say, they bungled how to present it, they bungled what to call it, they missed some things that it needed. Maybe the actual product concept from Apple is wrong, and you’re trying to see it how you’d want it to be and to be thought of.
For me it is just a big phone, without the phone, without the camera, with another possible monthly service plan, with another device I have to keep in sync with all of my info/movies/photos. I can’t edit pictures (well), create movies, write long documents. Without the iPhone having existed, I see that having an instant on device to handle email, web and info is great, but the iPhone already exists, it has already shifted the paradigm, so the iPad just does the same but bigger?
If I can get a MacBook for $999 is an iPad for $699 (64gb, just wifi) compelling? I’m losing out a lot for that $300 cheaper. I think another big thing I haven’t seen addressed is that the iPad seems to be stuck in “single user”. No sharing a laptop with different emails, setups, etc.
I know I’m a cynic. Sorry.
Well, put a good word in for me with Jobs and who knows…
Any way, you bring up an interesting point. Yes, they bungled the presentation, and yes, there are aspects of the iPad itself that I think undermine the concept, but is the product itself flawed? I’d say no, but given what I’ve already written, if you take Apple at its word, then possibly.
On the one hand, the device is clearly not an oversized iPhone to me. Yes, it speaks the same interaction language, and yes the form factor is similar, but the way Apple is using this language and this size more significant than just blowing up what they already have. Take the mail app, or the calendar app. Compared to the iPhone it seems clear to me that this is a bespoke solution. On the iPhone these apps are, I think, best described as “great, for a phone.” On the iPod the become simply “great.”
As for photo editing, that is actually where I think actually starts to shine. In addition to any default editing capabilities (and I believe there are some, but I’ll have to double check) it’s hard for me not to get excited to see what iPhone version of Photoshop becomes with the screen and processing of the iPad. Right now that app is a bit of a stretch for the iPhone, but what I love is that does away with 20 years of PhotoShop interaction models and asks what the process should look like now, with totally fresh eyes. This is what I love about the concept of the iPad, it has at least the potential of taking a lot of what makes computers hard for people now and making it very simple. By removing things most people don’t need (a file system) or don’t need often (a keyboard) it allows developers the chance to re-envision how people do things on a computer. Something I think is long over due.
On the other hand, with the narrative of the drop today, and some seemingly simple hardware features missing, a camera being the most obvious (though that dock is no picnic either), I wonder if I’m on the same wavelength as Apple, and the event today left me a little shaken on that front.
I think what bothers me most about this device is that it had the power to be a great creative tool, but instead has been chained down to a pure consumer model. Average people exposed to a “real” computer may eventually tinker and learn and be encouraged to create something new, but this device appears to actively discourage that process among users. The most pain-free interaction flow lies along the path of purchasing from the multiple stores available. If this was what we all had to use as our sole computing device growing up, how many of us would be programmers, engineers, web designers, etc? Some will always take the extra steps to satisfy curiosity, but I still hope that this does remain an accessory rather than the Everyman information consuming device.
uberVU - social comments // Jan 28, 2010 at 1:04 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by aDogNamedPants: iPad, I love you, Apple, you broke my heart. My hastily written response to todays event: http://bit.ly/936SCw...
macegr – Thats an interesting point, but if I understand Apple correctly, and I hope I do, I think they’re saying that this model of computing exists already, in fact, it’s basically all the computers available. The iPad is a response to the idea that there exists now a need for a computer for people who specifically DON’T want to see how the things works.
John Gruber had a great take on it: This model of computing is akin to automatic transmissions in cars. If someone whats to get 100% involved in the driving experience, than they would want a manual, but for most people, most of the time, an automatic is the right choice.
Thoughts?
Tweets that mention Apples Win, Wrapped in a Miss, Rolled in Confusion -- Topsy.com // Jan 28, 2010 at 11:37 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Spohn, eric pakurar, Michelle Childs, Otis Rubottom, tyesha snow and others. tyesha snow said: Nailed it. RT @aDogNamedPants: iPad, I love you,Apple, you broke my heart. My hastily written response to todays event: http://bit.ly/936SCw [...]
Another solid call, Justin. I totally understand your frustration with the presentation, and I am constantly amused by the myriad responses both the device and the presentation are getting. The barrage of disappointments I’m hearing from so many people tells me a lot about the nature of expectations from a generation now completely accustomed to computers as necessary tools as well as lusted-after toys. Having grown up saturated in a culture of science-fiction, it’s like breathing for us to imagine what the thing could do, if only someone wrote the software or milled out space in the case for a camera.
The thing that is most striking to me is that the device is just as you described – the next generation of computing device. Everyone wants it to be more without comprehending what the “simple” first version we have now entails. Yes, many people (all of us with higher expectations) already have the tablet experience in an iPhone, smaller-scale though it may be. But we are missing the difference that twice the screen size will make, and that was vividly illustrated to me in watching the keynote presentation last night, and looking closely at the demo of the iWork apps.
My first expectation was that they would be simple, since there are too many complex issues to figure out in how to manage all the data & interaction with “just” a touch interface. But in watching the video, the concept of radically changing the way I interact with a computer solidified, and I felt clear about the amount of work that had gone into figuring out the “that’s-just-the-way-it-should-work” methods of moving columns in a spreadsheet, automatically scaling text around an image, and moving objects/pages/slides in a presentation around. Such a new model will immediately frustrate us with what we think it cannot do, but watching the sections that caught my eye again of the demo of apps written *exclusively* for this device started to give me an idea of things it CAN do that I haven’t yet even imagined.
Just as I watched the hands-down success of the iPhone illustrated by my 2-year-old daughter and 65-year-old mother using it without instruction on the same day I received it, I have little doubt that this kind of device will again shift the way we all expect all computers to work. Yes, tablets have always existed (Wacom does good business in 23″ iPad-style connectors to our bigger computers), but not yet have they been matched with an interface and OS that is designed for the new interaction model.
Sorry for the long soap-box. Must be time to dust off my blog and get to pontificating in my own yard.
Thanks for the excellent posts!
Just to butt in on the camera gripes: the race is on to see if the guys who write Fring, Skype, or the handful of other existing voice-chat apps for the iPhone will write the software to use a dock-based camera for video chatting. The frameworks for external hardware devices have been in place since iPhone 3.0, so it’s only a matter of time before someone makes a successful pitch to a hardware partner to get the “TomTom” style video-chat pack together.
Yes, yes, I know, you want it built-in, but you’ll have to wait for the iPad 3V [S]. Besides, you’re going to have a helluva time keeping your thumb out of the way of the dang camera while you’re holding the thing at arm’s length to focus on you.
Isn’t there anything faster than a 12-to-18 month Apple rev cycle?
Reading this, I wish you had written this post instead of me. Very well said, and feel free to bring your soapbox to TiV any time.
You’re right on the thumb thing for sure, something I hadn’t thought of. Still, a webcam goes SO WELL with this I have to believe it will happen soon, even if it starts as a kludgy attachment.
With this in mind, it took me talking to be people with some background in CS and hardware to get a good explanation of why Apple would have left off seemingly obvious things like a USB, HDMI and the webcam. Turns out there are very real technical and UX issues with a lot of those things. Which goes to show, for all the blog posts out there, and how smart we all think we are, most of us don’t know a whole lot more about computers than the average person.
Yourself obviously excluded Gary.