After months of speculation and anticipation, Apple unveiled their tablet computer — called the iPad — today. I had been curious about the device primarily from the standpoint of an owner of both an iPhone and a MacBook Pro. What, I wondered, would be the unique appeal of the fabled tablet to people like me?
But after today’s presentation by Steve Jobs, I’m forced to conclude that the iPad really isn’t aimed at me at all. There wasn’t really anything in the its demonstrated range of capabilities that I can’t get from any of my other devices. It seems that Apple is going after the set of people who are iPhone owners but who don’t own a MacBook.
My first impression of the iPad was that it’s just a bigger iPhone, and nothing I saw ever really changed that. That’s not really a negative thing, though: the core apps — Mail, Contacts, Safari — have been rewritten to take advantage of the better screen, beefier hardware, and improved OS features and UI elements. The tablet appears to remain a single-app device — early investigations of the SDK revealed no multitasking support. But the larger screen does allow each individual application to structure itself to support more modeless operations.
I did find the extremely large bezel somewhat off-putting at first, although I realize it’s probably utilitarian: it provides surface area on which you can grip the device. I’d expect you’ll be gripping the edges of an iPad more often than you would an iPhone, due to the increased size. You wouldn’t want your fingers to set off the touch screen in that case. John Gruber, who spent some hands-on time with the device, has the same opinion. Although… it would have been cool to see those “touch-sensitive back casing” rumors (concerning the next-gen iPhone) materialize here in a form that would let the iPad detect how you’re holding it, and react appropriately (shrinking the touch-reactive area, perhaps).
As far as filling needs… eliminating what the MacBook Pro and iPhone provide, the only unique service offered by the iPad is the e-book platform. I’m sure iBooks and all of Apple’s infrastructure for electronic reading will look great, but I’m not sure they’re going to be stealing the Kindle’s thunder — not for me at least (they may have a shot at the people who read newspapers on the Kindle, since the iPad can do better, more dynamic layout). It comes down to the screen: reading on the Kindle’s e-ink screen is a fundamentally different experience than reading off a backlit, glossy LED screen. The Kindle’s screen certainly has shortcomings, but I still prefer it to reading on my MacBook or iPhone. Perhaps if the iPad had been available before I got my Kindle…
The price was also a surprise — cheaper than I thought. I’m wary of the 3G data plans, though. I didn’t catch any mentions of how the iPad’s plan interacts with existing iPhone data plans, and I’m not sure the 3G functionality is worth another $15-$30 on top of what I’m already paying AT&T for their mediocre service.
Still, it’s a solid, good-looking device on the whole. I have absolutely no need for it, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t ever buy one. I’ll definitely swing by an Apple store a few weeks after it becomes available to see what it’s like in person.
Oh, but the name is really dumb.
No Comments