1. Doug Wilcox

   

   The most glaring omission is their failure to support flash. I can’t actually believe they won’t support flash. All of their marketing points to how you can hold the internet in your hands, but the best stuff on the web uses flash.

   Otherwise, totally agree. This isn’t a compelling product. It is however a good case study in marketing hype. I was actually sort of confused when I first heard it’s spec – I so totally wanted a content production device that I couldn’t reconcile how utterly consumer oriented this is with my expectations.

   Jan 29th, 2010

2. ziwen liu

   

   well, it is good-looking and cool. but it is just a bigger and more expensive ipod-touch for me~

   Jan 30th, 2010

3. lailakaz

   

   I also liked the sleek look of the iPad but upon further reflection (encouraged, of course by the discussion in our Evolutions of Dig Media class), I am questioning the practicality of the device. For one, how do you watch a movie on an iPad? Put it flat on a desk and look down on it notwithstanding the neck strain; hold it up in your hand through the whole movie; find an adequate household or coffee shop item to lean it up against; or just balance it on your lap through the whole movie – but then where does the popcorn bucket go? Am I missing something…

   Jan 30th, 2010

4. Cheryl Lowry

   

   I agree with your argument about why the iPad won’t take off – and find it curious why there is a continual focus on this type of “living room” device that isn’t a computer, yet isn’t truly portable, while offering a subset of things your other devices already do. Tech companies seem dead set on filling this space with some kind of niche offering, even though netbooks and iPods are already doing a fine job of it.

   In my opinion, there might be a niche for something like an iPad if it were work-focused, like a PDA, but far more functional, with a viable work surface and data plan (not wifi) connection, but then again, maybe android phones and the like are doing that well enough as it is.

   I noted the other day that all 7 of cnn.com’s tech headlines were all about the iPad. Apple has such cache it doesn’t even matter if they make a mistake– the reporters come running. I’d like to see some more critical thinking in technology reporting, myself– it seems entirely driven by trends and gadget mania.

   Jan 30th, 2010

5. Amy Rainey

   

   My parents have a gigantic hot pink remote control with huge simplified buttons. They never lose it in the couch and it’s pretty fool-proof. The iPad – a giant iPhone – reminds of their giant remote… mostly because I’ve been reading the theories that the iPad will become popular among Baby Boomers who want simple computing devices.

   To quote this TechCrunch article (http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/31/ipad-moms-next-computer):
   “The iPad is a computer for people who don’t like computers. People who don’t like the idea of upgrading their 3D drivers, or adjusting their screen resolution, or installing new memory. Who don’t understand why their computer gets slower and slower the longer they own it, who have 25 icons in their system tray and have to wait ten minutes for their system to boot up every day. For what most of these people need a computer for, the iPad is perfect.”

   What do you think?

   Feb 1st, 2010

6. Margery Nabors

   

   RE: “If you want the iPad for the e-reader aspect, the Kindle is much cheaper (costs half the price, you don’t have to pay extra for 3G, and books are cheaper as well).”

   Taking this preference a step further, the Kindle kills the iPad on two other dimensions, light and battery. The iPad is backlit and the battery is inferior, which makes it a non-contender for the niche that the Kindle (and other e-readers) serve. Moreover, this niche – recreational bibliophiles – likely thinks of the Kindle’s singular function to be a boon to it’s appeal rather than a curse. I suspect they don’t want to be distracted by the ease of clicking away from their reading to check their email, Twitter, or breaking news. They want to escape.

   Feb 2nd, 2010

7. Lara Underhill

   

   I agree with you that if it doesn’t combine most of the items we already have (phone, camera, laptop, tv, books, etc) into one device then it loses its appeal to me as well. I agree with Doug’s point l and I am also surprised it doesn’t use Flash technology. I wonder if there is a licensing issue here.

   The iPad’s limitations and independent functions seem to be another piece of evidence to support Jonathan Zittrain’s argument against “tethered devices.”

   Feb 2nd, 2010

8. Seth Foley

   

   The Flash issue is primarily one of compatibility, though that term is used pretty loosely. There a number of reasons why Apple might not want to support Flash:

   - The desktop plugin, on all architectures, has a history of security problems. This requires frequent updates, and Adobe has not always played well with the Mac platform on this front.
   - The Flash plugin is notoriously buggy, and is responsible for a staggering number of Firefox crashes on both Macs and PCs. Apple likely does not want its flagship products associated with this instability.
   - It consumes a lot of processor power, which is at a premium on mobile devices — and thus battery power. As other posters have noted, this is already a concern.

   While there are now a few mobile architectures where Flash is now supported, the rest of those problems remain. Additionally, some people have theorized that Apple is waiting for widespread adoption of HTML 5 as a replacement.

   Feb 9th, 2010

9. Katy Balatero

   

   I agree that the iPad’s current functionality is already available on other devices, so in that sense it’s not offering anything new. The iPad does more than an iTouch (bigger screen for easier viewing, data connection through AT&T) and less than a netbook (netbooks and laptops are more suited for actually producing content than the iPad, which appears to be a consumption device), so I think the iPad would be more attractive if the price point fell between the prices of those devices.

   That said, the iPhone was more limited until Apple opened up app development to outside parties, and before that people were skeptical that the iPhone would do as well as it has — that was certainly aided by the price drop as well as the app store. I’m going to hang back and see what happens with the iPad in the next year or two before pronouncing it completely useless.

   Feb 23rd, 2010

10. Tracey

    

    I agree as well that iPad really does not offer any new funtions that are not already found on other devices. However, I agree with Amy that the iPad is most probably not meant for people who already have a computer and or all those pretty devices that does everything the iPad does. It feels as though people are used to Apple releasing devices that are meant for everybody (iPod). So that when they come out with a device like the iPad (which really is meant for a smaller group of audience) it seems limiting and redundant.

    I’d think my mother would be delighted to have a iPad and feel like she’s finally involved in the new technological world.

    Feb 26th, 2010

11. jeffhora

    

    There are many interesting points here.

    Margery mentions the bibliophile audience of Kindle users. I also found on the Kindle forums that the bulk of Kindle owners were very happy, thank you very much, with the Kindle’s singular function as an e-reader. Reading content on the Kindle, as an experience, is comparable to reading a physical book, which is a plus in user experience. When considering the Kindle from another point of view, which is as a light, portable Linux-powered device with a nice hunk of memory, and an all-you-can-eat data connection plan, one can understand the excitement of application developers when Amazon announced the imminent release of the Kindle Development Kit (KDK), grayscale-only graphics notwithstanding. Add to that the news over the past month that Amazon is continuing investment in touch-screen hardware and color e-ink technologies, and you can foresee a strategic vision that has been in place for a while. I fully expect v.3 of Kindle to expand the capabilities that already exist with this device, while remaining, at its heart, an e-reader. The iPad just feels like an answer to a question that was answered elsewhere……there were, if you remember, MP3 players around for quite awhile before the iPod arrived.

    I also have to side with Laila and Jon on this: if I watch a movie, I watch to see it on a big screen with “real” audio, not on a small screen in my lap with earbuds….

    Feb 26th, 2010

12. Mary Janisch

    

    Since Apple is positioning the iPad partly as a social gaming device, it made we wonder if it would come into competition with the Nintendo DSI, which my kids huddle around on the couch to play. Indeed, Nintendo has a new, larger device coming out March 28 called the DSi XL, which is bigger than the DS but smaller than the iPad. It will sell for $190 compared to the pricey $499 iPad. The DSi already has two cameras and a audio player; the DSi XL will add an e-Book reader. Can other features, like Internet browsing or email, be far behind? It seems the trend these days is toward single, do-it-all devices. It will be interesting to see what lower-cost alternatives to the iPad emerge.

    Mar 5th, 2010

13. Toni Delrio

    

    I certainly respect all the people writing reviews on the iPad, they have made a great job comparing features, prices, etc. All the possible variables a tech savvy consumer would look at.

    However, my hyphotesis, is that none of the people writing this pro reviews is part of Apple’s target for the iPad. iPad has entered the market to create a new category of user.

    iPad will play a similar role to the one Wii played for Nintendo in the video games market. Obviously, if you had given a Wii to gamer, the review would have been awful. But who was Nintendo targeting with Wii? No-gamers, people who thought PS and Xbox controllers were for astronauts. In the case of iPad, Apple will aim to attract a wider audience to their brand. This based on two key benefits: (i) intuitive use and (ii) versatility.

    These two benefits will make iPad and its future generations, a home device, similar to what a TV-set was back in the 60s. My prediction is that soon, there will be many iPads, iPod Touches and iPhones per household. Grandma will use it as a cooking book and scrapbook. Mom will use it to read her favorite book and stay in touch with work, as well as her photo albums. Dad will use it as the newspaper and to watch movies. Toddlers will use it to read their books and to play memory games. Teens will use it for school and keep in touch with their friends. The sky is the limit. The beauty of the iPad technology is in its simplicity.

    Contrary to what tech savvy consumers, and I include myself in this category, believe, sometime “less is more”.

    Mar 5th, 2010

14. Rae Macker

    

    Jon, you said, “I’m happy with my iPhone, laptop, and 46″ HDTV. Carrying around yet another device isn’t appealing to me – especially since it doesn’t replace my iPhone.”

    I agree. How many devices do we really need? I am one of the few in the MCDM program that uses a basic flip phone with no data plan. I’ve got a netbook for carrying around with me and a more powerful computer to use at home, and I just don’t see the need for more than that. It already feels like too much. Devices like the iPad may satisfy a niche audience, but I fail to see any use for it in my daily life.

    Mar 9th, 2010

Reply to “Why the iPad Won’t Revolutionize the Market”