Apple iPad: Revolutionary, or Shiny Paperweight?
Corey is a life-long Mac enthusiast who started his computing life on a Macintosh 512K, and has been in love with Apple products – until the iPad. Ben has sworn by Apple products for the past seven years, and early Saturday morning made a last minute decision to stand in line for the first time at the W. 14th Street Apple Store for the iPad launch. These two LaunchSquadders discuss the iPad.
Apple’s Microsoft-like control over the platform and the apps the iPad can run is increasingly disturbing.
Corey: I love Apple’s products. I’m a lifetime Mac user, I own an iPod, and would own an iPhone if they weren’t married to AT&T. But, as a corporate entity, Apple has – to me – been rapidly backsliding in to territory once occupied by late-1990s Microsoft: controlling to the point where it’s willing to hurt its products in order to not cede its grip over its platform (see Flash below). This is especially true with iPhone and iPad apps. Apple’s stringent – and sometimes bizarre – approval process for apps, and its refusal to adopt outside platforms are means to that same end. Think about it: In order for any Web service to work on the iPad, it has to develop an app (think Hulu), and Apple tightly polices what apps it allows and doesn’t allow. What’s left is monopolistic authority over what gets seen and used on the iPad and iPhone. That’s never good. Apple has a right to make sure only good stuff is available on its platform, but it shouldn’t think solely about its larger business interests under to guise of doing so.
Ben: Since launching the App Store in the summer of 2008, Apple has built an entirely new economy around developers and their applications. Last month, the App Store topped 3 billion downloads, with over 150,000 applications available. One can only imagine how many applications are submitted every day, and Apple’s review process is ultimately necessary to weed out applications with inappropriate content, and malicious intent. Still, I have to agree that in some cases, Apple’s authority was exerted beyond boundaries, especially in their blocking of a native Google Voice application because it “duplicates functionality.” Google was quick to introduce a Web-based application, and in all reality, business is business. All in all, Apple has been working hard to better the App Store approval process, and we’ve seen more, and more applications that were originally denied entry, getting accepted. I don’t personally see Apple letting users download applications outside of the App Store any time in the future. They should however, focus on opening up more core APIs so developers can leverage all of the devices’ features.
There’s no Flash.
Corey: The fact that the No. 1 complaint about the iPhone (well, beyond AT&T) – that it doesn’t run Flash – wasn’t addressed in the iPad is just strange. Even worst is the reason: Apple’s corporate pissing match with Adobe. And, we have no idea why it’s even happening! As I talked about above, the beef most likely comes down to control, something Jobs is loathe to give up. Regardless, 75 percent of videos and 70 percent of games on the Web are powered by Flash, so that’s a pretty arrogant starting bargaining position from Apple. Shadiness aside, the iPad’s top two uses are supposed to be viewing media and playing games … yet, you can’t view or play three-quarters of the games and media on the Web. It makes no sense.
Ben: No one outside of Apple knows the full story on the exclusion of Flash from their mobile products. What it most likely comes down to is a deep-seated business rivalry. However, it’s true that in many cases, Flash is extremely resource heavy and unreliable on devices – even across desktop browsers on a Mac, Flash video and games tends to be slower. Instead of complaining about the Flash issue, companies like Brightcove are quickly adapting to offer iPad compatible H.264 video. Apple has even gone as far as to post an “iPad Ready” page on their site, with a list of major name Web sites like The New York Times, Reuters, ESPN and even Nike, all of which support H.264 video with the HTML5 tag.
The iPad’s form factor and interface make for the best possible Web browsing and reading experience.
Ben: I’m typing this post right now from my iPad. Straight out of the box, it takes some time getting used to; mostly the issue is with figuring out exactly how to hold it, or prop it up on your lap. In landscape mode, the virtual keyboard is wide, and spacious. After 48 hours of using it to catch up on news on The New York Times, and Techmeme, as well as reading books in both Apple’s iBooks and the Kindle apps, I am completely sold. Since the iPhone launched, Mobile Safari has provided the absolute best browsing experience in a pocket device. The iPad’s large, vivid touchscreen takes it to an entirely new level, where human interaction meets computing almost seamlessly. Hey, it’s so easy a 2-year-old can use it! Sure the iPad has some UX flaws here and there, but it’s paving the way to a keyboard-less future.
Corey: It’s hard to disagree with that. Tablet computing is going to be the way a lot of use the Web in five years. The iPad itself is a sleek device that’s built well for its main purpose – viewing media and the Web. But again, the problem is how it gets there. The Web is the primary destination for 95 percent of computer users, and probably 100 percent of iPad owners, so it’s baffling that the device treats the Web like a necessary evil. The Web should be at the forefront of these devices, and the browser should be the primary app that enables it. Apple is taking this notion and putting it on its head by requiring that a lot of the content on the Web be sliced out and put in to apps (available in the iTunes Store for a nominal fee!). It just seems counter to where the rest of the computing world is going, and incredibly self-interested. Google, on the other hand, has taken an open, Web-centric approach with Android that I would love to see adapted to a tablet, which I’m sure is coming soon. I’m not naive enough to say that Google is completely altruistic with its more open approach to the Web on its OS, it’s better than how Apple sees it.
As publishers adapt to the iPad, print version of their publications, as we know them, will soon become a relic of the past.
Ben: Conde Nast, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other media houses have made it very clear that they are devoting time and resources to developing for the iPad. But will iPad applications necessarily save these publications? I don’t think so. It begins with the price point; Time Magazine is offering a weekly iPad version for exactly the same price as the print copy, $5. The Wall Street Journal is charging $17.99 a month for their touchscreen version. The fundamental flaw here, is that consumers aren’t so willing to pay for content that they can mostly find on the Web, which they have direct access to in Safari on the iPad. For example, The New York Times’ Web site in my opinion is vastly superior to their Editors’ Choice iPad application. It’s the high priced, archaic subscription model that has publishers beat, and it’s about time they learn it. I’m also skeptical that the iPad alone will provide enough revenue to stay afloat, publishers will need to innovate and accommodate the slew of tablet devices to come.
Corey: I largely agree with this, and think you’re absolutely right that publishers’ blockheaded devotion to paywalls. If these dinosaurs couldn’t adapt to Internet, even as we started taking our laptops with us everywhere we went, and began using mobile phones to surf the Web, then they surely aren’t going to be able to adapt to tablet computing simply because of a shiny new device. I also doubt that, beyond our little tech world bubble, the iPad is going to have enough mainstream adoption to make it cost-effective enough for publishers to rearrange their strategy around it. That’s the main problem with the “iPad will revolutionize X” meme – only 300,000 people own these things. That will grow, but they’re not as useful as an iPhone or a laptop to everyday consumers, and they have a high barrier of entry ($500) for the 98 percent of people who don’t geek out over new tech. While tech people can blather on for hours about its many uses, most consumers’ reactions after picking one up would go something like this: “Huh. Cool. I have no idea what I’d use this for.” The iPad is the first generation of a set of devices that will change personal computing in 3 to 5 years when they can properly access the Web. Until then, it’s a really expensive newspaper.
-
Corey
-
Jeremy Frank
-
Corey