The end of my love for Apple, the iPad

[Qion]

I thought I'd empty my bank account the day Apple introduced their idea of a tablet interface. This technology would ideally inform the next generation of computing hardware of what to look like and how to operate, but the iPad fails to achieve anywhere near that level of importance. Maybe this is a chance for a newer company to make its name; I can imagine a device inspired by the badness of this one, a device which could actually be the sum of our computing and human interface technologies to date. For the past couple years, I've been growing intellectually distant from both Jobs and Ive, two people that came close to idols who I modeled myself after. I might be romanticizing the past, but I feel that Apple used to introduce products that had obvious foresight and design-centric genius about them. I felt a sense that Apple could see something I wouldn't have, that they had a higher intuition of things to come; now, I feel completely the opposite.

I wish I had the money and social prominence necessary to describe what this thing *actually* should have been. There is no excuse for putting a 1GHz A4 chip in a device like this, and there is even less reason to have it run a scaled-up phone interface. Why the hell couldn't this have been the hybrid we all -the computer literate- actually want, a machine that can perform real work and run entirely unique applications? The disappointment I'm feeling about this device is going to cause me to search, hard, for another company that "gets" it. This is the strongest I've ever felt that Apple is simply building technology to fit marketing demographics; the iPad is a device for the elderly, and for the computer illiterate. Does anybody miss, like me, the days when Apple built for individuals?

How out of place this old poem feels:

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them, disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.

About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They invent. They imagine. They heal. They explore. They create.

They inspire. They push the human race forward.

Maybe they have to be crazy.

How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art? Or sit in silence and hear a song that’s never been written? Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?

We make tools for these kinds of people.

While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.


I thought this company could be more than the sum of its income. Maybe it's the absence of Jobs' influence, or maybe the company is just becoming too popular. At any rate, they're becoming something I never thought they would: soulless.

 

[Rhisiart]

I suspect that the iPad will evolve. However, for now it fits a 'market' and is perhaps its simply part of a competitive consumer shift for natty devices of this ilk (i.e in competition to PC-based similar devices).

Someone in another post suggested that we are overrun with gadgets and maybe s/he is right. The iPad is a luxury (did I already say that?).

 

[Qion]

I suspect that the iPad will evolve. However, for now it fits a 'market' and is perhaps its simply part of a competitive consumer shift for natty devices of this ilk (i.e in competition to PC-based similar devices).

Maybe I'm being melodramatic about a business, but it seems like playing directly to a market segment is a bit, you know, soulless for a company with a history like Apple has. What bothers me is not that this thing is a gigantic iPod, it's that it could have been something so much more important.

As for its evolution, I doubt it'll be running OS X -or a usable hybrid- for some time to come. It's running a phone interface on a phone processor, and Apple think that's just peachy (pun?).

 

[ScottW]

Just wait for the iPad Pro. a Mac Tablet.

While the iPad may not meet the needs of those willing to shell out hoards of cash on a new Apple product, the price of the iPad is doable for a lot of people and is what a good chunk of people honestly need in a computer. They don't need a complicated Windows or Mac computer. They need email, they need photos, and the ability to write documents, play solitaire.

Power users (like myself) see it as an extension to the computers I already have and an upgrade from what my iPhone provides. Use RemoteTap or VNC to screen share your main computer, now you have a real Mac tablet, sorta. I need the ability to get SSH access and web access on the go in my business. Carrying around a laptop isn't practical. I've tried the EeePC and it's lame, I used it 3 times and tossed it in a box and forgot about it (until now). The iPhone works for my needs, but the screen can be a little small and the need of a bigger keyboard (if not external) is a must for getting down to business on a remote command line shell.

The iPad is the answer for parents, grandparents, kids, everyone who needs to be connected, but doesn't want the hassle and the need for anything more. Stand by time of 1 month for battery. That's awesome.

Apple will score BIG on the iPad, no doubt. It may not be what you wanted, but it's what the bigger precentage wanted even if they didn't ask for it.

I'm picking up at least 2 (one wifi and one 3G) if not more. Once I get to use one then I will decide weather to give one each to my parents and anyone else I think that could use one.

$15/month for 3G access, no need to have broadband installed in your home. How awesome is that for the low-end, just wants email user. Steve Jobs is brilliant, but it didn't take the iPad to prove it.

 

[fryke]

_I_ suspect all of you haven´t actually had your hands on one and haven´t seen the results of developers making use of that gorgeous almost-ten-inch screen - and that actually using an iPad for a little while will change many of the assumptions one has about the device.

For those waiting for an iPad Pro or PadPro or whatever: Really? Like it happened with that PowerPod we expected that would have serious stereo recording capabilities and features for the pro user? Or that PowerPhone that would give the iPhone "Pro" features just like a bigger screen, multitasking and a 5 MP camera? Seriously?

Get a grip, guys. Apple has quite a clear vision for the future, and I don´t currently see them make a Modbook-ripoff of any kind. The iPad will impress more users than you think - and they might not be exactly _who_ you think would´ve been the prime target group _before_ the iPad´s release.

That clear vision is that for probably about 80% of people out there, computing stuff has become a commodity for doing the following things:

- Check your E-Mail (and reply and write some etc.)
- Read & Surf the web.
- Watch video.
- Listen to audio.

Actually _producing_ anything on a computer has been very, very, very much marginalised in recent years, and Apple has VERY nicely added "consumers" to their main target groups. They still cater to their old target groups like graphics designers, video professionals and audio pros, but they´re not doing that with AppleTV, iPod, iPad and iPhone. All of these devices are very, very clearly aimed at consumers and not prosumers. Does Apple mind that pro users are using iPods and iPhones as well? Surely not: They´ve noticed that prosumers are consumers as well.

The iPad will add another device to our intake of videos, music, reading material. I´m pretty sure comics will be good on the iPad. Do you really think it was some kind of freak accident that Disney (in bed with Apple since...) bought Marvel? I could be wrong about the comic book stuff, but that doesn´t change the fact that the iPad´s for consuming media. And consuming media is what most people out there like to do. Those who _produce_ media will have to take the iPad into account, and they´ll be hooked as well.

Just saying...

 

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Well said, my sentiments exactly, and my compliments to the chef.

Don't forget: prosumers are the minority, and the minority segment is not the segment you market toward to try and make money and redefine the whats and hows of the devices we use today for the better.

Computer-illiterates are the majority. Just like taking into consideration the Apple quote of Qion, you must realize that Apple is also king for making the "computer for the rest of us." The "rest of us" are the computer-illiterate... the ones who want things to "just work"... the ones who don't want, need, or even understand the ins and outs of what's inside the computer. They just see a shiny, portable touch screen thing that does EXACTLY what they need it to do, flawlessly and easily.

"Openness" doesn't mean a thing to them, and even if it did, it would be because all of a sudden the device doesn't do what it's supposed to do anymore. They don't wield "openness" like a moral sword or some "Big Brother Warning Flag" or twist it into some political statement like techie-types tend to do. The app store, to them, is great -- Apple took the difficulty out of looking for, organizing and installing software. Hell, you don't even have to open a box anymore, or shove a CD/DVD into a drive, or open a disk image then double-click the installer then close the installer then find the application then double-click the application and then... you get the idea.

Seriously (to steal fryke's word) -- you don't have to be a part of that group of people, but you must be able to see the appeal that it has to millions upon millions of people regardless of personal opinion or need.

 

[Qion]

Like I've said before, I realize I'm the odd one out here. I want Apple to be a technology-focused company that introduces tools that I can use to create stuff out of my thoughts. I'm just disappointed in the direction they've taken; it feels like they're commanded by dollar signs, instead of any kind of real ideology. They used to appeal to a minority, and now they're appealing strongly to the majority. Can anybody relate to that, or am I just crazy?

 

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Maybe you'd be more satisfied with the "Gil Amelio" Apple of the 90s -- you know, the Apple that produced a bajillion different models of desktop computer, designed to fit the needs of everyone from the casual user through the power user (Centris, Performa, PowerMac, 71/72/73/75/85/86/95/86-"hundred", etc.), also kept two or three simultaneous operating system development teams going at the same time (Blue Box, Rhapsody, Mac OS, etc.) as if they were exploring all future avenues, had several different development tools available (HyperCard, CodeWarrior, etc.)...

...and was nearly bankrupt and flush with so much back-stock of product they could barely give it away. Sure, it sounds great because it appeases EVERYBODY -- but that was the fatal flaw: trying to please EVERYBODY.

*NO* company in the world can do that. It is not fiscally, financially, nor operationally feasible.

I'd rather Apple be in business marketing to a different population segment than I am a member of than Apple not being in business at all.

They used to appeal to a minority, and now they're appealing strongly to the majority.

Not really. They appealed to the majority when they were doing well -- the first Macintosh is a prime example of that. It didn't offer every bell and whistle that the IBM PC offered, but it did surprisingly well because it was marketed toward the "everyman."

When Steve was ousted, Apple marketed to the minority and everyone inbetween. These were the days that caused Microsoft to come and have to bail out Apple with a contract for Office on the Mac as well as a nice cash infusion to prevent bankruptcy.

While you may yearn for the Apple of yester-year, what you are yearning for is Apple to go out of business, and there's no two ways around that. If you can't get expressed what you need to creatively express efficiently and elegantly with a Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, MacBook, Mac mini, iMac, iPhone, iPod touch, or (gasp) an iPad, then I would first question your own abilities before I questioned Apple's corporate direction...

...and I mean no offense, but the only thing I've heard is, "If I can't drive to work in a Lamborghini, then I can't drive to work at all!" Beware the carpenter that consistently fails to nail a simple nail and always blames it on the hammer. If the iPad doesn't fit your lifestyle, so be it -- it doesn't fit your lifestyle... but it's silly to pretend that ALL Apple products are as "crippled" as the iPad and that Apple is no longer a company that can fulfill ALL your creative needs with one or more of their products. Apple still produces the SAME amount of "prosumer" products as they ever did... they just have some additional products marketed toward a mass audience, which is a good thing. The "prosumers" are not getting neglected at all -- we have the same amount of hardware and software available to us as we ever did.

Just because Apple's "computer-illiterate consumer" products are selling like hotcakes is no reason to get jealous or accuse Apple of losing focus. They still produce insanely great products that can be exploited by prosumers around the world (Aperture, Final Cut Studio, XCode, and countless other "pro" level utilities are consistently and constantly updated and improved), AND they are making a ton of money from selling products that have a much broader appeal. What in the eff-ing h-e-double-hockey-sticks is wrong with that, and what about that would make anyone think that Apple is losing focus? Really?

While I understand your point, I am utterly failing to relate to it in any way at all. I just flat-out don't see it that way at all.

Methinks the reaction is largely based upon seeing people in the street using Apple products and seeing the general surge in Apple's popularity among pop-culture enthusiasts and secretly thinking, "Hey... I was an Apple loyalist far before they even knew what a computer was... what right to they have coming into my little clubhouse and making my Apple products widely known, such that I feel I'm not really part of an exclusive club anymore, and rather a member of a cliche?"

 

[Qion]

Maybe you'd be more satisfied with the "Gil Amelio" Apple of the 90s -- you know, the Apple that produced a bajillion different models of desktop computer, designed to fit the needs of everyone from the casual user through the power user (Centris, Performa, PowerMac, 71/72/73/75/85/86/95/86-"hundred", etc.), also kept two or three simultaneous operating system development teams going at the same time (Blue Box, Rhapsody, Mac OS, etc.) as if they were exploring all future avenues, had several different development tools available (HyperCard, CodeWarrior, etc.)...

Methinks the reaction is largely based upon seeing people in the street using Apple products and seeing the general surge in Apple's popularity among pop-culture enthusiasts and secretly thinking, "Hey... I was an Apple loyalist far before they even knew what a computer was... what right to they have coming into my little clubhouse and making my Apple products widely known, such that I feel I'm not really part of an exclusive club anymore, and rather a member of a cliche?"

That's part of it, you're right. I'm not without a certain degree of Apple-centric ego/identity (like when I joined this forum five years ago). It sucks when something you identify with changes and becomes distant, even if it is just a company.

What I think you're failing to understand is that I'm not bitching solely for my benefit. I believe that this device should have been an expression of a new computer interface first, and a media consumption device later. Maybe they're introducing this as a media device first to make money for the later "pro" -or whatever you want to call a work machine- version; I hope this is the case.

I'm also regretful that this has come across as haughty to you. I'm not looking to preen about, conspicuously doing architectural rendering in a coffee shop. It's just my personal desire to see a technologically progressive product affecting different markets for different reasons than this device does. I do, absolutely, recognize the appeal of this device for a lot of consumers; it's just disappointing to me that with Apple's capital, power, resources, etc. they chose to make a giant iPod out of what could have informed a new human interface paradigm.

 

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Perhaps that is where the industry stands as a whole, though -- people have discussed the aging "desktop metaphor" for a computer user interface for quite a few years now, maybe even a decade or more. So that begs the question: what's next? What is the new paradigm?

I guess, more to the point, I'm asking... what is lacking from the iPad that would have satisfied the notion of a new human interface paradigm? A camera? A fully-blown operating system? And if yes to those things, why? Why does the inclusion of a fully-blown, aging metaphor operating system make this the ultimate tech-head's device?

Maybe we're circling back around to how this thread started... but I just don't see a tablet-style computer being the "new, hottest, technologically advanced" thing that redefines the user experience as we know it. I see a tablet computer as, well, exactly what Apple produced: a limited function, low-power computer that does the basics, does them well, and does them in a manner that the mass market can pick up quickly on as well as relate to. While that may not scream, "technological revolution" as Steve might want it to scream for some, I don't think that invalidates the advanced nature of the product.

Ah, but I digress and progress again and find myself talking in circles. I, by no means, meant to offend you... and I apologize if I seem accusational (is that even a word?) or confrontational. I tend to think that beliefs are better defended when there's a tad bit of emotion behind them, but didn't mean to prod someone into offense or seem overly emotional myself. I propose to keep this a lively but non-personal debate, if we can get back on that track!

 

[bbloke]

I've been a little quiet as I felt I must be missing something about the iPad, so I've been doing a little contemplating. I think some of Giaguara's and ElDiabloConCaca's comments in the other thread may have hit the nail on the head for me. When thinking about my position and people I know at work, perhaps the iPad really is just about a very different market. In my case, a laptop is my main machine and I like the flexibility of the setup that I use (range of software, multibutton mouse, portability for work, etc.). When sacrificing flexibility for much greater portability, it is the iPod touch or iPhone that I'd choose; I could just keep it in a pocket when around the house or when outdoors, for example, and I'm not feeling as though I have to carry anything.

So, in my case, it may simply be that the iPad naturally falls between the cracks. I do also wonder: has Apple spotted consumers' cries for a particular product or is Apple seeking to actively carve out a niche where one did not previously exist?

Perhaps what puzzled me a little with the iPad is how it was being sold as such a revolutionary experience, whereas my instant reaction was "it's a bigger iPod touch." I can understand some people think that in itself is a good thing, but I was left feeling a little like I was being shown the iPhone software all over again. To me, this was not something comparable to, say, the launches of the 128 K Mac from 1984, OS X, or the iPhone. With the launch of some key Apple products, I very much felt there was something historic going on and I felt sure they would be hits. With the iPad, I suppose I have the same feeling as when the AppleTV was launched. But I'm completely open to the possibility the iPad will prove a hit with many people!

Before it came out, I wondered if Apple was going to give the iPad a very specialist role to differentiate it from a laptop and an iPhone/iPod touch. It would have to sit comfortably alongside the laptop range and the iPhone/iPod touch range, just as Steve Jobs said. I was a little disappointed by the end of the presentation, though, as I thought there would be a more clearly defined role. For example, I wondered if the it would interact with home electronics more (such as the Apple TV or maybe other "home cinema" related hardware, especially as some devices are WiFi enabled these days), whether Apple would also announce significant changes to its media services which would tie into this, and if people would also use the iPad for video chatting instead of using their landline (phone) whilst at home. A device that was almost like a "home hub" of sorts really would grab my interest more and I felt that could have greater potential as a new form of device.

Out of interest, Retrevo conducted a poll of their consumers to see what they made of the launch of the iPad. It was quite interesting (although, fine, it doesn't mean this accurately reflects a cross-section of the entire population). A few of their findings:

Those who has heard of the Apple tablet but were not interested in buying one:
26% before the launch
52% after the launch

Those who has heard of the Apple tablet and were interested in buying one:
3% before the launch
9% after the launch​

From what they had heard, those who think they don't need one:
49% before the launch
61% after the launch

From what they had heard, those who think they definitely need one:
3% before the launch
5% after the launch​

Perhaps revealing more about envisaged uses of the device, those who would pay for 3G:
59% would not pay extra for 3G
29% would need to think about it
12% would pay for 3G​

As I've stated in the other thread, I may simply change my mind once I've had chance to properly look at one and try it out, but that would most likely be if I was sold on the device itself, rather than it actually fulfilling a desperate need.

 

[Qion]

Perhaps that is where the industry stands as a whole, though -- people have discussed the aging "desktop metaphor" for a computer user interface for quite a few years now, maybe even a decade or more. So that begs the question: what's next? What is the new paradigm?

I guess, more to the point, I'm asking... what is lacking from the iPad that would have satisfied the notion of a new human interface paradigm? A camera? A fully-blown operating system? And if yes to those things, why? Why does the inclusion of a fully-blown, aging metaphor operating system make this the ultimate tech-head's device?

This is really a nebulous and qualitative question, but I'll try to operationally describe the device I'm thinking about:

Interface:

• Can be used with the hands, job-specific input mechanisms (stylus, RFID debit card, bluetooth camera, etc.), or a traditional keyboard and pointing mechanism. This alone would allow a great level of operability and usefulness for a diverse group of consumer and professional needs. It would not have to be necessarily overcomplicated; simply, open to individual preference.

• Efficiently utilizes screen space with a scalable and customizable interface, effectively bridging the gap between "point and click" and touch interfaces. For instance, a portion of the interface could be dedicated to selecting processes -a la Dock-, while the rest of the interface would be dedicated to work space, allowing a user to interact with a stylus and a connected mouse and keyboard simultaneously. (I believe the iPad falls short in this area - things like the limited "dock", the crude scaling of iPhone apps, and the general toylike operation of the GUI)

• Is uncluttered and straightforward in the execution of programs, while being capable of handling multiple complex inputs and processes simultaneously. (Again, a better middle ground between desktop and haptic phone interfaces).

Hardware:

• Incorporates a processor capable of doing most of the work of a desktop with only minimal speed degradation. (Obviously, it would be way too hot to slap a contemporary quad-core processor in there, but there exist portable processors capable of much greater speeds than 1GHz, and without the limitations that come with an ARM-based design)

• Has the capability to record video, sound, and perform video conferences. The external camera could provide a variety of unique and useful applications, such as: reality augmentation, site planning, applied design, and educational implementations.

• Incorporates a variety of industry standard wireless communication interfaces, such as WiFi, bluetooth, RFID detection, GPS, etc.

• Provides the option of using memory expansion cards, such as SD, MicroSD, etc. These forms of storage have evolved to have incredibly high capacities for both their physical size and relative cost.

........

This is really a limited consideration, so bear that in mind when responding to these ideas. I would love to expand on this, but unfortunately, I have a "real" job that requires more of my attention than I have to spare.

This kind of device could easily appeal to the same demographic Apple is apparently targeting with the iPad, but it could also provide a level of functionality for executives, designers, and other professionals that a phone interface simply does not provide. The interface would obviously need to be a unique one, but I believe it is well within Apple's means to provide such an experience. -that's why scaling up the iPod seems like such a cop out-

I tend to think that beliefs are better defended when there's a tad bit of emotion behind them, but didn't mean to prod someone into offense or seem overly emotional myself. I propose to keep this a lively but non-personal debate, if we can get back on that track!

I do agree with that, and I do appreciate your thoughts and opinions regardless of emotional inflection .

 

[rubaiyat]

The Apple of the 90's did not have a clue what it was doing so it turned every prototype into a final model, in the vain hope the customers would show them what to do.

The problem was that by the time any trend shows it is too late. You are always running behind the game.

The other problem was that like most mediocre products there really was little difference between the models. They nearly all sucked for lack of ideas and performance. Steve Jobs in the same circumstances always falls back to reintroducing color in models.