As expected, the US arrival of the iPad last week brought with it considerable hyperbole. Financial Times journalist Chris Nuttall was typical in his ridiculous claim that the ‘excitement meter’ for the product was “approaching zones previously occupied only by the Beatles and the birth-control pill”.
But are the early sales figures enough to indicate that this will usher in a similar cultural revolution? At this stage, it’s impossible to tell as early adopters aren’t exactly representative of the target market; in the, fairly harsh, words of LifeHacker founder Gina Trapani, “only lemmings with no self-control and excessive disposable income buy first generation Apple products”. As a result, most of this initial fervour has simply come from Apple devotees. ‘Stuff White People Like’ summed up Apple’s appeal to this demographic nicely, pointing out that their: “…products tell the world you are creative and unique…remember you need a Mac to creatively check email, creatively check websites, and creatively watch DVDs on planes.”
But there is something more sinister than mere fanboyism behind the iPad hype - massive corporate backing. Aggressive product placement has spearheaded the attempt to drive the product into the mainstream, such as an entire subplot on ‘Modern Family’ - a sub-’Jingle All The Way’ story about the tech-crazy dads desperation to get his hands on a shiny new toy. Similarly, The Financial Times has released its own iPad app with a two-month free access period - something even available in the iPhone version of the same app lacks.
One large reason for the corporate fervour, particularly from ‘old media’ sources, is the iPad’s potential to allow for the greater control of media: apps, books, movies, TV, music and beyond. Back in January, Defective By Design spoke out against the device’s “unprecedented use of DRM to control all capabilities…a dangerous step backward for computing and for media distribution.” Cory Doctorow definitive iPad commentary makes similar points, comparing the iPad’s overall appeal with that of the mid-90s CD-ROM boom - a similarly ‘closed’ backwards-thinking format. Is this really the makings of a ‘revolutionary’ device?
There are two main ways to look at the iPad
1. A dumbed-down laptop
For business people who find the bulk of a laptop too cumbersome, the iPad certainly has value, but as an actual computer substitute the 1st generation version is sorely lacking. Sarah Rotman Epps summed up an underlying problem by noting that while tech geeks are the ones most interested in the product, it’s real value is for those who have little knowledge or experience operating a computer.
The inability to multitask applications beyond Apple’s in-built products (meaning it’s even impossible to run certain instant messaging clients in the background while doing anything else!) is a major sticking point. The current incompatibility with Flash and alleged WiFi issues similarly do little to inspire confidence. Despite its stylishness, an NPD study found that 51% of 18-to-34 year olds would prefer to own a conventional portable computer than an iPad.
2. A scaled-up eBook reader
While most of the population were already been keen consumers of music players and phones, eBook readers (and tablet PCs) are still a highly niche industry. Those who already have Kindles are unlikely to switch, due to Amazon’s superior library and the readability of eInk vs the traditional computer screen. Beyond that, there is less need for bells and whistles for an eBook device. Listening to music and handling phone calls are both relatively passive experiences that can be done while multitasking; reading a book requires a far greater deal of concentration and involvement, with little need for distraction.
Much has been made of its role as a comics reader, but Noah Nelson of the Huffington Post points out the major weakness stopping a ‘comics revolution’: “geeks-and the multimedia conglomerates that Marvel (Disney) and DC Comics (Warners) are a part of-often suffer from a kind of myopia that limits their ability to share what they love.” Doctorow is particularly critical of this loss of freedom, commenting: “Way to take the joyous, marvelous sharing and bonding experience of comic reading and turn it into a passive, lonely undertaking that isolates, rather than unites.” This is unlikely to attract a new generation towards comics - similarly, for the $1.99 it costs to buy a single issue, users can buy a 45 minute TV episode to get greater value.
In this author’s opinion, the iPad is a stepping stone more than a milestone. While the iPod was for listening and the iPhone was for communicating, the iPad is just for consuming - a mobile Itunes storefront, a portable ‘glass teat’, in an uncomfortable middleground compared to the trailblazers before it. Computers have been getting smaller and easier to use for decades and the iPad is just another nod in that direction, rather than a final destination. John Battelle’s comments sum up its appeal: “a sexy version of a portable DVD player-cum-Kindle” that is “not a game changer,” it is “certainly not revolutionary…unless you’re longing for yesteryear, when owning distribution meant owning audiences.”
This article is taken from the April edition of the interaction newsletter. In one of the articles, Matt Barr wrote a piece about the new Apple iPad
