Remember the iPhone

This will be the last thing I write about the iPad for a while, hopefully.

Thanks to everyone for reading. I know I’ve sounded pretty negative with regard to the device not being what I wanted, but I hope my thread of “I still think it’s going to do well” was apparent throughout.

I’ve spent the last few days writing about something I haven’t seen, complaining about the fact that it wasn’t what I was hoping it would be. It’s a little silly. I realize that.

I realized it’s the story of how I got an iPhone. I think it’s relevant.

My cellphone, an LG with a camcorder, broke.

My wife really wanted an iPhone, and I was trying to think of something to get her for Christmas that she wasn’t expecting.

So, I bought an LG Vu, and bought her an iPhone. I bought it for her under her *old* cell phone number, which was still on our plan from when I got her a Blackjack and had to add an additional line to get it for less money. (I had made some really dumb purchasing decisions in the past.) We had kept it with the plan of eventually getting Betty a Firefly, but that never happened.

By putting the iPhone under my wife’s old number, I was free to mess around with it, because her Blackjack would still work for her. So I decided I’d put some of her favorite songs on it, buy her some games, etc. The experience was good enough that I returned the Vu and bought an iPhone for myself, lack of camcorder notwithstanding.

In all my slamming of this product, I forgot that all it took was me using the iPhone to realize that for all of my perceived shortcomings of the device, it was still better than something that did everything I wanted on paper.

I wasn’t an early adopter of the iPhone, but when it finally came time for me to get a new phone, I loved it. I started using mine right away, and let my wife think I had bought myself one without thinking of her.

(Before you judge me too harshly for that, please note that I’d NEVER, not once been able to keep what I’m buying my wife a secret. I’d never been able to before or since. For one brief, shining moment, however, she sat there stewing as I used my new iPhone because a scenario where I bought one for myself but not one for her was entirely believable.)

Maybe that’s why I’m protesting the iPad so much, because deep down I know that as soon as I get one, I’ll want it whether or not it has all the features I “need” or not.

Case in point: I’ve been able to hold out on buying a desktop/laptop for this long because my iPhone has picked up the slack with web and email. Not only that, but I’ve found a way to use it as a stand-alone for the creation of art. I use SketchBook to do comics that I upload using Flickr. No Mac/PC required. The idea of using the iPad for everything and simply ignoring the things it can’t do is one I can wrap my head around.

So, those are the pros. You can go back and read the cons, too. I don’t think there’s anything I’ve written that I don’t think holds true. I’d still love it to be able to do all the things I wanted. I still think they missed some opportunities.

I’m just acknowledging that if, in a side-by-side test, it does less things in a better way, I may still want it in the end. It happened with the Vu vs. the iPhone, it could happen with the challengers to the iPad that come out.

That’s all I’ve got until I actually see one.

The Death of Qwerty Typing?

This’ll be short, but I think that if voice recognition gets advanced enough, the iPad could actually spell the death of typing.

The qwerty-esque keyboard for an iPad will be better than typing on an iPhone, but for kids and non-touch typists it still may take too long. Touch-typing, which was taught in my High School as its own course, may fall by the wayside if something faster could come along.

All you need is one small feature.

If Apple REALLY wants to change the landscape, they’ll include a one-handed typing option for the iPad, not mandatory, but an option. Imagine the brand loyalty you’d get if you patented an input interface that the next generation would learn as well as Qwerty. The subtle key placement differences of Mac and PCs that already exist cause some folks who hate change to become angry and confused.

I could also see the idea of texting splitting off from typing, and the qwerty keyboard becoming less and less in use on the iPad.

Again, you’d give older folks the ability to switch to qwerty if they want, but a lot of kids would never turn back. After all, qwerty was meant to slow down typing speed. I’ve been doing it for 20 years now, but that doesn’t mean my kid will.

There are more radical options than that, of course. For example, what if on every page, if you double-tap a text box with your finger, it gets vocal input from you and puts the words in the box.

Simple, but effective.

This wouldn’t be possible for everyone of course, but the main reason I think it’s not in wider use yet is that people haven’t been given a better option than typing.

You’d still have the option to have one, but it would be a specialized item, like a TTY machine.

The next stage could be a computer with which you can have a conversation, no screen necessary. However, if the iPad does well, it will quite possibly demonstrate that humans like their visual and tactile stimulation enough that audio-only options won’t catch on.

So, reading won’t die as quickly. There is some historical precedent for language that can be read but not written.

Either way, the fact that we’re clinging on to this old style of text input, based on a legacy of technology that has long since passed, is something to consider.

If the iPad’s not a flop (and I really doubt it’s going to flop) the marginalization and/or death of Qwerty typing within a couple of generations isn’t that far-fetched.

Why the iPad Will Do Better Than the Segway

So I’ve complained a bit about the iPad since it was announced.

It’s really simple. I’m relatively poor by the tech-geek standard. The jobs I’ve had never left me with a large amount of disposable income, and right now I’m unemployed looking for work. So, of course, buying a new piece of technology can only be justified if I NEED it.

There are scales of need, obviously, and it’s a wee bit of stretching, but I “need” something to replace the Mac laptop that went back to its owners when I was laid off. I was hoping the iPad would be it, so I was disappointed when it wasn’t. I can’t justify purchasing something whose functions are somewhat replicated by my iPhone. Also, it’s not something that would replace my iPhone if it breaks, so even if it’s a better piece of technology I can’t “trade up” to it.

I need to point out that I realize there is a difference. It’s faster, it has a larger screen, and is (I admit) more awesome. Whether or not this is a $500-800 difference depends largely on how much you have left over after the whole food/shelter/clothing thing.

Again, many people with the benefit of hindsight have faulted those of us who were disappointed by its unveiling for “expecting the iPad to be something Apple has never intended it to be.” As I’ve stated before, we’re allowed to be disappointed. Still, I don’t think this disappoint

So I’m not one who think this product will do poorly.

There are some people who are criticizing the “invented need” of the iPhone, and comparing it to the Segway. Just as the Segway was neither a car or a bike, the iPad is neither a computer, a phone, nor a television. It won’t fully replace any of these, just as the Segway doesn’t really replace cars or bikes.

People who have used the iPad use the same glowing terms that they did the Segway. It’s magical. It’s like being in a dream. If you don’t actually hold it in your hands and use it, you’ll never understand.

The thing many people don’t know is that the Segway is actually very awesome. Talk to anyone who owns one, if you can get past the “elitist” image that’s been generated around them through popular culture. They really *could* have revolutionized the way people get around. The reason they didn’t was pretty simple. Most folks couldn’t and still can’t justify dropping $6000+ for it. So, those who get them love them, but most folks *aren’t* getting them, so they haven’t caught on yet. Perhaps they never will. Certainly, there’s a stigma around them still.

This is where the iPad can do well where the Segway didn’t. The need they’re trying to invent may catch on. Here are some of the reasons why:

THE PRICE
The $500-$800 range doesn’t fit MY budget, but it does fit a lot of other people’s. Much more than $6000 would. So, there will be more of these in the world sooner. Rather than seeing one or two and being amazed when you see it, you’ll see them all over the place and be intrigued.

THEY DON’T MOVE AS FAST
When you see someone drive by in a Segway, they’re pretty much gone once you notice them. It’s *still* cool and creepy for me, even after all of these years, but I’ve never gotten a chance to see one up close for very long, let alone use one. People will be using iPads on the bus, at coffee shops, at the airport and a lot of other public places. Folks will have a lot of time to get to see them in action, then covet.

CAN I SEE IT?
I’m sure Segway owners would be happy to let friends and relatives take it for a spin, but there would be some training involved, I’m guessing. The iPad will, most likely, simply be able to be handed over. People may want a friend to read a portion of a book they bought from Apple and hand the device over, or check out a game. As long as they’re not selfish folks by nature, the early adopters will be better than any commercial.

THE GIFT FACTOR
In my social circle $6000 is a really nice used car. Giving someone a Segway would be huge and embarrassing and oh-my-good-what-do-they-want-from-me. An iPad, while less money, would be huge because it would be easier to accept. Again, early adopters with a lot of income may use it, think of their mom, dad, or 9-year-old niece and suddenly distribute the iPad to someone who never would have bought one. Then the “can I see it?” factor will spread even further.

THE POWER OF INNOVATION
As I’ve said from the beginning, the iPad as it’s being conceived at this point isn’t exactly what I need. However, if the iPhone has been any indication, there are going to be more and more cool things happening to the iPad as the new versions come out. As I’ve mentioned, I’m paranoid by nature. I don’t think they left the camera out because they couldn’t put one in. A camera, and the ability to use iChat, would be a feature that *may* get early adopters to buy the next generation iPad when it comes out. The ability to multitask would be another one. Sure, many folks are saying that these things are “against the spirit of the product” right now, but I’m positive they wouldn’t be complaining if the iPad had those features.

The Segway hasn’t evolved into an electric car yet, which is what a lot of folks were hoping. Just putting that one out there.

CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE
The Segway talked about changing the ways cities were built. Had they partnered with a small town, given its citizens Segways, and redesigned it to fit them, it would have been a huge PR stunt and, in my opinion, awesome. Instead, at the most, they changed what vehicles parking cops in Seattle use on their routes.

The iPad may change the Internet landscape as radically, with the active participation of its users.

As covered earlier, the iPad is, by and large, a device used to purchase and use things sold by Apple. Third-party apps give the device a lot more flexibility, but again, those need to be approved by Apple. The “missing openness” of the iPad will rub some the wrong way. Of course, a lot of these people will be the ones who dislike the fact that you can’t fix your own Mac that easily.

Here’s the thing, though. The iPad may be a prison, but it’s a cool prison, and as we know if it’s cool enough a large portion of the population won’t want to leave. There won’t be a lack of participants, either. Popular companies will WANT to make things for the iPad. Look how many top sites have apps for the iPhone already.

Get ready for some speculation on my part:

I think that, should the iPad catch on the way I think it will, it will be as important to have an app as a web site. Not just companies, but individuals as well.

As so many people will point out if you say, “Flash won’t run on the iPad,” Flash CAN run on the iPad, if it’s part of an app. I think this suggests the “everything is an app” culture may be the goal. This *would* have the opportunity to kick the use of non-app Flash to the curb, which so many people are suggesting Apple is trying to do. If you REALLY want to kill the open use of Flash, remove web sites from the equation entirely. Get everyone used to running apps, and keep the apps cheap.

MY DREAM, REVISITED
In order for the iPad to be exactly what I want, there needs to be a version for creators. I think there will be. If this occurs, then anyone who’s staying off the train because the iPad is strictly a “consumption device” will hop aboard.

I think two things will help this happen. First, the iPad has to do well, not poorly. Once everyone has and is using one, Apple will be able to take a chance on a “creation” version. If no one buys the current version, coming out with something that’s the same but more complicated probably won’t be well received.

Two, there are creative types who will get an iPad. There are apps builders who will make apps that will allow you to make creative things. There will be no need to jailbreak the iPad in order to get a creation device out of it.

There will be a slew of web comics that are made entirely on the iPad, musicians who make albums using only iPads, and (if the camera is included in a future model) shows shot entirely on iPads.

If my dream comes true, Apple will see what these people will make, and realize that some folks actually want this kind of thing, and will give them more tools to use. If they don’t, people will continue to use it in ways it wasn’t intended. Because, if something is put in the hands of the people, that’s what will happen.

If Segway really wanted their product to take off, they would have made it so city kids could afford them. That’s not the market they were going for, though, and so they’ve found their niche: People with access to $6000+ who don’t mind the social stigma when compared to the awesome experience.

I’m not saying that Apple has made a product that is *that* affordable, but they have one that is much more affordable, and will reach the people.

Dealing with an iPad User: A Customer Service Perspective

Right now, the iPad won’t be able to experience some Flash-based sites as intended.

I’ve seen some of the debate on this. If you’re an Apple > Adobe fan the idea is that Flash is dangerous and makes computers not work right and Apple is a glorious savior who will wipe it from the Internet once and for all. HTML5 will save everything, and no one will have to worry about Flash ever again. Plus Flash users should quit whining because there’s a way people can make Flash apps that will get sold in the Apps store.

If you’re an Adobe > Apple fan, Apple has excluded Flash from the iPhone and iPad to remove the competition of Hulu/Netflix for iTunes dollars. You can buy Flash apps in the Apps store? Whoop-dee-freakin’-do! They get to be gatekeepers of what runs on their devices, and they’re doing it on purpose because if you jailbreak an iPhone it runs Flash just fine.

If you’re an Adobe = Apple person, you look at your site with all of its Flash and say: Awwwww hell. Do I have to redo all of this AGAIN if I want to support my customers who use iPads?

The answer, as of now, is pretty much, “Yes.”

The most obvious thing is that some companies won’t. At least, not right away. Having been at least tangentially associated with the technical customer service industry for ten years, there have always been folks who are using some device or service that can’t deal with your site or procedures.

I’ll put the juicy bit out there first, and then get into why.

Many customer service agents are going to hate iPad users, to the order of magnitude of AOL in the early 90s. If you ever call customer service of a company other than Apple because their site doesn’t work on your iPad, get ready to be ridiculed as soon as you get off the phone.

You won’t deserve it, really. It’ll be the combination of two things:

1) The defense mechanism of customer service agents who can’t help people: blame the user.

2) Your fellow iPad users who don’t have the same knowledge and expertise as you.

First, the defense mechanism. Customer service is sometimes put in the position of helping a customer that the management of the company has decided the company either can’t or won’t support. Let’s take a look at the list that springs to my mind from customer’s I’ve dealt with over the years:

• AOL Users
• Web TV Users
• Satellite Internet Users
• Users Behind a Company Firewall
• Mobile Device Users
• Linux Users

Now these are going to be bold strokes and aren’t always true, but basically a call/email from one of these customers is hated (even if the customer is not.)

The reason is this:

If the company for whom you are working does not support their device/service/browser/operating system, there is nothing you can do to help them. While the prevailing image of a customer service agent may not be that high, especially ones in high-volume call centers, most of them do want to help.

Instead, they gear themselves up for a huge back-and-forth about why their particular device/service doesn’t work and offering suggestions that they know the user either can’t or won’t use.

Now, the dirty not-so-secret thing about this is that most customer service workers make themselves feel better about this situation by making it the customer’s fault in their own minds. For example:

AOL users and Web TV users were normally put into the box of, “If you don’t understand it, get off the Internet.” The basic idea was that the user wasn’t skilled enough to use a “regular” computer, and therefore deserved all the hassle they were getting. Web TV dropped off in use eventually as the capabilities surpassed their devices, whereas AOL has been trying to get their services up to speed. Still, in general these users were vilified and ridiculed because their services didn’t support “the whole Internet” as it were.

Satellite Internet users and users behind a company firewall sometimes have issues with certain pieces of software, such as chat programs. The issue is that they won’t think to tell you that they’re on satellite or behind a firewall they can’t control before you start troubleshooting their problem. You have to learn to ask. Then, lots of times they won’t know. They’ll just insist that it’s YOUR problem, and you’ll have to try a whole bunch of things, and then *eventually* one of two things will happen. The first, most common is that they just get frustrated and never contact you again. Or, they’ll find out that yes, it’s a problem on their end, at which point they have to either move or change jobs to use your service. Either way, it becomes their problem for living too far away from a decent ISP or for working for an overly-cautious company.

I brought that one up because the customers have absolutely no control over these factors, and are still vilified by customer service reps, normally because of their argumentative nature when trying to solve the problem.

Mobile device users were laughed off as lunatics for a bit. “The guy was like, ‘Why can’t I use your order form on my phone?’ Because it’s your PHONE, sir!” (Quote from someone else, not me. I totally got where they were coming from.) Obviously, the iPhone changed that perception, but for a long time these users were seen as a bit ignorant. Smart enough folks, but expecting too much out of their device.

Linux users were added here because they’ve been dealing with Flash issues for a long time. The Linux user stands out from the AOL/Web TV user because the operating system attracts someone who normally is a bit more tech savvy than the person with whom they are dealing on the other end of the phone. The person the Linux user *should* be talking to are the developers of the product, but that’s not how the business works. So the customer service rep has to deal with a lot of information they don’t understand, and, to make matters worse, may suggest switching to a non-Linux operating system. The Linux users I spoke with who were having Flash issues ended up doing a two-pronged attack. They would write to the company to try and convince them to drop Flash, while simultaneously writing Adobe to get them to put out an updated version of Flash for Linux.

I suspect that this is the tact most Apple=Adobe tech-savvy folks will take. They’ll write their favorite web sites asking them to drop Flash, while simultaneously writing Apple to get them to include Flash support.

Now here’s the thing. That’s what most *tech savvy* folks will do.

Much like a Canadian abroad constantly explaining they’re not from the United States, the tech savvy iPad user will find themselves mistaken for a “regular iPad user” quite often.

If it goes how they want, Apple will be leveling the playing field with their device. The web will become more and more accessible to people of all skill levels. Those folks won’t necessarily know what Flash is, or why the site they keep hearing about isn’t accessible on their iPad.

So they’ll call. They’ll email. Because that’s what normal non-tech folks do when they have a problem. They ask for help.

Pretty soon, anyone with an iPad problem will be seen as a combination of the folks I listed above. The tech savvy iPad user will have to learn some sort of dance where they can prove to the rep that they know what they’re talking about first, just to be moved to the stage of, “Sorry, I can’t help you but I’ll pass your suggestion on.”

The iPad is going to be hugely successful, I think. Its simplicity of use will make it ideal for so many people. As long as you’re willing to check your ego and have someone who makes way less money than you and probably isn’t as smart as you assume that you’re stupid for a few seconds until they realize that you know what you’re talking about, this won’t be too much of an issue.

For some folks, though, it may sour the experience.

Playing the Porn Card

UPDATE – JANUARY 30th:

First, a comment from my friend Tim Kern made me realize that if you didn’t look at the image created by Lee Brimelow, or read the Wired article, you may draw the wrong impression by the way I described this issue. The image was a collection of screenshots, which included CNN, Disney, Aviary, and a host of others. The porn site was just one of these. Sorry if I gave off the impression that Adobe was simply telling people they wouldn’t be able to use porn. The caption for the image was:

“Millions of websites use Flash. Get used to the blue logos.”

Second, Lee has updated the original image removing the porn site image. It now is simply a black box that says, “Screenshot Removed. Apologies if it offended anyone.”

It should be noted that the original image was pixelatated in the way that any news outlet would have when reporting on this story. The fun part is that now anyone who didn’t see the original image will be able to substitute their own idea of what might have offended people, which may be worse than the original.

At this time the Wired article still has their screengrab of the image.

My original thoughts are below.
—————————

In Adobe Plays the Porn Card Brian X. Chen of Wired makes the point that the Flash-mongers seem a bit desperate for mentioning that some porn won’t be available on the iPad.

Though porn is certainly relevant to many people’s web experiences, that’s kind of a desperate move. My friend Matt Drance, Apple’s former iPhone evangelist, summed up what this means on Twitter: “Adobe has resorted to playing the porn card. It’s over.”

Both Drance and Chen seem to treat Adobe’s broaching of this subject with a fair amount of ridicule, as low-key as it may be. I’ve seen this in comments sections a lot recently. The use of tech for porn is at once something everyone understands occurs, but almost everyone distances themselves from as an actual topic when it comes to the iPad. Some have gone so far as to say, “One of these is a porn site. Like THAT’S going to get Apple to reconsider Flash support.”

Two things about this:

First of all, I’m not sure what the environment was like where Lee Brimelow (who came up with the image that sparked Chen’s article) grew up, but there’s sort of a protocol that most folks learn in junior high. Using technology for porn is very much the same as talking about masturbation, perhaps because the two are so closely linked. If you’re hanging out with a group of friends (or in this case, the Internet) you can assume that they’re all aware of it. You do not, however, make specific reference to it. You don’t say that you do it, you don’t imply that they do it. You just leave the subject alone.

Honestly, it IS a buying concern. The thing is, people don’t need Adobe bringing it up. You really don’t need your software company to say, “By the way, it’s going to take away that porn you enjoy!” It’s like (I assume) your Dad buying you porn. If you find it hidden somewhere in the house, fair game, but if he actually goes out of his way to tell you where it is, that’s a bit creepy.

People are already talking about porn when they talk about, “Flash Movie Players.” It’s like how you say “stomach problem” instead of “poop issue.” I don’t think the fact they used this means the “war” is “over,” I just think Adobe overstepped a bit addressing an issue that was in the back of everyone’s mind. Bad judgement and desperation aren’t necessarily the same thing. They simply wrongfully assumed that no one had considered this issue.

Secondly, Apple actually doesn’t have much to worry about. Here’s why. People have their favorite porn sites, I assume. Some of these run Flash, and the people won’t get to see them. Here’s the issue. Unless there’s a huge swing in the culture, they won’t admit that that’s why they aren’t buying an iPad. They’ll couch it in terms of “lack of Flash support,” and they’ll hold off, perhaps. Still, people are like porn MacGuyvers. Give them a piece of technology and they’ll cobble together a way to get porn on it.

Take the iPhone. It’s got the same limitations, and I’m sure there are ways to get porn on it. (Not that I’d know myself.) I’m sure folks will discover Google image search with the safe filter off, mobile versions of certain porn sites, or YouTube videos that fit a particular fetish that doesn’t violate their rules. Or something like that.

Still, though, it won’t be their *favorite* porn site, and that might make a difference, at least at first. There may be some loyalty to Flash-reliant sites, however short-lived, that may affect someone’s decision to buy an iPad.

Even though no one *should* be talking about it, it is an issue that may matter to some people. I can see why it may have been brought up, however ill-advised that decision may have been.

To play the porn card may be seen as desperate, is definitely not cool playground etiquette, and could be extremely off-putting to people with a demure public persona.

To say no one has a stake in the issue behind it, however, is (at best) disingenuous.

Also, please don’t comment with protestations that you never use the Internet for porn. I’m just going to follow my own advice and make a blanket statement that I assume NONE of you do. I’m obviously talking about other people. This is a case where your silence is appreciated, and much more believable.

iPad Gentrification

It’s nice to see some folks posting things very similar to mine about the iPad.

With Why the iPad is Crap Futurism, i09 pointed out something I hadn’t fully considered, which is that the iPad is essentially the next set in the evolution of the TV, rather than the personal computer.

Alex Payne’s On the iPad points out something else, that Apple is essentially the gatekeeper as to what can be shown on this TV.

As I’ve mentioned before, I realize I’m not the targeted market for this device.

I figured it’d be perfect for people whose DVD collection was destroyed in a fire and people who take long trips, for example.

I realized it’s not currently designed for people making stuff and sharing it with the world. I don’t doubt people will be using it for that *in spite* of its limitations in that regard, but the lack of camera is a huge hurdle in that happening.

Once again, for the people saying, “If you want to do that, get a laptop! That’s not what this is FOR! It was never intended to be that!” I repeat:

Up until it was announced, we had no idea what it was going to be. We had guesses, but not a clear picture. You can’t tell me that I “shouldn’t be disappointed because it isn’t what you wanted.” That’s a nested definition of disappointment. You’re basically saying, “You’re not allowed to be disappointed,” and that statement is false.

See, I had a dream. A beautiful, beautiful dream.

I like buskers, I like the circus. I like buskers who blow up. I like Amanda Palmer, Sxip Shirley, Jason Webley, Reggie Watts, and others who can just show up someplace and make magic happen and build followings that reach all corners of the globe. They do it through hard work and, more recently, through open exposure online.

I remember Apple as being the people who brought us GarageBand, and iMovie. Simple programs that let people create extraordinary things.

I had hoped that maybe, just maybe, Apple’s new device would put these two things together, and allow talented folks from all over the world record and share their unique gifts with their fellow humans.

However naively, I imagined the iPad would be a ticket to a grand street party that allowed you participate in an explosion of really cool things.

What we’ve seen instead, is a great new way to buy movies, to buy music, to buy books.

I wanted a carnival and got the mall.

I’m not predicting that the iPad won’t soar. I’m predicting it will do very well as the thing that wasn’t what I wanted.

I see a lot of people saying crap like, “Oh, boo-hoo! It doesn’t have a drink holder and a footbath! I’m so disappointed!!!”

Grow up. Go buy it if you want it. Let me have my grief.

What I wanted, what I was hoping for, was an iLife device.

Remember iLife?

It lets you organize photos, make music, and make movies.

You might remember it as being, until recently, Apple’s cornerstone. They were giving people without studios and a lot of technical know-how the means to make art on their own.

It was the thing that made me like Apple, the things that made me excited about their products. I wanted a device that would let me do the things that had, up until the evolution of Apple-as-Media-Warehouse, defined Apple for me:

Everyone’s an artist.

So, welcome to the Apple gentrification. All the artists have been kicked out of the cool part of town, but there are plenty of great stores.

As sad as I am to say it, I hope that this was a business move and Apple is planning for the next generation to include more features for folks like me. Because, from what I hear, the design and performance is great.

Still, Apple has left a wide-open space for anyone willing to make an iPad-esque device geared towards people that like to make things.

If you’re listening, now’s your chance.

I Predicted the iPhone

I don’t care if you believe this or not, but it’s the absolute truth.

I was in a car with a friend, and I said the following:

“Now that you can store songs on your cellphone, it’s only a matter of time before they have an iPod that can make phone calls. They’ll probably call it the iPhone.”

My friend, who is a very tech-savvy guy, said that people already have cell phones and music players. Not many of them would want both in the same device.

Now, look at what we have.

The iPhone works on the “tricorder principal,” a term I may or may not have just made up:

If a single device can do three or more functions of single-use devices of the same size, it is pretty awesome.

The version of the iPhone I have is a phone, camera, web browser, music player, and map system with a great interface.

So, when the iPad first came out, I saw a lot of what I thought of as crap from “iPad Apologists” who say the following:

“That feature that you wanted in the iPad is already fulfilled by [DEVICE X] so you don’t need it in the iPad.”

Or:

“Why would anyone want a lesser version of [DESIRED COMPONENT] when there are already professional versions of the same component available?”

I got that question when I bemoaned the fact that there was no camcorder on my my iPhone. “There are already camcorders out there. Why would you want another one of lesser quality on your phone?”

The answer is simple. You want to take the devices you carry on a daily basis or *would LIKE* to carry on a daily basis, and consolidate them to save space.

The thing that I was hoping the iPad was going to tackle was something I used to use of a comparable size: Laptops and portable DVD players.

Lack of inputs made this a problem. If you have a library full of DVDs like I do, you’d like to still watch them once and a while. The iPad is the “ultimate movie experience” if you’re looking for movies to buy, not for movies you already own.

Also, the lack of 16:9 aspect ratio made this a problem. Here’s what I heard from folks about this:

“If you watch the videos, you’re supposed to use this portrait mode, which means 16:9 would make it too tall and skinny.”

For me, if they had made it 16:9, I would have used it in landscape mode. The orientation of the device (for me) isn’t as important as the aspect ratio.

Think this would have messed up the book aspect of it? I imagine that two pages side-by-side would have been the model had they gone with this orientation.

Which brings us to the book aspect of it.

Here’s what the real deal is, in my opinion.

A lot of us wanted a laptop replacement. That’s not what the iPad is. It’s a Kindle killer, and it’s exactly why it’s not geared to me.

The people with the income to drop $399 on a first-gen Kindle probably won’t mind dropping an extra $100 bucks for a shinier color version of it coupled with the iPod Touch. They most CERTAINLY would pay $10 more for it over the Kindle 2.

This is a product for CONSUMERS. Not for producers of things, or people who want to reuse a lot of their old things.

If you bought a Kindle and can afford to throw it out, I think the iPad will be awesome for you. If you were going to buy a Kindle but waited to see what Apple had up their sleeve, I think the iPad will be awesome for you. If you can afford to re-buy your DVD library from iTunes, and buy books electronically so you can get them instantly rather than going to the library, I think the iPad is going to be awesome for you.

All this heartache I’ve been feeling about this device is the realization that a really nice piece of technology has come out, and I’m not the target audience.

I’m not too worried though.

Eventually, someone is going to come up with a stand-alone tablet for artists/producers. I envision something that combines a Wacom tablet, a word processor, a music studio, and a camcorder for under $500. Maybe someone already has, and some helpful soul will point me in the right direction.

I suspect that as the iPad goes into successive generations, Apple may include some of the features I desire, enough to make me give up some of the others, like they did with the iPhone.

As always, I wouldn’t say no to an iPad if someone gave me one. I’m sure I’d use it. It’s just not something I can justify buying.

My Thing about the iPad

It’s really very simple.

I love my iPhone. I use it to watch video clips on YouTube, read Kindle books, update twitter, update Facebook, take pictures, and make phone calls.

Still, I need a computer to do some things:

1) Create home-movie type video clips. (My iPhone didn’t come with a video camera, and I really miss being able to do that.)

2) Draw comics using my Wacom tablet.

3) Write books.

4) Access a lot of old content I have stored on disk.

5) Make music. Again, my iPhone has a lot of apps that sort of work as one-offs, but I *love* GarageBand.

6) Watch Hulu/Netflix movies. I can’t do it on my iPhone because it doesn’t support Flash.

Right now, I can do most of the above with Jennifer’s PC, but it’s Jennifer’s. She’s basically letting me squat.

I was hoping that the iPad would do at least some of the things I wanted, so I was a little disappointed:

1) Not only is there no video camera, but there’s no camera in general. Now, first of all, for anyone chomping at the bit to point out that iPhones now have video cameras now, you’re right. The fact that a later generation of a product I already own has a feature I want is *not* a persuasive argument for me buying a separate product without this feature.

So far, the arguments I’ve heard for this is that it could cause problems for schools, or the 3G capabilities may not be enough to handle video. As a paranoid by nature, however, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that they simply aren’t withholding it for the next version. That’s how it felt with the iPhone, as some folks proved pretty quickly that the camera in the version I have is capable of shooting video if you go through the trouble of jailbreaking it.

I didn’t buy the new iPhone when it came out because I figured the new tablet would have a video camera in it and because I didn’t have the money to spend on it. Looks like I’m waiting a bit longer.

2) You can’t hook a tablet up to this. I guess it’s a larger surface, and I’m already drawing on my iPhone, but I really like using a pen. If there were a way for me to hook a scanner into it, so much the better. Unfortunately, none of these options are available. Still, out of all the features I want, I think I’d be able to make comics work on this. I’m adaptable.

3) Hooray for Pages on the iPad. If Safari allows me to upload a .pdf from my iPad to CreateSpace, I’m pretty much all set, unless their cover creator requires Flash. Let me check…

Well crap.

4) I don’t see any way that I can get my old stuff onto the iPad without an actual PC/Mac.

5) I’m sure there will be great music apps. I can dream of a GarageBand app. We’ll see.

6) No Flash was a big disappointment. I was hoping this issue would be solved. Maybe it will be in the future.

Someone’s blog, which you’ll be able to find if you look hard enough, had a commenter write in with a laundry list of issues, just like I have, and asked why they’d buy one if it didn’t meet their needs.

The response was:

“let me give you an example you might understand.

Here are my specific needs for a car: drives via autopilot so I can sleep, has 50 Mb/s internet access, gets 100 MPG, and can fly through the air.

No car exists that meets my specific needs.

So, I won’t buy a car. I’ll wait till a car comes along that meets all my specific needs and until then, I’ll drive a horse drawn carriage in protest.

See how stupid that sounds?”

I really liked this analogy, but wanted to adapt it to my experience.

“I have an electric scooter, but sometimes I need to use my wife’s Volkswagen Rabbit with a manual transmission because I need something with a car seat for when I pick my daughter up from preschool. When my wife is using her car for work, I need to walk an hour there and back to pick her up.

I hear that the company that makes my scooter is coming out with an electric car that’s actually within my price range.

Here are my specific needs for a car: has an automatic transmission, runs on electric power, and seats four.

The car is announced, and it’s actually a gas/electric hybrid, has a manual transmission, and seats two.

So, I won’t buy THAT car. I’ll wait till a car comes along that meets all my specific needs and until then, I’ll keep using my wife’s car.”

To me, that doesn’t sound stupid at all.

I anticipate the response to this will be:

“This isn’t the right product for you. Steve Jobs said so. You should just buy laptop or a desktop.”

Indeed, and I would if I could. I was hoping against hope that this would be just enough of a computer to keep me from having to buy a new one. Telling me I can’t be disappointed that it’s not is like telling someone not to have emotions. You can do it all you want, but it don’t make it so.

And finally, for me:

The ultimate web surfing tool would have Flash support.

The ultimate movie watching tool would have 16:9 resolution and a way to interface with my TV.

I’ve read a lot from people explaining away why Apple didn’t do this or that, but then MANY of them turn an odd corner and explain why you don’t actually want a 16:9 inch screen for movies, or why a video camera would be “too much of a hassle” for users.

Explaining to me why I don’t really want a feature isn’t going to work. Apple decided not to put it in this version, so I won’t be buying this version.

It doesn’t mean I think early adopters or bad. It doesn’t mean I think they’re dumb. I think that they can afford this and I can’t, for the reasons listed above.

Still, keep your arguments in mind when the 16:9 version with camera comes out in the future.

(As I say time and time again, the iPad looks nice and shiny and while I can’t justify the expense, if one were to GIVE me one, I’d use it every day and love it. Also, if all you’re looking for is something to replace actual books, I think this device will probably serve you very very well.)

GPAMS: Episode 5 – The iPad

Paul complains about an object not making his dreams come true while Jennifer threatens to get her vagina all over everything.

The Gude-Pratt Afternoon Morning Show – The iPad

GPAMS – Episode 4: Blacklisted

Gude-Pratt Afternoon Morning Show: Episode 4: Blacklisted