iPad: Big Touch or something else?

iPad: Big iPod touch or something more?

I hate trying to review a device that has not even hit the market yet. But this one has already got me to spout off a couple of time already so I couldn’t resist taking another shot at this now that the actual device is out in the open.

Job’s big tagline for his new device is “Our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price”. Lets take a closer look at this...

1. Most advanced? - Quite possible this is a true statement of fact here. Apple’s first silicon in a good while and a vibrant 9.7 inch VGA resolution display with 10 hours video playback in a 1.5lbs package. That is pretty advanced.
2. Magical and revolutionary? - Ok lets just skip past the unicorn statement and dive into the important one of revolutionary. I will argue that it is more revolution than evolution but the ties to its younger siblings are obvious.
3. Unbelievable price? - Try the only possible price if they didn’t want another ‘Lisa’ on their hands. And they still come close to hosing this one up. If the iPad is to be a revolution then the cheapest price to pay attention to is $629, not $499.

Advanced?

1.5lbs, full VGA high quality multi touch capacitive screen with enough battery to last 10 hours of video playback (read real usage). Any one of those things on its own is no great feat. But the resolution, high quality, light weight AND enough wireless juice freedom to fly from Cupertino to Tokyo watching video the whole way is damned impressive and advanced. I have not heard of anyone claiming this kind of battery life with video playback except for maybe some dedicated video devices and none of those with this size screen. This is probably one of the single biggest things I will be looking for once these hit store shelves and true hands on reviews. If the battery life bears out in real life use this is going to be a very interesting device. 10 hours real use meets my 8 hours with 20% reserve need in my last Apple Tablet post.

9.7 inch capacitive multitouch over an IPS panel in this package is nothing to sneeze at either. And of course rounding it off is the in house (well purchased to be in house) development of custom mobile silicon running the whole thing. This package of beginning to end design with hardware and OS built in lockstep is probably what has been missing from the tablet market to date.

Magical?

Well I suppose Apple could not resist the magical tag... the iPad has after all proven to be one of the more sought after Apple ‘unicorn devices’. By that I mean this thing has probably supported more than one apple rumor sites by itself. Among the mac heads this thing is mythical in proportions and it has those that think it is the second coming on both ends of the spectrum... ie that this device represents the downfall or redemption of Apple. I suppose in that sense the device is ‘magical’... it was hard to watch the keynote and accept that the day had finally arrived even for me and I just think it is potentially some cool tech. Corny... but this was about as ‘magical’ as you get these days.

Revolutionary?

At first glance this seems an odd moniker to attach to the device. It literally looks like an expanded iPod Touch/ iPhone. It runs the same OS (3.2 was on the device at the unveiling). Same home key and lack of damn near anything else and even the same dock connector we have all come to know and love/hate. If that is the case then how the hell can Jobs claim this is ‘revolutionary’ with a straight face? I think it depends on how you look at the birth of this device. Is Apple trying to just make a successful product line bigger (ie this is an iPhone derivative device)? Or did Apple create the market for this device with its preliminary tablet devices (iPhone was the derivative... just produced first)? I hold to the latter. If you believe the iPhone and Touch grew out of Apple’s desire to make a tablet computer then it is easy to see how one could consider the iPad a revolutionary device. The iPhone and iTouch are just precursors, not the revolution itself though they did revolutionize their respective areas. The iPad I think ultimately aims to re-define the basic cornerstone of personal computing. That is revolutionary at its finest. I think the iPad may ultimately be a 'transitional device'... but it is still looking to be a game changer.

If you think the iPad is just a big Touch that is aimed at consuming you really need to think about what it means that Jobs had the iWork team spend the time to do a ground up build of iWork specifically for this new device. Consumption is what will get the iPad into peoples hands because it is what they understand. Apps specifically for the iPad are what will determine if consumption is all it is good for. If it works Apple may succeed in redefining the basic interface of computing. If it doesn't they probably will make a bunch of money on a 'big iPod"... pretty good game plan if you ask me.

All in all the iPad looks evolutionary only if you look at it in direct comparison to the iPhone. If you pull back and look at what Apple is positioning the device to do it is easy to see how in 4-5 years it will clearly be viewed as revolutionary and the iPhone and touch as precursor devices that fleshed out the touch UI concept... if it works.

Unbelievable Price?

The only thing unbelievable about this price is what it seems to indicate for the future of this market provided it takes hold. Pundits predicted the iPad at $1000. Based on windows Laptops that would have been ridiculous for what is being pitched as an accessory rather than main device. Even $500 is pretty pricey when you think of it as an addition to your phone and/or laptop... much less costs ranging up to $829. And don’t even get started on the potential added monthly connectivity costs to get the most from it.

Make no mistake this is typical Apple early adopter pricing (read nose bleed high). In the long run this level of pricing may well continue to define the upper end. But based on these numbers I expect to see mobile tablets in the $100-300 range with more capability than the initial iPad inside of 2 years. E-ink is either going to step up its game (color, refresh rates), go sub $100 (sub $50?) or disappear all together. If E-ink gets to color refresh rates on par with LCD technology and remains lower power it will fold into this market quickly.

Side Issue: iBooks, is this really a good ebook platform?

The quality of the screen and 10 hours of display life (if real) should make this a pretty darn good reading platform. The fact it is not a reflective display like e-ink will make it less friendly on the eyes, but the more I have encountered quality mobile screens the more I have come to the conclusion the real problem with LCDs is not the back light. It is the fixed nature of desktop displays and the distance from your eyes. Low power backlights on mobile devices with high pixel density and more flexible location are not much worse than e-ink. I have a nokia N810, iPhone and HTC Touch Pro 2 and the only real problem with reading on them is battery life sucks, and you have to constantly flip pages because the screens are to small. The iPad size and advertised battery life should solve both issues. There is a lot to like here and the pricing is smack dab between the Kindle 2 and the Kindle Dx. Toss in the fact you can run the Kindle App on the iPad (easy transition for any existing library) and this seems like a real winner. Hands on testing will be the deciding factor but I am seriously considering this as as replacement for my Kindle 2 .