So then the concept of the tablet comes in. Let me first say that I'm not talking about those laptops with swiveling touchscreens...hell no. I'm talking about the convergence of the strengths of smartphones and laptops into one device that's as easy to carry around the house as it is to carry around world. Anand describes the idea well. It's a Star Trek-like device (as he puts it) built for a totally new and emerging usage model. Like him, it's the sort of thing I've been waiting a long time for. So when Apple announced the iPad, my interest was piqued.
And then it was killed in almost the same instant. The damn thing is an overgrown iPod Touch. It has all the same features the Touch has, except, you know, it won't fit in your pocket. Apple's expressed intention is for this device to be a netbook replacement. Yeah, that's a great idea, except that's not what this is. First of all, it uses the iPhone OS. That means it has all the limitations that an iPhone currently does, except the device can't be used to make calls. Now I'm all for a sleaker, slimmer mobile OS for smaller devices like these, because God knows Windows is a bit much for a pint-sized computer. But at least my pint-sized netbook can friggin multi-task!
Here's the thing: For $500, at minimum, you get a device that has no camera, it has no wall charger, it has no expandable storage, it has no SMS, it uses an internet browser that doesn't support Flash, and it's on an extremely tightly closed platform that's more akin to a gaming console than a computer. Apple's treating this "netbook replacement" like they do their iPhone and iPods, thinking they can just sell it based on the merits of iTunes and the App Store (and now the eBook store), where you have to plug it into your computer to sync or even just charge the damn thing. Only one problem, Apple: you only gave the damn thing 64GB of memory, at most, with no way to supplement it. And you know, it's a little big to be tethering to your PC.
The price is its biggest failing, but that's no surprise considering who made it. Apple made a big deal about how they engineered the iPad to hit the lowest possible price point, like $500 is supposed to be chump change. Maybe if it was the cheapest computer Apple has ever offered, but you can hardly call it a computer. More like a really expensive media player. Even if it had the functionality of a netbook, it still costs too much. Just like Apple to pretend the competition doesn't exist.
Now, obviously Apple's had plenty of success with or without competitive features. The iPhone became monumental based solely on the hardware design and the UI, with only a couple features no one else had, and lacking a whole lot of other ones. Later they added the missing features, plus the App Store which pretty much solidified its place in the market, overpriced contracts and all. Granted, some of the iPad's issues can be addressed later with software, like multitasking, or SMS (at the very least, you can use an App). But people aren't going to wait for a second or third revision of the iPad for it to recieve the necessary features, unless it brings something to the market now. The primary reason why the iPad is generally believed to be a failure, even before it's released, is because it serves no purpose, it has no niche. It does nothing better than anything that has come before.
So Apple tries to invent a market that this might appeal to. They give it the iWorks suite, in hopes that it might attract some office professionals or something. How you're going to get any serious work done on such a small screen with only one free hand is beyond me, but whatever. I guess that's what the stand/keyboard accessory is for, but then that kinda defeats the purpose. Then they market it as the ultimate eBook reader, except it sucks next to a real one. So at the very least, they tout the handy internet browsing experience, again, without Flash.
There are a few things it does right. It's got a nice design, and it uses an IPS screen. It uses multitouch to augment the keyboard-less drawback of the tablet form factor, which is something I've been hoping for in such a device. It would be nice if it was 16:9 widescreen, but oh well. The 10" size is perfect, in my opinion, for a tablet.
It's also got good battery life, owing to the new Apple A4 SoC employed in its hardware. It's based on ARM, which is interesting if only because it's a slap in Intel's face. It's like a sign that if ARM can't make it in the netbook/smartbook game, they always have a good shot at tablets. Supposedly it's using Cortex A9, which puts it above things like Qualcomm Snapdragon that are stuck on A8s. That actually brings it closer to NVIDIA's Tegra 2, in raw performance.
Except Tegra 2 is better. Graphics, video encoding, full HD...if anything the ideal tablet of the future should be using that. ICD gets pretty close but they miss the 10" sweetspot. If nothing else, the iPad might spur others on to create something better, and if in the off chance it sells decently, it could really explode the tablet market like never before, and that's something Apple's always been good for, wherever they venture.
