First off, I apologize if this post comes off as grumpy, I really, didn’t think I’d be writing about the Apple tablet. I really don’t want to. However, after weathering the barrage of responses to the iPad, I just can’t help myself.
Here are my responses to the five of the most common complaints I’ve heard as a result of unveiling of their latest creation:
- No [insert technology port here].
Are these the same people who complained when the laptops stopped shipping with floppy drives?We are very quickly moving into a world without wires, and in a world without wires what good are ports? I know, we’re not there yet, but isn’t that kind of the point? Why get upset over no HDMI, when you can stream to your TV, while holding the device on your couch to control the playback?
Apple is imagining a world without wires, so it shouldn’t be surprising that they’re eliminating ports.
- No multitasking.
This is essentially a media device. Are you going to work on a spreadsheet while you watch a movie? Are you going to read a book while browsing your photos? Set aside the fact that the notion of multitasking in general is somewhat absurd, there are very few scenarios where it makes sense to have multiple applications running concurrently on this type of device, and far fewer that I’d be willing to sacrifice stability and battery life for. - No Flash.
Let’s look at the value Flash brings to the table. Ok…I’m struggling. Flash was instrumental in the widespread adoption of online video, but it will become increasingly less relevant in that context thanks to HTML5. Advertisers love Flash banner ads, condo builders & nightclub owners love 40mb full Flash websites, but aside from these types of applications, which frankly, I can do without, Flash is on the verge of outliving its usefulness. - It’s just a big iPod Touch.
Well yeah, of course it is. The point is consistent user experience. Apple does a good job of giving users what they expect when it comes to UI. When I explain OS X to non-techie Windows friends, I distill the conversation down to “If you can unlearn the insanity of Windows, and just play with the interface, it’ll usually do exactly what you think it should.”It would make no sense for the iPad to look, or feel different from Apple’s related devices. It would make no sense for it to have a dramatically different user interface. Many millions of us have learned how to use iPhone’s and iPod Touches, it’s what we’re familiar with, so why would they ever go out of their way to make us learn something new, consequently raising a barrier to adoption?
The iPad technology is not new to us (conceptually anyway), but technology is never really the point with Apple. They see technology as a means to deliver a user experience, not as a feature list. In fact, if you go to any Apple product page, you’ll see that “Tech Specs” is always one of the last items in the navigation. This fact further illustrates the logic behind making “a big iPod Touch” – if a stellar user experience can be enabled by the same technology as an existing device, why change it?
- The name sucks.
Ok, I’ve got nothing here. The name sucks, and the alternatives aren’t much better. iSlate – technology that sounds like a rock.
To wrap up, come on folks, it’s Apple – you should know better by now. It’s their corporate mandate NOT to give the masses what they want. They spend a long time thinking about what we actually need, or better yet, what we will need, and they deliver time and time again. They create usable devices, then let the world figure out new ways to put them to work.
There are many things about Apple I love, and many I could do without. But I will praise them over and over again for their consistent refusal to submit to feature requests that aren’t in line with their vision.
Now that this is out of the way, let me say I think this is far from a perfect device. I do feel Apple really did it a disservice by omitting a camera. My guesses for the rational behind this decision are:
- they couldn’t get it to fit in a pre-determined case for the device
- the pictures produced by the iPhone’s mediocre camera look like crap on a 10″ screen
- it went directly on to the iPad 2.0 feature list as bait
It really is too bad, as I could think of endless business uses for the device…if it had a camera. It doesn’t take much to imagine the apps that could built for home inspectors, insurance field agents, physicians, trainers, landscapers, interior designers, journalists, etc. if the iPad had a built in camera. I guess we’ll have to wait until next spring when they release 2.0.
7 Comments to “Five Top iPad Complaints Debunked”
If Flash is so awful, how come the iPad video on the Apple site is still delivered in Flash?
As mentioned in this post by Adobe ( http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2010/01/apples_ipad_–_a_broken_link.html ), it’s hard to take the ipad as a serious netbook alternative when 70% of web video and 75% of web games won’t run on it.
I can just imagine the number of lost sales come March when a person goes into the Eaton Centre Apple Store, logs into their Facebook account and is unable to play Farmville. http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703
The problem with your complaints about Flash is that even if flash is somehow removed, people are going to figure out ways to re-do all the annoying ads in HTML5. Greasemonkey scripts to disable will be the new hotness.
As a developer, it is very frustrating to have this blatant holdout from Apple. Flex 4 introduces many very interesting development ideas that makes it miles ahead of HTML / Javascript development. Flash Catalyst, for example, lets me take a photoshop design and convert it into a pixel perfect SWF file without a line of CSS change. Flash Builder 4 let’s me build UIs with drag and drop in-line CRUD generation based on web services. There are no equivalent HTML5 development processes that do the same thing.
In the perfect world, everyone will switch to HTML5 overnight. But in our world where 60% of business still run ie6 and Google Street View is still coded in Flash, no Flash on the iPad is baffling.
With respect to the ‘iPad’ name – sure it’s an easy target for detractors, but it’s nowhere near the issue that people are making it out to be.
I recall when Apple transitioned their notebooks from iBook and PowerBook to MacBook and MacBook Pro respectively. People didn’t like the change, but it didn’t hurt the success of the products in the slightest.
Should the tablet succeed, over time people will accept the iPad as Apple’s tablet – defined by the experience it provides rather than the silly relationships we currently form in our minds that are invoked by a part of its name. To the next generation, ‘iPad’ (don’t know how Apple & Fujitsu will work things out ultimately, though it appears Apple has the better case) will seem no more odd than ‘iPod’.
That said, I hardly see myself as an early adopter and would struggle to justify needing such a device, but as the author is suggesting it would be wise to wait for version 2.0 if you do not immediately see the benefit.
Hey Tomas, thanks for your comment. Just a quick point of clarification, I didn’t say Flash is awful, I said the value it brings is diminishing. This is especially true for gaming on a device that can provide the same, or better experience with a native app.
The ability to do things like convert a Photoshop design into a pixel perfect SWF is exactly the kind of feature that facilitates all the Flash abominations out there. I won’t dispute that in the right hands, Flash/Flex can do some interesting things, but I don’t think it’s the future of web applications.
Also, let’s not be naive, allowing Flash games on these devices would hurt App Store sales, which I’m sure is a contributing factor.
The world won’t switch to HTML5 overnight, but Apple has never been about making devices for now, they build devices for tomorrow. Right or wrong, their decision shouldn’t be surprising.
I’m not seeing the decreased utility of Flash. If anything, the introduction of AIR has increased it’s profile and utility.
If you take a look at the Balsamiq website, for example, you will see that they have their entire mockup application available as a flash file. Other examples are Photoshop.com and the Aviary.
I agree it is a business decision, but it is a business decision that ends up screwing the web user experience of those who buy the tablet.
Air is a desktop application; it has no place on the iPad, which runs native Apple Mobile OS apps (see: Tweetdeck). Flash, itself, is a resource nightmare on the Mac. The only issue is that it currently manages to push the majority of video on the Web. This will change as people move to more mobile devices which do not natively support Flash (iPhone, iPad, Android, PalmOS, Firefox Maemo, etc.) and find alternatives (see: HTML 5). As for gaming, this is being reinvented with touch gestures which will supersede mouse/keyboard gestures. There’s no issue here with the iPod/Touch/iPad not supporting Flash. Flash is a dying technology because, like most Adobe apps, it’s resource intensive, crash prone nonsense. The issue has been there’s been no open alternative, but as open standards develop, Flash will be pushed aside. Currently IE has the most to say in this space, but as people move to mobile browsing, that will be less the case. Hurrah!
1. I mostly agree, but for a device which was shown with ALOT of photo usage, an SD slot should have been a no-brainer. I can only think Apple wants to eliminate a vector for jailbreaking or whatever here.
2. Why are you still defending the lack of multitasking at this point? This is a weak argument at best. You may not need it, but it should be there. Jailbroken apps like Backgrounder show that multitasking is even usable on the original iphone. This is a serious omission, especially if this tablet is to be used for productivity apps where you may be going back and forth in your document and spreadsheet app and whatever.
3. 100% agree. The sooner everyone drops flash, the better.
4. I guess I agree. I don’t think it makes sense now, but in a few months to a year, people will start figuring out how to use this new form factor in new and excellent ways.
5. I think the name’s fine, myself.
Cheers!
Hey Nick,
1. I’m sure the SD slot was omitted because they plan on adding a camera soon.
2. Multitasking introduces significant technical complexity – greater demands on the battery, CPU, memory, etc. I’ve yet to hear of a scenario, which I consider practical for this device, for which I would be willing to trade battery life, or system performance/stability.
3. Amen.
4. Yeah, I agree, only time will tell.
5. My biggest beef with the name is the inevitable confusion that will ensue re: iPod vs. iPad. For the average person, the kind who don’t follow Apple keynotes on Twitter, the distinction may be unclear.
Thanks for your comment!