Five Top iPad Complaints Debunked
January 30th, 2010
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.
