Earlier on I talked about solutions in search of problems, which ultimately don’t go anywhere the vast majority of the time, and for a good while, Apple’s iPad was very much perceived by the tech press as in that category.
After shifting millions of them, it’s clear that they’re not really solutions in search of a problem, nor even must-have gadgets for the tech elite, but solutions to a problem we had not always seen before.
The iPad was the first usably-sized portal touchscreen device that used the fingers on a wholly reliable and effective engine. (Yes, there have been other tablet devices, and other similar portable devices, but using stylus-type pointers or very inferior touch-screen technology)
Some of the tech press are still not convinced, even a year or so after the iPad debuted, because to them, it’s not of any use. It’s not like you can use it as a replacement for a laptop – but you’re not supposed to.
That’s the thing: the tech press haters, and plenty of other people, ridicule it for being ‘less capable than a laptop’, but they fail to understand the most important factor: it removes a boundary between the user and what they’re doing.
Right now, I’m sat at my desk, typing this on a keyboard. I could have used the iPad to write this very article; it’s physically capable, but it’s not really designed for it, and while it’s an experience I can imagine myself repeating when on the move, or for jotting down ideas perhaps, but I wouldn’t suddenly switch all document creation to my iPad.
Even if I could transfer my blogging to it, the rest of my time as a programmer is spent typing arcane symbols that are at best inconvenient on an iPad.
The haters at this point will point and laugh and tell me that it’s a toy, but it’s not – it’s just very good at what it does, and doesn’t try to cover other bases; it’s not a device for text input. You can do so when needed, but it’s a visual and visceral device, rather than an abstract one.
I’ve heard it before from artists that they get better results using a stylus and drawing tablet than using a mouse and keyboard and this should not be surprising; it’s the tool that’s most natural for them. Certainly more natural than trying to drag a box on a wire around to indicate movement with an arbitrary marker on the screen.
An iPad is not a natural tool for typing text; a keyboard is more natural because it’s the tool we’ve been brought up to use for decades. Because the iPad is not a natural ‘conventional work’ tool, it got a lot of derision.
Here’s the thing though: as I’ve said before, it allows us to do things that couldn’t be done before, and in so doing it becomes a solution for previously undiscovered problems.
User confidence is a big one, and with it education; ask any IT helpdesk and they can tell you all the urban myths about people using mice as a foot-pedal, or holding it up to the screen to move the pointer… these are logical things, while a mouse is not inherently logical. An iPad, however, removes that sideline and allows them to directly use the tools they’ve had all their lives: fingers.
Scrolling on an iPad is natural, it feels natural, and it removes having to train people on using mice and keyboards, though it isn’t without its own problems.
That’s actually the one thing the iPad has taught us: that there is the potential for a post-PC landscape, where we don’t have to sit down at an established place and use the same tools we’ve used for decades because we lacked the tools for anything better.
Some tasks will, thus, still revolve around keyboards and mice – for now; it’s only a matter of time before we find a replacement for those that even programmers and hard-core bloggers will appreciate…
Yet still another ‘Praise Apple iPad’ article. I notice the above is long on stuff “..it doesn’t [x]“ but it’s “..okay..” because “..it’s not supposed to”
….and very short on what it does do.
It can play media, but not as cheaply as other solutions – but that’s okay, because it’s more than that.
It can type, but not as well as other devices – but that’s okay, because it’s more than that.
You can play games on it, but not as sophisticated as a laptop or desktop – but that’s okay, because it’s more than that.
It (#2 anyway) can take pictures, but not as well as a real camera – but that’s okay, because it’s more than that.
ad nauseum.
Sounds like a big ol pile of mediocre, built for people that need 24/7 entertainment, and can’t be bothered with paper and pen for notes and scribbles.
To start with, your initial argument fails on premise… that’d be like going up to a milk cart – the battery powered 20mph kind, and complaining that it doesn’t go at 70mph… it doesn’t because it isn’t supposed to.
The iPad isn’t magical, though revolutionary is one definition I’ll leave to history to decide upon. Yes, it has a keyboard – it works, but for hardcore typing it’s not that great… but the majority of people I know don’t need to do hardcore typing, thus it isn’t a limitation for them.
Here’s the thing: it’s a device for consuming web services, as well as on-device services, and it provides access to these in a visceral way that cannot be replicated outside of a touch screen.
All the limitations I describe above for the iPad, do typically apply to other devices too, a mouse is not a natural input device. A keyboard isn’t even particularly good, but it’s been with us all our lives, so we’re used to it.
I’ll tell you what: this week, I actually showed my iPad to extended family members, people in their 80s who are so set in their ways it isn’t funny. People for whom that the most advanced technology they own is a CD player – it’s so old, it’s a separate deck as part of a large stereo unit, and still has an old-school vinyl unit too. It’s been in their house for best part of two decades, possibly longer.
To these people, a computer is something other people use… the standard question aimed at me is ‘are you still doing your computering?’
So I showed them an iPad, without the keyboard I have for it (which solves *my* specific problem of hardcore typing on it) and showed them how to operate it for photos and the web, the two things they were actually interested in. And they understood, because they did something and it responded to them directly, visually. The only way it could be improved is if there were a tactile response too, but that’s a little further off.
Essentially, the thrust of your argument seems to be that it should be the best in class at each of the things it can do, but as we’ve discussed before, a multi-function device rarely excels at everything it can do, but most of the time, it’s good enough.
You want a single function device that excels at what it does… and that works for you. Thus the dedicated media player, dedicated e-book reader and so on.
But I have here a device that is more portable than most laptops (whilst being bigger than net books, it’s certainly more usable), can play most kinds of media without too much fuss, is approachable, that I can play nice games on that won’t exist for other platforms, and do virtually everything on the web that I normally want to do, and with a battery life that most laptop owners and makers are extremely jealous of.
Combine the price of your dedicated media player, e-book reader and so on, plus a cheap laptop for things like the Internet, and maybe you’ll find it is not so cheap after all…
No, my initial argument isn’t so much that “it can’t [x]” but that it really isn’t designed to be anything *but* a multi-function device.
Any particular function doesn’t have to be ‘best in class’, but usually with a multi-function device, there’s at least one thing it’s reasonably good at – but not here. Hence iPad owners not being able to defence or cite any particular use, but only that it *is* multi-semi-capable.
The media player was about $70, as was the e-reader. The laptop isn’t really an issue, as if I’m anywhere with wifi, I’d have my stationary computer or be able to use one. I’d be more likely to get a Internet capable phone – but that’s probably not happening soon anyway. It would be about $350 for an Acer One though. $490 for 3 stand alone devices or $680 for an iPad 2 (not including many, many extra expensive accessories).
Yes, that is exactly what it is designed to be, this is the part most people seem to forget.
So many reviews compare it to single-purpose devices and expect it to beat the single-purpose device on its own territory despite having a massive technical disadvantage in that direction.
For example, you have e-book readers with so-called e-ink, the kind that’s readable in natural sunlight, versus the iPad with its backlit display. Most of the people who favour e-book readers point out the backlight as a problem, but most people don’t bother to look at the iPad and think about the backlight as less of a limitation and more of an advantage – sure, it might make reading books a little less comfortable (especially in sunlight) but it makes it more comfortable for web browsing or all the other things it does.
It’s good at being a portable interface to the world, to thousands of applications, with a long battery life, in a small package that’s far more comfortable than any laptop I’ve ever used.
Thing is, though: that’s why I described it as the solution to a previously undiscovered problem. We’ve become so used to our existing form factors, our existing work methods that we dislike anything that threatens to change them.
We’re familiar with the keyboard and mouse, yet these aren’t natural – the problem is that they’re so familiar, we’ve learned to ignore the unnaturalness of them. The iPad – and its ilk, not just specifically the iPad – are starting to turn that tide, demonstrating that touch interfaces can work so much better for some tasks.
Here’s the thing: the iPad has been out a little over a year – and of all the app I’ve seen, the touch interface wasn’t really used to its absolute best. Some used well, some less well, but once app writers stop porting from existing environments and start looking at the device as a canvas to be imprinted upon by users who don’t need clumsy tools, they’ll start figuring out new and different ways to use it and its kind. See, for my entire post, you could substitute in the Motorola Xoom and it would still make sense: it’s a multi-purpose window for your fingers to interact with the world.
Your $490… does that include a touch-capable device anywhere? (Three tools, that combined still cannot manage what one tool does naturally, note…)
The multimedia e-reader is also a touch device. The buttons are more reliable/less clumsy. It’s ‘touch’ and not ‘gestures’ though.
Which is my other beef with iStuff. As user-friendly and customizable as a ‘poke’ interface is, it’s not as quick as keyboard, as accurate as a stylus, or as configurable as a mouse (from gaming mice with multibuttons to the simple fact you can set your own scroll speed). It’s like stepping back to finger painting.
Which would be a valid argument:
1) If I wanted to do everything, everyday, and without being able to stop back and switch devices.
2) If there wasn’t overlap — but there is, either the laptop or the multimedia player could do videos and pictures (e-reader can do sharp B+W photos if need be). All three can do ebooks and while only the computer can do apps/games, I’d rather be at a desktop to do that.
3) If just ‘being able to do it’ was good enough.
E-readers can go a month on a charge (or 10,000 page turns -whatever happens first) and are more visible the more light there is. They don’t overheat and can read from a SD card. 225 grams compared to iPad 2′s 600.
The multimedia reader can take MicroSDHC cards *without* a $35 adapter (the whole thing only cost $70) and can more than just pictures and videos in a specific directory.
4) If people actually used the iPad to it’s potential.
As *you* have commented, there really isn’t anything built specifically for it yet. Nearly everything is ported, be in a baby version of real program, a boardgame, or yarn. If the iPad supported Flash (and there was a handy arrow keys to touch interface) people would just go to Flash game sites and the App store would take a nosedive.
People are just getting fleeced on a iPad (and multi-use tablets in general), when with a bit of advanced planning and a less greedy attitude one can get much more, for much less.
I’m not saying that tablets won’t have their day, but right now they’re more distractions than defining technology.
1) Yeah, that’s what I thought I’d find prior to getting an iPad. The reality is that I do the bulk of my web browsing on the iPad, lots of reading and boning up on subjects, such as when I was reading up on Node.js, that was pretty exclusively on the iPad, and then switching to PC later for content production.
As a go-anywhere tool, it’s invaluable because it has greater portability than a laptop, and greater flexibility than a phone (for the sorts of things I do), and when you have the choice of taking one device with you, where portability may be an issue…
2) Overlap between highly functional devices is going to be more of an issue than not, I think. If you’re going to have a device that does one thing and pretty much only one thing, make it *good*. The Kindle is the de facto example here; while it does have some apps, it’s not known for apps, and it is known for being an e-book reader because it’s optimised for that use.
An iPad, however, is somewhere in the strange middle ground between the netbook and the laptop.
3) Very often, being ‘good enough’ is more than enough. It doesn’t bother me, for example, that I can’t sit and write code on an iPad the way I do on a desktop. But I can’t laze around on the sofa, half watching the TV, with my desktop.
Let’s face it, the iPad is – right now – primarily a content consumption device. That’s fine, that’s what it was designed for. The Xoom and iPad 2 are seemingly more geared to content creation: it’s more a mindset change than a technical one, but these devices are definitely better geared for it technically.
Oh, and the iPad doesn’t overheat either. Apparently it does outside under really bright light, but the vast majority of said users aren’t going to be sat outside with it…
4) I’ve touched on the issues with it being used to its potential before.
Firstly, app makers have a diversity of platform to cater for: iOS (iPhone, iPad, iPod) accounts for a healthy percentage of the smart device market, but it’s far from the only market. Android has a greater penetration in the smart phone market, and that’s likely to grow a shade, and in the tablet market it’s still virtually an unknown but that’ll grow once Android 3 emerges with decent tablet support.
Anyhow, many developers are going to be looking to publish apps for each market to maximise their revenue – understandably, if not necessarily wonderful – and that’s going to mean building apps to fit the lowest common denominator rather than using the real potential of what’s there; you can quite happily get most iPhone apps to run on an iPad if you like, for example.
Combine that with the fact that most developers seem quite happy to implement half-assed solutions (like replicating the two thumb-sticks off a modern joypad onto touchable areas on the screen), and you’re not going anywhere fast.
Interesting you mention Flash. Recent story I came across had a reviewer trying out the Xoom, which has Flash support – and it was incredibly buggy, missing ‘clicks’, receiving them in the wrong place, and forms were basically unusable. Hardly the sort of thing that’s actually particularly encouraging for entertainment.
Yes, there’s no denying the commercial protectionism, but one of the things Jobs talked about was ensuring the user’s experience of the device was a generally good one – Flash on a touch device does not fit that bill.
No. You can get *different* devices, some of which may suit, some of which may not.
The average desktop is like a lorry: it’s big, clunky, has an awful lot of horsepower but turns like a pig. It has some uses where it truly excels, where heavy lifting is required. It will get you from A to B too, but might be a bit much.
The typical e-book reader is much like a (foldable) bicycle: goes anywhere, doesn’t really run out, but it’s something of a one-trick pony. That said, many people swear by them if they don’t have anything else they want to use, and they do have other advantages.
Then you have laptops – I imagine those mostly like old-fashioned horse-and-cart: they do get you from A to B, often at a decent enough rate, but they do require refuelling periodically.
The tablet… it’s a smart car. It’s small and portable, turns nicely, but doesn’t have much room in the boot for luggage, nor much room under the hood for boosting the engine. But it gets you from A to B very nicely, and is suitable for most people most of the time, but it comes at a premium of price, because it looks nice. But it’s not suitable for people that need the ultra portability (this is the phone market), nor for heavy duty content creation, but it is suitable for most of the day to day stuff.
Where you’re coming from is that it’s largely better and cheaper to get individual devices for the purpose for which you’re going to use them. Often, that’s probably true, but there is something convenient about what amounts to an all-in-one.
On the one hand, I think you’re right, that tablets haven’t yet had their day to shine – but they will. Mostly Apple is the only one producing a really polished product, and no-one’s really going to town using that to its best yet.
On the other, I think you’re wrong that they’re distractions. They’re tools, just like netbooks and laptops and desktops.
I would also point out the Wiggin survey as published today – http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/18/wiggin_tablet_survey/ about tablet use: people are actually doing things more than they would if they didn’t have a tablet. No doubt the research is biased, but it points to a direction where tablets are going to become more mainstream – and very likely, cheaper.
Not really a required feature IMHO. I’d rather have a bit of extra HP (or less wallet damage) than sleekness and polished to a glare UI. I’m not most people.
‘Tools’ that let you play Flash-like games, check your email and browse the web (unless, like me, you end up typing a lot, or want to save/upload a lot of media).
For me, a tool is something that fills a *requirement* – that stuff sounds pretty fluffy to me. :p Honestly, the most useful thing I’ve seen a Smartphone or Slab do is pull up a map.
Thing is, with that ‘looking nice’, comes the fact that they are pretty well engineered. I’ve since played with other tablets, usually the 7″ variety, and while I’m happy to accept that I’m biased, I find the build quality is lower than that of an iPad, generally speaking.
IOW, you pay a premium for the production finish, and get a well built device as part of that.
Sure, also, you’re not most people, and in your case, you’ll get better satisfaction from having the specialised devices. Most people, from what I know, would be quite happy to have a multi-function device that does a bit of everything at least modestly well, and often better.
You’re the exception rather than the norm here
Thing is, aside from programming (which is a specialised activity and requires specialised tools), the bulk of what I do on a computer is playing Flash like games, checking my email and browsing a whole lot of the web.
I can write stuff on an iPad, have done so, will no doubt do so again, and it works great for untying me from a conventional desktop and sitting downstairs, comfortably on the sofa without the bulk of a fat laptop or ensuing hot lap, or indeed, power cables that tangle everywhere just to use it.
I just gave you my requirements: ability to check email (and forums), browse the web, play Flash like games, and do so comfortably and a bit more socially than a pokey little study away from the TV and company.
For me, an iPad fulfils this pretty well, since I wouldn’t attempt to sit downstairs with the distractions of people and TVs when coding or debugging something complex, and that requires specialist tools which could be jailbroken onto an iPad, but honestly it’s not worth the effort, and I might as well leave the desktop for the hardcore stuff and the iPad for the normalised stuff.
Right now, I spend approximately 70/30 desktop/iPad time but mostly because I’ve been doing a lot of coding where design wasn’t particularly required (no ‘electric paper’ requirement), where it required working in PHP+MySQL… this all says desktop.