The Apple iPad
Ok, so it’s been a couple of days since Apple announced the latest gadget that’s going to be “revolutionary,” or perhaps this one is “game changing.” Whatever it is, the iPad, which many had very high hopes for appears to be a big dud.
People have been clamoring for Apple to enter the netbook/tablet market for some time now, at least an hour after the Asus eeePC started gaining popularity. Well, they finally got their wish this past week. Unfortunately, it’s a big dud.
Take an iPhone 3GS, make it bigger, slap a huge bezel around the screen, and take away its ability to make phone calls. Blammo, you now have the iPad. I’ve got so many questions about this thing, and the choices they made in its design, that I’m not entirely sure where to start. How about the CPU? Apple went and designed their own, rather than do something sensible like use the Intel Atom. It boggles the mind. Ok, so it plays HD video. So does the Atom, when outfitted with a proper graphics chip, like the Nvidia ION. Rather than put all that effort into the CPU, they could have done so much more with the hardware. And despite touting it as able to play HD video, it’s got a 4:3 ratio screen, rather than the widescreen aspect ratio it deserves.
No front-mounted camera. Apple loves to trot out the latest iChat video stuff during keynotes. Why not on this thing? I thought it was supposed to be “the netbook, but done right,” or something like that. Then the OS, the iPhone OS? Blech. Multitasking anyone? Sure, I understand their attraction to the fact that it runs iPhone apps out of the box, but that’s bound to be problematic. Consider games for instance – those are designed down to the pixel on the little screen of the iPhone/iPod Touch. Now suddenly they’re on a bigger screen. Is there resolution independence, or will developers be doing hoop jumping to support the iPad? We’ll find out, eventually.
Then there’s the price. Wow. $500 for a 16GB tablet that’s only got wifi? Yikes. Want that 3G? No problem, just add another $130 to the price of an already overpriced gadget. If you wan the big dog model (64GB) with 3G, that’s going to run you a cool $829. Oh yeah, and then you still get to pay the monthly recurring charges for your carrier’s data plan. Since it’s free of contract pricing and you can start and stop at-will, why not just simply sell it unlocked?
Lots of folks are up in arms that it’s yet another device bound for AT&T’s network, but I completely understand (and agree with) the choice. You want to minimize your build costs to maximize your profitability. Just like the iPhone, that means GSM 850/900/1800/1900 and UMTS 850/1900/2100, guaranteeing your ability to sell the product pretty much anywhere globally. Especially perturbing to many is that it isn’t available for use on the Verizon network, for the reasons I just gave. Honestly folks, everyone’s moving to LTE-based networks, even Verizon, so you’ll just have to wait a few more years, then you can get your iLove on the VzW network.
Last, but most certainly not least – the adapters. Want to pull pictures from your digital cam into iPad? There’s an adapter for that. You still need the special dock cable to connect it to anything as well. I get it – I understood the use of the dock connector back in the day. It’s time to abandon it in favor of the Micro-USB connector that everything else is either using, or moving to. My Nokia E72 uses it, as do all the newer BlackBerrys, as does the Kindle, as do many newer digital cameras. Join the rest of us in the land of “only 1 cable for all these devices.”
Will people flock to this thing? Probably. But, I just don’t see the attraction. Maybe after 3 or 4 revisions it will be cooked enough, but in its current state, it needs more time in the oven.
