Steve you are the man, but iPad? We need to talk.

A few years ago when I used my iPod Touch to surf the web over a cup of coffee in the morning for the first time I thought:

“Ya know if they made one of these things with a 7 or 8 inch screen I wouldn’t see a need for a laptop.”

I didn’t think it would replace my desktop, but for most day to day tasks it would be perfect.  I’ve used my iPhone 3GS to that end for quite a while.  Even basic photo and video editing is not unreasonable.  I do miss easy access to my desktop files however and the iPhone screen is too small for the job of laptop replacement.

At the time I speculated an Apple tablet would run a flavor of OS X closer to the desktop version then iPhone OS.  Basically a fuller version of OS X with an iPhone interface.  I thought a camera facing the user for video conferencing would be a sure thing.  A screen that would be nearly as border-less as the iPod Touch so it wouldn’t look like a digital picture frame.  I expected some kind of flip over cover that would protect the screen to prevent you from damaging it if you used it as a coaster or laid something under it that could scratch or crack it.  It was likely this cover would double as a prop to hold the device up for use with an optional wireless keyboard for those days when you needed to do a lot of typing.  I felt sure it would not use a dock to synch with a desktop computer.  Instead it would use Bluetooth or 802.11n wireless to handle the task.

Battery life similar to that of a laptop would be acceptable, but something close to 8 hours would do. It does not need to be removable and as is normal OP for Apple I would not expect it.

The last thing I wondered about was what would Apple call it?  Since it would be positioned as a new kind of laptop computer it would probably carry a name something like MacTablet, MacTouch or MacPad in keeping with Apples laptop naming conventions.

Jump ahead to Jan 27, 2010 to the iPad launch.  Apple was clearly not reading my mind as I had thought they always do with their fanboys (or is it the other way around and they submit thoughts for me to consume?).  My first impression was that it looks like a frigging digital picture frame. Guess I was not alone in that interpretation, since they built in that functionality.  My guess is that Steve wanted a nearly edge to edge screen, but discovered that at nearly 10 inches diagonal the touchscreen glass could not take much twisting stress without a rigid border for structural support.

The app interface changes provide access to more complicated features found in desktop apps without losing the ease of use provided by the touch interface. This is, along with price why all of the Windows based tablet devices have failed.  Even as recently as this years CES Microsoft still has not gotten its head around the need for a different interface for mobile touch based devices.

The need to dock with a desktop computer via USB to synch is not good.  Come on Apple let us have wireless synching!  For sharing or importing data from/to non-iTunes/iPhoto apps,  I would like to see a mini or micro USB port integrated into the device. I don’t like the idea of another frigging external adapter to do the job.

No frigging camera! I admit a camera facing the user is not essential, but it would have been a great feature. Clearly Apple is trying to walk a fine line. They want people to buy the iPad, but not at the cost of more profitable Macbook sales. Unit cost was undoubtedly a player as well in the decision to leave out some features.  Plus its following standard Apple sales 101.  Give them some cool stuff this year then trickle out features annually to keep them buying/upgrading. After milking for upgrades/updates for a few years orphan the hardware and start the process all over again. I know this model well as I used to be an Apple IIgs developer.

3G cellular network access was expected, but making the hardware optional in the pricing for the iPad was not. The cost and contract free month to month program is reasonable. I never felt they would give it away or subsidize it like they do the iPhone.  I am surprised it is being provided by AT&T.  While I have no problems with AT&T in my area, I would have thought this would  be the device Apple would use to begin a split away from AT&T.  The inability to use it as a phone is not a surprise.  I never expected nor wanted it to be able to make phone calls.  At best I hoped for Skype or iChat type video conferencing.  Who would want to be seen holding a digital picture frame against their head anyway? Apple probably considered it, but tossed the idea as stupid in conception. Not to mention they would probably lose some iPhone sales.

Battery life of 10 hours sounds pretty good, but I have to wonder.  Ten hours of what?  Surfing?  Video playback?  Book reading?  The way Steve said it did not instill confidence.  He phrased it “We have been able to achieve 10 hours of battery life”. It sounded like he was saying the maximum we haven been able to get out of it was ten hours, as opposed to saying with average use you can expect ten hours.  If it works out to be 8-9 hours in real world use I would not be disappointed, but the way he said it sounded a little weak. It didn’t help listening to Steve’s interview with Walt Mossberg immediately after the event.  Walt  brought up the Kindles battery life of weeks of use and Steve kinda hem-hawed that nobody reads for 10 hours and that you could always just plug it in to charge it. I don’t think I have ever seen Steve appear so unprepared for a question, or provide such a weak answer to something he should have been prepared for. Oh ya, the battery is not removable.

Ok so far it’s not a home run, but pretty close for what it is.  Apple left room for future features as they always do. One thing I really noticed was that everyone from Apple during the event seemed tired. The usual sparkle in Scott’s eye’s was not there and Steve seemed almost muted.  Was this fatigue from endless rehearsal for the event? It just didn’t have the usual sparkle that is characteristic of Apple product launch events.

The last little thing is the name, ‘iPad’.  When Apple renamed ‘.Mac’ to ‘MobileMe’ I thought that surely Steve could not have been involved in that choice. He had to have been on vacation or out sick the day they sent the box labels out to the printers.  He would never choose such a dopey name for their service.  Then along comes the tablet that everyone knows was near and dear to Steve.  I know Steve and his minions spend time looking at YouTube along with television content in the interest of trademark protection if nothing else.  I would imagine that they have a team of people at Apple that do nothing but think of names for future products and look out for unlicensed usage of their trademarks.  Thus it is surprising at their choice of the name iPad for the tablet.  Anyone who has seen the MadTV iPad skit from years ago had to have rolled their eyes and thought “Oh no, you did not name the Jesus tablet the iPad!” during the event.  There comes a time when a marketing gimmick has run it’s course and devices who’s names begin with a lowercase ‘i’ have had their time. Considering this is a new family of devices just let the ‘i’ go.  Now that we have the fundamentals out of the way lets talk about the Pad part of the name.  Even if it had just been called the ‘Apple Pad’ the link to feminine hygiene products would have remained. You have to be brave here and take a different path. As lame as the name ‘Slate’ was in the rumor mill, it was way better then ‘iPad’.

Now that I’ve gotten that off of my chest, I’ll take two 64GB iPad’s to go please.