iPad is not revolutionary
Issue date: 2/10/10 Section: Letters to the Editor
In the Feb. 3 edition of The Statesman there was an article regarding the newly announced Apple product, the iPad. This article declared this new product "revolutionary." The author of that article is, as she admitted, an avid Apple fan. Be that as it may, I thought it would be fitting for me -- a self-declared Apple hater -- to put in my proverbial "two cents."
The pro-Apple rank and file has been ranting about how the iPad is a technological step forward. I ask them this simple question: How? The Feb. 3 article describes the device as a more advanced iPod Touch. This may be true, but that really depends on how you define "advanced." The iPad is well over twice the size of the Touch. Good luck fitting that in a pocket or purse. It's larger display, while admittedly attractive, is made of unprotected glass. So, the iPad is a bulkier and more fragile version of the Touch. That's not what comes to mind when I think about innovation.
One thing that I do commend Apple for (believe me, not something I generally do) is keeping the starting version of the iPad relatively affordable. I was expecting it to cost no less that $600 for the base price, but it has been announced that the most basic 16 GB version will cost $499. Even so, this positive development is negated by the fact that the most basic iPad will be almost useless out of the box. To take the device to it's full potential, a user will need to purchase the iPad 3G. This version of the 16GB device starts at $629, and maxes out at $829 for the 64GB version. The user will also be required to purchase a service plan exclusively from AT&T. That will cost, according to tech site Engadget.com, $30 a month for an unlimited plan. This price was also lower than I expected, but really, the service plan basically turns the iPad into is a less mobile iPhone that can't make any calls, take any pictures, or record any videos.
The argument that the iPad will out compete the so-called "E-readers," such as the Amazon Kindle and the and the Sony Reader, is also rather weak. Sure the display of the iPad is larger and flashier, but it is lacking in at least two aspects. First, it is significantly heavier than the competition. This could well make it uncomfortable to hold for a long period of time. Second, according to the Jan. 28 edition of the Wall Street Journal, there are doubts that the iPad's pretty screen will function well in high-light environments. That article said that journalists where permitted to preview the iPad only in a dimly lit room where the screen would appear more vibrant. The Amazon Kindle, on the other hand, has proven itself to work best when in direct light. Also, as was mentioned in the Feb. 3 release of The Statesman, the Kindle and the Sony Reader are over $200 cheaper than the lowest version of the iPad.
Apple was having a pretty good run up until now. They brought us the iPod, the iPod Touch, and the iPhone. Now they are trying to make us believe that the iPad is yet another update. The fact is that they have simply enlarged exactly the same technology to an inconvenient size. On top of that, many of the features that have become expected since the release of the iPhone have been altogether eliminated. I'm all for "tablet" technology; I've been very happy with my Gateway tablet laptop for the past four years. However, the iPad is simply not functional enough to live up to the massive hype. However, if you're interested in a flashier, bulkier more fragile version of the three-year-old iPod Touch, then the iPad is the hottest new product for you.
-Alex Risse
The pro-Apple rank and file has been ranting about how the iPad is a technological step forward. I ask them this simple question: How? The Feb. 3 article describes the device as a more advanced iPod Touch. This may be true, but that really depends on how you define "advanced." The iPad is well over twice the size of the Touch. Good luck fitting that in a pocket or purse. It's larger display, while admittedly attractive, is made of unprotected glass. So, the iPad is a bulkier and more fragile version of the Touch. That's not what comes to mind when I think about innovation.
One thing that I do commend Apple for (believe me, not something I generally do) is keeping the starting version of the iPad relatively affordable. I was expecting it to cost no less that $600 for the base price, but it has been announced that the most basic 16 GB version will cost $499. Even so, this positive development is negated by the fact that the most basic iPad will be almost useless out of the box. To take the device to it's full potential, a user will need to purchase the iPad 3G. This version of the 16GB device starts at $629, and maxes out at $829 for the 64GB version. The user will also be required to purchase a service plan exclusively from AT&T. That will cost, according to tech site Engadget.com, $30 a month for an unlimited plan. This price was also lower than I expected, but really, the service plan basically turns the iPad into is a less mobile iPhone that can't make any calls, take any pictures, or record any videos.
The argument that the iPad will out compete the so-called "E-readers," such as the Amazon Kindle and the and the Sony Reader, is also rather weak. Sure the display of the iPad is larger and flashier, but it is lacking in at least two aspects. First, it is significantly heavier than the competition. This could well make it uncomfortable to hold for a long period of time. Second, according to the Jan. 28 edition of the Wall Street Journal, there are doubts that the iPad's pretty screen will function well in high-light environments. That article said that journalists where permitted to preview the iPad only in a dimly lit room where the screen would appear more vibrant. The Amazon Kindle, on the other hand, has proven itself to work best when in direct light. Also, as was mentioned in the Feb. 3 release of The Statesman, the Kindle and the Sony Reader are over $200 cheaper than the lowest version of the iPad.
Apple was having a pretty good run up until now. They brought us the iPod, the iPod Touch, and the iPhone. Now they are trying to make us believe that the iPad is yet another update. The fact is that they have simply enlarged exactly the same technology to an inconvenient size. On top of that, many of the features that have become expected since the release of the iPhone have been altogether eliminated. I'm all for "tablet" technology; I've been very happy with my Gateway tablet laptop for the past four years. However, the iPad is simply not functional enough to live up to the massive hype. However, if you're interested in a flashier, bulkier more fragile version of the three-year-old iPod Touch, then the iPad is the hottest new product for you.
-Alex Risse
Be the first to comment on this story