Steve Jobs re-invents the portable telly
And at exactly the right moment
Analysis If you don't understand what Apple's iPad is all about, think of it this way: it's a portable TV.
You think we jest? Consider. What we call a TV has long become divorced from its original function: to receive and display broadcast pictures. The process of separation began in the 1980s when we started watching pre-recorded tapes on our VCRs, but is now reaching its peak.
Today, we display content from games consoles, disc players, media extenders that pull content off network-attached storage, videos from the likes of YouTube, photos stored on memory cards, and, increasingly, general internet sites. BBC iPlayer and its like show that even the programmes themselves no longer need by explicitly associated with the process of broadcast by transmission.
In short, the TV in your living room is no longer a television - it's a general-purpose display system. And that's what the iPad is, only portable.
There's nothing inherent in the nature of today's flat-panel TVs that prevent them doing anything the iPad can do. E-books, for instance, are no more than just another form of digital content. All the iPad lacks is a remote control, but then, since it's a handheld device, it doesn't need one. Likewise the TV doesn't need a touch UI - both have the control mechanisms appropriate to them.
But the underlying application - multi-format content display system - is exactly the same.
In other words, the iPad is a portable telly. Not the kind Sir Clive Sinclair envisaged - or, at least, produced - in the late 1970s, but a handheld TV nonetheless.
It's also arguably the first true information appliance. Analysts talked a lot about these devices during the late 1990s, punting them as set-top alternatives to the personal computer that would bring about the so-called 'post-PC age'.
They never did. At that point, the internet hadn't yet become an important everyday tool for the majority of the population, and no one understood then the desire for mobility. And the UIs were generally awful.
One of the few companies that might have made a difference back then was Apple, but it preferred - understandably - to focus its UI talents on its computing line, in particularly the newly introduced iMac.
The iPod took it beyond that market segment into the broader consumer electronics arena, and the iPod Touch and iPhone eventually showed us what a true mobile internet device might be like.
However, both were designed for a specific, pocket-friendly form-factor. The iPad, on the other hand, is the true mobile internet appliance.
Some people will bemoan the iPad's lack of a real keyboard - they can go and buy a netbook or lug a laptop around. Or use Apple's keyboard dock. Others will complain about the lack of a general-purpose file-focused operating system - they can go and use a Windows Tablet PC. Yet more will decide their smartphone is sufficient - this reporter has - and will happily continue to use it for mobile internet and media consumption.
But a lot of folk - and not just the usual suspects - will take a shine to this handy, personal, internet-connected portable telly. A telly that's not restricted to the room it's placed in. A telly you can easily take on holiday with you, or just out to the park.
The TV isn't going away anytime soon. And neither is the iPad. ®
I don't want one either, for the same reasons.
But I *can* see lots of other people wanting one. Bigger than a phone, less faff to pick up and use than a laptop.
Indeed. I don't want one, which has surprised me since I thought I would, but my dad (decidedly stuck in the Victorian era) keeps talking about it.
Thing is, he can use a computer for email and the web, and does a lot of writing in Word - I gave him my old Dell XPS for it. But he's terrified of the desktop. He's afraid of touching things, keeps deleting shortcuts (and accidentally creating new ones) and misplacing files. He has to ask me for advice when he wants to install stuff ("What's DirectX? Don't I already have it?? What's .NET? Why do I need it?" etc etc etc...).
He's a very smart guy, he just has this fear of desktops and folders and menus and system messages and everything that we take for granted.
I gave him an iPod Touch for Xmas a year ago, and he knows what it is - big buttons all on one screen. He gets that. Now he's seen there's a bigger version, there's no stopping him.
And there's your market. People who don't care about the stuff we do, be it flexibility, open-ness, or just user interface. And we'd be pretty outnumbered by them if we all met in a dark alley...
But can the Apple PR department please leave the comments section alone at El Reg, the amount of comments i've read on El Reg about the iFail that read like adverts is annoying, 'Me and my wife will be happily watching video, listening to music and browsing the internet's', please what sort of brain dead idiot comments like that on the interweb, funny enough most of the Apples PR departments comments here are the only comment they have evet made? strange.
Invents Portable Telly?
I've had an Archos 605 WiFi with 160G storage and 800x480 touch screen for 2 years. It works as a "Portable Telly" via Web + Flash, vTuner application (WiFi) and H.264, Xvid, DivX etc files. It's 4.8" so very portable
There are 7" and 10" Arm tablets PMPs too.
The only "advantage" for this seems to be iPhone Apps and eBooks (but with poor battery life for reader). The Battery life is good for Streaming Video/ PMP/Browser. Poor for an eReader by x10.
I'm sure this will be very successful, but there is ABSOLUTELY nothing ground breaking about it. The ChromeOS tablet sounds similar (and also wants to be avoided).
These are very expensive PMP/Personal Video players with Web & Email. If you really need apps get a real netbook and most if not all of iTune iPhone apps then not needed.
At last, someone on El Reg talking sensibly! What the majority of Apple-haters are rather smugly bemoaning is that the iPad isn't a fully-functioning laptop PC and the author of this piece has hit the nail on the head by implying that it isn't intended to be. Like the iPod before it, and the iPhone, it is simply a device for the consumption of mobile media. This is where previous tablets have fallen over, by trying to be all things (i.e. a fully functioning PC) in a mobile form factor. What Apple have cleverly done once again is to focus on a particular lifestyle requirement and put it all into one device. The iPad was never meant to replace a desktop or laptop PC, rather a complement to it. If this is how the iPad is marketed, then I think it will do well.
I would have been tempted to buy one, had I not recently bought a MacBook Pro (and it took a lot of justification to buy a mobile computer). But the price point does make it an attractive proposition.
I'd be interested to see how the iPad does and whether it will succeed in becoming another paradigm shifter that previous Apple products have become. Within a year I predict that other hardware manufacturers will be attempting to follow in Apple's footsteps.