On the Launch iPad

By now you no doubt have heard of Apple’s launch of the iPad, it’s entry into the ultraportable computer market. Given the company’s track record in groundbreaking products I’m optimistic of it’s chances for success. There are several reasons for this, but even more important than the iPad’s success, is its potential to change how we imagine personal computing and how it might affect the industry. But before I talk about what I think the iPad is and what it might be, let me briefly say what it isn’t.

Apple Flying w/o a Net.

Tech pundits far and wide (and not a few of my tech savvy friends and colleagues) have spent much time criticizing the iPad’s lack of ports, lack of keyboard, etc. Or they harp on the converse: that it is just a big iPod. Both imply that it isn’t a serious or capable machine because it doesn’t have the necessary computer accoutrement. What was immediately obvious to me was that they miss the point. Apple is not interested in netbooks which are shrunk down PC’s that simply add inconvenience to the PC experience: flexibility, complexity, and but in a cramped form factor. Thankfully, this is not the direction Apple decided to go.

It’s not a Big iPod touch. Yes, really.

Apple developed a strong user interface for the compact space afforded by the iPod touch and the iPhone. It’s operating system is by necessity efficient and surprisingly powerful. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by what I can do with my iPhone. But most importantly it is simple making the device easier to use and a more effective tool. This has come at a price: a loss of flexibility and some power. But that is relative. It’s clear that users aren’t interested in battery doors, multitasking, or SD slots. They aren’t interested in being computer geeks. They are interested in doing their work, enjoying their media and playing their games.

The iPad continues this trajectory, but with an important difference: screen real estate. On a superficial level, this quite obviously makes the iPad a big iPod touch. The problem is what would the apps be like in this different form factor? Sure an iPad will run iPod apps at 2X the size, but does anyone really believe that developers will stop there? Apple ported its iWork suite and the apps if they are not fully functional cousins to their Mac OS counterparts, seem to come very close. And that’s the real difference between in the iPad. I could work all day on an iPad because it let’s me do the work I’m trying to do. Scale is an important factor. It changes things.

There Still is No Free Lunch

For all the simplicity and the machine getting out of my way, there is a price to pay. We lose some flexibility and some power depending on the application in question. I can’t have half a dozen dongles hanging off the thing as of yet. So this is clearly not on par with the power and flexibility of a laptop or desktop PC. But sadly this is all many of the iPad’s critics seem to notice. It’s too bad this kind of myopia is neither new, nor unprecedented. The iPod and iPhone all enjoy this distinction. The rest is history.

What Lies Before Us

The real challenge is on developers to see how far they can take this platform. No doubt Apple will be the first first-to-market manufacture but it certainly will not be the last. For all of Ballmer’s grousing, look for the tablet edition of Windows to imitate the iPad environment. We well see more focused computing in the years to come and I’m excited to be alive to witness it.

Buying Some Times

New York Times to Charge Nonsubscribers For Unlimited Use of Its Site – NYTimes.com:

“Executives of The New York Times Company said they wanted to create a system that would have little effect on the millions of occasional visitors to the site, while trying to cash in on the loyalty of more devoted readers. But fundamental features of the plan have not yet been decided, including how much the paper will charge for online subscriptions or how many articles a reader will be allowed to see without paying.

‘This announcement allows us to begin the thought process that’s going to answer so many of the questions that we all care about,’ Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the Times Company chairman and publisher of the newspaper, said in an interview. ‘We can’t get this halfway right or three-quarters of the way right. We have to get this really, really right.’”

(Via The New York Times.)

This is a risky move fraught with danger, but I think it was basically the only move really open to them. A wholesale revamping of their business model to one without advertising would be unfeasible and fatal. The cruise ship simply can’t turn that fast. And the status quo, we know, is killing the paper. As others wiser than I have noted, advertising online is on its way out as a viable funding source for businesses. So this transitional solution is probably the way they have to go.

As Valuable as Air and Costs Just as Much

A large, professional news gathering organization is a huge cost center to pay for and it is of enormous social value. The two direct beneficiaries are an informed general public and the blogosphere where the public reflects on the news. Yet, it is something few that benefit are willing to pay for just like the air we breathe. Unless it’s in a SCUBA tank. Then those of us who desire breathing underwater do, hence the pay wall for committed Times readers.

This all begs the question: Exactly how many of us want to go deep sea diving? I hope enough. If the price is right, I would be one of them. I pay for NPR as a member and I paid for access to the Wall Street Journal Online before the paper became a tainted news property. [Editors should have opinions: the stronger, the better. They should not, however, be propagandists.] If the Times gets the pricing right, they will stabilize a hemorrhaging income source.

Critical But Stable Condition

But this, at best, is a temporary solution. The secular trend in advertising revenue will continue to fall because the underlying reasons for this are not addressed by a pay wall:

  • People don’t trust ads.
  • People ignore ads.
  • People have other sources for the information ads convey.

So if this “solution” works, it will only buy some time for the Times. Pun intended. A real, long term solution is still a ways away.

An Apple a Day

I am certain that this announcement was made at this time for two reasons: 1) to test the waters and acclimate the public to a damaged web product, and 2) to see as print media technology will change over the next year where the opportunities are. We are now in the world of ePaper: Kindles, Nooks, and iPads (or whatever Apple is going to call their tablet). If the Times can create a solid revenue stream in these media for the paper, it may well be the long term solution they are looking for. There are many scenarios for success if ereaders become to print what iPods are to music. We shall see.

Bankers Gone Wild

In an ideal world, this year the Street would acknowledge the public largess by having the sense not to pay bonuses of more than six digits — hey, worker bees need money in order to survive in the high-cost New York City area — and they would make a nice, voluntary contribution to the government that saved it. But the Street isn’t in the gratitude business; it’s in the making-money business.

via Allan Sloan – Let Wall Street run wild, without my money – washingtonpost.com.

It’s obscene to pay bonuses for some of the most colossal failures in banking history.  This is just not right.

Enterprise Halo Effect

Apple Moves Closer to Snow Leopard Release:

“If Apple can pull off this effort, the company will be able to further capitalize on its hot iPhone mobile platform to make inroads against  Research In Motion’s BlackBerry and Microsoft Windows Mobile in enterprise environments.”

(Via eWeek.)

Apple might actually have an executable enterprise strategy here instead of trying to boil the ocean by offering me-too software to established enterprise competitors. Mobile Access Server is an important sign of where Apple might be going with the iPhone platform. Apple is incrementally trying to attack large enterprise akin to the so-called halo effect of the iPhone on Mac sales in the consumer market. Is this Apple setting the stage for Apple to back the iPhone platform in the enterprise? It sounds interesting since they would be replicating Microsoft’s success against mainframe/Unix. Microsoft used Office to weaponize Windows against Unix environments. I think the hardware analog here is Office/iPhone Windows/Xserve.

Worth Every Penny

Mac vs. PC: What You Don’t Get for $699 – BusinessWeek:

“PC makers in the Windows camp have done everything possible to make their products progressively worse by cutting corners to save pennies per unit and boost sales volume. There’s good reason Apple is seeing healthy profits while grabbing market share. It refuses to budge on quality and so charges a higher price. Rather than running ads that seem clever at first but really aren’t, the Windows guys ought to take the hint and just build better computers.”

(Via BusinessWeek.)

How a $699 really costs $1500 but all you really get is $699 worth of computer.

Paying for the Name

Microsoft’s latest ad attacks Mac aesthetics, computing power — RoughlyDrafted Magazine:

“The strangest point of this ad is that Giampaolo didn’t get the portability, battery life, and power he was looking for, he just ended up with a cheap-appearing machine that obscured its real technical limitations under a flashy layer of misleading, specification-oriented marketing, the very thing he thought he was avoiding with HP: buying a brand rather than a computer. And that’s exactly what Microsoft wants people to do: buy its brand rather than a computer that does what they want it to do.”

(Via Roughly Drafted.)

Great summary on why Microsoft can’t even sell itself. It has to sell others. I wonder how Dell or Lenovo feel about this ad.

Most Americans Don’t Blame Obama for Economy

Most Americans Don’t Blame Obama for Economy, Poll Finds – washingtonpost.com:

“The number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama’s election, and the public overwhelmingly blames the excesses of the financial industry, rather than the new president, for turmoil in the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.”

Poll Results

(Via The Washington Post.)

It looks like the public is still in a realistic mood. Still, Obama’s plan needs to start having some effects soon or the public will turn on him.

Doe or Die

An Ultimatum for Carmakers From Obama – NYTimes.com:

“‘And so today, I am announcing that my administration will offer G.M. and Chrysler a limited period of time to work with creditors, unions and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional tax dollars; a period during which they must produce plans that would give the American people confidence in their long-term prospects for success,’ Mr. Obama said.”

(Via NY Times.)

If only private shareholders, particularly institutions, would be so activist, we wouldn’t be in a far better position.