Solaera Web Design -- Maryland Web Design for Small Businesses

The iPad really seems to have the design and programming communities divided into two camps — “The iPad is God” and “The iPad is Satan.” These arguments are, for the most part, grounded in the question of who the device is targeted for.

Those who believe it is a bad thing are the self-proclaimed geeks, the ones who had hoped the iPad would provide levels of functionality not yet seen in the computing industry. They are primarily disappointed because it did not, in their eyes, live up to the hype that was generated for it, because it does not really seem to present anything new.

Those who believe it is a good thing seem to come at the argument from an entirely different angle. From Usability Post:

Another mistake people are making is assuming that the device was made for them. It probably wasn’t. Most people don’t know what a Web “browser” is, they think the little Internet Explorer icon on their desktop is the “Internet”. These people have a computer at home but they don’t really need most of it. They struggle with it to just do very basic tasks, like show the latest photos they took to their friends. This is the real mass market, and the iPad is an ideal device for them.

From Astheria:

The problem here, is the people doing the grumbling. We (geeks) aren’t Apple’s target audience with the iPad…Think of your parents. They probably aren’t terribly tech savvy, but you buy them a laptop anyway. A laptop is a very powerful device even with average hardware specs, you can do a lot with it. But the ability to do a lot comes at the price of reduced usability. Introducing more choices means more mental hurdles to jump. To us (the geeks), these hurdles are skipped, we’re used to computers and we don’t even think when using most basic functionality. The iPad removes all of these choices, and as a result, increases the inherent usability of the device for those who normally have to jump those hurdles.

From JasonGraphix:

It’s a cheap alternative to buying a “real” laptop for those who just browse the web and check email and it’s way sexier than any netbook on the market. Assuming you get the 3G model, it’s cheaper access to the internet than cable or DSL for folks who only have one computer with the added benefit of being able to take it with you. Remember, people like your parents (or mine at least) don’t have fancy iPhones with data plans. They do however have computers; usually PCs that are already obsolete with an outdated version of Windows with plenty of viruses and therefore are always in need of tech support…from people like us.

Most of these posts that I have been seeing are from people whom I respect as voices in their industry and people who are making something along the lines of a legitimate point. I don’t entirely disagree with the idea that the iPad is a simplified version of computing; what I disagree with is the idea that seems to be underlying these sorts of posts. These people seem to be excited about the iPad solely because of its capacity to dumb computers down, not because of any forward momentum it offers. The UP article goes on to add:

Another criticism I see is that it’s a very closed device. From all the negative feedback, this one bears real weight. However, I don’t think this will negatively affect the sales of iPad.

That’s not really the question, is it? The question of whether Apple has made something that will sell well is immaterial — Apple devices are expertly advertised to the point that they have very intelligent people whipped into a fervor over it. The question is — where is it helping us to go? And the answer really seems to be, “Nowhere in particular.”

Kyle Weems at CSSquirrel has put this the best of any post I’ve seen so far.

Really? Are you patting yourself on the back that much about how awesome you are that you think it’s still 1999 and we’re logging onto the Internet via a series of loud angry screeches? (Oh dialup modems, how I don’t miss you.) Virtually everyone (in America, at least) uses browsers on a very regular basis. Over 350 million people use Facebook. There’s been these little instant messaging programs with names like MSN or gTalk for a long, long time now. My friend’s grandparents use Skype to talk to their friends in other countries.

What these people lack isn’t a taste for the features we geeks have been talking about. What they lack is the terminology for it. My mom isn’t going to say she wants “multitasking.” She is, however, going to want to have her browser open to look at websites while having access to her IM program to chat with family and friends.

That basic pair of tasks: browsing + chat, does not exist on the iPad. That is a single example that fits the everyday life of millions of people. To tell me that some sort of mythical upper class are the only ones who want to do that is to live a magical life in Narnia, where your friends are mostly talking animals; the majority of which lack opposable thumbs.

The assessment that the iPad is a breakthrough because it commands a market share viewed as unable to comprehend laptops strikes me as somewhat elitist, and not only that, but (as Weems points out) it seems to actually cut off avenues which might make that market share even more likely to be involved. It’s not an attitude I like, and while it’s no doubt been around in regards to many technological releases for years now, the fact that it is receiving such heavy emphasis regarding a device billed as being the computing wave of the future does definitely bother me.

Not only that, but as Mark Pilgrim points out in his post about it at Dive Into Mark, this wave of the future also has the ability to make a major dent in the future of the industry:

Now, I am aware that you will be able to develop your own programs for the iPad, the same way you can develop for the iPhone today. Anyone can develop! All you need is a Mac, XCode, an iPhone “simulator,” and $99 for an auto-expiring developer certificate. The “developer certificate” is really a cryptographic key that (temporarily) allows you (slightly) elevated access to… your own computer. And that’s fine — or at least workable — for the developers of today, because they already know that they’re developers. But the developers of tomorrow don’t know it yet. And without the freedom to tinker, some of them never will.

What it comes down to is that the iPad may turn out to be a tremendous success from a business standpoint, and may provide some revitalization to the print industry as it is occasionally billed to do, which I would not be averse to in the slightest. But the attitude that I am seeing it engender in the sort of communities I follow suggests to me (and those who know me will be shocked to hear me say this about an Apple product) that it is not at all a step forward from a computing standpoint. It is, in fact, a big iPhone with a rabid fan club. There is nothing, in principle, wrong with producing a big iPhone, but marketing it as a step forward when it is not is, quite possibly, detrimental.

My brother recently made a comment suggesting that he found it hard to read discussions of the recent movie Avatar because, despite its tremendous success, everyone seems to “feel the need to apologize for it.” I’m noticing a similar tendency with the iPad — and in both cases, it seems to be because those who like it wish to cover up its flaws before anyone can notice.

If something’s flaws require this many pre-emptive strikes, maybe it is not, in fact, quite the gold mine it was billed as. Just sayin’.