iPad is for Kids

A month has passed since the sensational debut of the iPad, and some people are starting to wonder if the fuss is sustainable. Early adopters are loving the iPad even more than the iPhone, but will the mass public follow? My verdict: No, for now.

The iPad’s customers, adults with at least $500 disposable income, have one fatal shortcoming: they understand a new device only as an extension of existing ones. Consider Apple’s past “revolutionary” products: they were, in fact, more likely “evolutional,” fixing big holes in existing devices that few people noticed, in addition to making them beautiful.

• Apple II: brought mainframe computers to our homes.
• iMac: made the existing desktop computers, ugly black boxes, desirable.
• iPod: made the Walkman searchable and configurable.
• iPhone: made smartphones...smart.

The iPad is an anomaly. It does not fix an existing problem. In fact, on the surface, it seems to fix nothing.

• Mobile device: We cannot hold the iPad in one hand, and cannot put it in our pockets. Netbooks have similar screen sizes, similar weights, and built-in keyboards.
• eBook: I am not sure if we want to keep reading texts and PDFs on a glossy screen.
• Movies: If we are at home, we have big LED TVs. If we are out in the streets, we have IMAX theaters. If we are out on the road, we have on-demand movie libraries on the plane.

Sure, the iPad has huge potential. That’s why all of us jumped in and shelled out $500 - $800, right?* Yet we are using it as we did on devices before: reading texts and watching videos. Where did the “potential” part go? I guess a bulk of the users’ frustrations will come from the iPad not making their lives better in any way, or not seeing any of the promised magical moments.

I believe that in the midterm, the fever will fade away and the troubled voices will emerge from Apple believers that Steve Jobs might be over. I do think Steve Jobs is preparing to retire. But it is not because he cannot make smart decisions anymore; it is because he did the most important job— maybe even a mission—in his life: creating a device for future generations.

Almost everything he has done before was aimed at his peers, or paying customers. This time, he made the iPad for the kids. That’s why the iPad is essentially a blank slate. Its real potential is in its nothingness, or in other words, the power to absorb anything. This device is designed for creators, not executors. And who are the best creators? Kids, of course.

Of course, the current iPad is not there yet. It is way too adult—heavy and colorless—for small children. But that is part of Apple’s strategy. How do you bring an expensive magic tablet to a child? By disguising it as an expensive toy for adults. Soon or later, dad will be bored playing with it, and pass it over to his children—and that’s when the real users start to using it for real.

In several years, we will be seeing iPad 2.0, or even 3.0, in a completely different shape. It will be much lighter and “toyish.” It might even look cheaper. But by then, the swarms of teenagers, who had their hands-on experience on the iPad as kids, will start buying the new models with their own money, and will also start creating things.

Unlike the current iPad users who are still seated as the audience and waiting for the show to begin while killing their time reading books and watching movies, the new generation of iPad users will get on the stage and start making magic on the spot. I bet that’s what Steve Jobs is dreaming about. His only hope might be that this day will come before his days are over.

*I have tested, but haven’t bought, the iPad. I bought Kindle instead. That’s what it means to be mentally teenage but intellectually adult.

Comments

[Kofla Olivieri]

You are probably right about them being for a future generation. I don't plan to buy one anytime soon!

[Isao]

...Or wait until V2.0 arrives. No I still won't buy it...

[Account Deleted]

Interesting no doubt. I assume that Chinese is like Japanese, read left to right, when it's vertical, isit read top to bottom? (cultural ignorance for grown ups) : )

[Isao]

Yes, we read top to bottom and left to right - originally we only had the vertical direction but when the horizontal direction was introduced by Western documents, we adopted (just like we do every day). I prefer top to bottom. For some reason it is less pressuring to my eyes.

[Account Deleted]

That is interesting about YOUR eyes and pressure. My Mom was anorexic and bulemic when I was a child and I have often wondered what the real link between the visual disparity that sometimes accompanies the illness (conjoined or not) and things like language and how the brain's hemispheres perceive information.

 

I hope you are well. I had a bee in my bonnet yesterday so I hope my random posting as oppsed to proper editing didn't spam your typepad box.

 

Heidi

 

[Isao]

Hmm, so different parts of our brains might be stimulated depending on the language we use? With Japanese, English, Chinese, and Spanish on the horizon, I might be overstimulating my brain. No wonder I always feel sleepy..

[Heidi]

One of the literary gems I found, if you get into literary and linguistic archaeology was all about Homonym acquisition, it would only be a Marxist reading if one connected it with dialectical materialism or a deterministic reading or rendering (to tear) of History. Oh, but this bit reminds me of why I had a proverbial cow about the supposed perversion of purity of a blond James Bond...and now we are back to Dr. Who and time slippage. I did finally catch up with the new series and was tickled about the Bond gendered discourse parallel with David Tennants own Scottish Heritage. It also makes me wonder about Eccelston's fear of type casting. Be Well. Heidi

[Isao]

Admittedly never having watched Dr.Who, judging from the stills (and reviews) Eccelston was a perfect casting... Because he isn't making good movies nowadays (where did Jude, Elizabeth, and With or Without you go?), he should have focused on making a great Dr.Who...shame.

[Account Deleted]

I had never heard of him until 2007 or 08. Ironically, I had been having a cow to find a movie he was in back in 2001, The Invisible Circus. I don't think he's a bad actor actually. I did love the Susan Cooper Dark is Rising series when I was young, and he had the villain's role. I think that was 04 or 05. Which Elizabeth was he in? I would have to go to imdb to find out. But have you noticed all the freaking faux Freudian porn news in the past week? I refuse to put it all on my blog but if you happen to have any news sites you recommend, please pass them along to me. I am reading and looking in all the wrong places it seems.

[Fran]

I can asure you that in my place the ipad is the best toy for my kids, but it is very important to choose the apps for them.

I got a blog that is being publicating apps for kids:

Http://ipadisforkids.blogspot.com