512 Pixels

The New York Times has a neat, Flash-based interactive page showing the insides of the iPad. It really is a battery with a computer strapped to it.

Jason Snell, bringing some common sense to recent Apple news:

First, it’s absolutely appropriate for people to dislike specific strategic moves Apple makes. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them myself, but I think I understand why Apple is making them. (For example, I understand why Apple dumped Macworld Expo. I don’t necessarily agree with that decision, but I do understand why the company made it.)

Second, Apple is neither a charity nor a public utility. It’s a profit-making corporation with a whole lot of shareholders and billions of dollars in the bank. Apple exists to make money. Yes, under the guidance of Steve Jobs, its mission is to change the world by making innovative and exquisitely designed technology products—but that mission ultimately serves the purpose of making money.

It’s not that big of a deal that Apple is going after Adobe and Google. It’s just business.

After Apple unveiled the iPad back in January, almost everyone I know asked me if I was going to buy one. My answer was usually a jumbled thought about not needing a third device.

Not wanting a device and not being excited about it are two different things. In the months leading up the its release, I was excited about it. More so, I was excited about seeing what app developers were going to do with extra screen size and power.

As the release day drew to an end and I read more reviews of the device I caved, drove to the Apple Store and plunked down some money for the 16GB Wi-Fi model. (Major props to my forgiving wife.) Here are my thoughts on Apple’s newest creation.

Hardware

The iPhone and the Mid–2007 iMac kicked off Apple’s current love affair with smooth, slick aluminum coupled with glass-covered panels with thick black borders. The design language they introduced with those products can now be found on Apple’s notebooks, and it’s embodied in the iPad. In many ways, the iPad reminds me of an iMac — both machines are defined by their large glass-covered displays. What lives behind the screen is easily forgotten.

The glass gets pretty greasy after just a few minutes of use, and the reflections at certain angles are blinding. However, the super-bright display can cut through even the nastiest of fingerprints and reflections. In fact, it’s the brightest display I think I’ve ever used. I’m using it at about 4 clicks above the darkest setting, and in some situations, that’s even too bright for my taste. The only time I’ve cranked it all the way up was while using it outside in pretty direct sunlight.

There is no up or down on the iPad. No wrong way or right way to hold it. The OS and most of the apps don’t care how it’s oriented. It’s a clean break from the desktop computer that is always the same, no matter what the content requires.

Unlike other devices I’ve owned (including iPhones), I use a case with my iPad. I opted for the Incase Convertible Book Jacket. It offers protection, can double as a stand and stays shut with a Moleskine-esque band. It isn’t perfect, but carrying a sheet of glass in my backpack makes me nervous. Additionally, the case makes it easier to use it while laying on the couch, as it keeps the device from sliding on my jeans.

Even in the case, it never gets hot. After playing a racing game for 30 minutes, it was barely warm. It’s pretty incredible. I’d almost like my iPad to get warm more often so I know it’s actually working. That, coupled with the complete lack of noise or humming, makes the iPad seem even mure futuristic. Like most groundbreaking Apple products, it doesn’t have a fan — think of how magical the G4 Cube and the iMac G3 still seem.

The lack of heat and noise is impressive in a device that is so thin.

Battery life is incredible. Simply incredible.

Finally, it would have been nice to see an SD card slot. I use it on my MacBook Pro all the time, but I can’t bring myself to order the SD card adaptor from Apple quite yet.

Software

As a former iPhone owner, I found the iPad interface amazingly easy to use, but Apple has added a lot to the OS that takes advantage of the bigger screen and additional power the iPad offers.

An obvious example is how many apps display additional info in landscape mode, and display content with no window chrome or menus in portrait mode. (Oddly Apple’s Pages app does the opposite. I suppose it’s to make the keyboard dock they sell more viable.)

A huge complaint of mine is that the icons on the home screen shift when the iPad changes orientation. It really screws with muscle memory, and makes me hunt down icons when I’m in portrait mode, since I use mine in landscape most of the time. Apple needs to fix it.

I can’t emphasize how impressed I am with what the developer community has built for this device in such a short period of time. Apps that I use on multiple platforms (like Things, Evernote and Instapaper) just feel so much better on the iPad.

A lot of third-party apps (and apps like Contacts and Calendars) are designed to look like the real objects they replace. It’s an odd trend, and I’m not sure I am in love with it. Virtual bookcases and sticky notes just aren’t as effective as their physical inspirations.

Text Input

I’m a keyboard guy. I have an Apple Extended II keyboard setup at home and at work. As awesome as my Magic Mouse is, my goal is to touch it as little as possible while working.

That said, I really like the keyboard on the iPad. But only in landscape mode. In portrait, the keys are too small for me comfortably use, but the landscape keyboard is just right. When you toss in auto-correction, it’s really quite fast.

I haven’t paired my iPad to a bluetooth keyboard, but it seems like a good solution for long typing sessions. I just don’t see the need at this point. Even typing this review on the iPad wasn’t bad enough for me to go grab a keyboard. Granted, I’ve been working on over the course of a week, not all at once.

How I Use It

Apple’s biggest problem with selling the iPad isn’t the device itself — it’s the fact that the iPad doesn’t fill any holes in the product line. There’s not much of a gap between the iPhone and the MacBook, purpose-wise.

I find myself using my iPad in two primary ways: taking notes in meetings, and reading web and email content at home. In both cases, the iPad is lighter and more accessible than my 15-inch MacBook Pro. I do most of my heavy-duty tasks at work at my desk, so if I go out to take care of something, my iPad usually goes with me, not my notebook.

Netflix has also been pretty sweet on the device.

The Future

With OS 4 coming in the fall, it’s obvious the iPad’s future is exciting. As more developers rework their apps for the device, it’s usefulness will continue to improve.

The biggest question of all when it comes to the iPad is this — can it revolutionize the computer industry? I’m not sure it can.

I think it can replace the desktop for some users who just surf, email and look at photos, the iPad is a compelling alternative.

Of course, since the iPad is dependent on iTunes, it makes it more difficult to think of it as a stand-alone machine.

For another class of users, the desktop computer cannot be replaced at this point. People who use computers to create will see their iPads as secondary devices for light tasks, note taking and media playback. That’s where I am with it. All in all, it’s a great device with lots of promise, but it’s far from being as revolutionary as the Macintosh was in 1984. No matter what Apple says.

Update: Check out my thoughts after traveling with Apple’s tablet device in my bag — without a laptop along for the ride.

Steve Jobs, in an email to Tao Effect’s Greg Slepak:

We’ve been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.

I’m not one to put a stamp of approval on everything Jobs says, but I think he is right on the money on this.

Arnold Kim:

iLounge, however, also noted that in iPhone 4’s Safari application, Apple has removed the “Google” branding from the search button and simply replaced it with “Search”. While seemingly a minor detail, Apple has been said to be in discussions with Microsoft to replace Google as the default search engine on the iPhone. If this were to happen, Google would likely still be a user enable-able option.

This, coupled with Steve Jobs’ bit about search not being “where it’s at” on mobile devices can’t be rubbing Google the right way.

Loren Brichter:

I’m happy to say that as of today Twitter is the proud owner of Tweetie - and I’m joining their mobile team and starting work on turning Tweetie.app into Twitter.app, for iPhone and iPad.

Holy crap. This could be a big blow to third-party apps, who may find it difficult to compete with an “official” Twitter app.

Kevin Lynch:

First of all, the ability to package an application for the iPhone or iPad is one feature in one product in Creative Suite. CS5 consists of 15 industry-leading applications, which contain hundreds of new capabilities and a ton of innovation. We intend to still deliver this capability in CS5 and it is up to Apple whether they choose to allow or disallow applications as their rules shift over time.

Secondly, multiscreen is growing beyond Apple’s devices. This year we will see a wide range of excellent smartphones, tablets, smartbooks, televisions and more coming to market and we are continuing to work with partners across this whole range to enable your content and applications to be viewed, interacted with and purchased.

Hmm.

Chris Ziegler knocks this one out of the park.

Since the introduction of the iPhone in January 2007, the platform hasn’t allowed Flash content to play in the browser — or anywhere else for that matter. Apple has always cited Flash’s performance as the problem. True, it’s performance is abysmal. Additionally, Flash is not an open standard, as it requires property software to both create and view content.

But Flash’s penetration on the desktop is virtually 100%. It’s a huge thing to ignore, and Apple has taken a lot of flack for it. Some of the flack is a bit unfair, since many other mobile handsets cannot play Flash content at this time. It’s only in beta for Android and WebOS, while Windows Phone 7 devices will lack Flash support once it hits shelves later this year.

However, until yesterday’s OS 4 announcement, Apple allowed native apps to be built using Flash, then converted to native binaries. In fact, Adobe is pushing this ability in the next version of Flash.

Gruber explains why he thinks Apple pulled the plug on such app development:

So what Apple does not want is for some other company to establish a de facto standard software platform on top of Cocoa Touch. Not Adobe’s Flash. Not .NET (through MonoTouch). If that were to happen, there’s no lock-in advantage. If, say, a mobile Flash software platform — which encompassed multiple lower-level platforms, running on iPhone, Android, Windows Phone 7, and BlackBerry — were established, that app market would not give people a reason to prefer the iPhone.

And, obviously, such a meta-platform would be out of Apple’s control. Consider a world where some other company’s cross-platform toolkit proved wildly popular. Then Apple releases major new features to iPhone OS, and that other company’s toolkit is slow to adopt them. At that point, it’s the other company that controls when third-party apps can make use of these features.

Lee Brimelow, a Flash platform evangelist, wrote:

By now you have surely heard about the new iPhone 4.0 SDK language that appears to make creating applications in any non-Apple-approved languages a violation of terms. Obviously Adobe is looking into this wording carefully so I will not comment any further until there is an official conclusion.

He then goes on to comment:

This has nothing to do whatsoever with bringing the Flash player to Apple’s devices. That is a separate discussion entirely. What they are saying is that they won’t allow applications onto their marketplace solely because of what language was originally used to create them. This is a frightening move that has no rational defense other than wanting tyrannical control over developers and more importantly, wanting to use developers as pawns in their crusade against Adobe. This does not just affect Adobe but also other technologies like Unity3D.

(I would like to note that he titled his post “Apple Slaps Developers In The Face.” I read it as “Apple Slaps Adobe In The Face.” Also, after he argues that no one at Apple can post on blogs, so we don’t know how most Apple employees really feel, he turned off comments, saying “Comments disabled as I’m not interested in hearing from the Cupertino Comment SPAM bots.”)

His post comes on the heels of Adobe’s recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

Additionally, to the extent new releases of operating systems or other third-party products, platforms or devices, such as the Apple iPhone or iPad, make it more difficult for our products to perform, and our customers are persuaded to use alternative technologies, our business could be harmed.

I don’t think the ban on Flash-to-iPhone apps will hurt Adobe that badly, but having Apple leading the HTML5 bandwagon sure might.

While it’s easy — and justifiable — to dismiss anything Lee Brimelow writes on the subject, this part raises an interesting concern:

Many of Adobe’s supporters have mentioned that we should discontinue the Creative Suite products on OS X as a form of retaliation. Again, this is something that Adobe would never consider in a million years. We are not looking to abuse our loyal users and make them pawns for the sake of trying to hurt another company. What is clear is that Apple most definitely would do that sort of thing as is evidenced by their recent behavior.

I don’t see Apple’s actions as abusive from a user standpoint — if anything, the company is trying to protect them from shitty, half-done apps. More so, they are protecting their platform, as Gruber pointed out.

Of course, Brimelow is all rainbows and puppies when it comes to Adobe. The ever-comical John Welch fired back on Twitter, reminding us of Adobe’s recent, similar actions:

So tell me, if Adobe’s so innocent, why’d they threaten MS in 2007 and force Microsoft to remove native PDF generation from OFfice 2007? That’s not a very ethical thing to do. What about all the lies and misdirection the Acrobat team has fed their Mac customers over the years? That’s not very ethical. Oh, one more, minor thing: when the flash team says their spec is open, that’s incorrect: your DRM forces the Adobe plugin. You may want to change how you PR the “openness” of the Flash spec. After all, you’d not want to be unethical, now would you?

The ethical bit aside, Apple is taking a risk by pissing off Adobe. The Mac is still wildly regarded as the industry-standard when it comes to the creative arts. Not having Adobe’s products in the fold would seriously hurt that position.

But Apple never takes uncalculated risks. They know a large chunk of Adobe’s profits come from Mac software sales. They know Adobe can’t afford to pull their software from the Mac over what is a relatively small thing.

I really think this whole SDK thing will blow over before we know it. That would be best for everyone.

A piece by Stephen Coles highlighted with lots of thoughtful input, unlike some of Apple’s decisions in the iPad’s UI.

Here are the details. iPhone 3GS and current iPod touch models fully supported, older devices fragmented. Coming to iPad in the fall. Highlights include multitasking, improved Mail, iBooks and Apple-supplied ads for developers to use in their free apps.

Gruber tosses his guesses into the ring:

iPhone OS 4.0 will only be for the iPhone and iPod Touch, not the iPad. The iPad, like any such project at Apple was developed by a team that was locked away in secrecy, so the team working on iPhone OS 4.0 only found out about the iPad when the rest of us did, on January 27; Dalrymple has it exactly right: OS 4.1 will be the unified OS for all these devices. (My spidey-sense tells me that iPhone OS 4 is going to drop support for first-generation iPhones and iPod Touches, and some of the features may only be available on the 3GS and this year’s new models.)

I’m pretty much in agreement. I am curious to see what the “unified OS” would look like. The UI advances Apple made with the iPad wouldn’t scale down very well, I don’t think. I think the time has come for first-gen iPhone owners to upgrade.