I was very much against the iPad after seeing the Apple Event (mainly because of multi tasking), but after a few days of thinking about it. I have changed my tune. This blog I think is the best writeup I have seen on what the iPad really is, and what it means to the future of computing.

http://speirs.org/blog/2010/1/29/future-shock.html

This is the part of the blog that I really loved:

"The tech industry will be in paroxysms of future shock for some time to come. Many will cling to their January-26th notions of what it takes to get "real work" done; cling to the idea that the computer-based part of it is the "real work".

It's not. The Real Work is not formatting the margins, installing the printer driver, uploading the document, finishing the PowerPoint slides, running the software update or reinstalling the OS.

The Real Work is teaching the child, healing the patient, selling the house, logging the road defects, fixing the car at the roadside, capturing the table's order, designing the house and organising the party.

Think of the millions of hours of human effort spent on preventing and recovering from the problems caused by completely open computer systems. Think of the lengths that people have gone to in order to acquire skills that are orthogonal to their core interests and their job, just so they can get their job done."

so whats your point

whether the OS is in your palm, in your lap, or on your desk, the person still needs to know how to operate the OS.

So they're arguing that Apple's closed system is a good thing only because you don't waste as much time?

I agree that it makes thing simple, but they're stretching it pretty thin.

Sorry, but the iPad just isn't good. It might be something that evolves into something decent years down the line, but the thing that's releasing in 60-ish days will be a giant waste of money that mainly trendy douche's will buy.  Just about everything the iPad does for you, the iPhone does just as well, better, or the iPad does do better but doesn't justify the price difference.

Now the Courier, that looks like it has an insane amount of potential, the kind of potential we all thought the iPad had on January 25th.

Okay, but the consumer might have other thoughts, still I don't see the Ipad beating Apple's own Macbook.

For one thing its ability to be applied to these tasks is less than that of an open computer because it badly lacks flexibility. The lack of multitasking combined with the restriction on programs leads to it having far fewer plausible uses.

I can see where the guy is coming from I just don't think this product is what will pull it off.

I have talked to quite a few people about the iPad since it was announced, and I have seen a fairly consistent view from a pretty reasonable cross-section emerge. Everyone seems to think that the iPad is a cool device, and that 10 to 20 years from now everyone will own a tablet-PC which will have real-world work applications, but they see no reason to own an iPad today; and there is a pretty uniform consensus that it is simply too expensive to buy without any real purpose at this point in time.

Now, I want to be clear that the majority of these people either own an iPhone or have the intention of getting one as their next phone so it is not as if there is some sort of cynical Apple hate going on. What I think is the difference between the iPhone and the iPad is that people saw an immediate use for the iPhone because it could replace 3 devices (Phone, MP3 player, PDA) which each can cost roughly the same as the iPhone.

I don’t doubt that the iPad will sell well, but I think that most people are going to take a wait-and-see approach; and see if it translates into a product that has a use in their life.

This article is less about the iPad, and more about what it means to the future of computing. Apple has successfully turned a multipurpose device (140,000 apps at the moment) into something that needs virtually no tech support, crashes almost never, and always has the correct hardware configuration to run any of those 140,000 apps.

If this was taken to the next level... say, you built a 24" desktop display with this in it, and you allowed more then one app to run at once (something OS 4.0 might have in it), and employed it in an office environment, think of the money you would save.

Let's say you had 1000 people in your office. You would:

Save the cost of 1000 anti virus programs.
No longer would IT departments need to worry about what software is installed on desktops.
You could cut your tech support staff to probably 1.
Save on the cost of hardware (I can see something like this being cheaper, and lasting longer)

The iPhone OS as it is today can not take the place of an Office environment PC, but what Apple is putting in place on the software side, should make people like Microsoft and Intel VERY uncomfortable and people who just want to do there jobs VERY happy.

People have been talking about PC's as an appliance for years. SO far, the closest we could get is the hardware is so cheep, you can buy one, use it until it's old, and throw it away for a new one. That does not make a PC an appliance, it just makes it cheep. What Apple is on the path to do, is what so many people envisioned years ago.

This is why the article is called "Future Shock". It's the start of a world where computers in peoples homes and offices are far different then they are today, and most tech savvy individuals are having a hard time predicting what there place in it will be.

lol, do you have an iPhone?  I have apps that crash all the time.  Some are piddly little stupid games, some are major apps like Facebook or Google.

And then there's Safari, I don't think there's one session I've had where it hasn't crapped out on me (crash, freeze, ect).  The only thing I use safari for is looking up recipes at the grocery store and Google and Safari always fails some way in both of those.

I don't know if you drank the Apple Cool-Aid or just haven't played with an iPhone but they aren't the sunshine and rainbows Apple makes you think they are.  Don't get me wrong, they aren't bad but they aren't crash and bug free by far.  I have just as many problems with my iPhone as I do my PC.

I get what the article is saying.  In theory a closed system should be better because everything is the same but the harsh reality is that it just doesn't work in the real world.  Almost every business needs something more than a mail client and an Office type program, they need custom programs doing custom things.  If everything they need custom needs to be approved through Apple, that just isn't going to fly.

-edit-

Also, every good company should have a good IT guy that makes all the work involved with PC's invisible to the user.  Sure, he may hate you for making him work, but he's better than some smarmy Mac Genius every company would have to hire.

I'm not a fanboy of Apple, but I do find I get excited about their products. I'm sorry to say, but a sleek sexy exterior is a plus. And I'm amazed at how many big name companies just can't seem to get that. HP's upcoming tablet looks like it's already 5 years older than the iPad just from how bulky it looks compared to Apple's offering.

With that said, it's time to stop rewarding Apple for products that are severely restricted. I fought against getting the original iPhone, due to it's limitations. But I ended up getting it, and don't regret it. To this day, I still love messing with the touchscreen. And how it responds. I've yet to upgrade to newer iPhones, for I think 3G is overrated and won't pay $10 more for slightly better than Edge speeds. I also won't pick up a newer model, since Apple is content to release incremental upgrades each year. Some upgrades, which should've been part of the original phone to begin with. I mean no MMS for almost 3 years? Are you kidding me Apple?

But then why should Apple try harder? Why give us the most basic of functions (Copy and paste) out the gate, when people ate up your product any way? Why not wait to announce this feature almost three years later and act like you did us all a favor. But with the iPad, I think they really spit in our faces.

A giant iPod Touch. I think it's sexy as all hell, and to be honest a bigger touchscreen that'll run my apps? I like it. And I was in the market for a e-reader, but couldn't bring myself to buy a one trick pony for $400. The iPad is only slightly more $$, and does more. But the problem is, the 'more' that it does, isn't better than what I already have.

The backlit screen isn't good for reading. Multitasking, non-existent. The 'best way to surf the web' doesn't even have flash support (knock flash all you want, but you can't tell me this is the best way to see the net if you don't support it.) because your in some pissing contest with them and refuse to support it. With so many features missing, it's obvious the iPad 2.0 is the one to keep any eye out for. For like I said, while I enjoy the look of the iPad and the idea of a bigger screen, I'm still insulted Apple is passing off this thing like it's the best technology they've ever worked on. When in fact it's the same tech we've had since '07, only larger.

Shame too. I hate laptops. I hate how high the keyboard is. I hate the crappy battery life. I don't like them at all. I can see myself kicking back on the couch with a tablet like this. But I know if I cave, Apple will release (Perhaps even as early as late 2010) a revised version of the iPad with the features that should've been in the first model.

@ twesterm

Is approval really such a barrier? Apples approving almost 10,000 apps a month. My employer has it's own app, our content management server has a client app. Custom apps seem pretty easy to make and get approved to me. I think that the amount of control Apple exerts over the App Store is highly overstated.

I thought this thread was going to be about students transforming 100 lbs of textbooks into 1.5 lbs of iPad. As a digital distro cheerleader, I'm excited at the prospect of rich content books and periodicals being offered online.