Friday, October 1, 2010

Reinventing the Square Wheel, and Why It Doesn't Work

This article is written in response to The iPad, where it is claimed that Apple's technological imitation of paper will prove world-changing. However, The iPad does not resemble a piece of paper any more closely than does a tablet PC or other touchscreen device, and it resembles a seriously impaired tablet PC much more closely than it does paper.


Figure 1. The iPad compared to other technology. Source: iphonehelp.in

The iPad is no innovation. Thirteen years ago, Apple released a very similar device: the Newton Message Pad. While this device started a revolution, it was, in itself, a failure. This time around, Apple has made many of the same mistakes: a hardware platform which consists of a single primary device with only the bare essentials of accessories and little hope of expandability; a restrictive software platform which guarantees users a limited supply of useful applications; an input method which at first glance seems intuitive, but on further inspection falls short of reasonable usability because of technical shortcomings or misconceptions; and a form factor sitting firmly on the fence between the portability of a smaller device and the usability of a larger one. If the iPad fails to see the same early death as its elder brother, it is through a sheer stroke of careful and deceptive marketing — something which in itself is not rare backing (or fronting) Apple's products.

While the iPad has a touchscreen / pen interface allowing for some degree of writing and drawing (although perhaps seeming like a cheap knock-off when compared to real pen and paper), it fails to address one of paper's major uses: reading. What makes paper so great as a reading technology is its ease on the eyes: any LCD screen performs poorly by comparison. Were this not the case, we would have seen paper be surpassed by the technology of nearly two decades ago: pen computing is nothing new. As excellent a medium as paper has proven, imitation is perhaps not the most sincere form of innovation.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.