data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/469b9/469b9ee7828e2712fa0fa102f04cb11166616a4e" alt=""
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.