04 Feb 10 Apple iPad – Guess the review – What can we learn from history?

Apparently Apple has launched its iPad – news has even made it to Worcestershire! Apple fans love it. Geeks hate it. Why  is that so predictable? Or is it? I’m just predicting that’s what the response will be. I haven’t read a single review yet, so before I do, based entirely on twenty years of Mac use, here is what I think the conclusion will be:

If history is anything to go by, the iPad will be innovative in its own way – but not by some other people’s definition of innovative. It will probably disappoint the techno-purists because it will use whatever edge it has to satisfy some kind of mass market potential (and critically it won’t be Microsoft or Linux). And the same techno purists will be quick to point out that some gizmo or other does some or all of it’s functions better and uses some or other connectivity or processor or screen that ‘rocks’ (said in the way only geeks can pronounce it) while the iPad ’sucks man’ (again said in John Major meets Michael Moore geek accent). It will extend the Apple ethos of the Digital Hub making it a natural add-on to the rest of the i-suite of things out there, which will again anger someone for some reason.

Basically, it will infuriate the anti Apple brigade simply because it will be made by Apple. That has always been enough to bring out IT geeks the world over to burn effigies of Steve Jobs.

Steve Wozniac, co-founder of Apple back in the day and ‘not bitter at all’ exile these days, will appear in some Tech mag and tell us how he came up with the idea in the first place, back in the 1980’s and it would be much better if it employed some unpronounceable concept that only he understands.

Over time, the release version will prove to be underpowered and comparatively slow, lacking in memory and it will be unstable until about version 1.3. This is because everything Apple make is a great idea but a bad execution in it’s launch version. It then burns out quickly or the screens break or some such disaster befalls the early adopters. The second version is more robust, but the software is flakey or the connectivity is poor. You don’t really get a polished  version out until third time around – which will be good. However, for all it’s early problems, it will capture people’s imagination better than any of its rivals have and it will redefine the market place for these devices.

Several niche companies and several large companies will file patent infringement cases on its technology, interface or other aspects of it. These will variously go on for years and no one will remember what they were all about when they eventually get settled.

It will be plaigiarised – or perhaps I should say it will inspire Microsoft and others like Nokia, Dell, and a load of firms from China – who will claim they were working on their version of it all along. These will get launched about a year later and spontaneously look remarkably like Apple’s product. They will be called ‘ePads’, ‘xPads’ and ‘MyPads’. Everyone will then get sued by Always Ultra who whose own iPad product will do something completely different. All the Windows based clones will be really fiddly, stuffed full of lots of features and complicated interfaces. They will impress the editors of computer mags but inadvertently reinforce the Apple iPad (or whatever it gets called) as a people’s favourite.

A final word or warning: You will need to watch out for slightly insecure and over-paid people conspicuously taking their Apple iPad to the pub and making sure everyone can see they have one.