With the introduction of the Apple iPad this week, I’ve heard a lot of speculation and derision. Not everyone that’s doing the criticizing has been around as long as I have, so the following are a few thoughts from a longtime Apple fan, on why Apple doesn’t suck, even when it does.
1. As Apple goes, so goes the world. If Apple is working on something, you can be assured the rest of the world will follow. Remember how candy colored iMacs changed all those old beige boxes into stacks of life savers everywhere you went? And how many clones of the iPhone are out there? Sure there were touchscreens before iPhone, but nobody really “got it” until Apple did. Hell, go back to early Apple and see the “invention” of the mouse and the Graphic User Interface (all those lovely icons you click to open). Were these original ideas at the time? Not really. But nobody was using them to their fullest potential. Steve Jobs knows a good idea when he sees it. It is largely because of Apple that you interact with your computer the way you do on this very day.
2. When Apple introduces a product or a feature, it’s usually representative of some shift in the American zeitgeist. Home computers? Thank Apple. This week, we saw Apple introduce a type of tablet computer called the “iPad”. I think it has the possibility to change the way we do everything—from reading books to subscribing to magazines, to playing games, to taking notes in class. Whether or not it lives up to the hype has yet to be seen. Back in 1994, Apple introduced the Newton (their first attempt at a “tablet” computer) which ended up being a notorious flop. A lot of people have brought up the Newton this week, as if to say, the iPad is bound to be “another Newton”. First of all, iPad is NOT a Newton. Newtons sucked because the technology wasn’t there to support it at that time. It was too much too soon. The text recognition was a great idea, but in practice, it never worked. But they were on to something. Ask users of the Palm Pilot—a product I despised far more than the Newton because it had it’s own stupid shorthand language that you had to learn in order to write on the thing. As an example of what a bad product the Palm Pilot was, my former boss, Bossman, owned one (and probably still does). If that’s not a reason to avoid it, I don’t know what is. At least Apple had the right idea, in that, you should be able to write in the language you’re familiar with and have the computer understand it. Too bad they didn’t perfect it. Also, keep in mind, the Newton was released during the span of years that Steve Jobs was no longer the “Chief Brain In Charge” at Apple. Steve-o is back, and Apple is building on its previous success with the iPod, which means, the iPad will not suck. Which brings me to my next point….
3. Steve Jobs. Apple works because it’s Steve Jobs’ baby, plain and simple. In the years when Jobs had been booted from the company, Apple floundered. You had bean counters running the company, interested only in making a buck, not taking a chance on a creative vision. As I said many times while working at Initech, that’s how you destroy a company, not how you succeed in one. Sadly, being a creative visionary means stepping on people’s toes and being called a bully, or Stalin, or a flaming bitch from hell who’s gone nuts…—oops, am I speaking about myself again? Sorry. Back on topic. Say what you want about ol’ Steve-o, the man knows what he wants, and he also has his finger on the pulse of what YOU want. Plus, Steve is something of a perfectionist. Nothing goes out the door unless he’s done the testing on it himself. The Newton would have never passed the Jobs test. No way, no how. Their quality control is due to one man’s vision: Steve Jobs. He hires good people and keeps them around him. He can communicate what he wants to these people, and work with them to bring his vision to life. Is he an asshole? Probably. Is he a little bit of a hippy dippy fruitcake? Maybe so. But unlike so many modern businesses, he is interested in making a damned good quality product first and foremost. He is uncompromising in his vision—and THAT is something I deeply admire.
4. Apple builds on previous successes. I find this part of Apple intensely fascinating. This week, some have said (including yours truly) that the iPad is just a big iPod. Perhaps, but pay attention to the details and the things Apple didn’t say. For instance, Apple created their own chip for this little baby. You’ll notice they didn’t talk a lot about it… but you’ll hear more. If it works (and I’m betting it does) this means Apple is likely to use that knowledge and build on it. They are also no longer dependent on outside vendors to provide the brains behind their computers. This is big. Really big. I have heard this chip is considerably faster than previous ones, which may be why they created it. But… why did they create it… that’s the question you should be asking. This is really big news and not a lot of people are talking about it. You don’t hear about Microsoft creating their own chips, do you? Nope. Also, take the idea of your screen being touch sensitive and completely interactive. It’s the most intuitive way of interacting with your computer — the idea has been around for a long time, but is only now coming to full fruition. How long before this is incorporated into laptops? Or all-in-one iMacs? Notice also the paint program that Apple demonstrated. It’s an ideal use of the iPad’s touchscreen. How long before it’s a ubiquitous tool for artists? These things are really big deals, and it all started when Apple took some of their biggest successes and built on them.
5. Failures? Apple’s had a few, but are they really failures or “lessons learned?” People that know I own one, ask me: If the AppleTV is not a bad product, why didn’t it catch on? Often cited as the most recent Apple “failure,” Apple TV is hanging out in the wings, waiting its turn on the stage as the next star product. Haven’t heard of it? You’re not alone. It never achieved the worldwide success of the iPod or the iPhone, many consider it an orphaned product just biding its time before ending up in the junkyard. For those who may not know, the AppleTV (or iTV as it’s commonly nicknamed) is a stand-alone unit allowing you to download songs/movies/TV shows from the iTunes music store and play them through your TV. For what it does, it’s terrific. An elegant solution that takes movies from your iTunes store (even links to your computer) and plays them back in high resolution on your big screen TV.
But, the main problem seems to lie in what AppleTV is not: it is NOT a DVR. You cannot record and play back anything. It’s a companion to the iTunes store, that’s it. So why didn’t Apple make it into a DVR? Seems logical, right? Tons of people would gladly tell (say) Time Warner Cable to go stuff it and replace their TiVos and DVRs with an Apple TV if it could record TV shows. Well, Apple has its reasons, mainly having to do with the complicated rights issues involved with how much control the TV Networks are willing to part with.
The tide may be changing in AppleTV’s favor. The rise of DVRs and TiVos, Netflix, Roku, and more recently Hulu.com, have changed how people watch TV, and the Networks have noticed. They believe that TV as it stands now may be a dying medium. They’re bleeding money through advertising revenue and with the current economy the way it is, more and more people are canceling cable subscriptions and going to alternative solutions. So… is it Apple to the rescue once more?
Rumors are swirling that Apple TV is in the process of a major upgrade/overhaul that could change the way we watch TV and movies in the future — and if rumors prove true (and Apple succeeds with it), they could do for TV what they did for the music industry. The most promising rumor I’ve heard so far is that Apple is negotiating with TV networks and movie studios to allow you to subscribe to what you want, similar to the Netflix plan. In other words, instead of paying (just an example) Time Warner Cable a flat-rate fee per month for 1500 channels you never watch, you would pay Apple a per-channel subscription fee to watch only the channels YOU want. Of course, this is fraught with concerns over the ultimate cost (no one will do it unless it’s cheap) and whether fledgling channels would get a fair shake in the deal. The same arguments have been made for years by the cable companies. However, to me, this rumor has the ring of truth. Apple builds on existing technologies and makes the best of them. They tap into the current popular thinking and make an elegant solution to meet those needs. I can see Apple TV really winning if they did this.
So for now, I’m hanging on to my AppleTV, waiting to see what happens next.
And in the meantime, I’ll see if the iPad lives up to the hype. When I have money again and am gainfully employed once more, I intend to buy one. Critics be damned.
And to all those who think iPad sounds like a feminine hygiene product? Grow up, Beavis.