I see the iPad has been launched.
This post was on WordPress.com’s main page.
“Insanity,” novelist Rita Mae Brown wrote, “is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” By that standard, the long history of tablet computers doesn’t quite count as insanity–manufacturers have tried a variety of form factors and features over the years. But the results are the same, over and over again: failure. It’s the classic example of a gadget that the industry keeps coming back to and reintroducing with all the hype it can muster–and which consumers keep rejecting.Today, Apple is announcing its first true tablet. It took the company thirty-four years to get around to it, and it’s just about the only outfit in the business that abstained until now. Whether the device looks brilliant or misbegotten, all evidence suggests that there won’t be much that’s repetitious about it. Even so, it’s worth looking back at more than two decades of attempts to get tablets right–none of which really succeeded, and some of which failed on a monumental scale.
I remember Microsoft (and Toshiba’s) last attempt – it was only a few years ago but no one seems to. A nice device, but those who design these things forget that most people have learned to type, so writing is actually – less convenient.
MacDoctor (who appears to be drolling over his keyboard) makes a good point.
I forgot that the Kindle DX, with the same screen size as the iPad, is US$489 – the same price as the bottom end iPad. I reiterate – Why would you want to buy a black and white toy, the Kindle, that only reads books when, for the same price , you can have a real computer?
I’m not so sure though. Think of the Blackberry – a device that does one thing (email) and does it extremly well. I’d put the Kindle in that category – it’s nice and simple and is designed for reading and does that well.
I guess time will tell.
Comments on: "Is it the future, or another rehashed failed idea from the past?" (5)
I like the very grassy new look, Scrubone.
I’m sure the cheaper Kindle will survive as a niche product, but I suspect the big one is doomed to failure. The reasons why MacGraw Hill is interested in providing textbooks are the same reasons why the kindle will eventually die – open standards, a colour screen and proper connectivity.
The first makes it easy to transport books to the new machine. The second makes technical manuals feasible and the third opens a whole new world of advertising and revenue generation – book-specific web sites are popular and profitable.
Oh, re: the look. Don’t worry, I’m about to inflict another bad design decision on the world shortly. Look out for the monthly stats
I thought part of the appeal of the Kindle is the screen isn’t your standard colour screen, but rather “electronic paper” which is much more readable?
But then, I’ve never seen one myself.
I thought part of the appeal of the Kindle is the screen isn’t your standard colour screen, but rather “electronic paper” which is much more readable?
This would only be true if the colour screen of the iPad were of poor quality. If it is of the quality of the iPhone, then it should be more readable than the Kindle because the contrast is significantly better.
I’d like to see the Kindle up close before agreeing with you MacDoctor – I’ve read a lot of positive reviews about the eInk clarity and the “like reading a book” effect it produces, regardless of the colour screen competition.
Anyway, I think the iPhone has done well as a “tablet” device. If the argument is that the tablet paradigm doesn’t work, surely one would have to include the iPod and iPhone in that discussion?