Andrew Colclough

Interesting. Competition will be so great for the consumer. Products like these will either force the iPad to improve, or fail.

Honestly, I really don't have much opinion about the iPad. My main beef with it revolves around the absolutely pitiful, Disney promo, marketing copy that Apple came up with for it. For instance - the script of their promotional video comes across as sickiningly self-congratulatory. Consider the first sentence:

"You know, it's true, when something exceeds your ability to understand how it works, it sort of becomes magical."

-Jonu Ive

Really? Because, I think that just means you need to increase your ability to understand computers. Or here's an even better gem which can only be fully appreciated when it is accompanied with a dramatic pause in background music (I'm not joking, watch the video - 2:13 mark...)

"It's completely natural...You don't even think about it... You just...Do..."

-Scott Forstall

Of course that's totally subjective. I guess it's a layman's way to describe a good user interface and user experience. But, at this point, that fairly well describes a mouse and keyboard for most people also... Then there's this:

"If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true."

-Pedro Sanchez

Ok, so that last quote is from Napoleon Dynamite... But seriously, "Magical and revolutionary?" Talk about over-the-top glittering generalities. Does it cure world hunger? Will it provide maps for, such as, the Iraq and the Asian countries, everywhere like such as?

Like I said, I think the iPad is an interesting product, but not OMGTehBestEvar!!!1!, or absolute garbage. I think it will be a good step towards "whatever is next" as far as computers go, even if I think it has some rather obvious flaws. There have been some good articles written about it though. Alex Payne's thoughtful piece, for instance:

The thing that bothers me most about the iPad is this: if I had an iPad rather than a real computer as a kid, I’d never be a programmer today. I’d never have had the ability to run whatever stupid, potentially harmful, hugely educational programs I could download or write. I wouldn’t have been able to fire up ResEdit and edit out the Mac startup sound so I could tinker on the computer at all hours without waking my parents. The iPad may be a boon to traditional eduction, insofar as it allows for multimedia textbooks and such, but in its current form, it’s a detriment to the sort of hacker culture that has propelled the digital economy.

Perhaps the iPad signals an end to the “hacker era” of digital history. Now that consumers and traditional media understand the digital world, maybe there’s proportionally less need for freewheeling technological experimentation and platforms that allow for the same. Maybe the hypothetical mom doesn’t need a real computer. As long as real computers stick around for people who do need them, maybe there’s no harm in that.

Wherever we stand in digital history, the iPad leaves me with the feeling that Apple’s interests and values going forward are deeply divergent from my own. There’s nothing wrong with that; people make consumer decisions every day based on their values. If I don’t like the product that the iPad turns out to be once released, I’m free to simply not buy it. These things have a way of evolving, and I won’t preclude the possibility that Apple eventually addresses concerns about the openness of the device.

For now, though, I remain disturbed. The future of personal computing that the iPad shows us is both seductive and dystopian. It’s not a future I want to bring into my home.

Good thoughts, to which he later appended:

I’ll close with this: if I didn’t think the iPad was an important device, I wouldn’t be bothering to criticize its politics. Like Steven Frank, I think this a new world, a new era, and I’m not interested in hanging on to the past. Like Joe Hewitt, I’m excited to develop for the iPad, and to use what others develop for it as well.

As I said at the top of this post, I’ve been waiting for years for what comes after the PC, and I truly believe that Apple has shown it to us. That’s why it matters so crucially that this next leg of the computer revolution gets off on the right path, one that embraces openness rather than abhors it. We have the technology and the incentive to build the future of computing in an open way. The only reason not to is greed, laziness, and hubris.

Be sure to grab his whole article. Did you catch the underlying argument for liberty? Totally agree -> although, pending strong competition, "greed" may actually force Apple to move towards openness.

For me, I am interested in the UI developments. I think Multi-touch is a fascinating technology, but it's application to software will really require a total rethinking of user interface and design. Plus, the iPad is just one device, and will no doubt kick off a myriad of competitor products, all with their own different takes on the direction of computer hardware and software interaction. Whether or not the iPad is "the right way" things should go, the ensuing competition, will ultimately be a win for all of us.

One of our young century's most visionary and charismatic leaders gave a speech Wednesday that outlined significant changes in the way we go about our daily routines. His presentation was rich with the promise of a brighter tomorrow: a world in which we are healthier, wealthier, wiser and more closely connected in the bonds of our common humanity.

I'm not talking about Barack Obama. I'm talking about Steve Jobs.

On the West Coast, Steve Jobs unveiled the newest addition to Apple's product line: the iPad. On the East Coast, President Obama gave his State of the Union Address. The two were notable for their fundamentally different visions. Years ago sociologist Franz Oppenheimer distinguished between the "economic means" to wealth and the "political means" to wealth.

The crucial difference between the two is that the economic means--production and exchange--are positive sum, meaning that trade creates wealth. People using the economic means succeed by offering to expand people's choices and give them more opportunities. Voluntary exchange and mutual benefit are at the heart of the economic means, and this was epitomized in the unveiling of the iPad.

In contrast, the political means--expropriation and redistribution--are zero-sum at best and, since political action itself requires resources, the political means to wealth are often negative sum. People using the political means succeed by restricting people's choices and by giving them fewer opportunities. To the degree that there is any trade involved at all, it occurs when Alan and Barbara take Clarissa's property and give it to Dylan. Here Clarissa is what sociologist William Graham Sumner called "The Forgotten Man" or The Forgotten Woman, as the case may be. Violence and coercion are at the heart of the political means, and this is epitomized annually in the State of the Union Address.

Some early returns on the iPad have been critical, to be sure. What is interesting about this, though, is not that the iPad has been iPanned by some critics. What is interesting is that we have come to expect jaw-dropping, game-changing technological advancements every time we turn around. As economist Randall Holcombe has pointed out, for most of history people could expect to see little or no economic progress in their time. Today, however, economic progress--represented by more, better stuff and more, better opportunities--is woven into the very fabric of our day-to-day lives.

That's evident in what we're doing right now. You're reading an article over the Internet with embedded hyperlinks that take you to additional resources, and you can use Google to fact-check everything I'm writing.

[...]

Unfortunately, the innovation machine too often runs at the whims of politicians catering to special interests and a credulous electorate. And they do their catering by making claims of dubious theoretical and empirical merit, like "jobs saved or created," and by supporting "in the name of the poor, no less" policies that make poor people worse off, like the minimum wage.

Wednesday's big events provided a study in contrasts between production and predation. Barack Obama, the orator and politician, talks about hope and change. Steve Jobs, the innovator and capitalist, delivers it.

This article articulates exactly some of the main reasons for limiting government to its proper function. This isn't really a criticism directed specifically toward President Obama or praise of Steve Jobs, but a contrast between a free economic system, and the coercive state political process. One group creates, innovates, and progresses, while the other divides, controls, limits, and redistributes. A thoughtful compare and contrast.

(Emphasis above - Mine)