Veni, vidi, iPad

You can't have missed the fact that Apple recently announced that its new iPad will soon be available for purchase.

i-what?

iPad. A "tablet computer"—a sort of hand-held computer without a physical keyboard.

Since Apple's announcement, made about a week ago, the computer geeks and freaks have been discussing the new baby all over the Web and, I'm sure, in printed form, too. They, of course, have been looking at it from anything but the point of view of the "normal" end-user, for these pundits, like myself, have been using computers for years (in my case, since 1968) and tend to see things "through a glass, darkly" (with thanks to 1 Corinthians 13). They moan about:

the lack of MacOS X (an operating system);
the lack of multi-tasking;
the lack of sufficient storage;
the lack of connectability;
the lack of a camera/webcam…

They fail miserably to look at the usefulness, audacity, and daring of the iPad.

It is particularly brave of Apple to present such a daring design, based to a very large extent on that of the much smaller iPhone and iPod touch. Apple has not had a happy history with hand-held computers, and Steve Jobs, the guiding guru of Apple, was some 13 years ago responsible for the ending of the Newton MessagePad product line (the Newton MessagePad was perhaps an even more daring step towards handheld computing). Jobs had no personal input into the Newton development, which took place during his forced absence from Apple and he had no problem at all in axing it, despite its extremely advanced features.

This time, however, Jobs seems to have been actively involved in the iPad development and certainly seemed pleased with the result when he presented the machine to an expectant audience. The presentation was the subject of much speculation prior to the event, with most pundits predicting a MacOS X based tablet, presumably thinking that Apple would follow Microsoft's attempts at releasing tablets with various flavours of Windows as the operating system. Silly boys! Since when has Apple followed Microsoft? And even if MacOS X is still the easiest and most stable operating system for desktop and laptop PCs, Jobs audaciously decided that something even simpler and less prone to error should be used on Apple's iPad. As a result, the iPad runs with a version of the iPhone operating system (also used on the iPod touch).

The result is a machine of incredible usefulness and ease of use. The user is completely screened from the operating and filing system. Applications start immediately with just a tap of the finger. The size of the machine and the quality of the LED screen is such that reading e-books will be a breeze; looking at photos, a dream; watching video, a real experience. And, of course, the iPad can handle email, web browsing, third-party apps (including those written for the iPhone and iPod touch), contacts, music… and so on and so forth. But there is even more, for the iPad will also be able to create presentations, using the app Keynote (far superior to PowerPoint), do page layout with Pages, and create spreadsheets with Numbers.

The iPad has a built-in virtual keyboard (it is displayed on the touch-sensitive screen and you simply type away on it), but can also be connected to a physical keyboard, if the user prefers (this setup is shown in the accompanying photo).

In some respects, the iPad doesn't go quite as far as the Newton went all those years ago: there is no handwriting recognition, for example, and the "intelligence" that the Newton operating system displayed seems to be absent in the iPad. Nevertheless, the iPad appears to be a good step towards being "the computer for the rest of us." Do you remember that slogan? It was used when the first Macintosh was released over twenty years ago, providing a graphical user interface (GUI) on a commercial desktop computer. The Mac made the use of a personal computer far easier, but it still required (and personal computers still work in this way) the user to have some idea of file organisation, to keep away from some areas of the computer, and to generally be more careful than is perhaps fair to expect of an end-user.

The iPad hides all the ugliness (sweetness to us computer people) and complexity of the operating system from the end-user. The iPad takes away any necessity to worry about file organisation. The iPad blocks access to the more delicate areas. The end-user need only worry about the thing that they are concerned with: which app?

This is an ideal computer for the majority of people who (think they) need a computer. What do most people want to do with a computer? Well, email (tick), web surfing (tick), names and addresses (tick), play music (tick), diary and appointments book (tick), perhaps some text processing (tick with Notes, bigger tick with Pages), look at photos (tick), look at videos (tick)… The iPad does all this and more, and you don't need a special table, cables, tower, complicated setup, etc. Lie on the sofa, sit in an armchair, sprawl on the floor, sit in the train… wherever you are, the iPad can be used. For me, it could replace my PowerBook when I travel to Belgium from Spain, or to anywhere else for that matter.

So where does this leave the moaning groaners? Nope, there is no multi-tasking. Not that multi-tasking is high on the want-list of the majority, for heaven's sake. Lack of sufficient storage? Well, I've got a 32 giga iPod and it has plenty of space to spare with over 3,500 pieces of music and several hundred photos, as well as a couple of videos, an e-book, and 24 apps in addition to the standard ones; indeed, I have over 13 giga free. Admittedly, there will be some people who will require more space and there is the 64 giga version for them. And you can bet your boots that if the iPad is a success, there will soon be versions with even larger capacity. Connectability? Yes, at the moment the options are limited: to all intents and purposes, you need another personal computer (MacOS X or Windows) to load iTunes music onto the iPad, for example, but you still have what will probably be a shared space to exchange data (as opposed to external storage) and will be able to access Apple's on-line storage service. In addition, the iPad has an input-output port, which can be used for a keyboard, or to attach a camera for transferring photos, but the full extent of the use of this port must still be explored. iPad also has bluetooth and WiFi capabilities, so there seems little doubt that apps will soon be developed to make use of these capabilities. The lack of a built-in camera or webcam is, indeed, a peculiar decision. The operating system is not the problem, as the iPhone is equipped with a camera, so why did Apple (Jobs?) decide not to include such a device in the iPad. I honestly have no idea. I can do perfectly well without either a still camera or a webcam, but I can see that a lot of people would prefer to have one or other (or both). A still camera would, admittedly, be rather out of place on the iPad (imagine holding up the iPad to take a photo), but the webcam could serve a function for videoconferencing, or simple chatting (the iPad would, however, need a more sturdy support than merely being held in the hand).

Whatever its shortcomings at the moment, I have little doubt that they will be addressed in what will perhaps be a "Pro" version of the iPad, which will appear only if the current version proves to be a commercial success. Personally, I have little doubt that the iPad will be a huge success, for it really does look like the computer for the rest of us.