A Perspective on the iPad - “Computing” as an Appliance
Posted on January 31, 2010
Filed Under Gregg Gallagher, Innovation, Strategy |
Disclaimer: I am what you would likely call a “Mac bigot” or “Apple fanboy”, as I have been using Apple products for about 30 years now - although not on a totally exclusive basis - we have had somewhat of an “open relationship”, and I am currently playfully dallying with Windows (i.e., I only run Windows on my Apple hardware for gaming purposes.)
The latest sturm & drang stems from this past week’s announcement of the iPad, Apple’s latest attempt at disruptive innovation.
As can always be anticipated, the announcement was meant with the usual unbridled optimism & support from Apple’s fan base, and countervailing skepticism and outright derision from its critics. The criticisms typically center around the following issues & observations:
1) It’s only an iPhone or iPod Touch on steroids, not really a netbook computer - many people - including myself - were hoping for a tablet format Macintosh, running the OSX operating system. We didn’t get that.
2) It doesn’t have…..one or more of the following “must haves”: USB….multi-tasking….Flash…..a camera….SD slot….stylus input….ability to load software from other than Apple’s App Store….etc..
Most of these objections can be seen as coming from a conceptual framework that views what Apple is attempting to do as a next-generation multi-function computer. In such a model, the product attributes of features, functionalities, CPU power, I/O interfaces, “openness”, etc. Are all considered paramount - allowing the user to configure and use the device as she prefers. This is clearly not what we will be getting from the iPad. Nor, is that the product’s design intent….
Rather, Apple appears to be attempting to create not only a new platform category residing between the smartphone and the notebook computer, it is also trying to establish a new paradigm for personal productivity computing devices - that of being appliances, not multi-purpose computers. This distinction was aptly articulated by Fraser Speirs in his recent blog entry titled “The iPad’s Future Shock”
What Apple is counting on with the iPad, is not only that many people will want a platform in that space, but also that most people don’t want to worry about figuring out how all this should work together - the dark cloud to the silver lining of openness and multi-functionality. It was precisely this unmet & unexpressed need (a.k.a. “Heart of the Customer” that Apple tapped into with the iPhone - eschewing the feature/function computer-based paradigm of the smartphone for a value-proposition of “it simply works, and is fun to use”.
“Voice of the Customer” approaches - that of listening to the expressed needs of the customer can sometimes be a trap - incrementally leading companies to create new & better products to meet those needs - but leading everyone down a path that turns out to be non-optimal over the long-term. I maintain that most criticisms of the iPad are based on this paradigm - that what customers are asking for is ever more flexible & powerful technologies, and open technical/business models, that maximize the options a user has in configuring and using the machine to their own specific needs.
Apple believes they’re tapping into the “Heart of the Customer” - the unmet & unexpressed needs that people want in their mobile computing and communications - they just want it to work, and don’t want or need to figure all this out for themselves.
I used to be in the former camp - over time, I’ve become less and less enthralled by spending the time & effort to figure out how all this stuff works….and Apple appears to be counting on there being a lot of folks out there just like me. As or me - I am selling my MacBook notebook and buying an iPad 3G in April.but then again, I’m just an Apple fanboy…
Comments
One Response to “A Perspective on the iPad - “Computing” as an Appliance”
Leave a Reply
Gregg, I agree with you totally on this one. Also the sign of the potential popularity of a product is sometimes in direct relation to the amount of folks upset that it does not work exactly like ‘they’ think it should.