Future Shock
Friday, January 29, 2010 at 10:39AM I'll have more to say on the iPad later but one can't help being struck by the volume and vehemence of apparently technologically sophisticated people inveighing against the iPad.
Some are trying to dismiss these ravings by comparing them to certain comments made after the launch of the iPod in 2001: "No wireless. Les space than a Nomad. Lame.". I fear this January-26th thinking misses the point.
What you're seeing in the industry's reaction to the iPad is nothing less than future shock.
For years we've all held to the belief that computing had to be made simpler for the 'average person'. I find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than that we have totally failed in this effort.
Secretly, I suspect, we technologists quite liked the idea that Normals would be dependent on us for our technological shamanism. Those incantations that only we can perform to heal their computers, those oracular proclamations that we make over the future and the blessings we bestow on purchasing choices.
Ask yourself this: in what other walk of life do grown adults depend on other people to help them buy something? Women often turn to men to help them purchase a car but that's because of the obnoxious misogyny of car dealers, not because ladies worry that the car they buy won't work on their local roads. (Sorry computer/car analogy. My bad.)
I'm often saddened by the infantilising effect of high technology on adults. From being in control of their world, they're thrust back to a childish, mediaeval world in which gremlins appear to torment them and disappear at will and against which magic, spells, and the local witch doctor are their only refuges.
With the iPhone OS as incarnated in the iPad, Apple proposes to do something about this, and I mean really do something about it instead of just talking about doing something about it, and the world is going mental.
Not the entire world, though. The people whose backs have been broken under the weight of technological complexity and failure immediately understand what's happening here. Those of us who patiently, day after day, explain to a child or colleague that the reason there's no Print item in the File menu is because, although the Pages document is filling the screen, Finder is actually the frontmost application and it doesn't have any windows open, understand what's happening here.
The visigoths are at the gate of the city. They're demanding access to software. they're demanding to be in control of their own experience of information. They may not like our high art and culture, they may be really into OpenGL boob-jiggling apps and they may not always share our sense of aesthetics, but they are the people we have claimed to serve for 30 years whilst screwing them over in innumerable ways. There are also many, many more of them than us.
People talk about Steve Jobs' reality distortion field, and I don't disagree that the man has a quasi-hypnotic ability to convince. There's another reality distortion field at work, though, and everyone that makes a living from the tech industry is within its tractor-beam. That RDF tells us that computers are awesome, they work great and only those too stupid to live can't work them.
The tech industry will be in paroxysms of future shock for some time to come. Many will cling to their January-26th notions of what it takes to get "real work" done; cling to the idea that the computer-based part of it is the "real work".
It's not. The Real Work is not formatting the margins, installing the printer driver, uploading the document, finishing the PowerPoint slides, running the software update or reinstalling the OS.
The Real Work is teaching the child, healing the patient, selling the house, logging the road defects, fixing the car at the roadside, capturing the table's order, designing the house and organising the party.
Think of the millions of hours of human effort spent on preventing and recovering from the problems caused by completely open computer systems. Think of the lengths that people have gone to in order to acquire skills that are orthogonal to their core interests and their job, just so they can get their job done.
If the iPad and its successor devices free these people to focus on what they do best, it will dramatically change people's perceptions of computing from something to fear to something to engage enthusiastically with. I find it hard to believe that the loss of background processing isn't a price worth paying to have a computer that isn't frightening anymore.
In the meantime, Adobe and Microsoft will continue to stamp their feet and whine.
Reader Comments (286)
Stumbled on this post through Gruber. I think it makes a lot of sense.
I wasn't very impressed with iPad when I first saw the keynote, however, the more I think about it, you're right.
I have no issue operating my Macs, but there's something I love about the simplicity of my iPhone OS. It does exactly what I want in very simple ways. I enjoy using it and find the simple apps to be tons more useful than most I have on my Mac. There are certainly things that I want to use my full Mac for, but I can see buying the iPad now for that simplicity. If the average computer user tries the iPad, they will probably feel the same way.
So, good analysis.
Ooh, future shock seems a bit grandiose. It's just a simple evolutionary step. What else would they've produced? It looks great, but 2.0, 3.0 etc, will be much more neat.
W
Zephyr -- a superhero webcomic in prose
http://wereviking.wordpress.com
Fantastic article.
It's very clear that a bunch of commenters here still don't get it and, I suspect, don't want to.
I think this is an extremely insightful article that misses one very key shortcoming of the iPad. Today's world is one in which life is lived in simultaneous layers of parallel input and output. In the end, Flash or no-Flash, SD slots, USB ports, etc don't make any difference. As the author states, those are issues for those of us who revel in the process of computing. They hardly affect the the task which one is trying to accomplish.
No, the real "miss" with the iPad is that in a society in which productivity and satisfaction and efficiency is measured by an almost freely-associative interaction with our tools, the current iteration of the iPad has no abilty to accept or produce more than one stream of creativity or interaction at a time. For example...as a college teacher of music, I use a laptop to display my lecture notes alongside an iTunes window that is streaming music to a stereo. My lectures and classes can be almost theatrical in the way I can present information to my students. As the rumor mill was churning, I was almost salivating at the possibilities for the ways in which the iPad might free me in the classroom. Alas....no multitasking. The very hour that the iPad 2.0 provides that abilty is the hour that everything really changes. That is the day when people put the laptop in the case and switch to an iPad.
Unfortunately, Apple is not changing much of anything for those of us already using a computer. What they have done is skillfully identified the segment of society who has yet to use a computer and produce an appliance for them. They certainly get credit for thinking different (sic), but the playing field is still the same.
When you receive your first email on your new iPad that has a web link to a great web page, click on it and see what happens.
Gordon,
"The surface aesthetics are so good that people overlook the fact that the functionality is limited."
Increased functionality that isn't accessible to the user is useless.
a year from now they'll buy it again, to get the extra features, like multitasking, or a camera. Both of those features could have been implemented in this year's model, but they weren't."
And this is different from what other tech company? All companies add features in the next model to encourage purchases. You also seem to think that adding something like multi-tasking has no downside. It does. And so there's a decision to be made on whether it should be added. How many megapixels would you want btw? I think a camera that was between a phone cam and a point and shoot would be a terrible idea.
"This is exactly what we saw with the iPod, which when it started was a third rate MP3 player (with a great surface aesthetic)"
and the best ui for an mp3 player for several years
"There was a huge fanfare when the iPhone finally got cut and paste!"
Yes, yes, I agree. Implementing cut/copy/paste was terribly easy. Ridiculous.
So when are the other phone OS manufacturers going to match the iPhone's implementation? They're not even close yet.
Apple doesn't focus on features, you're very right. And design does sell, but it's not just skin deep. Good interface design is what's amazing on the iPad. It's not just a big iPhone, it's got many completely recreated apps with intuitive interfaces. I'm not sure why some consumers don't see any value in good ui design, and it's even more perplexing that tech companies seem to feel the same way. I know this, it took tons of manpower and research to set up the default apps on that version of the OS. The other tablets don't seem interested in making that sort of an investment. It's probably too expensive. Much, much cheaper to throw in a ten dollar cellphone camera or an sd slot. (Additionally, the iPhone's camera is kicking more advanced phone cameras with software)
Caruso
"For example...as a college teacher of music, I use a laptop to display my lecture notes alongside an iTunes window that is streaming music to a stereo... The very hour that the iPad 2.0 provides that abilty is the hour that everything really changes. That is the day when people put the laptop in the case and switch to an iPad."
Congrats, the iPad already does that. Time to get out those cases...
@ Gordon Rae "I think you have been suckered on this one. The real arguments against the iPad aren't the technological arguments, they're the marketing arguments, the customer service arguments, the profitability arguments. Apple makes products for people who like shiny things"
I like shiny things. I think the fact that apple obviously spends a lot of time and effort getting the aesthetics of their products right is a good thing.
A souped up Ford Escort might go really damn fast, you might be able to get under the hood and tinker with the suspension, you might be able to get any parts you want to fit in it. I don't care, it's ugly and besides I just want to use my car to get to work or go see my friends, I don't care what happens on the inside.
As for the Apple milking consumers, that's crap, this isn't a grudge purchase, they don't have us over a barrel, if you don't want it, don't buy it.
It's fascinating to read the comments. It makes me realize that, even while most commenters work in technology, the world around them is too complex for them to understand. There are so many conceptual errors in so many of the comments. On the internet no one knows you're 14 years old - chronologically or developmentally.
For me, this was the big thing I thought about during the iPad event which no one has mentioned...
I knew about Alan Kay's Dynabook concept decades ago when he talked about it, and I fully appreciated it then.
At the event, I figured that inside Alan Kay was sitting in the audience weeping when the iPad was introduced because his well-imagined device looks like it had finally become real. And I wept with him. So much work and struggle, with all of us flying off on tangents with computing and then, finally, all the parts are available and we can finally come home.
Anyone who complains about the iPad is clearly forgetting that what they say they wish the iPad did is already available to them right now at Best Buy. They are complaining for another reason, which they themselves don't understand.
Excellent article! It's saved in my "Excellent Writing" ShoveBox folder.
Mark Hernandez
Information Workshop
Comments from Sony, Samsung, Microsoft et. al. aren't so much future shock as competitive bluster. Not to disagree with you though.... excellent article.
It's interesting that folks seem certain enough that the iPad will sell enough units to be worthy of fearing. Me, I'm not at all worried about it being underpowered, locked down or lacking in functionality. Like most folks, I suspect it will sell well enough to command awe. I further suspect that anyone who purchases a single iWork app for the iPad will purchase a second iWork app for the iPad ... and I'll speculate that most folks who purchase all three iWork apps will go on to purchase a Mac sometime soon thereafter. End of problem.
When I saw the iPad demo my first thought was " Wow it's the PADD from Star Trek:TNG" Anyone that's seen that series knows the ones I'm talking about. The thin light weight devices that tied into the ships main computer and provided a easy to carry portable access to the main computers files and programs. My next thought was all we need now is real voice interfaces and we too can look back out "modern computers" and say " A keyboard..... How quaint"
this is bullshit. iPad is crap -- live with that
I am concerned that iPad is not about the "democratization" of the "complicated computer" or the "empowerment of normals" - it is the beginning of the end of the "free as in freedom" nature of the one Internet. Apple is slowly locking people away in its walled garden of content. It is the gate keeper and only those that pay the Apple tax or fit in the Apple image are allowed. Amazon and Kindle; Sony and PS3; MS and Xbox - all of these suggest that walls are going up and instead of all of us coming to the ONE Internet there are going to be many Nets that will divide us. I think that's sad.
I don't think it's taking freedom away after all your free to not buy one and thus not live behind it's wall. There will be open versions as well googles droid is a good example of this and I suspect there will be others. It's really no different than the mac vs pc debates. Apple has alway sought more control to maximize safety and stability while pc was willing to give up some control to make it more open and broader based. The only difference is that this time it's apple that has the upperhand. I for one don't mind walls so long as they aren't in my way and restrictive to my life. So far Apples walls have been for me and millions of others.
Oops that last post should have said haven't been. Darn this small iPhone keyboard April can't get here fast enough.
Thoughtful article, but somewhat irrelevant as long as iPad must synchronize with another computer in order to function. This thing is managed through iTunes and therefore, however futuristic and sensible it may be, it stil depends on the "January 26th" ecosystem.
When there's an iPad that can exist on its own, and not as an iTunes accessory, then I'll get on board.
Also, would it be too much to ask to be able to print from a device that can run a full office suite?
I was wondering about getting an iPhone, I was wondering about getting an iPod touch, this seems to be the device I want.
I could listen to something, watch something read something and catch up on my e-mail.
Its not an open system, there is some quality control applied to what it can run and I expect it "just works".
I love my MacBook but I don't tend to take it on trips away, this is a device I would put in an ovenight bag when going somewhere.
The XP tower PC I also have is an extremely open system, so open that I've just spent a couple of days extracting a very persistant trojan from it.
"Just works" will do me fine !
Thanks for the entry. My real work is as a doctor (resident). I need a way to carry lots (100s) of PDFs and easily read them - in color. I like the iPad - its fantastic for what I need. As far as all the complaints about "closed system" I just cannot relate. When anyone talks about this they cannot identify for me what I am missing. In a previous life I was a huge computer nerd, and I still love tinkering, but as life gets more busy some simple things that are good at their task are awesome. So, yes, I will buy this, carry it to read PDFs, surf the web. Simple boring, but should work perfect.
(Oh - there is one thing people are right about - some apps like IM would be nice to run in the background - but I don't use this personally so not impact me - but it is an app that needs to run in the background. Still would not change my purchase.)
Exactly, spot on, and hear, hear! I've said as much in several forums. I've seen proud geeks spurn the iPad. They cite the many things the iPad can't do. They're right, of course. Geeks are very knowledgeable and imaginative. I very much respect geeks. No problem there! Many will ask geeks for help in creating, using, and servicing their iPads!
There is, however, a market for the iPad beyond geeks. Geeks may not be a majority share of the potential iPad market. These iPad users are valid computer users. They are worthwhile people, in spite of their lack of technical depth of knowledge. They may buy iPads, use them, and have lives beyond computers. Guess what: it's possible to do so.
The iPad will have a future. Not all such devices will be iPads, and the iPad will not necessarily remain as primitive as it may now seem. Nonetheless, it is not a worthless device.
Great article.
The more the tech pundits complain about what the iPad doesn't do (for them), the more convinced I am that Jobs & co are really on to something. Anybody who's ever had to explain the basic functions of a mouse to another frustrated adult knows there's got to be an alternative. We saw it Wednesday.
There is probably an element of future shock, but you should cut people some slack. Here's why:
1. At no time during the unveiling of the iPad did Apple argue that this should be the primary device and replace someone's laptop or desktop computer. I agree that it appears to be the direction they are headed, but they didn't make the pitch themselves.
2. I suspect they didn't make the pitch themselves because they know they aren't there yet. The iPad still requires a Windows or Mac machine to sync with. It can't print yet. It can't handle file sharing yet. (printing and file sharing are things they are apparently working on).
People were left after the event to interpret what the iPad might mean to computing. Apple didn't make the argument itself.
I believe they didn't make the argument themselves because they knew it wasn't ready yet. I'm not sure when it will be, but it's hard to fault people for revolting against a vision for a new computing paradigm when it is clear that the new computing paradigm requires the old computing paradigm to be present to do basic things like upgrades and printing.
How will an average user - your mom - get around iTunes and synching all the stuff to an iPad? How will she import photos and videos to show around?
Thank you so much! Ever since the announcement, I've been searching for the right words to describe just how Apple is looking to change the world, or at least our little corner of it. No more searching--you hit it pitch perfect!
Of course, for it to succeed, Apple needs to start treating developers with the same respect they treat the users...but that's a problem that can still be solved, and hopefully it will be solved sooner rather than later. That doesn't change the ultimate idea behind the iPad, though, and you just summarized it far better than I ever could. Thank you again!
I find it funny that many of the most ardent defenders of this article say something to the effect "If you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's not a good device, it just means that it's not for you". Well, the premise of this article is that the iPad is the future of computing. So are you saying that those of us who can't find a use for the iPad have no future using computers? That's pretty arrogant.
I also hear a lot of "Flash is dead", "Flash Sucks", "You don't really need Flash". Well the future of computing should make the apps they want work, not eliminate the apps that are too hard to make work. In fact one of the most resource intensive memory hogging programs I run is iTunes. If Apple is really worried about user experience maybe they should address that.
Finally, not only is Apple the gatekeeper of what we can and cant watch, do, or play. But at the same time they don't want to protect our content. I've been reading e-books since they were first available on mobile devices through ereader.com, then later on a Kindle. I've purchased vidoe and music content through Amazon. In all of those cases I can still, to this day, re-download my content if something happened. However, if someone stole my briefcase with my ipod and my laptop in it Apple would make me re-purchase all of my songs. That's a load of crap. Billions of dollars they've made on content and they won't keep a record of it for me. In this seamless computing world where nothing ever goes wrong and the user has nothing to worry about isn't backup the most fundamental form of computing security?
Why on earth would I trust a company that doesn't care enough to protect me in that way to be the arbiter of what I can and can't see, do, or play?
>>When you receive your first email on your new iPad that has a web link to a great web page, click on it and see what happens.
Well, I haven't used an iPad, but I'll take a wild guess: Safari opens and displays the great Web page like it does on my iPhone right now? Just a stab in the dark....
Glad you mention you're an educated college teacher... glad I don't have to take your class if you don't know how a simple Web link already works on iPhone OS.