iPad?

Saying that I keep abreast of current events is one of the larger lies that one can tell, kind of like saying that Santa Claus is real or that La Chupacabra will not attack you if you steal her eggs. For example, did you know that the State of the Union Address was last night? So it came as a complete shock to me when yesterday, Nolan informed me that Apple had managed to make a tablet, and then decided to call it an iPad instead of the much more obvious and less cringe-worthy iTab. I get that they’re trying to forge a connection with the iPod and everything, but still. The iPad?

Seriously. The iPad.

Moving on. Nolan hates most everything, so I took his claim that the iPad was nothing more than a gigantic iPod Touch with several grains of salt, especially after reading Stephen Fry’s excellent essay on how the iPad was beautiful and a dream to use, set to revolutionize the way we use technology and live our everyday lives, even going so far as to claim that Jack Bauer would one day use one on 24. While Fry is indeed an excellent writer and an extremely funny man, it is my opinion that in this matter he is incorrect.

I looked at the iPad’s specs on the Apple website, and they are admittedly impressive. Its touch screen is fancy-schmancy and seems pretty responsive, and the fact that the device looks like a MacBook Pro minus a keyboard is undeniably cool. Basically, the iPad’s selling point is that it’s this bizarre intersection between computer and iPod. Apple seems to be saying, “If you want to be on the cutting edge of technology, buy this New Apple Thing we have created.”

Okay, it's pretty. Whatever.

On the other hand, this New Apple Thing feels purposeless, kind of like when a bunch of scientists decide to genetically engineer a monkey with three arms, one leg and a set of fins, just because they can. My gut tells me that the good people at the Apple Corporation decided to create a gigantic iPod Touch with a ten-hour battery life because nobody thought it was possible.

In fact, my main issue with the iPad is that we’ve already had the such a device for a few years in the form of the iPod Touch, which offers the internet, iTunes, video, an e-book reader, email, and pretty much everything that iPad stands to offer, all in a smaller package for a smaller price.

And oh, the pricing! Placing the iPad at $500 is impressive, especially when you consider that they managed to make something so pretty-looking so affordable. But who’s going to buy it? The iPad too expensive and bulky for someone who’s looking for a music player (iPods start at $150 and, y’know, fit in your pocket), and the its storage capacity and functionality are both too limited for someone who would consider using it as a low-cost Apple computer; I feel like such a person would just spring for the $999 entry-level Mac notebook, or just buy a $600 Mac mini desktop.

Maybe this is more of a “me” problem than anything else. I use my laptop for three basic things – writing, surfing the internet, and listening to music via iTunes. As it stands, the iPad only allows me to do two of those things, because it comes without a keyboard and touch keyboards in my experience are more trouble than they’re worth. What definitively kills the iPad for me is that you can only have one application open at a time. For someone who constantly bounces between checking e-mail, writing in Word or Final Draft, and messing around on the internet, having an iPad just doesn’t make sense.

The basic purpose of technology is to solve a problem. For example, mp3 players solved the problem of how to take all of your music with you without having to lug a CD binder around with you all of the time. The laptop computer allowed us to take all of the usefulness of a computer with us wherever we went – I’m currently typing this blog in a coffee shop, which would be impossible without a laptop. However, what problem does the iPad solve?