Dear Apple iPad Haters: Please Get A Grip (And A Thesaurus).

Apple’s new device will inspire loads of techno-lust. But it looks more like a toy than a tool.

And so it begins. I chose the above quote from Salon.com out of numerous possibilities because it typifies the Apple-bashing mindset.

What always amazes me isn’t the bashers’ lack of vision or imagination, or their misreading of the target market, or not understanding Apple’s business models, or having learned nothing from previous Apple products’ successes, or even that maybe they need to bash Apple for a living. No, it’s the complete lack of originality in their arguments. I mean, it’s been 25 years since the Macintosh and they’re still calling Apple’s products “toys”. And those who like the iPad are “fanbois”. Yeah, another 25-year old misnomer. You need to work on your lexicon, guys, it’s hard to take you seriously.

Posted via email from The Small Wave.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Dear Apple iPad Haters: Please Get A Grip (And A Thesaurus).

  1. THE IPAD IS FOR 99% of people who do not know how to use computers anyway, Apple is very smart, all people use computers for is E-mail, games, watching hulu, surfing the net, watching movies. The general public are consumers, not creators or higher end user geeks. This is why it will trounce crappy netbooks running clunky windows!!! Once again, look at the preorder sales. This thing is for college kids who don’ t want to lug around a bunch of books, Grandma and Grandpa, Bless em, the can’ t even make a freakin folder, and Geeks like me who see the long term potential of creating and using apps never before capable without the screen real estate that the ipad has. You lose Apple wins, I love working for my Apple reseller, we rock, get over it, Apple will soon take over the planet. Goodbye:)

  2. I agree with you, even though I was disappointed in ways, I still think the iPad will be a winner. Stephen Fry said he seen it all before, and he even kept a running score of sorts with the original iPhone seen here:

    http://www.stephenfry.com/2010/01/28/ipad-about/

    I can’t wait for the day, not long now, when the iPad will make all of the doom sayers look like what they really are – monkey’s!

  3. The problem with a lot of the anti-Apple technology analysts is that they are used to thinking with a certain frame box. A case in point is Shawn Oliver’s “iPad’s identity crisis and Apple’s A4 CPU Showstopper”. He, like many other technology analysts insist on using the same old benchmarks to evaluate whether or not a technology product is worthy or not. Thus, you have him criticising that the iPad has no SD card slot, has 16GB to 64GB of storage space versus a netbook’s 160GB+ of space. He also criticises iPad for not having Intel’s new WiDi technology (a new form of wireless network that I’m sure most of us have never heard of and wouldn’t know WHERe we could use it).

    The problem with many of these technology analysts then is that they are used to thinking in the minutia doing side-by-side comparisons of specifications and that’s about as good as it gets for their analysis. This is why if these technologists imagine what would be a product they would want, it would mostly be a bigger, faster, lighter version of already existing gadgets. In other words, they are thinking WITHIN THE BOX.

    The way to actually evaluate whether the iPad is going to be worthy of not is to precisely think in a manner that is typical of what makes Apple products successful. Think not in the minutia but in terms of the larger macro picture. You can call this thinking in terms of the eco-system. What made the iPod touch and iPhone succeed is not because of the individual specifications but rather HOW THE ENTIRE PRODUCT ALONG WITH THE SOFTWARE AND ELECTRONIC STORE WORKS TOGETHER. I’m writing that in caps as a way to emphasis that that is an eco-system thinking. If all we want is bigger, faster, lighter, we end up with the myriad of the same kind of product that is so typical of the PC world. Over and over again, each manufacturing company is coming up with the same thing in variations. Boring.

    Thus, to really evaluate whether the product is worthy, expand the critical model of analysis to thinking about if the product in the birthing eco-system works.

    I don’t right now have an opinion on whether the iPad will succeed. I haven’t thought too deeply about whether or not the iPad and its eco-system will work. But I am urging technology analysts to really go beyond side-by-side minutia comparison of individual specifications and actually begin to think in terms of systems. Think how users will use the product and how the product in the eco-system could or could not deliver.

    I’m not a technology analysts myself (i.e., not professional) but I believe why so many technologists keep missing the mark with Apple is because they think again and again within the box of minutia instead of the expansive world of systems thinking.

    I’m interested to hear back what you think of my criticism.

    http://hothardware.com/Articles/Apple-iPad-Hits-Misses-And-How-The-A4-Could-Impact-Mobile-Computing/

  4. I’m with Jared. The Technocrati tripped over themselves to pronounce the iPhone DOA. They were very wrong. But they get their paychecks from Redmond.

    Paul Thurrott was doing the same anti-Apple dance yesterday until he got the price wrong by $500. Then he back-tracked for a second. He knows this will be hugely successful and in six months he’ll restart the argument and compare the iPad to a dozen knock-offs claiming they’re just as good but they’ll be market flops. Oh, and he’ll have one, too.

  5. When the iPhone was announced and everyone predicted that no one but Apple lovers would buy it: “for those that understand, no explanation is needed. For those that do not understand, no explanation is possible.” (http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/10/04/if-wishes-were-iphones?retitled)

    Apple is in a safe position, laying out their plans for the future and having it fly over the heads of the collective technorati. “Don’t worry about people stealing an idea. If it’s original, you will have to ram it down their throats.” — Howard Aiken

    Normal human beings (non-geeks, non-techtards like all of us reading Tech blogs and commenting) ‘get’ Apple’s products: iPod and the iPhone. From everything I can see (and as a hobbyist iPhone developer) the iPad is just so obviously great and inexpensive it takes RRDF(TM) (reverse reality distortion field) not to see it.

    Nerds only see the limitations and even with a history of repeated home runs in different markets (“iPod” becoming synonymous with MP3 player, destroying the smartphone market so that the term “iPhone-killer” starts to sound about as possible as a full Beatles reunion) the nerds reading and writing all the hype/news blogs still can’t see past the end of their nose that the iPad is a big deal and will be purchased in mass numbers by normal humans besides the “rabid fanbois”… the only people who will refuse to buy it are the ones we already know will not buy anything with the Apple logo on it: irrational Apple haters and ideological “Open-or-Die” enthusiast DIYers. (Even worse are the ones who pretend that any Windows or Microsoft is inherently “open” and since Apple refuses to license their stellar OS tech they are evil… if only Apple would just GIVE me their IP so I can run it on a cheap crappy netbook!)

    Anyway, yea this “fanbois” name slinging is getting old. I’m as much of an Apple apologist as anyone else but Apple is still the only company that understands and serves their customers (consumers) as normal humans. Nothing they do will be perfect but their products sure sucks a lot less than … anything ACTUALLY ON THE MARKET.

  6. The immediate possibilities for the iPad are incredible. Imagine having a central hub (MacBook or iMac) and a few iPads in your house, depending on the needs of your family. This is, especially at $499 price point, a revolution in casual computer use. Not to mention the impact of that same principal for schools and other institutions.

Comments are closed.