MICHAEL MCWATTERSThoughts on digital design, and other nonsense.

A few of the things the doubters were wrong about.

I was very skeptical about the iPad, and I remain somewhat so. My main concern is that the iPad is a device that attempts to create a new type of digital experience, never an easy thing to accomplish. It bravely (or stupidly) foregoes features in favor of simplicity (sometimes to its own detriment, as in the case of its lack of Flash support).

However, there is one thing that makes me wonder if it mightn’t be a huge success: its detractors.

You see, I’ve been a Mac user and enthusiast for years, and while my adoration for Apple has chilled over the years, I haven’t adopted the same knee-jerk frustration with everything Apple that some in the technology field have.

Many in this group were quick to claim the iPad an instant flop. They proudly announced all of its perceived shortcomings compared to other devices, without considering the totality of the iPad experience. They took joy in announcing every flaw, without ever having used one. And, they believe their cynicim makes them superior to Apple “fanboys,” even though their logic is just as flawed.

Yet, because this same group of outspoken cynics have been so wrong about Apple’s products in the past, I’m wondering if they mightn’t be wrong again:

• This is the same group who, in 1997, told us Apple would be out of business within a year or two.
• They predicted the iPod would be a failure because it was so simplistic.
• They proclaimed the iMac a toy because it sacrificed robust computing power for a compact user experience.
• They argued the iPhone was just another smart phone, and would be trounced by Blackberry.
• They predicted Apple’s decision to forego floppy drives would render Macs obsolete.
• They warned us that Apple’s wholesale move from serial to USB was a mistake of epic proportions.
• And they told us Apple’s retail stores would sit empty, save for the occasional fanboy eager to buy his latest toy.

They will tell you they never said these things. They will say they’re not buying into the cult of Apple. They will point out the occasions when they were, in fact, right. They will claim all of Apple’s success is due to great marketing. And, frankly, many of their arguments are quite valid.

But I keep coming back to this point: regular people – consumers – seem to love a lot of the things Apple does, regardless of what this other group of technophiles predicts. Whereas the technies often argue Apple doesn’t offer enough features, options, or flexibility, it seems people actually prefer a consistent, smooth, intuitive experience over bloat. And they seem to be willing to pay for it.

There are many reasons to believe the iPad will not live up to the hype (how could it, really?).

But there’s one reason to believe it might do quite well: the cynics are wrong so often, the odds are they’ll be wrong this time, too.

Some related links:

• Gizmodo’s Adam Frucci on 8 Things that Suck About the iPad
• Read Write Web’s How to Hate the iPad
• PC World’s 10 Things We Hate About Apple
• Grumpy Nerd’s I Hate Apple Computers

Steve Jobs presents the iPad.

If you were expecting an immediate paradigm shift from Apple’s iPad, you’re probably disappointed with the actual device.

However, if you, like me, were prepared for something akin to an oversized iPod or an overstuffed Kindle, you might be a little more excited by the iPad.

iPad side view.

Apple rarely comes up with something completely new; what they tend to do is improve upon existing technologies to the point that their changes are revolutionary, not evolutionary.

MPMan F10, the first commercially available MP3 player, debuted in 1998. It held about 8 songs, and plugged into your PC with a parallel cable.

For example, there were many digital music players before the iPod, but little traction or adoption. The introduction of the iPod and its integration with iTunes changed everything. Similarly, there were plenty of smart phones before the iPhone, but the iPhone was such a hit that it quickly become the standard against which other phones are judged. Even the failed Newton (the iPad’s ancient forefather) took the idea of the digital assistant to new heights, inspiring an entire category of PDAs.

The iPad is a first generation device, with some obvious and frustrating limitations (no camera, multitasking, or support for Flash, for example). But, given its unique form factor, its substantive application base, its incredible suite of built-in features, and its price point, it might be the first slate or tablet to actually gain sizable market share, and therefore will start the ball rolling yet again for the Apple juggernaut. Or it could be another Apple TV. (Side note: who could have predicted that just a decade after Apple’s darkest years, we’d be able to justifiably call them a juggernaut?).

The Apple TV is fizzling, primarily because it didn't revolutionize any particular aspect of the television experience.

Tablets have existed for a while, and most people agree the concept is great. But no one has cracked the code from both a form factor and feature perspective that would make widespread adoption possible. I think the iPad may be the first device to crack that code, if Apple can clearly articulate, through marketing and demonstration, that the device fills a void no other device does…or does as well.

One huge advantage Apple has is its retail store presence: being able to hold and interact with the iPad may allow the device to sell itself, and certainly Apple knows this. Many great products, like Tivo for example, suffer because people don’t understand what they do or why they are great until they actually use them. Apple’s retail presence is a critical piece in the marketing puzzle.

As I said (and posted here just before the launch), I had low expectations for the iPad. Once I saw it, I wanted one. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone.