Why the iPad 2 kind of sucks

Last week, we watched in horror as the Internet appeared to have a collective orgasm upon Apple’s announcement of their follow-up device to the iPad – the creatively named iPad 2.

Here at the Big Bad Blog, we did not see the presentation that Mr. Jobs made, but we assume that it must have been one awesome presentation; we cannot recall Apple launching such a boring device with such fanfare, previously. Normally “advances” such as those that appear in the iPad 2 are “announced” by a refreshed website — that’s what they did when the specifications for the MacBook Pro were improved recently.

But the iPad, it gets a whole presentation. Let’s take a look.

Where does it fit in?

Let’s take a minute first where the iPad is positioned vis-a-vis other devices — the “in-between” market.

Laptops are currently seen as too cumbersome to pull out when waiting in a queue to get into a movie, on a train, in a coffee shop, and the million other places where people find themselves on a daily basis, wishing that they had some online content to consume. But the now-ubiquitous smartphone is too small. It is designed for maximum portability first, and internet functionality second.

There has long been perceived demand for something in-between. A very portable device that can be pulled out of a bag for a few minutes, but which does not have the limitations of the hand-held devices.

Enter the Netbook. Essentially a small laptop with only the processing power required to surf the net, they come in small enough sizes that they can fold into the back pocket of the owner’s jeans — though we doubt this is recommended.

Apple’s initial response to this was first the MacBook Air. The weakest of its laptop line, it is small, thin and light. But then it changed its mind (kind of — they are still selling and improving the MacBook Air) and went tablet.

Apple’s tablet, the iPad, is essentially an iPhone without the calling features, made big. While this has been the subject of many jokes, it is also the secret to the iPad’s success. Where NetBooks take an existing device (a laptop) and pull things out to make it tiny, the iPad takes an existing device (the iPhone) and makes it big, allowing an improved user experience via the larger interface, extra processing power available, and so on.

As a result, while the NetBook experience feels like using a bad laptop, the iPad experience is that of using a super-powered iPhone. With our expectations driven by the interface, the iPad can easily outperform where the NetBook is doomed to be insufficient.

That said, here at the Big Bad Blog, we think that either tablets will eventually evolve to be properly distinct from their forebears (rather than giant versions of the same), or something truly innovative will come along.

In other words, this “giant-phone-as-mobile-computing-device” is a fad.

The march of technology

That said, our primary goal today is to assess the iPad 2, in comparison to the first generation device. Should people actually be excited?

First, let us take a look at the generic rules regarding what happens as a technology matures:

The rules

Rule 1: Technology gets faster – each generation of a technology tends to be faster than the previous one. You don’t replace your computer for one that performs as well as the previous generation. New technology has more computing power than old technology.

Rule 2: Technology gets smaller – remember that Friends episode in which one of them got a mobile phone? That thing was comically huge. You couldn’t even reasonably stick it in your pocket.

Laptops have undergone a similar change. Ditto televisions and radios. Technology gets smaller. Thinner. Lighter.

Rule 3: Technology gets cheaper – a laptop in 1988 cost $4,000. Adjusted for inflation, that is over $7,000. Would you play $7,000 for a laptop today? I thought not.

Again, we can look at any technology you want here — not just computing — it gets cheaper over time. At first, the rate of change is steep, but it levels off as the R&D and production lines become firmly established and optimized.

Additionally …

In addition to the rules mentioned above regarding the progress of technology, there are two additional goals of “next generation” devices:

Fixing problems – technology (particularly first generation technology) tends to be buggy or deficient in some manner. Future generations should recognize and fix these problems.

Innovate – not every new generation will have new innovations, but innovation is the best way to grab people’s attention and stay ahead of the market. Everybody is making faster, smaller and cheaper technologies that have learned from previous mistakes. Something more is required to make a stand-out device.

How does the iPad fare?

Let’s take a look at the improvements over the original iPad:

• Upgrade to an A5 chip (from an A4), which is dual core
• 33% thinner
• Added front and rear cameras
• HDMI output is available as a bolt-on
• Priced at $499-$849, depending on the model

So it is thinner and faster (rules 1 & 2 have been met). But it is also being sold at the same price as the first generation. While this might technically make it cheaper (in real terms) than the original iPad at launch, the state of the economy means that it’s not much cheaper.

The main problems identified with the first generation of iPad were the lack of cameras and the lack of available ports for available devices. The first problem has clearly been addressed, but the optional HDMI port seems to be a very weak nod at the other — it still lacks a USB port (or similar), a fact which would be easier to ignore were the HDMI improvement not present.

Innovations? None to be found. This is a very basic upgrade — a new, faster chip was available, so Apple released a slightly thinner version of the same device (with a built-in camera).

The Big Bad Verdict

We are disappointed.

The iPad 2 meets only two of the three rules — an unchanged price on a second-generation device is generally an indication that the customer is being overcharged. Only one of the two main issues with the device have been rectified.

And there is no innovation here; the second generation iPad will do nothing that the previous generation could not do. It is faster and lighter, yes, but we had yet to hear a “it’s too heavy” or “it’s too slow” complaint amongst first-generation users. Built on the iPhone platform, it is pretty much guaranteed to be fast by comparison.

Most importantly, the complete lack of innovation makes the tablet seem like a continued fad. We are still waiting for the innovation that makes it a truly unique device, or the alternative device which is more than a giant smartphone.

Our best guess is that Apple is worried about competing devices using dual-core processors, and rushed through a revised version of the iPad 1 with a new chip and the camera from the iPhone 4. The lack of innovation, the big announcement, the first-generation style pricing, and the fact that it does not better support peripheral devices all drive this suspicion.

Given this, if you want an iPad — and they are pretty things — we would suggest a (now discounted) first generation device. Save your money; the extra speed simply isn’t worth it.

1988 prices taken from PC World.

If you liked this, you might also like The weekend coffee has kitten-loving stormtroopers