Apple’s Big iPad Mistake
When Apple launched the initial iPod in 2001, they made two critical strategic decisions:
- They focused on providing really great PC support on iTunes, and made the iPod a great device for PCs and Macs (remember, the Mac was not yet ascendant as a laptop); and
- They supported MP3s
People bought (and loved) the iPod because it allowed them to take music they already had (through Napster, or that they’d ripped). The iPod became a dominant force in music by embracing and supporting an existing landscape (the PC, MP3), not by trying to circumvent that landscape (or trying to create an alternate reality right off-the-bat). People forget all this now, but the iTunes Store didn’t arrive until 18 months later; and only the huge wave of initial support for the iPod assured it would be a success. Apple changed the music industry paradigm only after they got tons of people to buy iPods, and they got people to buy iPods by making a great device that worked with MP3s they had on their PCs.
Turn to today’s launch. This was Steve Jobs’ lede today at the iPad unveiling:
You can browse the Web with it. It’s the best browsing experience you’ve ever had.
Indeed, the Internet should be without doubt the killer app (initially) for the iPad. What a joy to sit on a couch, or bed, or plane, or train with an iPad, using natural touch gestures to navigate and browse the web. I would buy this thing in a heartbeat if I could do that — everything else (iBooks, movies and video, games) would be gravy.
So what gives? Well, turns out you can’t truly browse the web with the iPad.
By ignoring Flash, Apple has basically made most of the web broken, as so clearly illustrated by the screenshot of their demo of the front page of the NY Times! It’s not just 10,000s sites which provide their videos in Flash (Hulu, yes, but also CNN, MSNBC, MTV, Comedy Central, BBC, and many, many more), but it’s the millions of flash widgets and other interactive elements on the page. To get a sense, try this experiment — remove Flash from your computer, and start browsing around. If your web experience is unimpaired, maybe you’ll like the iPad. But I think most people will think: “Who broke the damn Internet?”
The iPad did, that’s who.
Now, I’ve seen some arguments today that this misses the point — that Apple isn’t just satisfied with replicating your standard web video experience, that they want to transform the entire video business. Ryan Lawler at NewTeeVee argues:
The iPad will cause ripples in multiple industries — including news, book publishing and gaming — but at the end of the day, I’m betting that what the iPad will be used for more than anything is watching video. Like the iPod, it’s only a matter of time before the iPad becomes the defining product with which to consume that type of media.
Could be. But they have to sell a ton of iPads first. And, by not embracing the existing landscape — the tens of thousands of video sites that provide hundreds of millions of videos encoded in Flash — they’ve cut off a natural, intial reason to buy and to use the device (and yes, I know all about HTML 5 video, and no the iPad is not going to cause a stampede to that overnight). If I have to choose between a lightweight, fully functional wireless enabled laptop that works well on every web site and that allows me to watch videos from Hulu and Netflix and a gazillion other places, and an iPad that doesn’t support Flash or any site that uses Flash and only lets me watch videos from iTune and YouTube, which am I gonna use?
Simple. I’ll stick with my Macbook for now, thanks.
jeffdickey 7:17 am on January 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Ummm…. let’s just say that, since the conclusions you use to buttress your arguments are open to varying interpretations, REGARDLESS of one’s political orientation, that the headline is, politely put, histrionic, misanthropic bloviation. I’m as much a fan of a good rant as anyone, and think that your preface of “This is a rant about rants” got things off to a very good start. But a good rant should do as much to lead along the as-yet-uncommitted reader as to rallying the True Believers around a Cause, and in that I expect that you’ve failed rather spectacularly. It did not help that the particular Frank Rich piece you linked to read, to this somewhat-left-of-center reader, as much as a mea culpa as an “omigosh, we’ve got to straighten up and fly right RIGHT EFFING NOW” piece.
The really sad part of this? Re-reading your piece, and then Rich’s, I get the distinct impression that you agree with him entirely on the political and actual realities of the situation – Obama IS constrained. He can’t instantly (or even substantially) please both the “change NOW” folks who naively think he just has to wave his magic wand. Likewise, he has to tread carefully if he’s going to accomplish anything in the face of a solidly entrenched, spectacularly well-funded and -organized status quo (which has *always* had the real power). If and as he accomplishes anything of substance – anything at all that will be remembered 20 years from now – THAT would be a major accomplishment. He was elected – and I voted for him, too – on a national rant: “Change NOW, because we hate what this country is turning into.” But now, we – and he – have to deal with things as they are. He’s not made any visible progress on the one issue that I really hoped he would. But I understand that his plate is more full than most people can understand. And even though “my” issue is important to me and millions of others, there are other issues that are more important to more millions, and those other issues are both more open to reasoned compromise and less psychologically threatening to the (powerful, organized, monied) status quo. So, from a purely tactical perspective, the relative priorities are obvious.
So I still have hope. I also pray every day that nothing will happen to this President, because I very much fear that Biden is to Obama what LBJ was to JFK – if not Cheney to Bush 43: the guardian of the status quo and monied interests, so that the “top guy” could be as publicly opinionated and populist and larger-than-life as he chose, while those who “really mattered” would rest assure that nothing would get too terribly far out of hand (as far as their interests were concerned).
God save the United States of America. It’s damned well obvious by now that the corporations – or those who benefit from them – won’t lift a finger.
epigonic 4:43 pm on January 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
What a nice, good, long comment.
My main issue with Rich is his tactics. In his last 4-5 columns, he’s veered into the realm of personal character attacks on Obama. That Obama doesn’t have the guts to stand up to the monied interests, and that he’s allowed those interests to control his economic team (Geithner, Summers) and his agenda.
I think he’s wrong on the substance. And, I think his way of going about it is counter-productive, and puerile. The equivalent, if you will, of Hillary’s “It’s 3AM” ad.
Jeff Dickey 9:57 am on January 26, 2010 Permalink
Thanks. I can see your point – looking at a longer history, it’s trivially easy to argue that he’s taken a very slanted, selective viewpoint, especially wrt Obama.
I also happen to believe that Obama needs to (re)gain control of his agenda and his public message, and show the public at large that he is about substantial change to the existing power structure, not just talk. Because the existing power structure has shown for decades now that it can tolerate, even encourage, politicians with a “populist” message. But those that try too hard to turn that message into action, into real change, might as well have hit a steel wall at hypersonic speed – not a very comfortable experience.
I think that if Obama does all this, he won’t have to worry about the Frank Riches of the world – or about re-election – very much at all. He’ll have the bully pulpit, the big stick to whack Congress with to get his policies and initiatives implemented. But until and unless he gets our house in order, Frank Rich is going to be the least of his problems. And that should worry just about anyone who cares about the country – left, right or topsy-turvy.