I can’t be the only one who is never thrilled about Apple technology.
When the iPod came out, it was a huge craze, and its various models remain the most popular MP3 players to date. With the advent of the iPhone, consumers were given a phone with a working touch screen (a feat that other companies still struggle to accomplish) and an almost endless array of options via the App store, in addition to plenty of online application.
Their latest piece of iCrap is the iPad, a tablet computer that is essentially a large iPhone without the phone aspect, and some unique applications. I view it as a large, expensive paperweight.
Does there really need to be an iPad? Is it necessary to do anything? I can’t imagine someone’s lifestyle revolving around the use of this gimmicky piece of trash seemingly named after a ladies’ sanitary napkin. Anyone that isn’t a designer and is technologically minded (which is practically necessary to live in our day and age) could, and likely would, better utilize a laptop computer, which would be cheaper and have more features than the $499 brick. I can’t even see Apple aficionados wanting one, because anyone that does empty their wallet for their every new product already has an iPhone, which uses the same operating system as the iPad.
Wait, no, I’m crazy. The iPad is a welcome addition to the iCult’s ever-expanding collection of glistening, round, and overpriced technology. It’s already in homes everywhere. Somewhere, Skynet is pleased at the mass influx of stupidly tamper-proof computers across the world. Congratulations, Apple. You’ve doomed us all.
The official website for the iPad describes the product as “a magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price.” I want them sued for failing to deliver on the magic and revolution. It is a tablet PC without actually being a PC and an iPhone without being a phone. It is the bastard child of two realms that shouldn’t have mixed.
As it turns out, my brother bought one, and he claims that it is the ultimate touch screen device. I don’t dispute that. It’s just that I’m not fascinated by touch screens. Sure, it’s a significant development as far as user interface and design goes, but I’m not a designer. User interface impresses me when I can do whatever I want with it, and all I see when I look at the iPad is that it’s a low-powered computer with a relatively new way of accessing and controlling things, and it does nothing I want. If I was going to shell out $500 for a clipboard-sized brick, I’d better be able to hack ATMs with it.
The iPad is suited to do certain things as far as technology goes, and it may excel at doing them its own way, but it’s not a step in the direction I’d prefer. As the Spider-Man theme song once proposed, I want a tablet PC to do whatever a spider can – I want it to do whatever my non-tablet computer can. Surfing the Internet and watching movies with a decent screen is a step in the right direction, and the 3G connectivity in the newer iPad (enabling it to be online everywhere) is a nice touch, but for the price, it feels like a handicap compared to what it could be – a fully operational, fully portable, no-nonsense computer.
I can’t stop the iPad, unfortunately. It’s the latest in a string of iTechnology that’s got a fresh design and a slender look that I can’t find it in me to enjoy. To me it’s nothing but a bunch of expensive eye candy… or, rather, iCandy. And if Apple releases a product with that name, I’m going to throw a brick (or a classic iPod, equivalent to a brick) at Steve Jobs.
