16
Feb 10

Ain’t so easy this time

This one may take a little work

Some people look at iPad and see the future. Others radiate less happy thoughts, ranging from “ho hum” to “major dud.”

Gee. Whatever happened to that air of inevitability, that “instant hit” thing that came along with iPod and iPhone?

Personally, I believe iPad will shake things up in a hundred different ways. But even those who agree with me can’t escape the feeling that something is different this time around. That avalanche of positive vibes didn’t quite materialize.

Two reasons for this:

For starters, iPad isn’t here yet. It’s a bit hard to judge this kind of technology by analyzing specs. Multiple multitouches are required.

Far more important: market conditions for iPad are strikingly different from those encountered by iPod and iPhone.

iPod actually sneaked in the back door. Music players were becoming popular, but the category was leaderless and uninspired. Apple swooped in with its irresistible combination of fun, cool and easy.

iPhone’s entrance was the antithesis of this. Thanks to iPod’s success, iPhone was hotly anticipated. This time the category was filled with heavyweights — but the natives were restless and anxious for something better. The competition awaited Apple’s entrance, then started copying their little hearts out. Droid, Storm, Pre, none of them would exist were it not for iPhone.

iPad faces entirely different circumstances. It was also hotly anticipated, but given the success of iPhone’s touch technology and the App Store, it wasn’t too hard to figure out where Apple was headed. A legion of competitors has met iPad with new ideas for netbooks, tablets and hybrids. The fact that some are in concept form is made less pitiful by the fact that iPad isn’t a real product yet either.

Google's take: looks cool, but still vaporous

HP has a neat idea, Google is previewing tablet concepts, the JooJoo tablet is making some waves, and Microsoft continues to taunt us with its Courier tablet.

Apple’s competitors are not uninspired — they’re duly inspired by Apple’s previous successes and motivated never to let such a nasty thing happen again. Though the odds are that it will — simply because Apple continues to enjoy its multi-part unfair advantage:

• Great design/superior software
• The world’s undying attention
• Far better marketing
• 150,000 apps
• A sea of developers chomping at the bit to get in on iPad’s ground floor

Looking forward to all of this becoming less theoretical in the coming months…

7 comments
11
Feb 10

When good names go bad

Was this really necessary?

Congratulations to Comcast on taking the #1 position in Time’s “Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes.”

Unlike those who seem to have been made physically ill by the name Xfinity, I actually don’t have a problem with it — even if it does sound like a Hugh Hefner production. Lots of successful companies have names that get scorched in their fledgling state. My problem is the basic idea of it. The obvious question being: why bother? It’s a massive, costly effort for no apparent reason. The kind of thing shareholders get very nasty about.

Instead of investing their money to polish a brand with instant name recognition, Comcast will now squander untold millions to re-educate customers by advertising, repainting countless vans, and revamping systems and materials across the organization. It’s such an odd decision, you start wondering if there’s some deep, dark secret we don’t know about. On the circumstantial evidence, we’ll have to find Comcast guilty of brand-squandering in the first degree.

Another item on Time’s list is a personal favorite. Last fall, Sci-Fi Channel changed its name to Syfy.

Ah, this changes everything

Unlike Comcast, these guys were facing a real marketing issue. Their audience growth rate had hit a ceiling. They needed to extend their programming beyond conventional sci-fi to attract a more varied audience — but the name Sci-Fi Channel was a turn-off to the non-dweeb crowd. They needed an idea.

That brilliant idea was a new name that’s pronounced exactly like the old name — just spelled differently. I can only imagine the conversations that result. “You gotta see this great new show tonight — it’s on Syfy Channel,” followed by, “Nah, I hate sci-fi.” Even when you see a promo on TV, you still pronounce it “sci-fi” in your head. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when someone pitched this idea.

Other interesting tales on Time’s Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes pages.

7 comments
09
Feb 10

Human enslavement alert!

As a card-carrying technology fan, I am duty-bound to be fascinated by robots. However, I do find myself getting a little jaded by the frenetic pace of robotic invention. In the last year alone, I’ve seen robots walk, jog, fly, roll, even perform as teachers and fashion models. Hell, they just had a Heineken Bot serving beer at a recent fair in London. But even in this state of C3POverload, I had to raise an eyebrow last week.

In two separate leaps, our robot friends became both scarier and sluttier. This probably brings us that much closer to the first Cylon uprising, but I see no reason to dwell on the negative. In fact, while we still have our freedom, there’s much to admire.

BigDog: just don't let him sleep on your bed

Starting with the creepy, there is BigDog. This is a four-legged robot developed for the military by Boston Dynamic. BigDog can travel over any surface, even jump like a horse (should work well in military parades). In principle, however, BigDog is really just Mule 2.0. Its mission is to carry 400 pounds of gear for our troops. As a pleasant side-effect, it will also scare the living daylights out of any enemy who might be watching. Think mutant horse buzzing like a giant mosquito. If you can deal with the bad dreams, don’t miss BigDog’s video. (Friendly tip: wash it down immediately with the BigDog parody.)

Roxxxy: in certain ways, creepier than BigDo

The other breakthrough was unveiled at that hotbed of scientific invention, Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. This robot’s name is Roxxxy, and she’s designed to… well, let’s just say she’s an easy conquest. Billed as the world’s most sophisticated talking sex robot, Roxxxy is 5′7″, 120 pounds, equipped with voice recognition, conversational ability and five different personalities (just like many of our real-life mates). A male version, Rocky, is in the works.

At $7,000, Roxxxy is far more affordable than BigDog, but you really shouldn’t make this decision based on money. I get the feeling that in the end, Roxxxy is the kind who might just break your heart.

5 comments
08
Feb 10

Ad Bowl 2010: lowering the bar

Man, being an optimist is getting depressing. Every year, I’m filled with hope that creativity is about to make its big Super Bowl comeback. And every year, I go away feeling thoroughly unfulfilled. Not that there weren’t a couple of highlights. Here are my reactions, and I’ll be curious to hear yours.

Best spot: Google. Some have seen these Search On things before, but this is the first mass exposure. I’ll tell you, it’s a thing of beauty when a spot you could produce in your bedroom outperforms the biggest Super Bowl productions. The spot is charmingly human without showing a single face, outlining a love story through multiple Google searches. How many advertisers can keep their logo on the screen for 90% of a spot without annoying the hell out of us?

Biggest fall from grace: Intel. Well, I gushed profusely when Intel finally did something great a few months ago. And what do I get in return? A two-course serving of disappointment. First, an unfunny commercial featuring cheesy acting and a silly forlorn robot. Then a horribly conceived online contest: What Is Your Core Moment?  Here, we’re invited to share a “pivotal Core Moment” in our life to celebrate the “life-changing speed and smart performance” of the 2010 Intel Core Processor family. Gag me. “Smart computing is here,” the site proclaims, in the total absence of a smart message. I should have known Intel’s marketing DNA would drag them down in the end.

Most appealing to the beer crowd: Bud Light. Varying degrees of success for these guys, though that’s to be expected when you buy up half the ad slots. Holy cow, there were a lot of these things. I’m just thankful that someone out there is teaching our children that valuable life lesson: beer = wildly fun times.

Least differentiated beer: Budweiser. Their Human Bridge spot was actually very entertaining. I’m a sucker for a well-done “cast of thousands” spot, like the Cliq ad I cited a while back. But I do have to ask: ad-wise, what’s the difference between Bud and Bud Light again? If they stuck a Bud Light logo at the end of this spot, it would have worked just as well.

Most Pant-less People: Career Builder & Dockers. It’s a tie. I didn’t have the patience to count. Not only did Casual Friday and Wear No Pants have a similar visual joke (a lowbrow joke, I should add), they ran in succession. Does CBS give refunds?

Best celebrity: Coca-Cola. Using a celebrity is always an iffy thing. Homer & friends have a different kind of celebrity. The Simpsons spot was a great way to suck us in without turning us off. Coke’s mission was to come across as a really fun brand, and they did. Another Coke spot, Sleepwalker, was interesting as well. Nice music, cool idea.

Most unexpected: Cars.com. What better way to empathize with us ordinary folk who can’t quite figure out the whole “car buying” thing than to tell the tale of Timothy Richmond. This is a great example of an intelligently crafted ad that captures a human truth. And for cars.com? Didn’t see that one coming.

Biggest embarrassment: GoDaddy. Aren’t we a little past the pre-pubescent humor yet? If you did as you were told and went to the website to see the “too hot for TV” version (I went for research purposes only), you were treated to an even more deeply embarrassing video. Lame, lame, lame.

Biggest dinosaur: Homeaway.com. The problem with bringing back people who were really big 20 years ago is that they’re 20 years older now. He may have been cheap, but Chevy Chase doesn’t exactly have his edge anymore. I’m pretty sure you could get him really cheap after this one.

Most done to death: E-Trade. The talking babies were back. If one baby is funny, four or five have to be even funnier, right? Personally, I’m sick to death of talking babies. After all the TV commercials that have used this trick (for different companies, no less), a couple of movies and a failed TV series, it’s time for these babies to retire. Please? At least do a better job with the effects and syncing.

Worst non-ad moment: The Who. Roger, Pete… I love you and all, but it might be time to consider, uh, you know…  Note to Super Bowl producers: it’s cool that some big names will happily perform for free to get the exposure, but you’d probably do better if you actually paid someone. Don’t tell me you don’t have the cash.

The drama of the Super Bowl is that there can only be one winner. The Ad Bowl has room for infinite winners. But year after year, we prove that creativity is something money can’t buy.

5 comments
05
Feb 10

iPad: a long time coming (or not)

What did Apple know, and when did it know it?

Ever wonder exactly how far ahead Apple sees into the future? Some have suggested that iPad was in development for years.

You may be tempted to file this under “Things We’ll Never Know.” But in the case of iPad, the answer may not be too hard to divine.

Stand back and let me interrogate the witness on this one:

Q. Good morning. Would you be so kind as to identify the name of iPhone’s operating system when it was launched in 2007.
 A. Yes, that would be OS X.

Q. And explain to the court why you chose that name.
 A. It was to distinguish iPhone from Mac. It was OS X vs. Mac OS X.

Q. I see. And where were you on the evening of March 27, 2008?
 A. I don’t remember.

Q. Allow me to refresh your memory. That was the date Apple released the iPhone Developer’s Kit — and changed the name of iPhone’s operating system from OS X to iPhone OS.
 A. Oh, right. I remember that now.

Q. Uh huh. And when you chose the name iPhone OS, were you aware that Apple was already working on a revolutionary new kind of computer, a tablet that would be based on the same operating system?
 A. I, uh, don’t recall.

Q. You’re under oath, sir.
A. Okay, okay. I remember now. Yes, I was aware of that.

Q. And did you not consider the absurdity of putting something called iPhone OS into a revolutionary product that was not a phone?
 A. Uh… yeah, that did kind of strike me, yes.

Q. Why on earth then, sir, would you not choose a name that would allow just a little flexibility in the future… OS X Mobile, perhaps?
 A.

Q. Hello?
A. Uh … I’ll take the Fifth.

Q. No further questions, Your Honor.

My point is, Apple has always demonstrated tremendous common sense. It’s just hard to believe they’d choose the name iPhone OS if iPad was already on the drawing board. My inner Sherlock tells me iPad wasn’t even a twinkle in Apple’s eye until well after March, 2008. That’s still plenty of time to make one hell of a device — but not nearly as much time as some have suggested.

48 comments
03
Feb 10

Apple says the magic word

Today’s topic is marketing, not technology. But it’s still about iPad, so you may credit me with dragging this topic out for yet another day.

One of the neat things about Apple is that they put as much thought into their words as they do into their inventions. They come up with key words, normally clear and clever, and use them consistently in all communications. If you’re a marketing afficionado, it is a thing of beauty to see Steve’s topline message played back almost verbatim by the world press.

However, this isn’t to say Apple always gets it right. In fact the copywriter in me winced more than once on iPad launch day.

It started when Steve introduced iPad by using the word magic. It was a little too self-admiring, the kind of word that works better when someone else says it about you, instead of you saying it yourself. And it turned out that the magic was just beginning. The M-word was again invoked by Jony Ive on the iPad video. It now appears front and center on apple.com. It also leads off the official iPad press release. Clearly, magic is high up on the official list of iPad words.

Problem is, magic loses its magic when the magicness is unrelenting. Even more important, you can’t expect the magic word to work if what you’re about to share is anything less than 100% certifiably magic. I do believe iPad will change the world, but the technology and the content revealed on launch day just felt too familiar to many.

The iPad video didn’t help create much magic either. Unfortunately, these videos are starting to feel more like an item on a checklist than a creative element. In videos past, we’ve seen interesting celebrities reacting to the product, or some departure from the ordinary. Here, it seemed to be a bit of video-by-numbers, just the usual suspects cultishly gushing over iPad, calling it beautiful, amazing, breakthrough, phenomenal, etc.

Speaking of superlatives, Neil Curtis has put together a hilarious video that reduces the iPad launch event to its essence. If you haven’t seen it, you must click below. Watching this reminds me of a critique I received long ago for an ad I’d just written. Clearly pained, my boss said “I wish I had a nickel for every adjective you crammed in here.” (I’ve gotten better, I swear.) Methinks Apple could use a visit from the Adjective Police.

This video was embedded using the YouTuber plugin by Roy Tanck. Adobe Flash Player is required to view the video.

7 comments
02
Feb 10

Suing Apple for fun and profit

Fujitsu iPad: no multitouch — just multibutton

Take that, Apple. Turns out Fujitsu makes an iPad too. And by my count, it has 24 more buttons than yours. Okay, so their touchscreen is a tad smaller (3.5 inches), but they did start selling this little eyesore long before iPad was a twinkle in your eye (2002). Their lawyers are currently huddling to consider a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, they’re talking tough in China too.

Hey Apple! You stole our design!

Shenzhen Great Loong Brother Industrial Co., Ltd. believes iPad is way too similar to their magical P88 Tablet PC — which itself looks way too similar to Apple’s iPhone. “We don’t understand,” says company executive Huang Xiaofang, “why did they make the same thing as us?” Some mysteries may never be solved. Yet they’re considering a lawsuit as well.

But wait, there’s more.

Sorry, it's just so confusing

Lingerie maker Coconut Grove Pads owns the right to market iPad-brand padded bras — so they’re a bit shaken by Apple’s new baby too. And they may have a case. One can only imagine the loss of income these guys would suffer as confused bra shoppers accidentally purchase an Apple iPad instead.

How times have changed. In days of old (AAPL @ $14), there just wasn’t much incentive to sue Apple. There’s only so much blood you can squeeze from a stone. But man, that $29 billion in cash reserves today looks pretty darn appetizing.

I do hope the courts find no merit in these cases. It would totally pop my bubble if I were to discover that Jony Ive found his inspiration on Shenzhen Great Loong Brother Industrial Co.’s website.

3 comments
01
Feb 10

iPad: joining the revolution-in-progress

We now return to the revolution — already in progress

Now that I’ve done the research, I’ve narrowed it down to two possibilities. Apple has either (a) created another technology masterpiece, or (b) suffered its most humiliating failure.

The sad fact is, months of over-hype force an instant response. Not enough “new” = disappointment. Attack on the mother ship = knee-jerk defense.

Now that we’ve had a chance to sleep it off, I think we should look at the forest, not the tree. iPad isn’t a revolution in itself — it’s actually Part III of a revolution that started seven years ago. Some of its most important features came well before the hype began.

Apple started down this path with iPod. That’s when the company demonstrated its ability to combine software genius and gorgeous design — and immediately grabbed a 70% market share. iPod was technology you could fall in love with, small enough to fit in your pocket. At the start, it was all about music. Then it matured with photos, movies, podcasts, radio and TV shows.

iPhone was Part II of the revolution. Adding phone and Internet to iPod’s capabilities, the pocket device was now a full-fledged computer. It just didn’t feel like one. The spectacular advance was the multitouch screen, which gave us a whole new way to interact. Competing against a legion of high-powered villains, iPhone was an instant success — because its technology matched up so well with human behavior. Then came the App Store, which gave iPhone and iPod an advantage of monolithic proportions.

At this point, all the pieces were in place: advanced OS, multitouch screen, intuitive interface, Internet, email, music, movies and 140,000 apps. No need to think about file systems, viruses, all those ancient concerns — you could just do what you want to do. For a great many people, iPod/iPhone had become all the computer they really need, except for one thing. It was all in miniature. Cue Part III of the revolution. iPad is the life-size version of the technology that the world’s already fallen in love with. And I suspect it’s a device whose potential may be seriously underestimated.

“Where are the new killer features?” iPod and iPhone have already laid the groundwork for iPad, so yes, parts of it feel familiar. This is both a strength and a weakness. The theory is that the features people already know and love are far more scintillating in the new iPad format. Hard to say until the product ships. One thing we do know: with a bigger screen, more powerful processor and even more responsive multitouch, iPad developers will be having the time of their lives.

“It’s just an oversized iPod touch.” Well, yeah. And that’s the reason iPad has the potential to change everything. iPod touch and iPhone offer a tiny window (literally) into a potentially world-changing way of computing. iPad is built on the same foundation — but blows away the limitations.

“No multitasking? What a joke.” Maybe yes, maybe no. Apple is creating a less complicated, more interactive world. They’re handing us a beautiful screen on which we can easily communicate, watch, listen, share, browse and create. Obviously iPad will continue to evolve. I expect multitasking will appear to some degree soon — and naturally we’ll see bigger screens and faster processors. There’s also that “little” matter of the global revolution in magazines and newspapers we were expecting.

Oh, and don’t go thinking that Part III is the revolution’s finale. By the time it’s over, we’ll be well conditioned for Part IV — at which time the whole idea of laptops and desktops may start to change.

If you’re interested, Andy Ihnatko had a good, level-headed review in the Chicago Sun-Times following his personal interaction with iPad at the launch event.

12 comments
29
Jan 10

iPad: critiquing the critics

Every time a new Apple product comes out, the experts share their opinions. But who reviews the reviewers? Well, that sounds like a fun job…

Erica Ogg (CNET): “… the quintessential Apple device …”
Nice, Erica. I buy that. If you look at everything Apple’s done in the last few years, you can easily say “it all led to this.”

Donald Bell (CNET) (Editor’s Take): “… a bit of a misfit… fortunately I like misfits… I’m a fan of disruptive technology… it is going to change the way we think about mobile technology beyond the smartphone.”
Disruptive is the key word. iPod and iPhone were disruptive. While some will be sniping over iPad’s missing features, disruption will be happening all around them.

David Pogue (NY Times): (paraphrased) Phase 1: Apple rolls out product. Phase 2: basher-bloggers scream about its many limitations. Phase 3: positive reviews, people line up to buy it, basher-bloggers disappear.
We like you, David. You don’t take yourself too seriously, and you see the folly all around us. You’re a smart guy, though not the best singer.

Walt Mossberg (Wall Street Journal): “It’s about the software, stupid. … public acceptance… depends heavily upon the software and services that flow through its handsome little body.”
A little creepy there at the end, Walt, but the sentiment is correct. Also, congratulations for scoring an invite to the event even after that tawdry little piece you wrote about Windows 7 being as good as Mac OS X.

Michael Hiltzik (LA Times): “After months of hype, the reality was underwhelming… Hard to see it as anything other than a threat to Kindle; depending on how it is exploited, eventually it could be more.”
Hmm, I’m a little underwhelmed by your ability to imagine. Somehow I think Apple may have a plan for “exploiting” this thing. Since you mentioned it, I’m also now wondering if iPad really is a threat to Kindle. Kindle might have a shot at life as your basic e-reader — if they cut the price to a fraction of what it is today.

Adam Frucci (Gizmodo): “My God, am I underwhelmed by it… absolutely backbreaking failures that will make buying one the last thing I would want to do.”
My goodness, Adam. You sound like a very confident man. By the way, what you would want to do — fascinating as that might be — really isn’t the story here. It’s what a few million other people want to do that has resulted in iPad.

Mark Wilson (Gizmodo): “Substantial but surprisingly light. Easy to grip. Beautiful. Rigid. Starkly designed … touch responds like a dream.”
Mark, would you mind having a word with Adam? You guys work in the same office?

Nicholas Deleon (special to CNN): “Will size matter? … We’ve adjusted [to iPhone's size] and there are no signs that people are tiring of it. … iPad… couldn’t possibly be considered portable… a 10-inch behemoth.”
Dear God, man. Do you carry your own coffee? In one hand?? It’s an eight-ounce monstrosity!

Claudine Beaumont (Telegraph UK): “…  had hoped to hear more about how iPad could be used to read magazines…  potential to be a game-changing device, but it will be the second- and third-generation versions that will really drive the agenda.”
I hear ya, Claudine. Had that same hope for the magazine thing myself. Revolution temporarily on hold.

Michael Miller (PC Magazine): “Given the hype… the most surprising thing is that Apple was still able to have some pretty big surprises… the pricing was much more aggressive than I thought it would be… felt faster and more responsive… applications aimed at creating content.”
The content-creation part of iPad hasn’t nearly gotten as much air play after the intro. But I agree, Michael. What people do with iPad — a computer with no visible OS — may surprise many.

Josh Topolsky (Engadget): “… was fairly underwhelming… unimaginative might be more accurate… will really come into its own when developers get their hands on it…”
Correct, Josh. And on the third Sunday of next January, the sun will rise in the west. Developers did have a wee bit to do with iPhone’s runaway success. And as we saw at intro, iPad gives developers a far richer place to let their imaginations run wild.

Hiawatha Bray (Boston Globe): “Not a world-changer, but not bad.”
I’m disappointed, Hiawatha. Have you gone soft? I was kind of hoping for something more definitive, like your first take on iMac in 1998: “The iMac will only sell to some of the true believers… doesn’t include a floppy disk drive drive… an astonishing lapse from Jobs, who should have learned better… the iMac is clean, elegant, floppy-free — and doomed.” Not that I hold a grudge…

23 comments
28
Jan 10

iPad: the day after

First the Jesus phone, now this?

Some stream-of-consciousness thoughts about yesterday’s launch of iPad:

Understatement of the day. CNN included this statement in their pre-event coverage: Apple CEO Steve Jobs is said to have taken an active role in the development of the company’s rumored tablet device.

The name iPad. It had been growing on me prior to launch. Back-rationalizing aside (or is that back-pedaling?), there’s a lot of logic to it. My idealized version of Apple just isn’t quite so logical. The good news is: the name is short, heavily branded and looks damn good on the device. Remember, names are only scrutinized at the beginning. After that, they’re just names. (Google? Get out.) And yes, this does give our little friend i a new lease on life.

Home-grown processor. A double big deal. Those who played with iPad after the show reported that it’s wicked fast. Even better, Apple makes the A4 processor themselves. That’s a ton cheaper than buying it from Intel, and clearly the main reason it’s as affordable as it is. Good name, too. I can just imagine the conversation. “It’s Apple’s first processor, so let’s call it A1.” “Nah, doesn’t sound very advanced. A4 is three generations faster.”

Leaks hurt. When product details leaked in advance of past Macworld shows, the event never seemed quite as exciting. Yesterday felt a bit like that — because so much about iPad had been rumored or predicted with fair accuracy. iPhone looked nothing like the rumors had it.

Professional jealousy. I know from experience that all this fanfare and anticipation often grates on other technology companies. “5% of the market share, 95% of the PR,” they moan. Hey, nothing’s stopping Dell from holding a major press event to announce their newest Inspiron.

User switching. iPad feels like the perfect device to keep on the coffee table for the whole family to use. So how does email work when you pass the device to another user? Log off/log on? Fast user switching? Just curious.

Category overload. Steve took special care to present iPad as a third category of product, positioned between iPhone and MacBook. He even concluded the show by asking “do we have what it takes to establish a third category of products?” I get that. Not to be a stickler, but Steve did introduce iPhone three years ago as Apple’s third category of products. Those are the product tabs currently on apple.com (Mac, iPod, iPhone). So how many categories of product does Apple now sell? Three or four? Will the tabs on the website change, or does iPad join forces with iPhone? (Even though it is actually more similar to iPod touch.)

Multitasking. Missing in action. Big problem. Especially when even Droid is out there multitasking its little heart out. iPad runs zillions of apps — but only one at a time. Fix, please.

No camera. Big problem #2. How can you have offer such a natural, trend-setting, socially-minded device without the ability to video chat? Probably some physical reason why, but Apple has bent the laws of physics before.

Where’s iLife ’10? Okay, so I was wrong about this prediction. But now that I am humbled, I do remember how Mac OS X was once delayed for six months because Apple’s software resources were focused on developing iPhone. We have to remember that Apple isn’t Microsoft. (Like that’s tough to remember.) They don’t have thousands of programmers. When they have a major challenge, it’s all-hands-on-deck time. Maybe we’ll get a new iLife by spring? I will continue to predict until I get it right.

Apple logo. Is that big Apple logo on the back facing the right way? It’s correct in portrait position, but it’s sideways in landscape position. The images on apple.com seem to be a 50-50 mix of vertical and horizontal orientation, so there is no right or wrong here. I think it’s time for the world’s first accelerometer-based swiveling logo.

Questionable icon. My eyes, my eyes. What’s with the iBooks icon? Click the right arrow on the iPad Gallery page to see the icon lineup. They’re all colorful and beautifully designed — until you get to iBooks. It’s Zune brown, and feels a few decades behind. Can we send that one back?

Overall: iPad has a lot to love, but nirvana is still up the road apiece. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing — Apple’s starting point is light years beyond the other guys’ ending point.

29 comments
← Older Entries
Newer Entries →