Yep, it’s “just a big iPod touch”. What were you expecting people? First off, the phrase “just a big iPod touch,” fundamentally underestimates the impact that the iPhone OS has had on the landscape of mobile computing. If people are going to use a mobile browser, there’s a 65% chance they are going to be using Mobile Safari on an iPod Touch or iPhone. That’s nearly 8x the market share of their nearest competitor (Android, 8.5%) (Web Developers Notes).

The iPhone OS is the operating system that made Mobile web browsing an enjoyable experience for the everyday user. It combined this with a great platform to consume media, play games, and in some cases, make phone calls. Furthermore, it gave developers a chance to easily tap into this market. The iPad is a bet on a winning formula that Apple has already spent years developing, and I really think it is going to work.

Here’s a breakdown of what I think is going on:

First, let’s get the bad stuff out of the way:

• Name: iPad. Maybe it will grow on me, but at first glance this is the worst named Apple product ever. At this point, I am almost embarrassed to say it. iPad. iPad. iPad. (I need to get used to it). However, I’m still not really comfortable using the word “tweet” out loud, and they don’t seem to be hurting for any business. (Aside: As of writing this, iTampon is the #2 trending topic on Twitter)
• The look: This could be the worst looking Apple product released under Steve Jobs’ watch. There is so much black bezel around the outside of this product. I wouldn’t say that the product is ugly; It just doesn’t exactly line up with the asthetics of their current line, (see: MacBooks, iMacs). The back looks very nice, however, and I think this is probably a sample of what we will be getting next on iPhones and iPod touches. The “unibody” look appears to be here to stay in Apple products right now, so we mine as well get used to it.
• No Flash: Well, this one was pretty predictable and I can’t even say it bothers me that much. Flash and OS X don’t get appear to get along too well, and Apple seems just attempting to force H.264 and HTML5 video down people’s throats. John Gruber wrote a much better piece than I could on this topic here.
• No Camera: This seems like a device that could really benefit from both a forward and rear facing camera. Video chatting would be a naturally application for a device of this variety, and ever since the iPod Photo came out, I have maintained that if a mobile device insists on displaying photos, it should be able to take them too.
• No Multi-tasking. This one seems silly, but for me this is not so much of a deal breaker as much as it is a minor-annoyance. I’d say that on my iPhone, I almost never feel the need for multi-tasking. I can listen to the music I have on my phone while browsing the internet, and that is enough for me. I don’t use Pandora that often. I don’t use AIM ever. I can understand the annoyance that this lack-of-feature could cause, but ultimately it has zero impact either way on my interest in the product. And after all, this is Apple. We can safely assume that this device will be getting OS updates for the next three years, and who knows what that will bring. I sincerely believe that iPhone OS 4.0 will bring us some form of multi-tasking. Remember how long it took Apple to release copy+paste? Remember how it is now the best implemented form of copy+paste on any mobile platform? Sure, it sucks to wait, but I think that it is coming and will be well done when it gets here.
• 1024x768 display? Apple hasn’t released a non-wide screen display since it did away with the iBook. This isn’t a deal-killer, it just seems silly. And this means it can only run 720p. However I’d imagine that there is no viewable difference to the human eye on a 10” screen.

The good stuff:

• The price. The most expensive version of this device, with 64 gb of storage and 3g, is only a little bit above what I expected the device to start at. A $500 starting point for this device, in my opinion, is beyond reasonable. As is always the case with Apple products, and as is to be expected, you could spec out a similar device that was less expensive, and choose to use that instead. (I’ll talk more about why I don’t think this matters later.)
• The interface: The iPhone OS is one of the most user-friendly, intuitive devices in the world for real people. It could not be simpler to understand. Porting this system up to a 10” tablet makes sense, for the reasons above. There have been plenty of Windows XP tablets before, and none of them have been successful because Windows XP is a mouse and keyboard OS. Same with Windows Vista and 7. Same with Snow Leopard. It would not have made sense to port Snow Leopard to a 10” finger-input device. So, they didn’t.
• App compatibility: The only reason Apple thought that the world was ready for this device was because of the success of the iPod Touch/iPhone ecosystem. Half of the success of that system is the result of the fantastic variety of applications currently available in the App store. It would have been ludicrous of them to handicap their new device by not giving it access to these things. Furthermore, as more developers get their hands on the SDK (aka: everyone, probably today), chances are many games will be optimized for the iPad by the time the thing is released in two months.
• iWork: So many times I have wished I could do a little bit of word processing on my iPhone. For some odd reason, Google Docs’ word processor doesn’t work on Mobile Safari (though their spreadsheet application does). The reworking of iWork really looks like exactly what should be on a device like this.
• The 3g approach: This is perhaps the most reasonable thing Apple has ever done. Make a 3g model optional, and allow any GSM network to set their own pricing for plans. To be honest, I see this eventually resulting in subsidized iPads through network contracts, much as you currently see with the iPhone. But it won’t be tied down to AT&T, and you don’t need to buy a contract unless you want one.
• The e-reader app, iBooks (come on apple, iBooks?) looks like an e-reader should look. Also, holy crap, Apple is supporting an open standard, ePub. That is incredible and unpredicted. No new proprietary shenanigans. A “a free and open e-book standard, by the International Digital Publishing Forum” (from Wikipedia). I could see myself buying a book on this device.

Again, I have to ask everyone who is disappointed with this product, “What were you expecting?” Apple has elegantly up-scaled their iPod touch, which is unarguably the most successful platform of the last five years. Everything that can be done on an iPod touch can be done on a iPad, but it can be done better. If people will pay $200 for an 8gb iPod Touch, I think it’s reasonable to assume they’d pay $500 for a 16gb iPad.

For me, I can picture this device basically eliminating my need to bring my MacBook Pro anywhere. Right now when I’m sitting on my couch watching TV and want to look something up, I use my iPhone. This works fine, but it is inconvenient for several reasons: I can’t really show it to my friends, even if they are sitting next to me. With an iPad, this limitation will be overcome. This is the ultimate casual device.

I don’t have any money for this device right now and if I did, I probably wouldn’t buy it yet. Much like with the original iPhone, I think it’s a great idea and I think that it is going to be an extremely successful device. However, just like I waited for the 3g before buying an iPhone, I think I will be well suited in waiting a year to get the 2nd generation of iPad.

The Kindle, a hit product, has a 6” monochrome display, only reads books, and costs $259. The Nook is also $259. I don’t see why $500 is an unreasonable price for a product that does all of the things that the iPad does.

Bring me your disagreement, but I think that we are going to see this thing take off in the next couple years.