Yesterday Apple released the much anticipated and speculated iPad. Today, no doubt, there will be dozens of blogs and news articles expressing opinions about it, some in favor and some against.
The fact that Apple's stock dropped 200 points shortly after the announcement seemed to reflect some discontent with the product.
According to some pundits and technoratti the device failed to impress - it didn't bring anything new to the table. It looked like an iPhone, only bigger.

There had been so much speculation about this particular device and what it would look like, that it is only natural that the hype did not meet the reality.

I for one got exactly what I expected the iPad to be. An iPhone, only bigger.

There had been so much speculation about this particular device and what it would look like, that it is only natural that the hype did not meet the reality.
Also, Steve Jobs’ presentation was a bit lack-luster and repetitive and failed to convey the iPad’s true potential. In his defense, it is quite hard to truly convey to a large audience the usage of a device that fits in the palm of your hands and faces you, while what you want is for the audience to see it. We should have been watching Steve’s hands and fingers on that screen. THAT would have made an impression.

I for one got exactly what I expected the iPad to be - an iPhone, only bigger.

That is not a bad thing. Given that the iPhone has been a sales sensation since its first inception and the device’s truly unique concept, to date unrivaled by any other platform, Microsoft and Google included, how can being like an iPhone be considered “bad”?

No – I am GLAD the iPad is a larger iPhone. It maintains enough mobility that it can be easily carried around, whilst providing enough screen real-estate to be useful for browsing, email, video, photos and other everyday computing usage. And with the iPhone’s impressive arsenal of application at its disposal, what else can you ask for?

And best of all, Apple got it right. Most tablets in the market today are overpriced and underpowered computers – which is why nobody wants them (save for a few specific business applications, such as the medical industry). Who would pay $2000 for 12’ screen with a low power, slow CPU, with barely a graphics card and a slow hard-drive, when for $400 you can get a much faster 13’ to 15’ laptop that can run circles around it? The cheapest touch-screen tablet I’ve ever seen in the market today is HP’s $850 Touch Smart tx2.




Apple priced it’s tablet just right. Instead of a hard-drive, the iPad uses Flash memory, keeping the device light. Prices stay in the $500-$700 range for the Wi-Fi version and an extra $129 for the 3G radio. And they will undoubtedly drop even further in a few months – such is the power of economics.

Now compare the size of the device. Most tablets, including the small factor UMPC, are bulky and hard to carry around. The iPad is 0.5” thick! And has a 10 hour battery life.

Instead of the Netbook’s 1024x600 awkward size, the iPad is 1024x768, which is the most common standard for most websites.

I expect the device will do extremely well. Time will tell. The market will speak.

Brilliant job Apple!