iPad, Polarized

Here’s David Pogue begin­ning his New York Times review of the Apple iPad, which becomes avail­able tomor­row.

In 10 years of review­ing tech prod­ucts for The New York Times, I’ve never seen a prod­uct as polar­iz­ing as Apple’s iPad, which arrives in stores on Saturday.

Pogue, who tends to play down how smart he actu­ally is, then splits the review in two: one for geeks, the other for nor­mal peo­ple. To make sure nobody misses his point, he begins both reviews with exactly the same sen­tence:

The Apple iPad is basi­cally a gigan­tic iPod Touch.

The geek review goes on to say: And that’s why you don’t want it.

The normal-person review goes on to say: And that’s why you want it.

Many read­ers will see Pogue’s “two reviews” gam­bit as merely a writer’s gim­mick. But the polar­iza­tion that he cites (and reflects with the two reviews) is vastly more sig­nif­i­cant than that. In fact, it com­pletely explains the mys­te­ri­ous consumer-product genius of Steve Jobs, which turns out to be not so ter­ri­bly mys­te­ri­ous after all.

Jobs and Woz started the micro­com­puter era. But only Woz was a geek. Jobs was the other guy, the one who saw that human­ity at large could ben­e­fit from per­sonal com­put­ing, not just the mem­bers of the Home­brew Com­puter Club. He also turned out to be a guy with remark­ably long-range ideas who was will­ing to nurse his visions for many years if nec­es­sary, wait­ing for his moment.

What Pogue’s split review tells us is this: At long last, we’ve come to the begin­ning of the end of tech­nol­ogy designed for tech­nol­o­gists yet foisted upon count­less nor­mal peo­ple who just have to suf­fer with it. We’ve reached the begin­ning of tech­nol­ogy designed — by really, really good design­ers — for nor­mal peo­ple who care about liv­ing their lives as human beings, and who do not care about tech­nol­ogy per se.

Because the iPad dis­pleases geeks, who until now have always dri­ven the mar­ket for com­put­ing tech­nol­ogy, many peo­ple will assume that the new device is an act of hubris on the part of Apple, Inc. Indeed, for months now, smug, self-congratulating techno-pundits have been pre­dict­ing mon­u­men­tal fail­ure and embar­rass­ment for the com­pany. What the tech-drenched pun­dits can’t see is that the dis­plea­sure of the geeks is the tip-off that Apple has done the right thing.

Steve Jobs’s genius is prop­erly mea­sured not by quar­terly results or the sales fig­ures of any spe­cific prod­uct, but by his abil­ity to change the entire agenda and bring the mar­ket with him. And that is already a done deed.

In par­al­lel with David Pogue, Walt Moss­berg — who started his WSJ “Per­sonal Tech­nol­ogy” col­umn many years ago because all the other com­put­ing columns were writ­ten by geeks for other geeks — has pub­lished a rhap­sodic review of the iPad that calls the prod­uct a “game-changer,” which is the new way to say “paradigm-shifter.”

Finally, bear in mind that an almost iden­ti­cal sce­nario played out sev­eral years ago with the Nin­tendo Wii, another prod­uct for nor­mal peo­ple that was widely ridiculed by tech-savvy insiders.

Comments

3 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.
  1. I liked the way Pogue divided the arti­cle into the pro and con case, how­ever i don’t think the diif­fer­ence is as clear as geek and nor­mal. For instance, many geeks love the fact that iPad doesn’t have flash, because web purists tend to hate flash. But a num­ber of nor­mal peo­ple have reported frus­tra­tion at all the holes in the web. I think the polar­i­sa­tion occurs around Apple’s strengths and weak­nesses – the iPad dis­plays both prob­a­bly more than any­thing they have ever released. Is is the user friendly, human­ised com­puter they seem des­tined always to make. But it dis­plays their wal­let goug­ing, con­trol freak side to a intru­sive degree. For instance, the peo­ple tear­ing down the iPad have found an empty place where a cam­era will be, and sup­port for it in the soft­ware. But Apple clearly saved up putting a cam­era in for ver­sion two of the iPad, to give it a rea­son to sell. The mix­ture of gen­eros­ity and greed in one device has never been more acute.

    • Ralph Lombreglia,

      Thanks for the com­ment. Sure, Apple with­held fea­tures for v.1. Who would dis­agree with that? Equat­ing that with “greed” and “wal­let goug­ing” is naïve, in my opin­ion, but it’s also beside the point I was mak­ing. I was not com­ment­ing on the incred­i­bly com­plex real­i­ties of run­ning Apple prof­itably. Your “con­trol freak” point is more inter­est­ing, but to some degree you’re on auto-pilot with this crit­i­cism, too. It’s way more com­pli­cated than your com­ment would have peo­ple believe. If we’re going to make “human­ized” devices for the great bulk of human­ity who are not com­puter geeks or tech hob­by­ists, then wise design­ers are indeed going to have to “con­trol” things so that users are spared direct (and not pleas­ant) expe­ri­ence of the super-complex sys­tems under­ly­ing con­sumer com­put­ing. Are the design­ers of auto com­puter sys­tems also “con­trol freaks”? Would you really like more “input” into your anti-lock brakes, or would you just like them to work and stay out of your face? Yes, such “con­trol” is a slip­pery slope that raises all kinds of ques­tions, right up to the proper role of cor­po­ra­tions and pro­pri­etary tech­nolo­gies. Still, com­pared to the out­right cus­tomer abuse and crappy user expe­ri­ences of com­put­ing in gen­eral, Apple is walk­ing the tightrope quite well, I’d say.

  2. Yep, looks like Jobs nailed it … any many folks agree with him.

Trackbacks

One Trackback

Add Your Comments

Disclaimer
Your email is never published nor shared.
Required
Required
Tips

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <ol> <ul> <li> <strong>

Ready?