I-PAD Isn't a Revolution

In case you've been living under a rock for the past few months, the I-PAD has arrived and many people are getting in on the newest sensation from Apple. The I-PAD is a tablet-shaped computer that can be viewed as the "missing link" between the I-Phone and the laptop computer. This new invention has many defining characteristics: a touch screen, the ability to flip the device in any direction and still see things upright on the screen, and new features that allow you to buy and read books, rent and watch movies, and buy and listen to music all at your convenience. In other words, this device can be seen as your own personal virtual library.

The Positives for this device are quite clear. First, physical copies of things like books, CD's, and movies are all digital and can be stored easily inside your I-PAD. You can lose a physical copy of something or even break it very easily, but with the I-PAD, you won't have to ever worry about losing any of your precious stuff. Second, it's sleek shape allows for easy carrying and storage. You can hold it in your lap while you sit, or hold it like a clipboard while you walk. Finally, the I-PAD has a touch keypad for writing e-mails and typing in URL addresses.

On the surface, the I-PAD sounds like a fresh, new, and exciting invention that will revolutionize the way we use the web. However, that might not be the case. The I-PAD's tablet shape could be a pain for some people. Having to hold something constantly in order to use it might drive some people nuts, not to mention neck strains and bad posture for those individuals who place the I-PAD on their lap or flat surface and try to use it. A laptop allows the user to look straight ahead, thus taking tension off the neck. The idea of the I-PAD isn't revolutionary either. It looks and acts like an I-Phone; the only difference I see is it's size. If both devices use things the same way, then I'd rather have the phone that can fit in my pocket rather than a tablet that I have to carry around all the time.

Yes, the I-PAD looks really cool and can do some neat stuff, but in practical terms, it is not worth the money. Now, if the I-PAD was released before the I-Phone, then I could see the revolutionary qualities it possesses. But the I-Phone simply does just about everything the I-PAD does. In fact, it does even more (i.e. calling people). This marketing ploy for the I-PAD reminds me of the evolution of video-game systems. A company, like Nintendo for instance, will put out a new game console that has a bunch of new features and hypes everyone up, and then in a year or so, they create a new system that overtakes the old system. The craze is gone, so people don't buy the old systems anymore, thus wasting a bunch of money on games and accessories that they'll probably never use again.

At least Nintendo progressively improves their product. From GameCube to the Wii, the evolutionary changes in gaming are unparalleled. Nintendo improved their product in a linear fashion by taking progressive steps in a forward direction. Apple, on the other hand, seems to be walking backwards. The progression should have been the MAC, I-PAD, and then the I-Phone. Instead, Apple introduces this supposedly new I-PAD that is nothing more than a large I-Phone that can't even call anyone. Yes, the I-PAD has something to bring to the table, but anyone who says, "it's revolutionary" or "it's never been done before" need to go out and buy an I-Phone, and then decide whether or not the I-PAD lives up to the hype.