I’ve been mildly amused by some of the commentary on the iPad. Much of it, while true, misses the point.
For example, IEEE Spectrum’s Tech Talk trumpets that “
The iPad is Not A Kindle Killer.” True enough. You reportedly can’t yet read a book on the iPad in direct sunlight. Not yet.
But the same article quotes
Jason Heikenfeld of the University of Cincinnati as saying that the iPad “will increase the movement to digital media”. Why? Because you’ll be able to download magazines and other publications as easily as you can iTunes?
Well, that raises the question as to how much longer we’ll have print publications around, doesn’t it? As it is, one school library has already
given up on having print books available.
My friend Peter Dupre grokked the importance of the iPad immediately. He calls it a game changer. If you’re not on Facebook, you can
access his blog directly. Peter expects books to become obsolete, iPads to replace laptops and TVs and daytimers, iWork to displace Microsoft Office, and Apple to trump Microsoft, all in about five years or so. Perhaps optimistic, but the trends are there.
Others have complained that there’s nothing really new in the iPad. That misses the point too. Consider:
- Apple has done a masterful job of converging a number of important trends in a single unit.
- The existing concerns and hesitations will be overcome through incremental innovation.
Incremental innovation?
A few years ago, Harvard’s
Clayton M. Christensen published a paradigm shifting book,
The Innovator’s Dilemma. In it he distinguished incremental (or sustaining) innovation from
disruptive innovation. As products mature, companies keep making them incrementally better and better, until the capabilities eventually improve enough to exceed what the vast majority of users need. But the most important customers — that is, those who can afford to buy a lot — keep demanding those improvements, and this siphons off enough resources to keep companies from making anything really different.
And then along comes something very different that at first meets the needs of only a small share of the market, but does so in a way that is cheaper (ink jet printers), safer (hydraulic shovels), more fun (dirt bikes), or easier to use (an iPod). Initially it meets the needs of only a small part of the market, but its makers then begin their own cycle of incremental improvement until they eat the bottom out of the the older technology’s market.
In my opinion, the iPad is a disruptive technology. What is disruptive is the combination — the convergence — of a bunch of leading edge technologies. Pads with the same form factor and detachable keyboards already exist, but they don’t have (I presume) the apps that an iPhone does, nor the ability to download media as easily as you can for an iPod.
And even if not the iPad, something like it will gradually make its disparate competing technologies more and more obsolete. The price will drop, the battery life will extend, more apps will show up, someone will figure out how to read the thing in bright sunlight....