With the release of the iPad 2 in the US (March 11, 2011), and its impending global release (March 25, 2011), I’ve decided to look at the legacy of Apple hand-held hardware.
I think the best way for me to examine said legacy of Apple hand-held hardware is to share my personal experiences with the Apple devices that I have had the privilege to own. To add context to this history I think it’s pertinent that I mention that I’ve been an Apple/Mac user since the mid-nineties (circa. 1995/96). I’ll spare everybody the history of the exact Apple computers/devices that I have owned–and still own–over the past years. I will mention that my history with Apple computers began with machines that used the Motorola 68000 line of processors; in 1999 the logical progression of upgrading led me to the PowerPC line of Macintosh computers.
Around this same era (circa. 1998/99) I got the Apple Newton MessagePad 120. The MessagePad 120, originally released in 1996, I bought used off Ebay for $180.00. The device was in mint condition. At the time the US Robotics Palm Pilot was all the rage. I had a Windows PC as well, but the Palm Pilot wasn’t a suitable hand-held device candidate for me, as I was using my Mac more than my Windows machine. The MessagePad 120 had an ARM 20Mhz processor that was considered blazingly fast for a hand-held device at that time. It had/has a black and white–calculator quality–LCD display, a stylus for user input, and it had a decent selection of applications. Overall, the device is utterly antiquated in comparison to today’s technology. Notwithstanding the MessagePad’s primitivity, in terms of mobile hand-held computing Apple was well ahead of every other company. Even if we consider the industrial design of the MessagePad 120…it still has a pleasing visual and aesthetic appeal despite being 15 years old.
The next hand-held Apple device I purchased came 4 years after having acquired the MessagePad 120. In the summer of 2003 I broke down and bought a 3rd generation 10gig iPod. I must admit that when the 1st generation iPod was released in 2001, I was less than impressed. At that time I was more interested in CD players that could play MP3 CDs , and I had a Sony Minidisc player that adequately served my portable music needs. I bought the 3rd generation iPod for 3 reasons:
1. My Minidisc player broke.
2. I had just got a G4 iMac, and the iPod was a nice accessory.
3. I was looking for new gadget to buy. : )
In truth, if my minidisc player didn’t fail I probably wouldn’t have bought the iPod. The Minidisc player could only hold 74 minutes of music (about 15-20 songs), and you had to record all of the tracks in realtime to the disc. Despite Minidisc’s shortcomings it worked well, however, the iPod’s advantages were clear. I could sync my entire iTunes library to the one device, and subsequently carry all of my music around with me at all times.
An additional 6 years would pass before I purchased my next piece of Apple hand-held hardware. In Spring 2009 I got the 2nd generation iPod touch. This was most definitely a exponential leap forward in terms of technology. Besides being an MP3 player the ipod touch could: browse the web through WiFi, run high calibre applications that you would previously only think of running on a desktop/laptop computer, it could play video, and it incorporated an innovative touch screen interface.
Looking back on this legacy of Apple devices, I see the iPod touch as being the amalgamation of all of the best features from the MessagePad 120 and the 3rd generation iPod. However, to classify the iPod touch as a mere amalgam of the two aforementioned devices would be a severe understatement, as the iPod touch adds layers of functionality far beyond anything the MessagePad 120 or 3rd generation iPod could come close to accomplishing. The reason why I see the MessagePad 120 and the 3rd generation iPod as the forerunners to the iPod touch should be axiomatic. It’s clear that the genesis of the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad/iPad 2 devices was the Newton MessagePad line of products. While the Newton products were not commercially successful, they did lay the foundation for portable hand-held computers that could rival or potentially replace a desktop/laptop computer. This is interesting when you consider that it has taken 15 years for the industry to reach the point where you can have a hand-held device–iPod touch, iPad, iPad 2, Xoom, Galaxy tablet–that can rival the speed, power, and features of a desktop or laptop computer.
Regardless, Apple had the idea and proof of concept for mobile computing with the Newton MessagePad products. Is it any wonder that Apple is currently leading the industry in hand-held/tablet computers? With 15 years of research, development, industrial design, and design aesthetics under its belt, it doesn’t seem that remarkable that the iPod, iPhone, and iPad are commercial success stories.
I’ve been using the iPad for five months now, and I find it to be a very useful device. The video, apps, music, and the browser make it a worthwhile purchase. It’s really nice to have the internet at your fingertips without having to boot up your machine every time that you want to check out something on the net.
I have found that while many websites/blogs have reviewed the features mentioned above, I haven’t found a lot of salient information regarding the iPad and how it compares to paper books. Sure, everybody knows that you can download and read eBooks on the iPad, but its other features tend to eclipse the ebook experience. If, however, the ebook feature on the iPad is reviewed, it’s almost always compared and contrasted with Amazon’s Kindle. I have not seen anybody review the iPad’s efficacy as a reading device vis-a-vis actual paper books. Being an avid reader of paper books and now having had experienced reading on the iPad for five months, I think that it’s time I did a review of how the two compare.
Before I begin I think it would only be fair to say that I am a big fan of standard paper books. With that being said…I hope that I can separate my love of books in order to give a fair assessment of the iPad reading experience.
The iPad has some great features:
• The ability to look up words using the iPad’s built in dictionary.
• The orientation can be changed (landscape or portrait).
• The animated graphic for each page turn mimics page turning in a standard paper book.
• The paper colour can be changed to a yellowish to mimic discoloured paper.
• The typeface can be changed and the font size can be increased or deceased.
The ability to instantly look up unfamiliar words is truly a handy feature. When reading books I normally keep my iPod touch close by to look up words using a dictionary, or I will simply look it up in a book dictionary. This can become irritating as it distracts you away from the subject matter of the book that you are reading. The iPad definitely scores a big win with the built in dictionary.
The orientation and page turning animation graphic are nice touches, but ultimately this makes no difference to me. I find that this is something that is more a novelty that you would show your friends in order to impress them and say: “Hey look how my iPad can mimic paper books…the future is now! Blah blah blah.” The ability to change the colour of the pages to yellow from the bright white is an essential feature. When I first started reading on the iPad I used the white coloured pages (the default setting), but I found that this really strained my eyes after a long reading session (even with the screen brightness turned down really low). With the screen brightness turned really low and the paper colour turned yellow, this can definitely mitigate eye strain, but it isn’t a panacea.
Another feature that effectively mitigates eye strain is the ability to change the font sizes and typeface. This makes reading on the iPad superior to books. It is superior because the only way to enlarge text when reading a paper book is to move the book closer to your face or wear reading glasses.
So far it seems that I would prefer reading on the iPad to books, but this is not the case. I’m not sure if it’s because the culture of paper books is so firmly entrenched in my psyche, but books just seem to be a more natural method for reading. As you turn the pages you get a feeling for the texture of the paper that the iPad can’t even dream of being able to recreate. Another issue that adds to the books experience is that each paper book has a smell that adds to the reading experience. I can’t take credit for this observation. I saw an interview with poet/writer Nikki Giovanni on “This is America” with Dennis Wholey where Wholey asks her opinion on technology/ebooks/ebook readers. She responds by saying that “The ebook won’t work until they can find a way; well we already know how to turn the page now[sic], but we’re going to have to find a way to bring the smell of paper and ink.” This was something that I hadn’t thought about until I heard Giovanni make this statement, but now I do notice the smell of books. I think unconsciously I was noticing the smell of books all along. However, after reading on the iPad–where no smell is emitted–you do start to miss the smell of “paper and ink” as Giovanni claims. I suppose smell is one of the most under-appreciated senses always being relegated to a subordinate position to sight and hearing. Giovanni’s explanation is far more robust than this; I’ll embed the video of the interview at the end of this article.
One thing that can get irritating on the iPad is that after the 9 hour battery dies you have to plug in the device for recharging. This can be irritating because it interrupts the flow of reading during a long session. I know that this seems like an insignificant point. I’m sure many would argue that after 9 hours of reading having to plug the iPad in is not a big issue. However, this can be more irritating than it sounds. Suppose you were reading in a comfortable position on your couch and there is no power outlet near you. You would have to get up from that position and find a spot near an outlet where you can plug in the iPad and continue reading. Now if you can’t achieve the same level of comfort in that new spot, you will most likely just stop reading and move on to doing something else. Your reading session has been interrupted. Books don’t suffer from this deficiency. So long as you have a working light you can keep reading for as long as you want.
So which method of reading is superior? This is a very difficult question to answer. I will say that the iPad definitely has clear advantages (all of which have been mentioned above). I don’t think that the iPad’s advantages necessarily eclipse the advantages of books. Books are low-tech, but they are still effective at disseminating knowledge. I think the reason for ebook popularity is really more of a consequence of novelty rather than efficacy. When we look at both methods objectively the main purpose is to disseminate and read information no matter how high-tech or low-tech the medium is. Both the iPad and paper books serve the purpose of making knowledge accessible, but is one a better method than the other? Really, I don’t think it makes a difference. While it is true that you can buy an ebook and have it downloaded to your device instantly, I don’t think that this necessarily makes the ebook experience more advantageous. Have we really become that impatient as a society that we can’t wait a day or two for a paper book to arrive in the mail? Personally, I can wait for the paper version to show up, but that’s just me. The final verdict: I will say that the iPad and ebooks are here to stay, but they will never fully replace paper books. In terms of which method is better really depends on which method is more suitable for the individual.
I will personally be using both the iPad and paper books for reading.
Let me know what you think in the comments section.
Here is the Dennis Wholey interview with Nikki Giovanni. The full interview is interesting, but if you’re just interested in the part about Giovanni’s opinion on ebooks it appears at 23:57 near the end of the interview.
