On January 27th, many of us in the technology world were closely following the real-time coverage of the much anticipated Apple iPad launch. My gut reaction after Steve Jobs’s hour plus long unveiling and demo of the device didn’t have as much to do with the poor naming choice but more confusion over the target customer for this device. Is the iPad innovation for innovation’s sake or are there target customer personas behind this product? Don’t get me wrong, the device is gorgeous and makes for a beautiful demo. But, it seemingly falls halfway between an iPhone (or iPod Touch) and a MacBook as far as capabilities go. The iPad essentially has all the features of the iPod Touch, plus a full sized touch keyboard, slick photo management/browsing, rich maps and calendar apps, native game APIs (as well as several native games from the likes of NY Times, EA and MLB.com),  iBook book reader with iBook store (and most importantly partnerships with major publishers Penguin, Macmillion, Simon & Shuster, etc.), and a light productivity suite called iWork. That said, I’m not sure I understand who will be willing to spend between $500 and $750 on a juiced up (much less convenient in size) iPod Touch that lacks the horsepower of a full-fledged (almost as convenient in size) MacBook. In other words, who’s pain does the iPad address.

Yes, the iBook feature is compelling (ala Kindle) and the native games may catch on with the gamer crowd but the value proposition didn’t smack me in the face like the iPhone or iPod did when they were first launched. One obvious target is students and teachers who may choose the iPad as their digital learning/teaching device given the apparent tight partnerships with book publishers (e.g., lugging around text books will be a thing of the past) and the iWork productivity suite. Macworld had a good article a few days ago that spoke to the potential of the iPad for helping businesses perform services like patient care, selling houses, restaurant service, interior design, and roadside assistance.  Maybe, but it’s not like the iPad is a cheap alternative to existing domain specific devices that serve some of these industries. The article also proposed that the iPad consumer market is the technologically challenged population who are currently intimidated by the complexities of contemporary computers. Perhaps.

Whatever the case may be, given the commentary I’ve been reading (and based on my own reaction), the value proposition (i.e., pain addressed) is not immediately clear to many which is not a good start. Of course, I’m probably not part of the target segment(s) so maybe it’s OK that I don’t get it. But, for those that are part of the target segment(s), Apple better hope that they’re immediately realizing how this device is going address a very painful, very real problem or the iPad might be in for a long haul. The keyword is “real” because if the iPad solves an unrealized or non-obvious problem, then uptake will be dreadfully slow (aside from the early adopter crowd) and selling the thing will be very difficult. The eternal challenge for a company like Apple is always keeping innovation in sync with the needs of the market. Hopefully we didn’t just get introduced to the Newton 2.0.

Advertisement