Last week Apple publicly announced their newest portable device, the Apple iPad. A Tablet design that is essentially a 10 inch iPod Touch. Reactions have been very mixed to the device. The hype and frenzy that built in the lead up to the event in San Francisco last week was typical of big Apple announcements and very similar to that leading up to the announcement of the iPhone a couple of years ago.

What is interesting has been the reaction people have had to the device once the details were made public. I think it fairly safe to say that there hasn’t been a reaction like this to any previous Apple product, and maybe it marks a turning point in the fandom that circles around Apple products.

I think my opinion of the device is fairly evident. Lets just say I’m not a fan and leave it at that shall we? :-)

One thing that really does bother me is the application model that they are using for the device. It is essentially exactly the same as the model used for the iPhone and iPod AppStore. Including the way you purchase books for the new iBook application.

This means you are essentially locked in to only running applications that Apple allow you to run. If Apple doesn’t like an application, it will never make it to the iPhone, iPod or now the iPad.

But the real tragedy is in they way they deal with ebooks. All Apple devices and platforms have supported PDF since the release of MacOSX. PDF is a core technology within the OS itself. However, while the iPad uses the open ePub format for its books, you cannot get books from anywhere other than the Apple book store which will have a model much the same as the App Store for the iPhone/iPod. My understanding is that Apple wrap their own DRM technology around the ePub books so they cannot be transferred to other devices without permission. This also means that if Apple ever decide to take their servers offline in the future, or change the technology significantly, you could be unable to access those books you already purchased. In much the same way you need to log in to the iTunes Store to copy purchased movies, TV shows or even apps to your iPod/iPhone.

What really stands out for me though is that Apple have done with the iPad name exactly what they did with the iPhone name.

For those that don’t know the history, Cisco’s Linksys division owned the trademark to the name iPhone. They released VoIP phones based on various technologies including SIP, Skype and other IM applications. I have a Linksys Iphone Skype phone myself. When Apple first announced the iPhone, it came out that they had been in talks with Cisco to try and get permission to use the name, but had not come to an agreement with them. Cisco sued Apple who used their muscle to keep the whole thing floating in the air. In the end, they went ahead and released the Apple iPhone anyway and pushed Cisco into a position where Cisco eventually just gave up on the whole thing. It was costing Cisco more than it was worth to them to try and deal with the issue.

In a similar vein, it has come out that Apple does not have the legal trademark rights to the iPad name. Fujitsu is pretty adamant they own those rights. They also have a touch screen portable device that can use wifi to access the internet.

Wednesday’s launch of the iPad set off a trademark dispute with a Japanese company that introduced a device called the iPAD in 2002. The spat could spark litigation or result in the kind of settlement Apple reached over its iPhone in 2007, when it reached an agreement with Cisco Systems Inc. Cisco had been marketing an Internet telephone under the same name.

Computer maker Fujitsu Ltd. on Wednesday said it believes it has U.S. trademark rights to the name of its device, which is used by retail-store employees to track inventory and sales. Though smaller than Apple’s tablet, Fujitsu’s iPAD has a touchscreen and wireless Internet access. Fujitsu said in a statement on Thursday that it is discussing “the possible infringement on our trademark” with lawyers and had no further comment. A spokesman for Apple declined to comment.

Apple Tablet Draws Jeers, Legal Rumblings Over iPad Name – Wall Street Journal

We’re seeing a very similar sort of behaviour in the patent dispute between Apple and Nokia. They didn’t want to pay the price Nokia asked, so they ignored the patents and implemented the technology anyway. Now Nokia is suing them for it and they’re counter-suing in a very tit-for-tat situation.

Now we have a 10 inch device that looks like an over sized iPod Touch, onto which you are only allowed to install applications someone else says is allowed, that potentially limits your access to books with DRM and that possibly doesn’t even have the legal right to use the name its been given.

My reaction to the whole thing? Over hyped, under delivered and pretty insignificant. Its essentially just a large iPod Touch with a 10 inch screen. Its useless as an eReader for the simple fact it uses an active display rather than a passive display like e-ink and has no where near the battery life of try ebook readers like the Kindle or Nook. Using an active display also means eye strain in the same way looking at a computer screen or TV for extended periods causes eye strain. There are serveral very good reason the Nook, Kindle, Sony eReader and pretty much all others on the market use a passive e-ink display.

How well will the device do? In my opinion, it might start to mildly bastardise the iPod Touch market. I do not think there is enough of a differentiation between the two devices. My iPod Touch is essentially just a simple email and web browser now days. My cellphone has become my primary mobile music device. Which is the case for a lot of people I know. It will never make a significant dent in the ebook reader market because of the screen and battery life.

In the end, I think the Apple iPad is essentially a product with no clear market. Its essentially a fancy web browser that can’t browse a lot of sites because of lack of Flash. Its a video player but with only a 10 inch screen and no HDMI output. Other than that, ultimately its not really significantly different to an iPod Touch. Would you spend so much more for so little extra value?

What I’d really like to know is what you think of the device. Is it worth it to you? Will you be getting one? Does it live up to your expectations? What would you change about it now that you can see the full details of it?

But it also has very little