Just a few days ago, Apple released its new iPad, a device described by Steve Jobs and the whole Apple marketing team as “magical” (presumably due to its amazing ability to make people want it without knowing why). It was positioned as a product which would fill the gap between the smartphone and the laptop. In order to fill this gap, Jobs said, it must do some things better than both the smartphone and the laptop.

But since the release of the iPad, the general excitement surrounding the magical device seems to have deflated, and I think this is due to the fact that Apple’s method of “filling the gap” between the smartphone and the laptop was simply to make the smartphone a whole lot bigger (thus the oft-echoed response to the iPad’s unveiling: “It’s just a bigger iPhone/iPod touch”). This seems too obvious for all of the hype which preceded the iPad.

I think most people will agree that the iPad is better at most things than the iPhone (e-mail, pictures, movies, internet, etc.). But the fact that the device has no camera (for e-conferencing), no multi-tasking (no switching between my e-mail, photos and internet – a basic capability of a laptop), and a smallish screen (compared to any MacBook or MacBook Pro) makes you wonder if they have not stumbled into the same no-gain situation as the netbook – sometimes less is simply less. Sure, the iPad is smaller than a laptop. But it is clearly so much less capable that I see no reason to use one.

Still I figure the iPad is a good thing. If I think back on the first iPods (which had crumby screens, minimal storage, lots of lousy, plastic moving parts, and poor sound quality), I think that first product releases (which are often pretty underwhelming) can often lead to pretty great technology. The iPod is now such a refined little gadget that it hardly changes from generation to generation anymore.

So I won’t be getting a first generation iPad. But I may someday get a fifth or sixth generation iPad. We’ll see.

Philip