Every now and then, I am tempted by an iPad. I spot some slick individual at a departure gate using one. Look at how neat it is, I think, as I lug my laptop bag over my shoulder. It has great battery life and a built-in cellular connection, too?
Then, I pull out my phone and look up some options. This is where the trouble begins. There is a boggling array of models and sizes, and the newness and benefits of each are not quite clear. I question the necessity of a US$129 stylus, given that Apple cofounder Steve Jobs once said he hated the idea. I wonder, can this really replace my laptop and all I need it to do?
The answer to that question, 14 years after the iPad was first introduced, is still “almost,” which, in practical terms, means no.
And that is the end of it.
On Tuesday, Apple tried to revive its iPad line during a “virtual event” it called “Let Loose.” It brought the first significant update to the high-end iPad Pro since 2018. Investors hope it could reverse five consecutive quarters of negative iPad sales growth. This is a chance for a revival of a product that shows great promise, but has always felt artificially constrained.
The iPad’s limitations are not technical. They are imposed by Apple for protectionist reasons: It still wants consumers to buy its MacBooks. As a result, the software experience is locked into a mobile-first operating system, making it more like a giant smartphone (less useful) than a small laptop (much more useful).
This is why if you ever see an iPad “in the wild,” it is just as likely to be in the clutches of a toddler rather than a businessperson or student. Reinforced with a thick rubber case and loaded up with Peppa Pig, the iPad is a terrific device for those younger than 10 in need of a distraction. Unfortunately for Apple, this consumer cohort is not particularly large, and parents have little need to update the iPad from one offspring to the next.
For adults, the iPad’s primary utility is basically the same. Aside from basic tasks like e-mail, it is a device through which users consume rather than create. This significantly limits its appeal. More recent enhancements, such as a highly capable keyboard and support for the use of a Bluetooth mouse, get things closer to the mark, but still feel like a compromise. The iPad’s software is still “locked down” compared with Mac users’ freedom to install any software they desire. There are missing dedicated popular apps, like Instagram and WhatsApp. All this makes an expensive tablet a tougher sell, given many would still need an expensive laptop to cover their bases.
The iPad’s identity crisis is getting renewed interest this year. On Apple’s troubled income statement — overall company revenue has fallen in five of the past six quarters — the iPad is particularly disappointing. Tuesday’s event is a chance to show off the revived range. In addition to new models, as reported by Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, Apple’s Web site teased an improved pencil that could erase more easily. Welcome to the future.
Apple should be bolder. As Gurman said, the company’s restraint with the iPad has typically been to protect its MacBook business, but that is struggling, too — barely ticking up in the past two quarters after sharp sales declines. If Apple does not move quickly, others might try to step in. Data from Canalys Co suggests the global tablet market grew by 1 percent in the first quarter of this year, reversing four quarters of year-on-year decline. However, the growth has come from Apple’s competitors — the iPad’s global market share fell to 36 percent from 42 percent a year ago.
Similar data from International Data Corp showed overall market improvement, but a shrinking of iPad’s leading position. The global market share of Huawei Technologies Co (華為), the Chinese maker whose devices cannot be bought in the US, jumped by a staggering 43.6 percent.
That said, the vast majority of consumers are still making a choice between an iPad or no tablet at all. Even highly capable rival tablets are a hard sell because they are outside of the Apple ecosystem.
Tuesday’s announcement would spur sales. There would be pent-up demand from those who have wanted to update their iPads over the last year or more, but knew that updates were just around the corner. They would surely be delighted by more powerful chips and a better screen.
However, the mass appeal of the iPad would remain sorely lacking until Apple throws off the shackles and creates a genuinely portable computer. The other parts of Apple’s business would be just fine. The artificial intelligence age would bring about new demands for computing power, allowing the MacBook to remain a compelling product as a high-end workhorse for creatives and specialists.
An iPad powered by something closer to macOS would bring about tantalizing new use cases. It would continue to act as a gateway device as Apple tries to sell consumers on the potential of so-called spatial computing while finally fully satisfying the more traditional demands of work and study. The time has come for Apple to move the needle from “almost” to “yes.”
Dave Lee is Bloomberg Opinion’s US technology columnist. He was previously a correspondent for the Financial Times and BBC News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
After nine days of holidays for the Lunar New Year, government agencies and companies are to reopen for operations today, including the Legislative Yuan. Many civic groups are expected to submit their recall petitions this week, aimed at removing many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers from their seats. Since December last year, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) passed three controversial bills to paralyze the Constitutional Court, alter budgetary allocations and make recalling elected officials more difficult by raising the threshold. The amendments aroused public concern and discontent, sparking calls to recall KMT legislators. After KMT and TPP legislators again
When viewing Taiwan’s political chaos, I often think of several lines from Incantation, a poem by the winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature, Czeslaw Milosz: “Beautiful and very young are Philo-Sophia, and poetry, her ally in the service of the good... Their friendship will be glorious, their time has no limit, their enemies have delivered themselves to destruction.” Milosz wrote Incantation when he was a professor of Slavic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He firmly believed that Poland would rise again under a restored democracy and liberal order. As one of several self-exiled or expelled poets from
In competitive sports, the narrative surrounding transgender athletes is often clouded by misconceptions and prejudices. Critics sometimes accuse transgender athletes of “gaming the system” to gain an unfair advantage, perpetuating the stereotype that their participation undermines the integrity of competition. However, this perspective not only ignores the rigorous efforts transgender athletes invest to meet eligibility standards, but also devalues their personal and athletic achievements. Understanding the gap between these stereotypes and the reality of individual efforts requires a deeper examination of societal bias and the challenges transgender athletes face. One of the most pervasive arguments against the inclusion of transgender athletes
EDITORIAL CARTOON
RSS