Since the iPad’s introduction to the public in January 2010, it has suffered unwieldy criticism from Apple antagonists. These groups of Apple non-enthusiasts have called the iPad a regretful piece of appliance at the least.
However, from the point of view of neutral commentators, there emerged a set of logic to explain the seemingly exclusive structure of the iPad.
The most popular perceived deficiency of the iPad in terms of software is its lack of Flash support. Flash is used in most websites; it is supported by all major Web browsers (Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera) except for the mobile version of Safari. YouTube is one of the most popular websites that utilize Flash for its videos.
Apple makes up for the lack of Flash support by creating and designing apps that are specific to the iPad. For instance, YouTube has a Flash-free app, using H.264, that will run smoothly on the iPad. Safari supports HMTL5, which can display embedded videos more efficiently than Flash-supported websites.
It has been noted several times that multitasking is impossible on the iPad because the user has to close one app before moving onto the other. Critics have panned this issue by taking into consideration the target market for this device.
As an “appliance” for the media consumer, the iPad is meant to play a single program at a time, most likely a video or a movie. It seems plausible since this device is marketed as an instrument to experience richer media; thus, multitasking is not expected.
The same goes with its lack of wired connections, particularly USB and FireWire ports. iPad has a “locked-down” nature that seemed to offend non-Mac users because of its almost elitist appeal. Critics have also answered this concern and their opinion made great sense.
The iPad is designed by Apple so it’s only natural for the manufacturer to prefer full control over the software content of the product. It does not matter if the ownership has been transferred to the buyer. The point is that Apple prefers to protect their creation by ensuring that software entered into the device is properly filtered. Besides, they probably have more iPad apps to introduce and it would be unfortunate for them if a different software company would create a brand new application for the iPad before they even thought of it.
Its lack of commonly used hardware features can be easily resolved by purchasing separate accessories, such as the wireless keyboard dock, camera connection, Bluetooth headphones, composite and component AV cables, power adapter and dock connector to VGA adapter. Clearly, these deficiencies have already been considered by Apple engineers before criticism even materialized.
It is not obvious but there seems to be a continuous struggle of the Apple marketing division to insist that the iPad is in fact a media consumption appliance. It should be differentiated from a full desktop or laptop computer and an iPhone and simply be appreciated as a go-between of the two.
Its lack of full phone and computer features establishes that Apple has created a class of its own and might possibly be a successful forerunner in the field of tablet computers.