I didn’t have quite the same reaction as Hitler but yes, I was disappointed. Living up to the amount of hype generated would have been nigh on impossible but I still think Apple have a case to answer to defend against the trade descriptions act: despite what they say, this device is neither magical or revolutionary. The iPhone was magical and revolutionary when it was first demonstrated – unlike anything we’d seen before. This iPad device however . . .
. . . I don’t know. It just seemed like we’d already seen this before somewhere.
My immediate annoyance was with the name: iPad. iPad? My first thought when this moniker was first mooted was that it reminded me of a feminine hygiene product. Turns out I wasn’t the first to think along those lines. Mad TV just received what could possibly be the biggest bump in YouTube history. It has become apparent that Fujitsu also appear to have a claim on the name.
The beginnings of the iPhone are said to be in a device termed the Safari Pad so I guess the name is a logical progression of that. Arthur C. Clarke also alluded to such a product in 2001: A Space Odyssey – only his device was called the Newspad.
I agree that “Tablet” and “Slate” conjure up images of heavy or flakey stone devices and weren’t likely to be the final choice. I’ve since also come to appreciate that Apple played a great bait and switch with the trademarking of iSlate which Microsoft bought hook, line and sinker and felt that they had to respond somehow. iSlate or “Is Late”?
The response on Twitter was split right down the middle but I’m trying to keep the infamous MacRumors thread #500 uppermost in my mind. I do think – which Michael Pusateri and Stephen Fry ably point out – that as soon as I actually get to play with the iPad I’ll probably snap one up on the spot.