No iPad for you
by Sheryl on July 26th, 2010With the recent release of the iPad here in the Netherlands, as well as a recent blog post by Peter Bregman, I’ve started thinking again about the iPad.
Specifically, I’ve been thinking about why I am resisting purchasing one.
Like any parent these days, my household has a constant “Can we get an iPad?” drumbeat. I’ve consistently said no (although who knows, with v2 I may weaken), and I’ve been trying to sort out my opposition to it as a device for my kids.
The format has made me consider the current role of mobile devices in my kids’ lives: they are tools designed for consumption rather than creating.
I’m sure I’ll be reminded of the myriad of drawing/writing/music/photo programs on the iPhone/iPad. I’m not saying you can’t create on it, it’s just this isn’t what they were primarily designed for, and I don’t think my kids need another tool for primarily consuming media.
Take the personal computer. Back in the day, when that little boxy Mac first said hello to us, aside from playing games on it, we understood it as an interesting tool for doing stuff: writing, drawing, making music, writing code. Skip ahead nearly 20 years to the revolutionary device of last decade: the iPod. Contrary to the first computers, this was a device, not just primarily, but exclusively, for consuming media.
My kids love their iPods. They love my iPhone. They play music and games. But when it’s time for the right side of their brains to exercise, they bust out the most attractive tools for the job: drawing materials, the camera, the Legos, the scissors, the pencil and paper, or sit down at the computer and get down to work.
But when they sit down and use the iPhone, it’s all about playing games (big emphasis on this one), looking at Facebook, watching YouTube videos and pushing fish around a koi pond. Do they like to draw on the iPhone? Sure. Take pictures? Sure. But they subconsciously recognise that in the end, this device is not about making stuff. Take writing. You may write email, take notes and update Twitter on your mobile device. But — some Japanese mobile users notwithstanding — pounding out that novel or short story? Not so much. I think some people do these things; I just think they’re edge cases. I fear the ratio is basically the same for the iPad: if the device is designed for consuming media, you’ll have that 10 percent that might do something different, but it’s more likely that 90 percent will use it for exactly what it was designed for.
As an interaction designer, I’m not a Luddite when it comes to technology. We have what is probably an embarrassing number of devices and screens in the house. I recently had a conversation with a colleague about trying to justify spending an insane amount of money on a new “toy” for my camera — a wide-angle lens. He said “Remember, it’s a toy, but it’s a toy for creating. Justify it that way!” Frankly, I can justify a spanking new computer in the same way: I’ll install all my programs for producing work and making stuff, not only connecting. (Although some discipline goes a long way in preventing myself from spending all my time on the Internet.)
I may just be too focused on the medium. I mean, after all, crayons are a limited medium. Legos are a limited medium. But I can’t help but think that if crayons played videos, my kids would be doing that instead. With phones and tablets, we are just consuming someone else’s creativity: devices and apps that I’m sure were not created on those very devices.
Time will tell with the iPad. But the next time I’m asked whether we can have an iPad in the house, my answer may just be, “No, but you can have a MacBook instead.”

