Russ Pearlman's Blog

I’m probably the only person to blog about the launch of the iPad today. (Was that sarcastic enough?) Never the less, I’m going to add to the rash of dialog. Today, I’d like to talk to a very basic question – will it be a success?

It’s important, I think, to look back at the iPod and iPhone. Compared with other MP3 players, the iPod is extremely successful. Was it because the iPod had better sound quality? No. Was the form factor that much more amazing? No. Was the price really compelling? No. How about the iPhone? Is the calling capabilities better? No. Is the price great? No. Does it provide a better multimedia experience? Probably yes – but I don’t think that was the biggest success factor.

At the end of the day, I believe the real success of the iPod and the iPhone today comes down to a very simple idea: content matched with the device. iTunes and the songs available from Apple is what made the iPod the “killer app” that it is today. The iPhone was very attractive in terms of screen and interface – but what turned it from a toy into a phenomenon was how well it integrated into iTunes for music and video at first and now a huge wealth of applications. What just about every competitor was unable to do was marry content with devices – resulting in near monopoly for Apple at this point (at least in the music space).

So, where does that leave us with the iPad? Will the content be there? Absolutely. So, from a consistency perspective, you’d think I’d be predicting success. And, there is certainly some truth in that. I believe that the iPad is going to be more successful than just about anything in that category (including Kindles or Sony EBook readers or tablet PCs.) But, is it going to be another ‘killer app’ from Apple? I don’t think so. And, here’s why…

Who is the primary target for the iPad? For book enthusiasts, the battery life doesn’t work – only 10 hours of battery time (which is a marketing number anyhow) means you have to plug it in daily. Compared with a Kindle that’s terrible. For music enthusiasts, it isn’t nearly as portable as an iPod. For video enthusiasts, it’s an interesting option, but the storage costs for the device aren’t as attractive as external hard drives or media PCs. For folks looking for a lightweight PC replacement, it isn’t powerful enough to run real productivity software, and it’s lack of peripheral connectivity will frustrate most users in this camp. Since it doesn’t support making phone calls, it isn’t an iPhone replacement either.

Since the iPad doesn’t really attract a primary user type, it could still be successful as a ‘jack of all trades, master of none’. But, I highly doubt it. The one area where I could see it providing a unique capability is related to ’TV everywhere’ (i.e., where you can get live broadcasts of digital television such as sporting events on portable devices). Unfortunately, we are still years away from the content and distribution folks working out the business models for this capability.

At the end of the day, I’m predicting mediocre sales of the iPad with it eventually being just a ho-hum member of the Apple product line-up. It’s not a game changer, and it’s not going to cause any major device switching.

I’m a bit late in updating my blog from CES, but as they say, better late than never.

While at CES, I participated in a number of great panels including those from CESCA (the Consumer Electronic Supply Chain Academy) as well as Digital Hollywood. There was a lot of great participation from the industry, and I learned quite a bit. One of my favorite topics was about ‘TV Everywhere’ – about watching TV on all devices whenever and wherever you want. The technology guys in the discussion were convinced that this is just 3-5 years away from mainstream while the content guys all said 7-10 years. What an interesting difference – and it shows, like many situations, that it isn’t about the technology as much as it’s about how you use it.

The other big thing at CES this year was all the 3-D televisions. You may have already read a lot about this, especially if you followed CES at all. I know that I’ve heard a lot about how cool it is, how some people think it’s impractical, etc.

From my own point of view, just like the discussion about “TV Anywhere’, I think it comes back down to the content. Live sporting events in 3D? Adult content in 3D? Video gaming in 3D? Those are probably going to be the drivers. But, I think there might also be a brewing content war – each different TV maker has a slightly different technology for the glasses, and I think the compatibility issues are going to be a big problem. How do you invite 5 friends over to watch “the game” in 3D? You all have to be using your own glasses, and these aren’t going to be cheap – probably $30 each.

So, while 3D is making waves in the theater, and there might be some consumer demand, until the content is there and the standards are worked out, it’s going to be a long way off. Technology: 3-5 years, reality: 7-10…