Apple announced their new tablet computer today, called the iPad. Dubbed as a “magical and revolutionary device,” it somehow manages to be exactly the opposite. The iPad is essentially an oversized iPhone that doesn’t do anything a normal computer — or an iPhone — can’t, except maybe allow the user to read books more conveniently. Apple should change “magical and revolutionary” to “old, rehashed, yet still somewhat convenient under very specific circumstances.”

Despite the fact it sounds like I absolutely despise Apple’s newest creation, I don’t. I hate it for what it could have been. I think for what it is, it’s a nice little piece of technology with great battery life without an incredibly ridiculous price. The iPad starts at $499 for the 16GB WiFi-only model, or $629 for the WiFi+3G model. Of course, 3G connectivity is not free and starts at $14.99 a month for 250 megabytes or $29.99 for unlimited.

Naturally, the iPad is GSM-only (suck it Verizon), but it is unlocked which will allow you to use the device through any GSM cell carrier (T-Mobile and AT&T are the only major GSM providers in the US). The iPad said to have 10 hours of battery life and a full month of standby time, partly thanks to a new proprietary chip Apple developed for the iPad. The iPad features a 9.7 inch capacitive display which allows the user to interact with the product in exactly the same way as an iPhone.

To be fair to Apple, it is a nice product. It’s very thin, sleek, and well designed, but the bread and butter for Apple — as with the iPhone — will be whether or not software developers are going to be willing to jump on board and develop iPad-specific applications that utilize it’s larger screen. As it stands now, the iPad allows for the use of all iPhone applications at native size, or by using a software “pixel-doubler” which makes the application fill the full screen. Some of the iPhone games that were demoed at the keynote did look impressive, but quite a bit less impressive when you consider those same games play on a device that fits in one hand rather than two.

In addition to the games and applications already available and currently in development, the iPad will have its own dedicated place in the App Store where iPad-only applications can be downloaded. One of the most impressive demoed apps at the keynote was The New York Times app which showcased a fully interactive virtual newspaper with playable video and extra photo content.

Finally, the iPad offers a platform giving traditional print media a way to stay relevant. Another cool feature of the iPad is the ability to use Apple’s new iBooks store, which is a digital distribution system for e-books to be sold through the iTunes ecosystem. It all looks really fancy but far from revolutionary.

The iPad lacks some serious essentials, namely a way to communicate visually with your friends. The iPad does not feature a front facing camera, which quite honestly is absolutely ridiculous. The iPad is the perfect device for this and could have started pushing consumers towards video chat, a trend consumers have been resisting for years despite amazing advancements in video chat technology.

The iPad also does not have any multitasking, which means besides listening to the built in iPod app, there is no way for the user to listen to music while surfing the web, emailing or doing anything else productive.

The iPad also falls short in the user-interface department. For a device being billed as a revolutionary product, only allowing for multi-touch and accelerometer input is ridiculous.

With the iPad, Apple succeeded in filling the product-line gap between laptop and phone that consumers have demanded from them for years.

Not featuring an affordable netbook or equivalent device (personally, I think the iPhone works just fine as a netbook) was intentional on Apple’s part and they were right not to give in to consumer pressure by offering a netbook. The effort is ultimately lacking in the inspiration and utility usually found in Apple products because, at the end of the day, all the iPad manages to achieve is being an oversized iPhone.

I sincerely hope for the iPad’s success. It is not inherently a bad idea, but in it’s current state it doesn’t make any business sense for Apple nor does it serve any purpose for consumers. If the iPad does become a success it will be because of software developers finding innovative ways to work within the confines of the existing iPhone operating system.

Presumably in later generations of the iPad, Apple will introduce additional features that will help the iPad make more sense for consumers. I would also hope Apple considers subsidized pricing either through large publishers or cell service providers.

I fear, however, this will be the only way to get this device in the hands of more consumers. The iPad provides the perfect platform for old print media to succeed and maybe even help with the digital transition in world health-care systems. The iPad could save the world; but not yet.

Apple, ipad, iPhone, mobile, tablet