iPad and the end of the PC monopoly on the computer world

Few of today’s computer users remember a time when PC was not synonymous with personal computer, when you had to carefully check what computer and platform the software was designed for, and even what storage medium it was supplied on. Three decades of dominance by Microsoft Windows and the PC platform have almost made us forget the era of Amiga OS, Atari ST, GEM, OS/2, CP/M, GEOS, and dozens of other operating systems. Perhaps only Mac OS X, as a tolerated fad, did we get used to, although many non-users took it more as the inside of a household appliance, which is not really an operating system at all.

But today, it looks like this era is coming to an end, and Apple’s mobile device called the iPad is responsible for that. The iPad will achieve something that desktop computers failed to do: reverse the balance of power in the personal computer market.

However, at the very beginning of tablets, it did not look like a revolution against Microsoft at all. Quite the contrary. It was Microsoft who came up with the term Tablet PC in 2000 and the concept of a computer that you hold in your hand and control with a stylus. They even created a special edition of the Windows XP Tablet PC Edition operating system for it, and the first products appeared on the market in 2002. Basically, these were Intel-based laptops without a keyboard, with voice control and a touch screen, whose main advantage was that they allowed you to run Windows XP programs. And why not? Their operating system was actually Windows XP with a touch screen driver and handwriting input.

However, the main advantage did not attract crowds of users. The devices were not cheap, they were not easy to use, and they were not particularly mobile. The battery ran out after two hours of use, the device was heavy, it required a normal laptop charger, and it did not really offer any additional user comfort. Tablet PCs ended up selling in very limited quantities, and most manufacturers stuck with concepts or a few test units so as not to offend Microsoft and Intel.

In 2006, Microsoft attempted to revive the vision of the tablet, calling it the Ultra Mobile PC, or UMPC for short. The name itself was unfortunate and users couldn’t remember it, so the device was mostly referred to as a tablet, with the honorable exception of official promotional materials, which caused users to doubt what was actually being sold.

UPMCs were supposed to be smaller, more mobile, and could have various types of keyboards, but they were still expected to be controlled with a stylus via a touch screen. The first devices appeared on the market in the summer of 2006, with a wider range available in 2007. Sales forecasts were spectacular—8 million units were expected to be sold in

This contrasted with the results: Samsung sold 100,000 units of the UMPC Q1 model in 2006 and barely approached the hoped-for 300,000 units in 2007. Sales were similarly problematic elsewhere.

In general, the difficulties of the UPMC platform can be summarized in a few points:

•Low performance and related dissatisfaction with application speed and responsiveness

•Low mobility due to a small battery and outdated PC platform; again, the UMPC only lasted two hours on battery power

•Unadapted controls

•Pressure from netbooks

We can see that similar problems that affected Tablet PCs also affected UMPCs, and it is surprising that Microsoft did not learn from its first fiasco and hoped that it would succeed in creating a market on its second attempt, even though it did not change any input parameters except for a natural upgrade of the technology.

Let’s take a look at netbooks, the important predecessor of tablets. The original vision behind netbooks was to bring the opportunity for education through computers to poor children in Africa and South America. Nicholas Negroponte’s charity project called “One Laptop Per Child” was supposed to bring particularly cheap laptops costing around $100, which required a completely new approach to hardware design. However, the project was slowed down by the coming economic crisis, the unwillingness of governments to participate in such an ambitious project, and, last but not least, Intel’s efforts to push through its own vision equipped with its Classmate PC processor and Microsoft’s efforts to stop the spread of computers not equipped with Windows. Instead of tens of millions of computers, less than two million were shipped by the end of 2011, which is still an impressive achievement.

In the context of tablets, however, the technological impact is more significant than the charitable one. The OLPC project received a wide response from users who argued that they would also buy such a computer for a hundred dollars, which prompted the OLPC foundation to launch the Give One Get One program to compensate for the lack of support. Simply put, you bought two OLPC netbooks for a total of $400, received one, and the other went to children in developing countries on your behalf. And because the response to this program was not bad in 2007 (there were 80,000 buyers), a number of manufacturers quickly emerged to offer their vision of a low-cost computer. This is how the category of netbooks was born, simple smaller laptops equipped with an inexpensive, energy-efficient processor (usually Intel Atom), a small hard drive or even SSD, and the cheapest possible operating system. The Asus EEE became a typical representative of this category, with the first models priced at around CZK 8,000 at a time when a laptop of comparable size cost more like CZK 50,000 and the cheapest laptops did not fall below CZK 30,000. The sales success was immediate.

However, their sales success was not lasting. It soon became apparent that netbooks were not suitable as replacements for regular computers and laptops. Although their innovative approach eliminated a number of problems, such as short battery life (in fact, many netbooks outperformed computers ten times their price in terms of battery life), a number of issues remained, primarily slow system response and slow netbook startup. This could only be solved by upgrading the technical equipment, thereby eliminating the main advantages of netbooks: price, battery life, and small size. Or, on the other hand, by finding a suitable operating system to replace Windows XP. Microsoft correctly understood that it had to do something to survive in the world of netbooks, and although it had just launched Windows Vista, it agreed to supply netbook manufacturers with Windows XP at dumping prices when it became apparent that Vista could not reasonably run on their hardware. This almost succeeded in eliminating the [”]{dir=”rtl”}risk of [Linux]{dir=”rtl”} infection[,”]{dir=”rtl”} if only XP had been available in a “light” version that did not burden netbooks so much. And so there were a number of experiments making Linux variants available on netbooks – various [”]{dir=”rtl”}Netbook [Editions,”]{dir=”rtl”} or NE for short, of Linux distributions.

It turned out that users were generally satisfied with them as long as they were easy to use. Of course, hardcore Linux users could handle the console and were happy with it, but users who wanted to write or email while traveling were not so enthusiastic about mouse-controlled Linux distributions. Fortunately, there have been attempts to come up with a new user interface, such as Linux Jolicloud or Google Chrome OS, which is actually a Linux bootloader for the Chrome browser and a cloud web application in Chrome.

One of the paths in this trend was pioneered by Nokia, which attempted to develop its own Debian-based tablet distribution called Maemo. It introduced its first tablet in 2005 under the name Nokia 770, later renaming it the N series and combining the operating system with a similar initiative by Intel, renaming it MeeGo, only to abandon it in 2011 before the launch of the first Nokia N9 mobile phone with this operating system. However, Nokia’s N series tablets became quite popular among system engineers, although it was not recommended to stray too far from a power outlet.

All these concepts revealed one interesting thing. There is a large group of users who do not require the Windows operating system and therefore [”]{dir=”rtl”}system [compatibility]{dir=”rtl”},” but who do require file compatibility. Contrary to Microsoft’s beliefs, users did not need to work in a program they were familiar with, but one that was adapted to the given environment and device dimensions. They didn’t need Word with its icon bar at the top, which was so difficult to use on a small display; they needed a text editor that could process Word documents and be easy to use even on a small device. This meant, of course, that Microsoft could be left out of the game; all that was needed was to provide a sufficient suite of applications—many of which existed in open source or even cloud-based web versions. Systems such as Jolicloud, created in 2008, tried to capitalize on this. However, no financially secure company dared to take a bolder step, and only a number of low-cost Asian attempts emerged. Nokia took very slow steps, and startups like Jolicloud had no chance on their own, even though they received considerable media attention. In 2009, for example, the popular blog TechCrunch, which has more visitors than many industry publications in the US, announced its own initiative and attempted to develop its own tablet called CrunchTablet in collaboration with a number of companies. However, due to disagreements, the Linux tablet was not produced before the iPad was unveiled, and after its launch, it became clear that competing with the iPad was not a good idea.

And that brings us to Apple and Steve Jobs.

We have already described how Steve Jobs had been dreaming about the rebirth of the Apple tablet for a long time. The Newton from the 1990s was not the right tablet for Jobs because it used a stylus, and Jobs hated styluses as a forced intermediary that existed only because of a technological compromise, due to the inability to control the display directly with your fingers.

Although Steve Jobs denied efforts to create an Apple tablet in interviews with journalists, in March 2004, the company filed a design patent for the appearance of an electronic device consisting of a touch screen that can be controlled directly with a finger. However, this was a patent for the appearance, not the functionality, and was signed by Steve Jobs himself and Apple’s chief designer Jony Ive.

Image: applepatent

Caption: The design patent granted to Apple on May 10, 2005, shows a device and method of operation that the iPad actually used five years later.

The success of the iPhone also confirmed that the multitouch touchscreen solution was the way forward, and so work on the tablet gained momentum shortly after the iPhone was launched. The dimensions of the device were tested, and a processor and components were sought.

The new tablet was supposed to have all the successful features of the iPhone. Apple killed several birds with one stone. It reused proven technology and managed to keep the development of the iPad secret for a long time, as it was confused with the iPod Touch or the preparation of a different size of iPhone, which suited the secretive Jobs. Despite all this, rumors about the tablet’s development surfaced here and there, but no one could really imagine what it would be like. There was speculation about a touchscreen version of the Mac, because in 2009, few could imagine the impact the App Store would have on the launch of the tablet platform.

At the end of 2007, Jobs was still considering equipping the tablet with Intel Atom processors, with which his company had just begun collaborating on the supply of desktop processors. However, the engineers were against it, warning Jobs that Intel’s mobile processors were not nearly as energy-efficient as ARM and that Intel was lagging behind in mobility. On the contrary, Intel CEO Paul Otellini pressured Jobs to choose Intel. However, Jobs was convinced that the company should have a single mobile system and that it would be best to use the same system for the tablet as for the mobile phone. And here, the use of ARM processors would be an advantage. So he buys P.A. Semi, a processor design company, and has them work on a processor suitable for tablets.

The second half of 2008 convinces him that he made the right decision. The response from developers to the launch of the App Store is excellent, and Jobs is convinced that unifying the systems for tablets and phones will be an excellent springboard for the new tablet. After all, it will be able to run applications from the phone, and it will not be difficult to expand the phone applications to take advantage of the larger display area.

The year 2009 is devoted to finalizing the software. It can be assumed—and future developments will confirm this—that people will want to use the iPad mainly for smaller computer tasks. They will want to view documents on it and will be more willing to work with email. And they will be willing to read books and magazines. It is therefore necessary to finalize two main new software packages, iWork, which includes the Pages word processor, Numbers spreadsheet, and Keynote presentation application, and iBooks, a reader and book store.

Jobs presents the iPad in San Francisco on January 27, 2010, and receives a very indignant response. It is immediately nicknamed the iPad on the internet, and many experts describe it as an oversized iPhone or iPod Touch that is not worth paying attention to. At first glance, many of the reservations seem justified:

•no HDMI output

•no USB port

•Cannot be used to make phone calls (even with the 3G version)

•no multitasking

•No Adobe Flash

•No webcam

Opinions began to change when the iPad reached the hands of the first testers and customers. The device went on sale in April 2010, and 300,000 iPads were sold on the first day. Apple sold a total of one million iPads in a month, cutting the time it took for the first iPhone to reach the same number in half.

The strength of the iPad only becomes apparent when you hold it in your hands. Only then will you understand how much time can be wasted browsing the internet on such a device in user mode, which has become known on the Czech internet as “procrastinating finger swiping.” The iPad really tempts you to use it and replace your laptop with it in most cases. It is an intermediate step between a large computer and a phone, an intermediate step that may be unnecessary for many people, but

But that also means that the iPad is a device primarily intended for people who can afford to spend a little extra. It’s not a device you can’t do without, but it is an accessory that will make your life easier in many ways. You can find recipes without it, but not as conveniently or attractively. The iPad can easily become your personal information center and a reason to use your big computer less often, i.e., to perform a task that is too reminiscent of work. The iPad is brilliant for small tasks: you can find transportation connections, recipes, play a short game, or browse an encyclopedia with your children for a school project. You can put it in the car with a movie or take it with you to the doctor’s office while you wait. You could have done all of this before with various single-purpose devices (such as paper books, newspapers, CDs for the car, a large computer, etc.), but with the iPad, it’s more elegant, more convenient, and most importantly, you know right away that everything is concentrated in one device. It’s better to edit home videos on a large computer, but the iPad is better for sorting through a few photos. A comfortable keyboard is more suitable for writing a comprehensive company report, but you can respond to it with the word “bullshit” or elaborate on the same idea a little more with an iPad.

The typical customer target was better-off users in the Western world: managers, but also progressive households for whom spending $500 on such an entertainment and information all-rounder was not too much. And they welcomed it with open arms, which also attracted other user segments. The iPad established itself in record time, in the words of Aleš Hušák[,]{dir=”rtl”} “against the will of many and despite many[.”]{dir=”rtl”}

And that’s what caused the panic. In just six months of sales, the iPad became synonymous with tablets, to which other companies had no convincing response. There were a number of attempts to install the available version of Android 1.6 Donut on quickly prepared tablets from Chinese manufacturers. It was the only quickly available operating system adapted to touch control and capable, at least on paper, of competing with the iPad. Google quickly warned that this should not be done, as Android is not adapted for tablets, and turning it into oversized phones would likely lead to user disappointment. This is indeed what is happening, with a number of Chinese Android tablets entering the Czech market that are practically unusable.

The tablet version of Android is supposed to be version 3, codenamed Honeycomb, and the excited Shenzhen factories are waiting for it until February 2011, as if for mercy. They have no idea that Apple has a new version of the iPad up its sleeve, another version of iOS, and that Samsung will steal their thunder with a strategy that no one expected: by copying the iPad in its entirety, including the packaging.

So let’s pause for a moment with Honeycomb, as it will help us put the iPad into a broader context.

The context of this story

iPad and the end of the PC monopoly on the computer world

Table of contents