When looking to the future it is often wise to consider society’s past concerns to provide a framework for contextual analysis. Considering tablet style computing in general conjures up thoughts of George Orwell’s dystopian science fiction masterpiece, 1984. In the novel Orwell depicts the struggle of society as it finds itself in a state of increasing social and economic cohesion with that of machines.

Of particular relevance and interest to me is the way in which Orwell’s work provides a social analysis of surveillance culture. It depicts the use of networked “telescreens” which one could compare to modern computing and the internet. These “telescreens” served as a way for the fictional state, to observe and control opinion through the transmission of fear.

“The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.” - (The Complete Works of George Orwell, 2003)

However the “telescreen” as Orwell thought of it could be avoided or escaped by Winston, he could move to new areas of the room to avoid its glare, much like that of the desktop computer or television. Consider what Orwell would have written regarding the “innovation” of Apple’s mobile computing devices? No longer can one be removed from the on looking eye of the screen, society finds itself increasingly reliant on machines as we take them everywhere with oneself to remain plugged in to our evolving human consciousness.

“And that is the second difference between this window and the past devices: the tablet window goes two ways. You watch; it watches you. Its eye can remain on all the time, watching you as much as you like” - (Kelly, 2010, p. 123)

How ironic is it then to find that the commercial used to introduce the original Apple Macintosh computer depicted a young woman, who can be likened to Orwell’s character Winston, in a cinematic depiction of Orwell’s 1984. The female character, symbolising Apple, is shown hurling a metal hammer through a large “telescreen” in an attempt to remove the presence of the on-looking overseer and herald a new epoch of technology. The advert concludes with a message;

“On January 24^th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like “1984.”” – (The Guardian, 2009)

Considering the intended symbolism of the advert some decades on, one could summarise that as successfully as Apple has been able to define its values to its audience over time, that in retrospect Apple are quickly deviating from their own historical moral message and ethical stance as demonstrated so aptly by the advert. One would boldly conclude that despite Apple’s arguable ability to innovate, in many contexts of the word, that were Orwell alive today, he may be heeding new warnings as a result of such innovations.

It would appear that to some degree Apple have learnt from their mistakes in opening up their application development framework to third party developers; however they still heavily moderate the approval of applications for use within their application environments. It seems to me Apple are in a sticky situation, to open themselves up completely means sacrificing the close control they have over their brand and associated products; and in some sense it is this control that allows them to craft such appealing products and targeted marketing campaigns. However to continue along their current path could see them lose out to Google the same way they lost out to Microsoft decades ago.

Google’s democratic values and often community driven development of open source products allows their brand to spread to mass audiences far faster than that of Apple. It is this very route to market that defines Apple’s biggest challenge to date. Consider Google’s competing mobile operating system Android. It is based on Linux, another open source product, and operates an open source license allowing various mobile hardware companies to utilise the product.

Android’s flexibility and open approach in comparison to that of Apple’s mobile operating system could see it quickly spread to larger markets than that of Apple. Apple’s closed approach has meant that they must not only produce mobile operating systems, but the mobile hardware in the form of devices such as the iPhone also to go with it. One could argue that while they set very high standards in both areas; that attempting to develop into both the software and hardware mobile market could leave them exposed to strong alliances such as that of hardware producer HTC and mobile OS developers Google. Considering Apple’s predicament, it is perhaps no surprise then to find Apple leveraging the patent system once again;

“We were wondering when Google would have something to say about Apple’s patent lawsuit against HTC, since the majority of the claims appear to implicate Android itself, and while the knives aren’t out yet, we just got a short-but-sweet statement from a spokesperson:

“We are not a party to this lawsuit. However, we stand behind our Android operating system and the partners who have helped us to develop it.”” – (Engadget, 2010)

It is not clear what the future holds for Apple with respect to the mobile market, but what is clear is that they have a big challenge ahead of them. Perhaps they could learn from the past and their historic battles with Microsoft. After all, their products have benefited from steady “innovation” over time, so perhaps it is time that Apple’s market positioning followed suit.

To draw an analogy, consider the clay tablets used by Babylonian scribes to transit information across time and distance. Essentially the underlying motivations involved in writing, sending and storing the Babylonian clay tablets, are the same as many of the functions iPad claims to have introduced. Innovation as a concept depends very much on the perspective adopted by the observer, in this context historical. The innovation of the idea or the proposed use of a tablet device for storage of data occurred centuries ago; however the tangible product innovation we see today in the form of the iPad or equivalent devices can be seen as a step forward or an innovation of a pre-existing concept or product, however basic its predecessors in form.

Consider innovation from a science fiction perspective; one could contest that famed social theorist and science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke could be considered to have originated the idea of satellite broadcasting from stationary orbit, but he didn’t introduce the physical innovation, only theorised over the concept. Science fiction is in a sense a reification of the impact of evolving technologies and their actual and possible impact on cultural expression. Innovation often requires concrete realisation to be considered credible by society. From a legal perspective this often requires being the first to publish and/or patent an idea or product. In Clarke’s final hours he was interviewed and questioned on the subject of geostationary satellites and commented that;

“I’m often asked why I didn’t try to patent the idea of communications satellites. My answer is always, “A patent is really a license to be sued.” Clarke couldn’t pinpoint the exact reference that got him thinking about geostationary satellites. “One of the moons of Mars, Phobos, is always in a stationary orbit,” he mused. “That probably got me thinking.” He had discussed his ideas with his friends in the nascent British Interplanetary Society but didn’t get many comments, he reminisced. “I never received any additional input, so it was all my own work in the end.” - (Spectrum: Inside technology, 2008)

These comments from Clarke make apparent the link between science fiction, ideation, innovation and the legality of the patent system. In this context Apple are famed for their tactical and efficient use of the patent system. The following provides compelling arguments that support both the notion that Apple are indeed at very least product innovators and highlights how the legal relationship between innovation and the patent system can in fact serve to further drive future innovation rather than causing it to stagnate;

“Apple is also a perfect example of how the patent system is intended to work. Patents are strong, but waste over time because technology grows stagnant. To continue to reap the benefits of a patent portfolio you must continue to innovate and continue to protect that innovation. Patent are fragile because if you obtain a patent I could obtain a patent on an improvement, thereby blocking you, the original patent owner, from making, using and selling the improved version of your own invention. For that reason, when you get a patent on a valuable product you must immediately start to innovate again, improve, push the envelope and obtain additional patent protection so as to prevent competitors from blocking you.” - (IPWatchdog, 2010)

“HP allows users to activate features on their PCs simply by touching the screen when it introduces its first touchscreen personal computer, the HP-150.” - (HP, 2010)

Apple’s original PDA or tablet like device was the Apple MessagePad, more commonly known as the Newton. The Newton was released 10 years after Hewlett Packard developed the HP 150 touch screen computer.

“Released much ahead of its time in 1993, the Newton (official name was MessagePad) was touted as the future of computing. It would be the first in a new line of Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). The MessagePad was the first pen based system running on the Newton Intelligence OS. It was powered by a ARM 610 processor at 20 MHz and 640k RAM / 4 MB ROM. It sported a reflective black and white touchscreen with a resolution of 336 x 240, PCMCIA card slot for expansion and Infrared port for communication between MP’s.” - (Newlaunches, 2010)

Despite generally been considered as a “flop”, the Apple Newton was in fact produced for six years. Perhaps its eventual failure can be attributed less to the strength of its concept and more to the market readiness and available technology of the time. At the time of the Newton Apple were an extremely “closed” company, in that they were wary of the open source development of applications that could have provided rich functionality for the Newton.

“The Newton was developed and released during the time in which Steve Jobs was “exiled” from the company and was deemed to be a huge commercial failure, due to its high cost and difficult and highly proprietary development platform which hampered the amount of 3rd-party applications which were created for the device.” - (ZDNet, 2010)

The concept of the tablet computer has truly moved on from devices such as the Newton and so too have the attitudes of Apple. Society looks to mobile computing today as much as a facet of life and entertainment as a mode of computing as it was thought of at the time of the Newton. If we consider the relative success of the Newton’s modern equivalent, the Apple iTouch, it must be noted that while it offers immense computing power and convenience in comparison with the Newton, that the progression in product range leading to its introduction stems from that of the iPod, a device which is centrally marketed as a form of personal entertainment rather than computing. Thus it would seem evident that audience perception, product marketing and positioning are as important to a product’s success or failure as the capabilities of the device in question. It must also be noted, that in stark contrast to the time of the Newton, that Apple now allows third party developers to produce applications for its mobile devices, this is a move that will likely see the use of these devices multiply with some speed, since they essentially facilitate an open market of sorts.

Apple’s Product Design Influences

A great deal of Apple’s contribution to the market place involves the precise aesthetic presentation of their products, ensuring they develop products with appealing physical qualities that even technophobes can admire and appreciate on a purely emotional level; this cannot be defined as innovation in a strict sense, however Apple’s success in the areas of product design and creativity are often misinterpreted as innovation by their audiences. So are we to believe that Apple should be accredited with all of the design concepts and product design principles exemplified by their products? Or like many forms of creativity within the design industries, did Apple have any key influences? The following contrasts some of Apple’s product designs by Jonathan Ive and the 1960’s modernist product designs of Dieter Ram for Braun.

“When you look at the Braun products by Dieter Ram—many of them at New York’s MoMA—and compare them to Ive’s work at Apple, you can clearly see the similarities in their philosophies way beyond the sparse use of colour, the selection of materials and how the products are shaped around the function with no artificial design, keeping the design “honest.”” - (Gizmodo, 2010)

As well as Apple’s ability to draw upon product design influences ahead of their time, Apple is also successful in providing a range of products that possess consistency. The visual continuity across their product range provides consumers with a feeling of reassurance and trust in the evolution of the Apple’s product design principles. As people become familiar and reassured by their Apple purchases, they experience little inhibition when buying additional products. Apple’s tight control over their brand and associated product ranges allows them to harness consistency as a selling point far more than the competing notion of “PC”.

“Take a look at the back of the iPhone. It’s silver on top, black on the bottom. Then take a look at the new iMac. It’s is black on top, silver on the bottom. The top of the iMac looks like an iPhone rotated to horizontal orientation.” – (37 Signals, 2007)

Existing concepts; Star Trek-nology

Science fiction has long been the testing ground of technological concepts; it provides an area for society to express its wants, perceived needs and consider the new possibilities of technology in general. It is no surprise then to find many examples of technology in the science fiction setting that strike an uncanny resemblance to the technologies we use today. The following quote demonstrates the link between the iconic Star Trek series and that of Apple’s gradual evolution of touch screen devices.

“Not long after their debut in TNG, PADDs became a real-life technology with the introduction of the Apple Newton; Palm Pilots being a similar device common in the world of the present. Recently, devices with touch-sensitive displays and user input systems which reconfigure themselves depending on the task at hand, such as the iPod Touch, iPhone, and most recently, the iPad have been developed which bear an even stronger resemblance to PADDs and the LCARS system.” - (Memory Alpha, 2010)

Apple are often extremely intuitive in the marketing of their products, well they didn’t miss the trick with the iPad either. The iPad advertising campaign featured many examples of the iPad displaying Star Trek related imagery and content, couple this together with the striking resemblance in name and visual form and one can confidently assume there is a little more than co-incidence involved.

The name “iPad” itself evokes the PADD (Personal Access Display Device) which is the term used for the gadget that was first introduced in the original series in 1966 and was coined in 1987 on Star Trek: The Next Generation, the show’s first TV revival…At the end of the day, and even after all of Apple’s hard work, we have Gene Roddenberry and his visionary designers from Star Trek to thank for the inspiration for this technological marvel — the PADD. - (ZDNet, 2010)

The series of adverts (2006-2009) were also famed for their visual consistency and presentation; they were shot on a white background and featured the same two men, John Hodgman as “PC” and Justin Long as “Mac”. This visual consistency allowed people not only to quickly recognise the adverts and relate to their associated connotations, but allowed the audience to build a rapport with, or warm to the characters over time. The series of adverts were so successful that AdWeek named the series “campaign of the decade” in its best of the 2000s roundup. Here’s what they had to say;

“Apple always diverged from the “speeds and feeds” ads associated with the computer category, but the brand really defined itself with the 2006 launch of TBWA\Media Arts Lab’s “Get a Mac” campaign. That series of 60-plus ads brought some humanity into the equation by turning the machines into live-action cartoons. In so doing, the comic spots offer transparent understanding of the aspirations of its audience and how people identify—and connect emotionally—with technology. The genius is in the casting. The Mac guy, Justin Long, is a younger version of Steve Jobs who is casual and comfortable in his skin. PC, personified by John Hodgman, as a rounder, paler Bill Gates, is a well-meaning geek with all kinds of operating problems. For Apple, the campaign managed the neat trick of making the brand look laid back and cool while it mercilessly skewered its rival.” – (Best of the 2000’s, 2010)

The viral nature of the adverts and their positioning within new media channels such as YouTube, also meant that they spread rapidly and meant by the time the competition could respond, the damage had been done. While the adverts themselves were undoubtedly very intuitive and creative, they also further served to reinforce a wider audience perception of Apple as market leaders and innovators.

“In the past few years, clever commercials have become content in and of themselves, thanks in no small part to the rise of YouTube and embeddable multimedia.” – (Mashable, 2010)

In summary the “Get a Mac” campaign, of which the adverts were a central component, were a typically intuitive marketing move by Apple, since the centrality of their brand and their somewhat “closed” product range allows them to carefully consider, orchestrate and present their brand values to their potential audience with precision. The adverts depict “PC” as being the competition, existing within a comparable closed infrastructure, when in fact a “PC” is nothing more than a combination of various differing components, both hardware and software, sourced from an often innumerable set of suppliers; the most notable of which include Microsoft that Apple’s advertising often seeks to belittle. This move by Apple left “PC”, as the audience now thought of it, in a very exposed position. The lack of centrality associated with the production of personal computers and associated software, left companies likes Microsoft with the need to either establish an equivalent corporate infrastructure, or to take the lead and defend both themselves and the newly Apple constructed notion of “PC” that would be difficult to reverse.

While Apple has achieved considerable success, they have never really succeeded in conquering a majority market. They have captured and retained a small market that is in part preserved by a closed universe of compatibility and above all by the user friendly presentation of technical devices; permitting the technically illiterate to enjoy the prestige and convenience of being in the “fore front of technology.” This of course may be a conscious decision based on the premise that positioned as perceived market leader, Apple have less competition than exists in the “PC” market.

“Digital artists find themselves stripped of the ethos around which most previous artistic communities were founded. Beyond neophilia and millennarianissium, around what centralizing concept can these artists build community? I would propose that the cohesive force binding them together is less a shared sense of destiny than the common use of similar tools-what I refer to as “commodity camaraderie.” - Peter Lunenfeld, Snap to Grid (2000, p.4)

Apple’s relationships with universities and other creative institutions is often used to reinforce the construction of technocultures formed around Apple’s products and further contributes to commodity camaraderie in this context. By reinforcing students’ perception of themselves and the products and tools they use as been “creative” or “innovative” in a broader sense, Apple reinforce the notion of a self perceived design elite. Apple has succeeded in creating cohesion between its company ethos and that of the personalities found within design cultures. Web designers, graphic designers, video editors and other such digital artists have always sought to reinforce their own perception of themselves as being creative; Apple only helps to further reassure these creative’s that this is in fact the case.

“Commodity camaraderie, generated by this contact, creates a sense of neo-community that is palpable at a massive trade show like Macworld. This show, which concentrates on products and services for the users of machines manufactured by Apple Computer, Inc, was famously successful in creating a conspiratorial cohesiveness among its participants. The official corporate pronouncements of Apple, the editorial content of magazines like the now-defunct MacUser, and the buzz on the trade-show floor all combined to reassure Apple Customers that they were creative, rebellious, and right on the edge.” - Peter Lunenfeld, Snap to Grid (2000, p.4)

Supporting Education; iTunes U

As well as reinforcing the construction of Apple centric technocultures by positioning their products within educational institutions, Apple has intuitively created iTunes U, to facilitate the spread of educational media (podcasts, videos etc) within a closed environment that makes up part of the Apple iTunes product infrastructure. By doing so Apple further constructs a link between the institutions that produce and educate the next generation of Apple users, while facilitating the spread of useful and informative content that serves to attract new audiences into its closed structure. Apple describes iTunes U as follows;

“iTunes U — a powerful distribution system for everything from lectures to language lessons, films to labs, audiobooks to tours — is an innovative way to get educational content into the hands of students.” - (Apple, 2010)

So what about you? Are you an allegiant Apple user; have you ever thought about why? Or are you a PC user through and thru? Please fuel the debate and let us know what you think.

Whether or not the iPad will succeed in challenging the notebook market on a mass scale remains to be seen, perhaps Apple’s deployment of the product and its route to market will prove a determining factor, just as much as any need or want for the product on the consumers behalf.

What does interest me is that the iPad does one thing particularly well; it succeeds in developing accessibility and usability beyond that of many other such devices we’ve seen. As observed by many parents, the fact that a child can pick up the iPad or similar touch screen devices and interact with the graphical user interface instinctively or based on intuition is a very valuable asset, this should be central to the debate surrounding the worth of the iPad to the consumer market.

The beauty of touch screen devices is that they rely on and promote our most basic human instincts. Take children as an example, as they develop they rely on the tangible and on experimentation with objects to determine what they are and how they can be used, if at all. Perhaps consider disabled users also, the ability to simply lightly touch the screen to interact with the device, as opposed to requiring the dextrous use of the mouse or keyboard could revolutionise some people’s ability to access information, products or services online. And after all, many would argue that access to the internet and information on a broader scale should be considered a basic human right.

“The iPad is bigger. I know this is obvious, but the implications are that people motor control problems such as cerebral palsy may be able to use this device more easily than the smaller ones, as less very fine motor control is needed for many tasks.” – Assistive Technology for Apple and Mac Users

The whole online accessibility and usability debate often centralises on the W3C’s accessibility and usability guidelines. These guidelines are intended to aid both web designers and web developers in deploying and developing websites that allow easy use for all users, not just the disabled. Perhaps we are overlooking the worth of developing more accessible devices for interacting with the web such as the iPad, in favour of concentrating on website design alone. This oversight is probably in part due to the fact that the accessibility debate develops and exists predominately online.

With many new laws and guidelines been introduced to promote accessibility of both online media and physical products themselves, accessibility could be set to become a far more determinate factor in both product development and online media. Hopefully this debate will be one that disabled users will ultimately benefit from.

2010 seems likely to be the year that mobile communications technologies take hold of the average consumer market. With Apple’s iPhone and iTouch experiencing increasing sales and the strategic move of Google to introduce the Nexus this year, consumers are set to experience innovation in products, services and applications perhaps as much a facet of competition between the evolving interests of these two market competitors, as the actual need for the consumer to experience new technologies.

Take the iPad for example, is there really any need for this product, does it solve any new problems, or does it demonstrate the need for apple to distinguish its mobile offerings from its competitors? There is much commodity camaraderie wrapped up in the brand of apple, customers are often blindly allegiant to them, innovation is central to consumers views of the Apple brand to some degree, Apple are forced to innovate and present new offerings before their competitors, because not to do so could conflict with the core principles of the Apple brand and their consumers expectations. We all look to Apple for innovative technologies; to see them miss the boat would compromise their consumer credibility.

“And then there will be the tablets. Most industry observers, including Gadget Lab, expect Apple to release a tablet device, possibly called the iSlate or iGuide, sometime in 2010. Other major manufacturers, including HP, Dell, Intel, Nokia and HTC have been rumoured to be working on tablet-style devices. Smaller companies including Fusion Garage, Notion Ink and ICD have announced plans for tablets in 2010. And many publishers, including Wired’s parent company, Conde Nast, are already working on the software to display e-magazines and other content on tablet devices.“ – Wired Magazine

So with this extract from Wired in mind, is it really any surprise that Apple released the iPad when they did? So other than looking to Apple for innovation, what else is it that motivates consumer uptake of Apple’s new products? If there is no real market need for some of Apple’s products, then why do consumers choose Apple’s offerings over that of their competitors? Perhaps it is this? Apple has an established brand, successful product suite and epitomise values of quality and innovation. Their products often take novel and interesting approaches to what could be argued as inconsequential problems, but utilise new ways of using existing technologies or utilising developments in new media.

Apple are market leaders in technology push innovation rather than relying on market pull. Apple are design led and seek out new market opportunities as triggers for innovation, rather than relying on, or waiting for consumer or market demand for new products or services to trigger their design and innovation processes. To this avail, it is Apple’s brand values and business approach that are integral to ensuring their products remain ahead of the game. In short, they don’t concentrate on current problems; they seek out new ones to inspire further innovation.