Up until now, Steve Jobs had been incredibly successful at introducing the public to truly revolutionary devices disguising them as familiar products. For example, iPod was positioned as a better , much better, incarnation of a traditional audio player, either CD or MP3. In reality, it was a device that in combination with iTunes allowed for a completely new level of functionality in creation, transfer, and sharing of collections of music: intuitive custom playlists, podcasts, audio library navigation, and etc. Compared with competition, i.e. conventional audio players, iPod looked like a na'vi among humans. It was a revolutionary system, but it felt familiar enough for people to try and learn to love.
Then came iPod Touch and iPhone. Again, they were presented to the public as greatly improved versions of iPod and mobile phone, respectively. But in both cases audio content play-out and communications were just a couple of software applications on a great multi-functional mobile computer. The combination of iPhone and iTunes was a different animal altogether, but it was disguised as a better phone+web system. These new Apple gadgets got rapidly adopted by consumers because they felt very familiar with basic functionality and the form factor. It was easy for everybody to try Apple's new technology and then experience the difference. You'd buy an Apple product as a replacement for your old player or cell phone, and later discover a totally new mode of interaction with the world of information.
But iPad is different. Really different. It can't be bought as a replacement. It's not a PC, smartphone, netbook, e-book, picture frame, TV, or whatever. It's a new thing that, unlike Apple's other revolutionary products, feels completely unfamiliar. Bummer! No wonder,
people are confused. They can't say, "iPad is just like my pre-school dream picture book, only much-much better."
tags: dilemma, problem, solution, apple, information, computers, psychology, diffusion