TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Paul Thurrott argues that the iPad is a new kind of device and it is just for consumption:

Put simply, when you use an iPad, you’re typically not contributing to anything, as you can on a PC. Instead, you’re simply consuming. And this is how I think the iPad should be compared to the PC: Consumption vs. contribution. Yes, you can do things like answer emails (using the virtual keyboard) on the iPad; there will always be exceptions to any vague generality. But for the most part, that’s what this is about. Consumption vs. contribution.

I suppose, for Paul, painting is not really “contributing.” Right.

Paul’s absolutely right that the iPad is a new kind of device altogether, but he is attempting to define it in such a way that he can dismiss it as irrelevant and merely a style choice.

His argument is ridiculous for two reasons. First is that he narrowly defines “contributing” as typical PC functions–editing a document or spreadsheet and graphic design, for example. There are certain functions that a keyboard and mouse are particularly useful for and we will need typical PCs to do them for quite a while, but these are not the only ways you can create. The painting I linked to above is one example–that is something the PC is not very good at, but is a perfect fit for the iPad’s touchscreen. There are many more cases just like that, where the iPad’s form factor and touchscreen make things possible that weren’t before. (The medical field, for example, is full of opportunity for the iPad. I wonder if Thurrott would claim doctors and nurses do not contribute.) The iPad makes more forms of creation possible that the PC just cannot provide for. PCs are not designed for creation, but designed for specific kinds of creation. Those are two very different things, and Thurrott conveniently blurs them together to criticize the iPad.

Second, we mostly use computers for consumption anyway. Reading news, watching video and listening to music are, on the whole, what normal people use PCs for every day. They sometimes create documents and presentations, but mostly, they are consuming–and I do not see Thurrott trashing the PC for allowing this–so what’s wrong with making a device that happens to be really, really good at consuming? There’s nothing inherently wrong with consuming itself; indeed, reading a good book is profoundly stimulative, but is “consuming.” The issue is not consuming itself, but what people are choosing to consume. They could choose to read Walden on their iPad rather than, say, watch a dog skateboard, but most people would likely choose the latter.

So if consumption itself is not inherently a bad thing, why does Thurrott try to use it to deride the iPad? He answers that convincingly:

It offers a premium user experience for certain kinds of tasks only, and comes with a premium price to match. It is aimed at those consumers who wish to send a message to others, much like Prius drivers or Whole Foods shoppers. These people value style and status above functionality or cost concerns, and will put up with missing features and annoyances like the overly glossy and reflective screen, because they want to be seen as technology savvy trendsetters.
…
People who can afford Macs, iPhones, and iPods can afford an iPad too. And if history is any guide, this is pretty much the target market: These people, to generalize–will indeed buy anything Apple makes. And the argument about Apple devices being the BMWs of their market indeed applies here. Sure, a Ford Focus will get you there, but if you can afford the BMW, you’re going to buy that instead.

In other words, the iPad is better at some things the PC does, but people really buy it because it’s a style choice. People buy iPads (according to Thurrott) for the same reason they buy Macs–to make themselves look cool. So here is his argument: iPads are only for consuming (so they are merely toys, more or less, worthy of derision), and people buy them only because they “value style and status above functionality.” He is just trying to re-hash the old ad-hominem used to castigate Mac users.

It either hasn’t occurred to him that it is perfectly rational to buy a device that is really good at certain functions that are important to you, and you do not have to be a status-seeking tool to do so, or he is just an anti-Apple bigot.

I think you know where I stand on this one.