As expected, the iPad consumed much of the chatter about Apple this past week, but it didn’t stop there. As most of you know, few tech pundits talked about anything else in the weeks leading up to the introduction of Apple’s latest and greatest.

At the same time, the official Apple responses to various and sundry questions from the media left lots of gaping holes that will only be filled over time. Indeed, in reading the text of an interview between Steve Jobs and the Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg, I wondered yet again whether the dean of tech journalists is losing his edge.

Consider a major concern about the iPad. You create a document in iWork, or see some material in a Web site that you want to preserve. So you click the Print button and — wait — there is no Print button! Well, at least no such capability has been confirmed, nor did Mossberg address it in his first impression piece on the iPad.

Now this isn’t to say you can’t print on such devices. There are several print apps for the iPhone and iPod touch that will no doubt run perfectly well on the iPad. All right. you don’t really expect robust printing functions on a smartphone. But when you’re using a gadget that supposedly bridges many of the functions between Apple’s handheld mobile devices and regular Mac note-books, you have to wonder whether someone was asleep at the wheel.

Continue Reading…

Before I get into the meat of this commentary, one thing troubles me, and that’s whether Apple has jumped the shark when it comes to using the infamous “i” prefix for its products. Beginning with the position Steve Jobs assumed when he took over Apple shortly after his return to the company, iCEO, and ending with the iPad introduced this week, you have to wonder whether enough is enough.

Of course until the name of the new tablet-based device was revealed, the tech media was thinking in terms of an iTablet or iSlate. You sometimes wonder if the actual name was conjured up late in the game by Steve Jobs simply because he wanted to do something contrary to conventional wisdom. Then again you have to wonder whether Apple is going to face legal troubles over the name, because there was once a Fujitsu “iPAD.”

According to published reports, Fujitsu allegedly abandoned the name in 2009, only to reapply for it shortly afterwards. You wonder if Apple didn’t stoop in just in time to grab it. Regardless of how it plays out, Apple is not going to surrender, even if a big check has to be written to gain clear title to that trademark.

Setting questions about naming aside, you can bet that Apple’s presentation this week probably raised far more questions than it answered. After all, how much stuff can they toss in during a presentation of less than 90 minutes? Bu tit’s not that the official spec sheet addresses the remaining concerns.

There is, for example, the use of Bluetooth 2.1 and support for external keyboards. All well and good. Apple will provide their own solution, in the form of the Keyboard Dock accessory, which includes the desktop station and the “full-size” keyboard that may have keys of the proper size, but not all of them, or at least in comparison to the traditional Mac and PC keyboards that include the full numeric keypad. But what about third party keyboards that are also fully compliant with Bluetooth? Or will Apple just let the third-parties build their own keyboard and docking station combos?

Also, would it be possible to use a standard mouse or trackball with an iPad? That may seem redundant in light of its multi-touch capability, but let me tell you that it’s awkward to constantly move from keyboard to screen and back again, particularly during a lengthy work session. Does the iPad’s operating system even support traditional cursor movement and functions?

When it comes to the hardware itself, the critics have focused on the lack of a camera. However, the iPad would be rather an ungainly device to use for regular snapshots, particularly when you compare it to a mobile phone or standard digital camera. Having an embedded Web cam might make sense, since you get those with Mac note-books and the iMac. But Apple has been quite aggressive about pricing, and VP Phil Schiller made it crystal clear that they were watching their money. While I don’t pretend to know what an embedded Web cam might cost, certainly Apple would have to sacrifice some of its cherished profit margins.

A memory card slot, similar to the one recently incorporated in the iMac and MacBook Pro, would probably make more sense. It would surely be more sensible than being forced to purchase the iPad Camera Connection Kit, although there’s again the bill of materials compared to the money Apple earns from selling you yet another accessory.

Apple is also getting racked over the coals for failing to deliver true multitasking with the iPad OS. The limited multitasking on the iPhone, where third-party apps aren’t invited to the party, might make sense. But the iPad has a much more powerful processor, and it’s surely capable of running multiple apps at the same time. Then again maybe that situation will change over time, perhaps when the iPhone 4.0 OS is out.

It’s also true that a key reason for missing features and built-in hardware is not just a matter of production costs, but time to market and making sure all the critical features are properly integrated. Although this isn’t being discussed much, don’t forget this is iPad 1.0. There will be bugs of one sort or another that will require periodic software updates to fix.

On the long haul, there will likely be an iPad 2.0 within a year, and maybe even more product variations, although it seems to me that Apple is simply following its hugely successful iPhone and iPod touch product lineup approaches. Regardless, there will have to be great and hopefully useful features to make you want to upgrade to the next version, so that may be a key reason why some capabilities are lacking right now.

One other item hasn’t been fully explained so far, and that’s the file system. How will the files you create in, for example, iWork, be organized? Will there be a standard Mac-like file and folder hierarchy? What about syncing the files with your Mac or PC? Would it require a visit to iTunes, or simple wireless file sharing? Indeed, there are going to be lots of questions that I hope Apple will begin to flesh out before the iPad officially goes on sale.

Consider your choices. You can spend $489 for an Amazon Kindle DX (unless they suddenly drop the price), which does little more than read books and publications. You can spend $300-$400 for a netbook, which is a pathetic excuse for a note-book computer — or you can, beginning in March, buy a basic Apple iPad for $499.

Which would you choose?

Before I go there, however, consider this: Whatever Apple does, there will be complaints. After reporting record income that beat estimates from the financial community, some analysts were still carping that Apple didn’t meet some of those inflated iPhone sales estimates. The analysts had been talking about nine million or more, whereas Apple reported 8.7 million sold, actually a 100% increase over last year. That ought to be a good thing, but not when the prognosticators are working their Ouija boards overtime.

That takes us to Wednesday morning’s special event in San Francisco, more highly anticipated than any previous Apple product intro. Indeed, Internet traffic during the presentation, as folks tried to access live blogs, ended up knocking out networks. From Macworld to Ars Technica, getting a proper feed was difficult. Macworld finally ditched its live event software, and just kept providing manual updates at their site. Ars, using the same “Cover It Live” software, kept displaying this message: “This event is currently at Capacity. Please try again in a few minutes.”

At the same time, Wall Street seemed to take an initially pessimistic view of the event as Apple’s stock price dipped throughout the presentation (it rose after the iPad’s unveiling). And although some observers, such as The New York Times, reported that Apple CEO Steve Jobs appeared frighteningly thin, his presentation was robust, with that trademark “reality distortion field” twinkle in his eye.

Now when Apple introduced its iPad in response to eager expectations, I doubt that the initial description of the new product and its features, basically a grown-up iPod touch, came as much of a surprise. What did come as a surprise was the $499 starting price. That’s surely a game changer, and much less than most financial and tech pundits predicted. By the way, the iPad tops out at $829 with 64GB of Flash memory and 3G connectivity. The entry-level gets you 16GB of memory and no 3G. But at least there’s 802.11n Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.

The rest of the iPad’s specs were close to what was predicted, including a 9.7-inch IPS display. The iPad is also a half inch thick and weighs a pound and a half. The processing chip, which integrates the CPU, graphics and other functions, was identified as a 1GHz Apple A4, thus vindicating Apple’s purchase of PA Semi, a processor designer company in 2008. Unfortunately, there is no camera, nor telephone capability, at least for version 1.0, unless something is changed between now and the shipping date.

Battery life is described as 10 hours for video, and one month on standby. If you opt to buy an iPad with 3G, which costs $130 extra for each configuration, you can order data packages available through AT&T, starting at $14.99 and $29.99; the latter for unlimited access. Sorry, folks, Verizon Wireless isn’t a part of this scheme, at least not yet. However, there are no price subsidies, no early termination fees, and you can keep the data plan on a month-to-month basis.

Keyboard entry is predictably touch-based, with the keyboard scaling up to the iPad’s larger screen. Whether that is a deal-breaker, I’m not certain. For short notes Multi-Touch is fine, but Apple’s decision to support external keyboards will address the need for better input capabilities in an exemplary fashion.

Now when you run an iPhone app, you have the choice of the standard size, or clicking on the 2X button to get an expanded view, which, according to observers who saw the presentation, actually looks quite good. But I expect iPhone apps will soon incorporate the ability to display natively on the device’s full size without touching a button. Indeed, Apple has already posted a revised iPhone SDK to handle those chores. However, according to senior vice president Scott Forstall, the iPad will run “virtually” every existing iPhone app, now numbering over 140,000, “virtually unmodified.”

The built-in iBooks reader app will give you a link to e-book content via the iBookstore, initially from such big industry players as Penguin, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan and Hachette Book Group. Nothing yet from McGraw-Hill, the largest textbook publisher, but expect more deals with content providers to be announced between now and the iPad’s March shipping date. Prices for iPad e-books will range from $7.99 to $14.99 and are formatted in an open format called ePub, which means that Apple won’t have a complete lock on the content you can read from other sources.

Watch out Amazon!

The iPad’s basic functions are pretty much what you’d expect, such as email, Internet access, movies, music and, of course, e-book reading and gaming. During the presentation, Forstall demonstrated the enhanced multimedia experience of reading your daily newspaper on an iPad as compared to just browsing through the site or reading the printed version. But it’s too early to tell whether Apple has saved the newspaper industry.

When it comes to creation as opposed to consumption, Apple responded with a demonstration of iWork for the iPad, part of an expected lineup of productivity apps that will be premiering on the new platform. The revised apps will be available ala carte, at $9.99 each.

Now when I started talking seriously about a tablet computer from Apple, I had to wonder whether I’d buy one. Considering the lower price of admission, I’m tempted, sort of. But time will tell whether I actually place an order.

Anyone who experiences dropped calls from the wireless carrier that once promised fewer dropped calls must be wondering if AT&T’s exclusive on the iPhone is poised to expire. There are reports now that Apple will announce during their Wednesday morning shindig that the iPhone will become available at more than a single U.S. carrier.

Before the disgruntled AT&T customers in our audience let out a resounding cheer, let me remind you that we don’t know the real details of that exclusive iPhone deal. Other reports suggested a three-year pact that would expire this summer, and that AT&T is striving to extend it. A two-and-a-half year arrangement sounds less sensible, but there’s no real confirmation for either version.

But even if Verizon Wireless does ultimately carry the iPhone, would it make things better? You see, one of the problems with the iPhone is that its easy Internet access means more customers are surfing; hence online data usage has soared to previously unheard of levels. AT&T got the brunt of this traffic and suffered mightily as the result, so maybe Verizon deserves a share of the misery.

Of course, it’s also true that Verizon has gotten far better marks for network quality and customer service than AT&T, and that’s a situation that has prevailed for a number of years. Then again, AT&T is a company cobbled together from several mergers, and finding corporate synergies and blending networks is no easy task. AT&T’s executives claim to be spending billions of dollars to improve network quality, and such changes won’t come overnight.

Even now, I see better call quality in the Phoenix area, where AT&T has traditionally had mediocre scores. And the network congestion in such locales as New York City and San Francisco has supposedly been reduced with the addition of more cell towers and updated network backbones.

Regardless, there’s nothing wrong with having a choice, and the so-called financial experts predict even more iPhone sales, mirroring the situation in other countries. But just how will a Verizon Wireless version of the iPhone impact you?

Before making unreasonable assumptions, don’t forget that Apple is still standing four-square behind AT&T. In the quarterly conference call with financial analysts Monday, Apple said they were assured by AT&T that the carrier has a credible plan to address lingering network issues. On the other hand, business is business.

When it comes to Verizon Wireless, the real question is whether your experience will get better, worse, or not change in any meaningful way. Yes, maybe the reception is superior with one of Verizon’s smartphones, such as a BlackBerry or Droid. But once again, don’t forget they are not making demands on that company’s network near what the iPhone is doing on AT&T.

There’s also the question of how an iPhone reengineered to work on a CDMA network would behave. You see, both Apple and AT&T are making a big deal over the fact that, when connected via the latter’s 3G network, you can make phone calls and, at the same time, perform other functions, such as checking your email or visiting a Web site. Although the iPhone is dinged for lacking multitasking, that situation strictly applies to third-party apps. With Apple’s own software, the iPhone can reliably walk and chew gum at the same time.

So the question is this: Would that sort of multitasking system apply to Verizon’s 3G system? It’s a very different network, and those ads imply this highly important feature won’t function. If true, that could be a significant shortcoming for some of you, but if network quality is more reliable, maybe it won’t make a difference.

However, both AT&T and Verizon are going to ultimately migrate to the so-called 4G or LTE (for Long Term Evolution) network technology. This means that the basic telephone hardware required for both companies, and others that adopt the same system, will be identical. Apple won’t have to build a CDMA version, or a hybrid.

It is inevitable that the iPhone will be available one day from more than a single carrier in the U.S. Whether that will happen this year, or whether Apple will wait for LTE to be deeply deployed is anyone’s guess. Because a contract with one carrier expires doesn’t mean Apple will jump head (or feet) first into the arms of another carrier.

More to the point, what’s there to stop them from signing up the fourth largest carrier in the U.S., T-Mobile? They have a compatible network (although there are some differences in terms of the frequencies used). What’s more, some people who have opted to jailbreak their iPhones are already using T-Mobile. So why not make it official and give them all the features currently available at AT&T, such as visual voicemail?

Regardless of how it all plays out, don’t assume for a moment that switching from AT&T, assuming they let you out of your contract (or you just wait till it’s up), will magically cure all of the iPhone’s problems. Maybe it’ll just create some new ones.