This is a fairly passive device, something someone will sit on their couch and enjoy, not to be used as a traditional computer.

Apple didn’t demonstrate that anyone “will be able to develop anything cool for the iPad.” Apple didn’t present the magazine part very well, something this device would be perfect for, and hasn’t demonstrated that they have the tools available for anyone to create something on the level of the SI demo. If they have the tools, as you seem to suggest, that doesn’t mean anything to average consumers, you have to deliver and demonstrate that. The people this device is targeted to don’t care about Flash, or HTML5, they want Apple to show them why they should buy this thing.

I’m not even sure I know what a “new media consultant in New York City” is. Sounds like it involves a twitter account and too much free time on their hands going to “media events” at bars.

I’m not a “new media consultant,” I’m a regular consumer and frankly, as a consumer, Apple’s presentation was pretty underwhelming, and that was their fault, not the fault of content developers.

Apple was unprepared.

So what is it, Anthony? Are you peeved because their presentation wasn’t up to your expectations, or because you still think no one will be able to develop anything cool for the iPad?

If it’s the latter than I think you’re going to be surprised to find, as BrianK points out, Flash is not all that crucial to developing the apps that will let you experience magazines the way you’re dreaming of. If it’s the former, than I’m not really sure why you even bothered to write a column since all you’re really saying is “Apple, why wasn’t your presentation as cool as I expected it to be?”

Again, I think their answer to you would be: We didn’t created this product for the small niche of “new media consultants” in New York City. We created it for the huge market of consumers who want an easy-to-use, portable computer that elegantly does the core things they need to do.

And from a marketing standpoint, I’m sure I don’t need to point out that it’s going to be a lot easier to sell a $500 tablet computer than a $500 magazine reader to most consumers.

We all realize Apple doesn’t create applications and it’s up to developers to produce them, but don’t you think Apple should have worked with some content developers to show something on par with that SI demo? They did that when they presented the iPhone, they didn’t bother to do it when they presented the iPad.

“The problem is, the iPad cannot currently do what the demo presents, and it should, right now. Flash is the only current technology that would make that possible.”

Wrong. It can do everything the demo presents. In fact, only using Flash would make a lot of the features impossible (i.e. adjusting orientation and layout as you move the device). It’s not a question of what the “iPad” can do, it’s a question of, “is there an app for that?”. No, not yet. But that’s up to you, not Apple.

“I don’t want my magazines and newspapers in the format Apple is forcing them to provide.”

What do you mean? If Sports Illustrated created a great native iPad application that had all the bells and whistles of the video you posted, added it to the App Store, you wouldn’t download it?

“Apple’s version sucks”

There is no Apple version. It’s up to content creators to produce great experiences. Apple provides a development environment allowing all of the features you want, and an existing delivery system (AppStore, and probably eventually, a magazine iBook equivalent), and a 9.7” screen to view it on.

“Apple is standing in the way because they’ve created a closed system that lacks the proper tools to create innovative content.”

Closed system? Forget the web argument. This experience would never be Flash based even if it was allowed on the iPad (I am a Flash developer, by the way, so I am not arguing against it because I’m an HTML evangelist).

There is absolutely nothing stopping a publishing company from providing this experience on the iPad. I cannot see an argument otherwise.

BrianK, if that was the case, why didn’t Apple use applications that could do what the SI demo does on Day One? The central point of my post was that Apple didn’t deliver on Day One. There is no iPhone app that does what the SI demo does. Are you telling me you could do it with something other than Flash and if so, why didn’t Apple work with some content creators to get that ready in the lead up to the iPad?

Gregory12, if Apple created the iPad to be a cheap portable computer, I wasn’t convinced by their presentation that it’s going to be something I would want to buy to do just that. The primary purpose, for me, is a magazine and newspaper replacement. Apple isn’t being innovative here, they’re saying, you can get this content on the web in the same format we’ve been reading it in for years. The iPad should be post-web. Delivery of content via the a virtual newstand and in a glossy format like the SI demo presents. I don’t want my magazines and newspapers in the format Apple is forcing them to provide. I’m speaking as an end user, not as a publisher. Apple’s version sucks. Sports Illustrated’s version is amazing. Apple is standing in the way because they’ve created a closed system that lacks the proper tools to create innovative content.

They’ve left the door open for anyone, presumably Google, to create a better, more open, more attractive product, to developers, publishers, and consumers.

If anything, your column illustrates the larger problem facing the old media: you’re looking for others to do your innovating. Your question really shouldn’t be “Apple, why won’t you let us be great?” but rather “How can I be great in spite of Apple?”

You’re attitude that Apple should have done this or that to better enable content providers is really common in the New York publishing world, and frankly, it’s a large part of the reason these publishers are struggling so much.

Macmillan’s fight with Amazon and the publishing world’s unilateral (though publicly unspoken) support of Sargant et al is a great example of this. Here’s a company (Amazon) that is revolutionizing e-books and creating a rapidly expanding market for them. This will be good for publishers for several reasons: their product won’t be sold on consignment (this is HUGE), will be cheaper to produce, easier to buy, and more affordable to the consumer. But instead of sniffing out the opportunity in all this (for instance, by innovating their business model and experimenting with e-book only editions, etc.) they pick a fight over pricing – something that is likely to be ultimately decided by consumers anyway. In the end, and even though they “capitulated”, Amazon didn’t lose any money in this deal (in fact, they’ll be making a lot more from Macmillan).. Macmillan, on the other hand, is going to be making less and so are its authors.

The point is, if publishers of books, magazines, and newspapers are going to survive they are going to need to innovate on their own. If you think Apple is standing in the way of you being great, then it seems you’re already losing the battle.

Please tell us this that you accidentally left out a word in this headline. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you meant to write “Apple, Why Won’t You Let Us Grate?” and that the article should be about Apple trying to obstruct a popular form of cheese preparation.