When Apple first released the original iPod, many mp3 players were on the market. I’m not even sure what it was about the iPod that was so attractive and set it apart from other devices in the field. Maybe it was the design? It wasn’t too revolutionary: it was rather large, and featured a moving wheel interface that the user used to navigate through menus. It wasn’t a “touch” device, as most people associate with all versions of the iPod and iPhone: the wheel actually had a flat disc that the user rotated. It wasn’t until the second version that a touch sensor recognized a hand. I wonder if it was the size of the iPod that make it stand out. The original iPod had an actual hard drive, unlike the solid state drives that were used in the other mp3 players at the time. This allowed the user to store a whooping 5 gigs (I believe) of songs. At the time, this was a massive amount of storage. Maybe it was the system of syncing the iPod with the Macintosh (the original didn’t work with Windows), iTunes, and the iTunes Music Store. Whatever it was, I remember that there was a lot of media surrounding the release. Hey, it’s Apple: that’s what they do. They presented that thing as if they invented mp3 players. It was a minor hit, until Apple made their infant savior available to the Windows crowd, after which it became a major success.

Many people are comparing the iPad to the iPhone. The iPhone was revolutionary: it was a new concept used to complete age old tasks (making a phone call, mobile web, etc.). The iPad isn’t this: we’ve had portable digital media readers before (Kindle), we’ve had tablet PCs, we’ve have computer monitors with touch screen (Wacom even developed a horizontal monitor that you could draw on with a stylus), and we’ve had a device that an entirely graphical interface with soft buttons (the iPhone). Just like the iPod, the iPad is taking a bunch of pre-existing technologies and melding them into one concept. It’s not a new product, but it is a new way of making the product. Also like the iPod, Apple is introducing a secondary product delivery function: the iBook Store. If the iPad is successful, it is the combination of these functions that will set it apart from the competition. Assuming that Apple has a far enough head start.

And that leads to the topic of competition. Many Apple supporters, fans, and critics alike are skeptical of the success and usefulness of the iPad. Many consumers are saying that they are going to wait and see before buying. Many, probably current iPhone and iPod touch owners, are saying that they don’t have a use for the iPad. So why is it that Apple’s competitors are working so quickly to bring rival products to the market? I read weekly news articles about other tablet PCs that are supposed to challenge and de-thrown the iPad. This product doesn’t even technically exists, yet somehow Apple was able to create a market for it.

The only solid reason that I can think of for the rush to own the tablet market is simple because the alternative is too risky to take. Companies like Napster and Amazon are still trying to make a dent in the downloadable music market, because Apple had that much of a head start. The iTunes Music Store put a huge dent (supposedly) in traditional CD sales. The mp3 player market is dominated by the iPod and not including the business market (which is dominated by RIM’s Blackberry), the iPhone is the most popular cell phone available. Before Apple can hack away at the sales of Brick and Mortar establishments such as Barnes & Noble and Borders AND online retailers like Amazon, other players are trying to get into the game to get a piece of the first-mover’s-advantage-pie. Apple has proven so successful in the past, that electronics companies are willing to risk the R&D investment to create tablet computers to compete against a product that they probably don’t even think will sell. They have too much to lose if they are wrong.