Charlie Rose Brings Carr, Arrington, and Mossberg To the Virtual Round Table For iPad Chat

Illustration for article titled Charlie Rose Brings Carr, Arrington, and Mossberg To the Virtual Round Table For iPad Chat

Thursday night's edition of the Charlie Rose Show brought David Carr, Michael Arrington, and Walt Mossberg together to discuss the iPad. Having used the iPad briefly, all three seem optimistic about what it has to offer.


Though we've already heard Mosspuppet's preemptive review of the iPad, it's interesting to see all three of these influential voices—Mossberg from the Wall Street Journal; David Carr, a columnist for the New York Times; and TechCrunch's head honcho Michael Arrington—discussing Apple's upcoming device in one forum. And what emerges is that all of them, to varying degrees, are excited about the iPad's promise.

At one point, David Carr says, "I think there's a revolution in the fact that you lean back and read something," and this, the possibility of a more casual version of computing, seems to be the iPad's greatest promise in the minds of all three journalists. And after reading the 1994 Rolling Stone interview with Steve Jobs that recently resurfaced, it's clear that Jobs is at his most passionate when he has locked in on a revolution to champion. [TechCrunch]



Great video.

Seems like a really neat device. My only issue is we need to define "success" for the iPad. Is it a million sold? What's that compared to the iPhone or the Air? Personally, I'm disappointed with the iPad because it was presented as having "iPhone" potential for success, but I feel like it's more likely going to follow the Air. I don't see it as ground breaking for one big reason. It's just neat.

This product is often presented as being perfect for the non-tech savvy crowd. Primarily the non-tech savvy crowd, who won't be as interested in the iPad's lack of certain features (Flash video, multi-tasking). However, there's more than one barrier in getting the non-tech savvy to adopt a tech product. Cost will be a big barrier for many if this product isn't seen as a laptop replacement. For example; Say I present you with a box containing an iPhone, a laptop, and an iPad (and you don't currently own any). I give you an opportunity to use all three for about 20 minutes, and then I tell you you can only keep two of them for all of your future needs within the next year. Which two do you think most people will likely choose? My bet is that a substantially larger portion will pick the iPhone and a laptop. My reason for this is because non-tech people don't just shy away from purchasing loads of tech gadgets for lack of understanding. Cost and a general lack of interest in "tech" is another reason (yes, hard to believe for myself and the Giz crowd). It's the same reason many people buy a Honda Civic over a Subaru STI, regardless of their driving ability. They just don't care. So, with limited resources, why would they spend more money on another gadget that doesn't deliver on all their perceived needs? I'm betting that the percentage of people necessary to boost sales of the iPad into "iPhone" territory will just see this as a "neat-to-have". But when it comes to writing the check, they'll just opt for the minimum needed to get by, and then move onto the Home and Garden section of the store.