sMoRTy71.com: How Apple should have announced the iPad

How Apple should have announced the iPad
I have given Apple a lot of grief over the years. My main gripe is with their fans who think they can do no wrong. Or with the press who continues to call them the most innovative when, lately, they have been the most iterative (going from 8GB iPhones to 16GB iPhones, EDGE to 3G, etc.).

Regardless of which side of those debates you come down on, I think many can agree that Apple completely mis-marketed the iPad yesterday during the big press event. I know, I know, that's almost blasphemous. Even with all of my gripes, the one thing I have *always* given Apple credit for is how well they market their products. With the iPad, we see that even Apple makes mistakes.

So what's the problem? There were a couple of big ones for me.

1. The positioning
Jobs lead off the press event and tried to make the case that consumers are longing for a device that sits somewhere between an iPhone and a MacBook that does e-mail, web browsing, photos, music, games and video better.

This leaves us all scratching our heads and asking, "If I have an iPhone and I have a MacBook Pro, why do I need an iPad?"

When you saw the iPhone, you recognized the innovation and the need it met instantly. It was the phone people had been waiting for. No one has been waiting for the iPad that Jobs gushed over yesterday.

2. The name
Because they were positioning this as a multi-purpose web device, they had to give it a generic name. Not only did they pick a generic name, they picked a name that was ridiculed around the world on Twitter for sounding like a feminine hygiene product. Ouch!

So how should they have done it?

The positioning
Whether they want to admit it or not, the iPad is taking aim at the e-reader market that is currently surging, thanks to the Amazon Kindle. Had Apple lead with the e-reader capabilities, they could have shown how primitive devices like the Kindle and nook really are.

I think it would have a clearer value proposition, gotten more positive buzz (the "Kindle killer!") and would allow the iPad to live along side iPhones and MacBooks.

The name
If they had positioned it to compete with the Kindle, they should have named it the "iRead" or "iReader." Those names work whether you are reading an e-book, a website, RSS or even e-mail (though that's a stretch).

They showed the same approach with iPhone. Sure, it is a phone, but the real innovation was in all of the other things the phone could now do (apps, true mobile web browsing, etc.).

They had the opportunity to do the same thing with the "iReader," but chose to announce a Swiss Army knife device with a generic name and no clear market. This is the biggest flop in terms of their marketing approach that I can remember.

What do you think? Is this a device that will find a niche once people get their hands on it? Would you shell out $500 for one when it launches?