The public pitch was that the iPad was going to be so wildly awesome that people wouldn’t be able to get their wallets out fast enough to buy content to run on it.  Newspapers were going to become so engaging and interactive that nobody would dream of reading one on PAPER.

photo credit: patrickeasters

But to believe that you had to believe this: there’s a huge un-tapped market of readers out there that are buying neither computers nor newspapers.  They’re sitting around all day, maybe staring at the TV, fearful of computers — but with the means to buy one — in need of a device to fit their needs.  Their needs being a super-newspaper with pictures and videos and text all rolled into a 2-pound package.  This person is my grandfather.  His eyes get tired, so he would love to listen to the paper read to him.  His vision is going, so it’d be great to be able to zoom in on the text.  He’s terrified of computers.  But he’ll never buy an iPad.

The reality is that the iPad is too expensive for the younger reader.  Especially if that younger reader already owns a laptop.  It’s a duplicative device.  It does nothing new for the entire population of computer savvy buyers.  NY Times on my iPad?  I’ll go to the website.  There’s no reason to justify the expense.  It’s a toy.

And as a toy, it’s pretty neat.  But it’s no revolution.  It’s no iPhone.  It’s the Nexus One.  Google’s Nexus One was never about selling a lot of phones, it was about Google getting direct customer feedback and positioning itself as the anti-Apple.  Don’t want the walled garden of Apple and AT&T?  Buy the Google phone unlocked, use it anywhere.  Google needed to enter the mobile market.  Apple needed to enter the tablet market.

Nearly nobody under 30 has an iPad.  It’s a toy for rich men, right now.  And as the old men of the world march towards their funerals, they’ll have their iPads to help them stay informed.  No, the iPad isn’t going to save newspapers.  But it may prolong their lives while we prolong the lives of their customers.