I dare say that the Internet as we know it is not coming to an end. But it is changing for sure, as it always has. I remember the beginning of the Internet, when large companies didn’t even have a web site, and there was no such thing as an e-commerce site that allows people to buy things over the Internet. Amazon capitalized on that opportunity by being the leader of the e-commerce industry, and today Amazon is one of the most powerful computer companies in the world; a company that has an army of developers that not only develop it’s own web site, but a variety of powerful products including cutting-edge cloud computing technology. I remember when Amazon and other companies were just getting started, and how people feared that “allowing for commerce to happen over the Internet would destroy the spirit of the Internet” (“spirit” meaning the freedom, connection and and lack of control and restriction by large corporations). Well, as we can see now, the building of the e-commerce industry did by far more good than harm in the sense that it has facilitated globalization, commercial activity, and the convenience of shopping without having to leave your house. I.e., the fears that have existed about the Internet have always been unfounded.

Apple is right now in a somewhat difficult position having release a product that is so intimately connected with the Internet, which makes it, as I stated before, powerful. As the NPR article shows, many people fear that Apple may hinder some freedom when it comes to accessing the Internet by the fact that the iPad does not allow you to see everything that exists on the Internet. As one example, the iPad does not display Flash content.

Steve Job’s content about why Flash isn’t supported on the iPad is that Flash is buggy, and slows down the machine. Having been in the computer industry since the beginning of the PC industry I lean towards agreeing with Steve Jobs. Flash has a plethora of issues, which include it being a portal for viruses and malware. Flash is often heavy and difficult to load on a web page. These are challenges that for some reason Adobe has failed to resolve (and remember that Flash is a technology that Adobe acquired through buying out Macromedia) and now these inherent flaws of Flash stand against Apple’s core philosophy, which has to do with “a device that is always on, never crashes, and provides a magical experience”. Apply simply cannot achieve that by allowing Flash to be a part of its products.

The web has evolved a great deal, and it still has a lot of garbage. The web is only useful because useful information can be easily found. But if every time people connect to the web they had to deal with garbage, then the web would be useless. I believe that those who help separate the garbage from what’s useful are likely to be compensated (if they do with with a sound business plan). I dare say that this is how Google became the powerhouse that they are today – by focusing on developing the best web search engine, that is, a tool that sorts through all the garbage and lists the most useful information at the top and in a lightning speed. Nobody does this job better than Google. Imagine if you had to remember all of the different web site addresses because there was no search engine that could return the useful information that you want? In that case your local library (which has a librarian) might be more useful than the web. I will say it again Google has made a fortune by offering a tool that allows people to filter out the garbage from the useful information that they want, and they did so by inventing a new business plan: by displaying online ads that are paid by the companies that want to display their ads.

Apple made a fortune by first offering the iPod, which as a “revolutionary music player”. All it did was play music. But digital music was in disarray: the music industry was still fighting to sell music through compact discs, and users had to “burn their CDs” in order to get it in digital format that could be played on their computer. This process was a real hassle for most people, and is what originated the popularity of Napster – an original program for peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing that was used mostly for sharing music files. Add to this problem the fact that a music album typically has one or two songs that most people like, and you had music studios fighting to sell albums for $14 or more a piece, and an underground company whose operation is completely illegal. Clearly neither side is offering a sound solution, and then Apple decides to legally offer individual songs, in digital format, for 99 cents each. Today iTunes is the biggest music store on the web, and Apple continues to make gobs of money daily through the iTunes store (which offers not only music, but also movies and TV shows).

In conclusion, one could make the argument that Apple did the public a service by providing music in digital format through an ease process (and a pleasant experience) at a low price. Not only did Apple do that through the iTunes store, but they designed and “manufactured” (I put that in quotes because all these electronics are manufactured in China these days) the devices to play the music that they sell through the iTunes store. I think what Apple has done is great. Are they making money this way? Yes. Are they providing a service to the public? Yes. People can still drive to the store and buy their favorite movie on DVD (or Blue-Ray, you might say) or they can download it through iTunes and watch it. It is your choice.

The web is not going away. You can still burn your CDs and transfer them to your iPod the old fashion way. Or you can get on the new wave. The iPad is very exciting. A new device to browse a web that does not require a mouse! Please, check again for more articles and information on the iPad coming soon.

On other news: I have not written for some time and would like to comment on what I’ve been up to besides anxiously waiting for the iPad. A couple of weeks ago I decided to finally and completely ditch all Vista editions that I had been using, and upgrade to Windows 7 (after having read reviews on Windows 7 and concluding that it is a decent OS). Well, I ended up having trouble with one of my computers during the install, which turned into a failed motherboard after a need to flash the bios (I learned a lot about that). Long story short, I ordered a new motherboard in order to revive this old computer, and in the process, I ordered a bunch of new parts for building a brand new desktop computer. I’m not anxiously waiting for this parts – more anxious than I’ve been waiting for the iPad, actually.

In this recent process of building yet another desktop computer (almost all my desktop computers were custom built by me) I was surprised to learn some new things, especially through the research I did on the computer parts I am getting. I’ll be getting my first quad-core AMD processor, which should blow away anything I’ve used before. Why am I sharing all this information here? Well, because I feel compelled to. And perhaps it is to show that I’m not as biased about the iPad as some people may think I am. I think the iPad is a fantastic device, and I say this while aware that my love for the desktop computer is still strong and despite the argument that desktop computers are a thing of the past.

Another thing I’m excited about is that I will be using Windows 7 to run my new quad-core machine for work, and I plan on installing Linux on the old machine that I just revived.

So this is it for now. Please, check back next week for some reviews on the iPad based on my personal experience with it (assuming the Apple store still has one for me today).

Well, it’s obvious now that the iPad is also competing against the Amazon Kindle in the area of eBooks. To counter-attack, it appears that Amazon recently purchased a company that specializes on touch screens – see the article Amazon Said to Buy Touch Start-Up while it is on the Internet.

Someone once said that the auto industry has way too many players, and that eventually only a handful of companies will survive and thrive (and Toyota has been shooting itself in the foot, but that’s another story). Well, I think that the same is true in the gadget industry. There are way too many gadgets out there being made by way too many companies. I am not saying that that’s a bad thing. But it isn’t sustainable. Eventually, the useless and not so useful gadgets will die, as well as the ones that become obsolete. Only the most useful and the most heavily marketed gadgets will exist. And only the companies with the right amount of capital, vision, and marketing ingenuity will prevail. A company can operate in a money-losing field only until it runs out of money – and cannot borrow any more money from creditors (as in the case of GM, which was saved by a government bailout).

Anyway, this competition is very good for the consumer. This is why I like to say I welcome the iPad and that it is a great device. If it weren’t for Apple and it’s announcement that they are releasing the iPad, it’s very possible that Amazon wouldn’t be working to figure out how to implement the touch screen technology into their Kindle; at least not at this moment. And I think we can all agree that the touch screen technology is a phenomenal advancement for any gadget. When I got my first smartphone – the HTC Android G1 – I simply could not go back to any phone that did not have a touch screen. After my experience with the G1, any phone without a touch screen would have been a huge disappointment.

I congratulate all these companies that are fostering innovation and creativity in the marketplace: Amazon, Google, Apple, and many others.  Their new devices may not always last and be useful, but without risk-taking no one knows what the customers/public really want and need.  We should all encourage innovation through new devices and not criticize if it turns out we don’t like them.  Remember you vote on the candidates with your money: buying a new device is giving money and incentive to the companies who built it while at the same time not giving money and incentive to the competition that could have gotten it. I am excited at what lies ahead for consumers as far as the gadgets that will be available in the future.

The iPad is a locked device (no USB port, no ability to install programs, etc), and some people immediately see this as shortcoming. But I see this as a great enhancement. By locking the iPhone, Apple was able to create a mini-computer that does not suffer the affliction of error messages, software crashes, viruses, slow performance, etc. The iPhone is consistent, always on, responsive mini-computer. I never have to reboot my iPhone, which is great.  This is one thing that gets me so excited about the iPad:  expect similar performance and behavior.

The iPad was designed specifically for one great task: consuming content. I remember when the web started and was accessible by the public at large: few large companies even had a web site. You could probably read all the web sites in one day back in 1995, 1996. But with the explosion of the Internet, just indexing all the sites has become an insurmountable task (thus the rise and success of Google). My point is this: there’s tons of content to be consumed on the web. Who wants to waste time dealing with error messages, viruses, having to install software, having to reboot, etc? The answer is: only geeks do. That is, those who like to toy with their computers, install applications, test software and hardware for fun, etc. The iPad won’t appeal to them because it is not designed for that. The iPad is a proprietary device designed to work well and with consistency, for consuming content.

I, like most people, consume lots of content daily. I visit blog and news sites daily. I do email and browse the web daily. I do facebook almost daily. All these things I can do from my iPhone already. But the experience of browsing a web site with the iPhone is still lacking for me. So I use my computer. So currently, I have several computers that I use for work and also for consuming content. This is the way that it is for people now. A person who is a software developer uses a computer for his work. And a person who just consumes content will often times use the same laptop. Apple will change all that with the iPad. Because no one really needs a Porsche to go to the grocery store. A slower, more efficient, more comfortable car will do a better job when it comes to just going to the grocery store.

Because most of the electronic content we consume today exists in servers, I believe that the iPad’s lack of storage options is an asset rather than a liability.  I think the iPad will revolutionize the market. It is the stepping stone to a device that will be much more important than the personal computer has been, and the catalyst for separating the people who consume content from those who produce content or do other work.