I was lucky enough to get my hands on an iPad last week, and after a few days playing with it, I thought it was worth quickly writing up my first impressions.

I have another post in the works about the wider implications of what's currently happening with Apple, Adobe and the mobile internet— this post is just about the actual device, and how I think it's going to be used. (Given that Apple have only just announced the price for iPad in the UK, I thought it was worth getting this out sooner rather than later, as people might now be thinking about putting in their pre-orders.)

The short version—

• It's a good, secondary, luxury device.
• It isn't going to be a substitution or replacement your smartphone.
• It isn't going to replace your current computer. But it might replace your next one.
• Don't think of where you'll use it instead of a laptop. Think about where you are when you read a magazine or book— that's probably where you'll be when you use an iPad.
• It isn't going to bring about an instant revolution in personal computing— but in 5 years or so, I think we will be looking back at the iPad in the same sort of way that we look back at the first iPods; how much they've grown, and— for those of us with one— wondering what we'd do without them.

First off, it's a good looking device, and it looks like a giant iPhone. (That's the first thing that everyone says when they see it, which isn't really surprising because it does.) The screen is quite shiny— more so than I had expected. It's also very quick to pick up fingerprints, so OCD types will be doing a lot of wiping.

It comes with a case, which is actually more useful than it looks at first glance; the iPad itself is quite slippery, so as well as protecting it from scratches and dust, the case provides a more grippable surface to hold. Unfortunately, it also seems to be very good at picking up scuffs and marks. [EDIT: This isn't correct- the case is an optional accessory which was very kindly picked up for me along with the iPad itself by a friend & colleague. But it's a much more useful accessory than I'd first thought.]

The iPad itself is also surprisingly heavy— which means that first impressions are of a solid device, despite the thinness. Given that essentially, it's a big battery and a piece of glass, the weight shouldn't be a big surprise but still, the size and weight mean that I think it is not quite right to think of it as a truly "mobile" device. It won't fit in a pocket, and after using it while holding it with one hand for a while (which you really need to do, so you've got a hand free to control it— unless you're watching video) you really do feel that weight. Think of it like reading a reasonably sized hardback novel; you can do it standing up, but it's far from ideal. You want to be in a seat, with the weight of the book being taken by resting it on your lap or a table— not your wrists.

But this line of thought really comes from that initial impression of comparing it to an iPhone. If you're comparing it to a laptop (or netbook), then it's a different spin. It's lighter. It's more portable— you can use it standing up, or comfortably operate it one-handed. And while you would probably prefer to rest it on your lap, you don't have to balance it the way you do a laptop. I mean, I can use my laptop while lying back on a sofa- but it's a fiddly, uncomfortable experience. The iPad fits into this kind of usage much better. Plus, you don't have to wait for it to boot up before you can start using it— which I think is the kind of benefit that you don't really consider to be a serious benefit until you need something from the internet in a hurry.

Instead of comparing it to a laptop or mobile phone, it seems to make more sense to compare it to a magazine or a hardback book. You can easily pull it out when you've got a few minutes to fill, on a bus or train (ideally seated- but it will work standing up) but you really want to have comfortable chair and some time to yourself if you're going to get the most out of it.

So "portable" seems like a better term than "mobile" to use. This is a device that is small and light enough to fit into a bag (maybe even a medium-sized handbag) without either the size or weight being a concern. You can easily use it while wandering around the house (compare that to a laptop, which you either shut down and comfortably carry, or leave open and awkwardly carry.) But whether you'll actually use it 'on the go'… I'm not sure.

Whether that means the extra cost for the 3G version isn't going to be worth it obviously depends on the individual; I see myself using it at home, when I'm travelling somewhere that I don't want to be carrying a laptop, or sitting around in a coffee shop, train station or airport— so 3G doesn't make a lot of sense to me for an extra £100, plus data charges (which aren't cheap.) Despite the similarities, it's definitely not an iPhone replacement— so that's all going to be in addition to your regular mobile costs (bearing in mind that if you're the kind of person who is interested in a 1st gen iPad, you'll probably also be interested in the new iPhone that comes out each year.)

Those costs all add up pretty quickly… Especially when you consider whether you'll just want one. Because it's a very personal device— you set it up with your email etc, and there's no "different login for different users" option like a PC. So think of it like sharing a mobile phone— you won't really be able to use it properly if a) it's not yours to set up as you want it, and b) if you've set yours up the way you want it (including your iTunes account, linked to your account through apps like Amazon etc.) you won't really want other people to play around with it. So you'll ideally want one for each person in the house. (Or at least, if someone else in the house has one, then you'll want to borrow it, and they will want you to get one of your own.) Once you've got to that stage (and if you've got that much cash lying around) then maybe you'll also want one for the living room, to act as a digital photo frame/handy web browser. And maybe one for the kitchen, like a portable TV that can also look up recipes etc.

But, gadget-fans with bottomless wallets aside, the main weakness of the iPad as a "mobile" device is the keyboard. For typing on a table, or on your lap (two-handed) it's great, but it just doesn't work well for typing one handed- your eyes are darting around the keyboard to check that you're hitting the right keys, and it's very easy to accidentally brush against the keyboard, so it's easy to accidentally hit keys by mistake. Two handed, it works fine— once you get used to not being able to rest your fingers on the keys. One handed, for tapping in a couple of words for, say, a search term, it's fine. You can get a "proper" keyboard for it, and a stand that makes it very laptop-like, but you're still stuck with having to sit in a position where you can balance the keyboard and the iPad itself.

Oddly, this means that the smaller keyboard on the iPhone is actually better than the iPad in a lot of ways. I can use it comfortably with one hand. I can happily write or edit emails or blog posts on an iPhone even while standing up on a bus, but I can't see myself using the iPad to do the same thing— even if I have a seat. Because there's also the issue about what you might be typing; if I'm writing on an iPhone, then a paragraph or so of text is visible to anyone who happens to look over my shoulder. If I'm writing on an iPad, then there is more text on screen, in a larger and more clearly visible font, resting on my lap where it's positioned for typing (rather than being held in my hands where I can conveninently tilt it away from whoever I'm sitting next to.) And the chances are that whatever you're typing is going to be some sort of personal information— whether it's a Facebook post, a first draft of a chapter of your first novel, or the notes for a work presentation.

But for anything you don't need a keyboard for, it's great. Which brings me to what I think is the biggest point; what the "Tablet computer" form factor is all about.

I've used tablet PCs before, and they were all windows-based machines, using a stylus. Before the iPhone, I also used Windows Mobile smartphones, and the "touch screen" ones also used a stylus. For both of these, the difference between a stylus and a fingertip is enormous.

Its a much bigger difference than just the difference of capacative and resistive hardware; fingers are big and clumsy. You can't see what you're touching. The whole user interface needs to be different to accomodate, and the iPhone/iPad reflects it in the whole user interface.

The stylus was an alternative to a mouse. Laptops use trackpads (or occasionally tiny joysticks) which are an alternative to a mouse. It's no coincidence that desktop PCs all still use a mouse; it's simply a better tool for the job of precision pointing.

The stylus is really a user interface from a different age; an age when busy executives wrote with pens, and had a secretary or a typing pool to type up first letters, then emails. But the ability to type is no longer a specialised skill. It used to be that a certain words-per-minute was a qualification. Now it's an expectation. Like literacy a couple of centuries ago, it's not a specialised skill any more. That changes quite a lot. For one thing, you don't want a user-interface to mimic a pen any more; you want it to mimic a keyboard. Hence the decline of Palm— the company who probably above all others really mastered the stylus UI— and the rise of Blackberry. Once you move across to a "real" touch-based device, I think going back would be like giving up a mobile phone and going back to just having a land-line; a very obvious backward step.

There is definitely something very different about gestures like taps and swipes on a bigger device. It feels more comfortable; instead of swiping with your finger, pivoting at the wrist, your movement tends to be with your whole hand, moving from the elbow. Much more free, and less cramped. I can't remember where I read the analogy, but someone said that saying the iPad is "just" a big iPod Touch is like saying that a swimming pool is "just" a big bathtub. It is kind of true, but at the same time it completely misses the point.

There is also an interesting side-effect, in the way it changes the way I think about the iPhone. My first impression of the iPad was— not surprisingly— that it looks like a big iPhone. But going back to the iPhone, it's surprising how small it suddenly feels. Like something I think Gruber said (I can't find the exactl link)— it makes a lot of sense to think of the iPhone as a small version of the iPad more than the other way around. It's what the iPhone would be if size wasn't an issue.

This raises a question about what the iPad replaces; laptops, netbooks or smartphones. I think the answer is actually none of them. You still need a "proper" PC to keep all your photos, music and videos on (at least for now— that might change in the future with cloud-based storage.) You still need a pocket-sized device to make phone calls, check messages etc. It probably sits closest to netbooks, as a secondary, portable device, but I think a lot of netbook buyers are really seeing them as a small, cheap alternative to a "proper" laptop rather than a secondary device.

If you've got £400-500 or so that you're thinking of spending on an iPad, then you might be thinking about another gadget as an alternative— but that's not really the same question. It's going to depend on what your current laptop or mobile phone is like, and where it is in the upgrade cycle. It's what the iPad replaces in your personal budget— not what it replaces in terms of usage.

The iPod is probably the most interesting point of comparison I can think of. About 10 years ago, an MP3 player was a luxury device— it didn't do anything you couldn't already do with a personal stereo and a pile of blank tapes— it did it more conveniently, and in a way that was easier to carry around, but it didn't do a new job. But over the course of a decade, they have become pretty much ubiquitous. Ignoring the piracy debate, I don't think MP3s have massively changed the way most people buy music, but they have changed the way we listen to it. (And, for some of us, the way we store it.)

So right now, the iPad seems to be at that stage of being a luxury device. It doesn't really do anything different, or anything a laptop or smartphone can't do (other than run iPad apps— which usually don't do anything you can't do with a website.) It doesn't replace any of your existing gadgets, because it sits in a new space. But given another 12 months, when there will probably be a few alternative tablets on the market, then I'm guessing that they will be essentially competing on price. (Either more features for the same price, or a lower price point.) I can't imagine anyone coming out with a more expensive alternative.

So that will turn the iPad into a premium device. From there, it's a matter of time until you're choosing between a smaller wifi-only iPad versus other cheaper alternatives, or a bigger, 3G model as a more premium device. (In other words, pretty much where the iPhone is at the moment in the smartphone market.)

So whether Apple's future strategy is going to be to bring down the price (like they did with the iPhone) or keep prices fixed and improve the specs (like they did with the iPod— adding better screens and more storage space) will determine how quickly it makes that transition.