Apple’s Rad iPad

Steve Jobs took the stage at the Yerba Buena Center for the Performing Arts in San Francisco Jan. 27 and debuted the latest wonder gadget from Apple.

Called the iPad, the device is pretty much what rumors during the days leading up to the presentation claimed it is – a tablet computer that’s more of a personal device than something one might use for running NASA, the Strategic Air Command or Live Nation Entertainment.

Equipped with a 9.7-inch touch screen, the iPad is a half-inch thick, weighs 1.5 pounds, is available with 16, 32 or 64 gigs of flash memory storage and its battery is touted as capable of powering the device for 10 hours. It looks like a big fat iPhone, and it’s designed for people who don’t need a laptop but require something a bit more dynamic than an iPhone.

Or, as Jobs put it, the iPad is “so much more intimate than a laptop and so much more capable than a smart phone.”

The iPad does many of the things an iPhone can do, except make a phone call. You can surf the Web, play music and videos and run applications downloaded from Apple’s App Store. It has built-in WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity and can sync content with your computer.

Like the iPhone, tilting the device causes the screen to adjust to the new width/height radio, and typing is accomplished by using an on-screen keyboard.

The iPad also has a book reader that simulates the appearance of a real book, the kind with pages, paper and even a cover. While demonstrating the device, Jobs also revealed a new electronic bookstore, showing off the iPad as a worthy competitor to Amazon’s Kindle.

How much? Prices start at $499 for an iPad with 16 gigs of storage, while 32 GB will cost you $599 and 64 gigs ups the price to $699.

Apple is also selling units with 3G connectivity provided by AT&T, boosting prices to $629 for 16 GB, $729 for 32 GB and $829 for 64 GB. Data plans are sold separately. The WiFi-only version comes out in March and the 3G models will hit stores in April.
But will people buy it?

Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey questioned whether there was a market for Apple’s new device, saying in an e-mail that the iPad didn’t come with enough bells and whistles to persuade users to spend more than $500 on yet another electronic device. McQuivey also criticized Apple for not including social features such as ways to share photos and video.

But anyone owning an iPhone probably thinks differently. In the years since Apple introduced the iPhone, people have praised its features and versatility, often showing off what they can do with the device before adding, almost as an afterthought, that it can also make a phone call.
In other words, many people came to love the iPhone because of the device’s non-phone features as well as being able to carry the Web in your pocket. While the iPad isn’t an iPhone, it does make some tasks easier, such as writing e-mail or watching a video.

The iPad isn’t a laptop either, a distinction that should move more than a few units off of store shelves. When Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, it didn’t stress the device’s smartphone capabilities. Instead, the company sold the gadget as sexy and fun, and left it to consumers to realize it was the smartphone they didn’t know they needed.

So if you need to create charts, run formulas or design complex machinery, you may want to stick with your laptop. But if you want a personal device that enables you to surf the Web, read books, newspapers, send e-mail, collect photos, play games and watch movies, the iPad may be just what you’re looking for. You just haven’t realized it yet.

A Change Of Tune

Remember Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the Minnesota woman sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement? The lawsuit was the first peer-to-peer file trading infringement lawsuit filed by the organization ever to make it to court.

If you remember Thomas-Rasset then you probably remember she lost the case – twice. In 2007 a jury found her liable for infringing upon 24 tracks and fined her $9,250 per song for a total of $222,000.

But there were questions after the trial, mainly because other court decisions had cast doubt on whether “making available” was legally enough to claim infringement. In virtually all of the RIAA’s P2P infringement cases, the organization claimed that simply placing songs in a shared directory – i.e. a directory accessible by other P2P users – is enough to scream infringement regardless of whether anyone downloaded the tracks.

Juries have some leeway as to how much they can fine a person for infringing upon music copyrights. Basically, a person can be fined anywhere from $750 to $30,000 for a single song infringement. However, a jury can fine someone up to $150,000 if it believes the infringement was willful.

So there was another trial, leading to a verdict of willful infringement, resulting in the jury fining Thomas-Rasset $80,000 for each of the 24 tunes adding up to a total amount of $1.92 million.

As it turns out, the higher fine isn’t going to dog Thomas-Rasset or her credit report either. On Jan. 22 a federal judge in Minneapolis called the amount “monstrous and shocking” and reduced the fine to $2,250 per song for a total amount of $54,000.

“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” U.S. District Judge Michael Davis wrote in his decision.

Davis also denied Thomas-Rasset’s request for a new trial, and gave the RIAA seven days to accept the decision or ask for another trial to set new damages.

Meanwhile, Thomas-Rasset isn’t promising to pay the fine anytime soon, or for that matter anytime at all.

“Whether it’s $2 million or $54,000, I’m a mom with four kids and one income and we’re not exactly rolling in that kind of dough right now,” Thomas-Rasset said.