Here’s the question: After Flipboard’s gangbusters, bananas launch will the product ever rise to meet expectations or will users try it a few times and quit it?

I have something to admit: When I first started using Flipboard I thought it was “neat” and I could imagine the awesome possibilities for the product, but I didn’t use the product religiously. Maybe you fall into this camp. This could be a bad sign for Flipboard. It could mean users download the product because of the buzz, but then abandon it over time as the app’s icon accumulates digital pixel dust. I think there are many skeptics out there who assume this will surely describe Flipboard’s fate. But I must contest.

As I became accustomed to having content curated by the people I choose served to me on a silver platter, I became addicted. It didn’t happen overnight. It took a little while. But then again as I think back to almost every great technology I have ever adopted, this has been the case. I slowly dipped my toe in, used it occasionally, then a bit more, then more still and finally woke up one day to realize the world was running on it. Whether the example is the email, Netscape, AIM, iPod/iTunes, Skype, Facebook or Twitter, all have in common this conversion from “neat-o” to “you take that away from me and I’ll punch you in face even if you are my grandma.” One day you wake up and find that [email, cell phone, Flipboard] is just part of the fabric of communication and it’s hard to imagine a time when it wasn’t.

Flipboard has planted a flag firmly in the ground with their current release, but I don’t think it will be a “one trick pony”; I think we’ve just seen the first trick of many. I personally want Flipboard on my phone and my desktop. I’d love to see more and new ways of sharing information with my friends. Consider Flipboard 1.0 to be like iPod 1.0 — yes, that big brick of an “MP3 player” with a big spinning hard drive that only synced with Macs. We haven’t seen anything yet. Just like Apple, I am betting the team will rev the product and add features, products and frameworks where logical over the next few years and few people will even remember how this all got started.

–

In full disclosure, my relationship with Flipboard is a tad different than your typical user. I am friends with one of the co-founders and can honestly claim I know where the red couch motif comes from.

Are you wondering why iPad apps, especially news reading apps like Flipboard, Wired and WSJ, keep getting so much praise and media attention? Well let’s do a head-to-head comparison of The Wall Street Journal iPad Edition and Online Edition (WSJ.com). Why do you think users prefer the WSJ iPad app?

WSJ iPad Edition (click to enlarge)

WSJ.com Landing Page (click to enlarge)

When put in these terms the choice should seem obvious. It actually is. Most websites overwhelm their customers with far too much information and far too many choices. If I simply want to read the morning paper (the primary WSJ use case), the iPad app is better-suited to doing that, even independent of the specialized iPad hardware. Consider how many words, links and pictures there are on the WSJ.com Online Edition. If you studiously read every word and studied every picture, how long would that take you? Of course users don’t read every word, they scan, but you are forcing your users to do far more work to find the information they do care about.

I also believe despite its “lack of features” the iPad Edition is just about as functional as the Online Edition. Most of what most users are looking for most of the time can be found in the iPad app. That’s who you should design for, your majority. Design for the majority of a specific target customer with a minority of features. My rule of thumb is the Pareto Principle: 20% of your features deliver 80% of your product’s utility. Do not design for the corner cases, especially at the outer layer of the onion (ie the first part of your product customers interact with). WSJ.com was designed by committee and designed by feature creep. It was designed by “Hey why don’t we throw in XYZ feature!” I am not opposed to WSJ.com containing all the features they have, but they certainly shouldn’t all be on the landing page. In reality, though, it can be difficult for a company to force discipline and simplify. I’ve seen it before in the real world. Why? Because somewhere in The Wall Street Journal‘s offices a coversation such as this would take place:

Product Marketing: Our data says that many users find our website confusing and overwhelming. They prefer the simplified iPad edition. Let’s start simplifying. Why don’t we move the Personalized Stock Quotes off the landing page?

Web Manager: Oh, no we can’t ditch the Personalized Stock Quotes. They get a good number of clicks. Do you want to lose all those clicks?

The problem with this conversation is that it takes a fixed pie, zero sum approach to product design. This is not how the world works. Removing a feature doesn’t mean you “lose.” This viewpoint doesn’t even begin to account for all the clicks lost / never had due to a confusing and overwhelming website. In fact, a simplified site could enlarge the pie and drive more total clicks to the things you really care about.

I am telling many of the startups I advise to conceptually “design for the iPad, not for the web.” It’s too easy to create an overly chromed-out website from the get-go. The iPad is a great design tool in that it forces trade-offs. (Unbeknownst to most people, trade-offs are actually the critical factor that drives the greatest innovation and the best products. It is the iPhone’s lack of a physical keyboard that makes it great, even though that makes it harder to type on.) Apple understands trade-offs. Products that try to be everything to everyone usually fail. They fail because they don’t have a target customer in mind and thus have to keep adding on extra features to accommodate every possible user and use case. In the end you, you wind up with Windows Vista.

So why are iPad apps such as Flipboard and WSJ getting so much attention? It’s because they are easy to use. They make reading the news what it should be, fun, as opposed to work, which is what WSJ.com feels like. They look nothing like most of the crap we put up with in HTML. Some of this can be attributed to the natural product value advantages of the iOS SDK over HTML (as I’ve previously written about) and some of this can be attributed to the great design decisions and trade-offs the iPad is fostering.

When the world gets its sneak peak at iPhone OS 4.o this week the conversation about the iPhone will radically change. The conversation will move from “What the iPhone really needs is feature X” to “What iPhone OS really needs to do is become X.” This change is notable for two reasons:

1. The conversation is about the OS rather than just the physical device. Now that there are two distinct devices, namely the iPhone/iPod Touch family and the iPad family we will be better able psychologically to parse out the software as a separate entity.

2. The conversation is no longer about specific features like Exchange support, copy and paste, multi-tasking or beard trimming. The conversation has moved to a philosophical debate about strategy. Specifically, I suspect the majority of the conversation will be around whether Apple should move in a more open direction (vis-a-vis the App Store approval process, Flash support, etc.).

These are both signs the platform has reached initial maturity (perhaps moved from infancy to toddler-hood?). Personally, I will be thrilled when this happens because every time I hear a well informed entrepreneur, technologist or VC say something like “Android will beat the iPhone because the iPhone doesn’t have [Flash or Background Apps]” I want to slap them. You can’t judge a device by the presence or lack of a handful of features. You must see them as platforms of which features are merely appendages. Now, open vs. closed–that is a good topic to debate whether Android or iPhone OS will win in the long-run.

That said, I truly believe this will be the iPhone OS and iPhone that goes from a crawl to a run as it hits the sweet part of the bell curve and has something for everyone.

No time for a full review or even blog post. Just some bullet points since it’s Easter Sunday and I need to go dress up in a bunny suit and dance for kids in front of the local five and dime because a man’s gotta earn a living.

Business Ramifications:

• Advertising: The Popular Science app is most notable to me not for content but the advertisements! They look gorgeous and sexy–and many are full page. You think to yourself “Crap, this is what I pictured online advertising to look like about 20 years ago. How did it take this long?” The iPad is a real game changer for advertising. The platform and SDK frameworks allow for unprecedented beauty and interactivity which will vastly accelerate the ability of companies to pursue global branding campaigns, which is where the real ads dollars are. Prediction: CPMs should and do go up. If they don’t, you’re getting screwed over.
• Cloud: Dropbox and/or MobileMe etc. is a must have complement. Given the totally wireless nature of the device, when you’re using it you have this feeling you are using the first device that can truly take advantage of the cloud without seemingly like it’s trying to.
• Content Beauty: Overall everything looks damn sexy on the iPad in a way that HTML and its plugins have never been able to attain. Whether you are browsing through the NPR iPad app or booking a flight through the new Kayak iPad app or looking at plain old web content through Wikipanion (a Wikipedia viewer) or Craigsphone (a Craigslist viewer) it suddenly feels like you traveled ahead 5 five years in a (hot tub?) time machine to gaze the future. Does HTML suck or does the iPhone OS SDK rock? Or are folks developers finally paying attention to UI because the device psychologically is more akin to paper? What’s going on here? I have my suspicions, but I promise you it looks better.
• $$$: I am much more inclined to pay up REAL MONEY for apps. iPad apps are not just “FREE” and $0.99. I feel myself gravitating to the $4.99, $9.99 and even higher price points because I can see the value. This is very promising for software developers. Since the device is new and burning a hole in my oversized iPad pocket I am also throwing down money on apps left and right which is great for those with iPad apps around launch.
• Gaming: Addicting.
• Allocation of Time: I will spend more time consuming long form prose content (probably some verse too), web video and playing games now that I have an iPad. I will spend less time solely watching TV, but more time on the couch with the TV on while I am on the iPad. I will spend less time on my laptop aimlessly browsing the web, checking Engadget for the millionth time. I will spend more time aimlessly opening apps on the iPad.

iPad Device, Software, UI:

• Gut Feeling: This is the most excited I have been about computing since circa 1990 (when my buddy upgraded his 386 and we installed the latest version of Test Drive and it came with 256-color graphics!)
• Usage: It’s definitely a device for consuming content and replying to quick emails, etc. not creating long-form content as we suspected. I am writing this blog post on my MacBook Pro from the comfort of my bed. There would be no comfortable way to do this with the iPad. (Believe me, I just spent ten minutes trying–even using the bluetooth keyboard, a bookshelf two pulleys, two lines, a counterweight, and a block and tackle.)
• Multitasking: I suspect it will come with iPhone OS 4.0. I don’t really miss it for now.
• Speed: Perhaps because I have an old, pokey iPhone 3G, the iPad feel so fast it even makes a laptop feel like you’re riding a three legged burro up K2.
• UI: Overall awesome. The new iPod app made me feel like the dude in the Maxell ads who gets blown away. Gorgeous. You can read about the overall UI in any number of reviews elsewhere, but one thing I’d like to add is that the home screen looks and feels slightly awkward to me. I suspect SJ feels the same way, but was willing to live with this to get the device out X months faster because he knew he had a winner on his hands. I imagine the dock and homescreen will become more pleasing to the eye in proportions and overall look/feel and also more useful with iPhone 4.0.
• Weight: It’s probably a little too heavy to replace my Kindle for reading a book in bed. Maybe too big of a screen too. I kinda dig the E-Ink for eye-strain reasons too, but I am sure many folks will have their own opinions. I see it better for web, magazines and newspapers than War and Peace.

I am going to respectfully disagree with Kellogg Professor Mohan Sawhney who recently wrote “I think the iPad is aimed squarely at the center – of nowhere.” My argument boils down to three primary points:
1. Neither early laptops nor iPods were truly mass consumer devices. Their progeny were, but those first incarnations were not.
2. If you try to think of the iPad as a “complete substitute for either a laptop or a netbook or a smartphone” as he argues, you have already erred. It is not.
3. You and I are not typical consumers.

Here we go:

1. The Allegory of the Laptop. I bought my first laptop in 2001. I thought of it as a “great addition to my desktop.” But hardly a great investment from a TCO perspective. I presupposed I would use it whenever I went to the Stanford Library to study, when I was traveling, or perhaps sitting outside in the Oval on one of those famously sunny Palo Alto afternoons. Never, however, did I imagine it replacing my desktop. Why? It couldn’t. The technology wasn’t quite there yet. Battery life was abysmal, the processor was more anemic than the venerable Irom Sharmilla on her 10-year hunger strike and Wi-Fi was still crying from its crib in infancy and not present on my laptop. Oh yeah, and I couldn’t see the screen outside–so much for working outside in the Oval. BTW, have you ever tried using a computer recently that wasn’t connected to the internet? WHAT THE HELL IS IT GOOD FOR?!

But then something changed. In about 2005 or 2006, I noticed some dust on my desktop both literally and figuratively. (Seriously, my room was a mess, the thing was filthy.) I didn’t need my desktop anymore. The equation had changed. I could now do 95% of everything I needed to on my laptop. I thought of my big, custom-built desktop as really only useful for large Excel documents, video games and as a big hard drive for my MP3/AAC collection.

The same is true for iPods. I bought an original iPod way back when. I still have it. It’s black and white, has a FW400 port, is thick as brick, practically needs its own wheelie suitcase to transport and cost $600. I remember my friend Kali asking/reprimanding me at the time, “What the hell is that? You spent $600 on an MP3 player!!!” [Ed: Actually, Kali this MP3 player will shake the very foundations of the computing industry.] That original iPod was not ready for mass market. It was a niche product for alpha geeks like me. But you know what? It wasn’t a mistake. The technology evolved, Apple executed and it turned out that everyone wanted thousands of songs in their pocket (i.e. once the iPod could fit in a regular size pocket). PS-I apologize for the misleading title of this section. That was in no way an allegory.

2. The  iPad is a new device, don’t pigeonhole it bro. I readily admit the iPad is neither a laptop, netbook or mobile phone. It is not supposed to be. Good product design requires as much sacrifice as it does integration. To understand this, you need to think different for a second. To lose the inhibition, follow your intuition. Free your inner soul and break away from tradition. You categorically CANNOT look at the iPad and determine its utility by comparing it to other products. YOU MUST COMPARE IT TO CUSTOMERS NEEDS. Does it have 10x USB and 4x FireWire 800 ports? No. Does it have a 15x dual-layer burnable Dual-Scribe DVD Writer? No. I agree–from that perpsective it sucks. But so do feature lists. Do most people need those things? No! You need to start by asking what people use these devices/tools for.

3. My girlfriend does not have a computer at home. Right now, your mind just exploded and it’s just a red, gooey mess. But, Marketing 101, baby–you and I are not the typical consumer. Most people don’t go home and run conjoint analyses in Excel on weekends. But my girlfriend is closer to the typical consumer. What does she need? First, she has a computer at work. She uses that for most computationally and input mechanism intense tasks that she does–like large spreadsheets and long emails. She also surfs the web on it and takes care of most of personal internet needs through it. Second, at home and on her person, all she’s got is her Blackberry Pearl. Why? Because when she gets home she mostly emails, surfs a web page or two and makes a few phone calls. My girlfriend is the perfect example of a potential future iPad customer. Not today’s iPad mind you–too geeky for her. But perhaps iPad version 3. One day, Gilt or Groupon will come up with a social shopping app that she’ll need to have and the iPad v3 will arrive via FedEx the next day in a white box. Just like it was with the iPod…

Conclusion
Most people do “intense” computer work in the office on their office supplied machines. When they get home, they use the web for leisure, socializing and communication–exclusively. And for those of us who spend 5-10% of our time at home working, we can probably afford both an iPad and a laptop. Although as the iPad improves and you and I catch up to the new reality, we’ll begin to realize we think of our laptops like we think of desktops today–ornery beasts used for work. We’ll spend the majority of our time at home on the iPad, not our laptops. Desktops and laptops were expected to be used for both leisure and work. The iPad has for the first time truly separated “leisure” from “business” computing in terms of devices. From now on, the iPad/tablet is a “leisure” computing & web device, while laptops are “business” devices. This was brilliant customer and product segmenting, targeting and positioning by Apple. Is this all a sure bet? Hell no. There are risks up the wazoo in everything and anything I said coming to fruition–as was the case with the original iPod. But is it a bet I’d take if I were SJ? Hell yeah, I would.