It doesn't appear that consumers view the iPad primarily as an e-book reader, but more as a media appliance, a comScore study suggests.

Though 37 percent of respondents indicated they were “likely” or “very likely” to read books on the device, nearly half indicated a high likelihood of using the iPad for browsing the Internet (50 percent) and receiving and sending email (48 percent).

More than one third said they would use it for listening to music (38 percent), maintaining an address book or contact list (37 percent), watching videos or movies (36 percent), storing and viewing photos (35 percent) and reading newspapers and magazines (34 percent). says comScore.

“These devices have the potential to be incredibly disruptive to the way consumers currently access digital content," says Serge Matta, comScore EVP.

The big issue is whether there exists a sizable market for a digital appliance somewhere between a netbook or notebook PC and an iPhone. In that regard, when asked whether they would use an iPad “instead of” or “in addition to” other digital devices, the highest amount of potential substitution was for the iPod Touch (37 percent).

Conversely, despite widespread belief that the iPad might threaten netbook adoption, only 22 percent of consumers said they would use an iPad in place of a netbook.

The most important device attributes that consumers indicated they would like to have included in the iPad were: ability to use multiple applications/programs at once (43 percent), having a screen the same size as a laptop or desktop computer (37 percent) and having a built-in camera (34 percent). Among iOwners, the percentages were substantially higher at 56, 66 and 51 percent, respectively.

Some 34 percent of males indicated they were likely to use the iPad for playing action, strategy or role-playing games, as did 28 percent of females. More than half of those 18 to 24 year olds (53 percent) said they were likely to use the iPad for gaming.

Younger consumers indicated a high willingness to pay for news and magazines specially formatted for e-readers. About 68 percent of 25 to 34 year olds and 59 percent of 35 to 44 year olds said they were willing to pay for this type of content.

If comScore's results prove to be correct, the iPad will emerge as a media appliance.

more detail

Public Wi-Fi: Smartphones Driving Usage

Originally envisioned as a for-fee service used by users who wanted Internet access for their notebooks, public Wi-Fi hotspots increasingly are used by smartphone users.

As a percentage of total sessions, handheld access increased from 20 percent in 2008 to 35 percent in 2009, according to In-Stat.. By 2011 handhelds are anticipated to account for half of hotspot connections.

There are lots of reasons for the trend. The number of devices equipped with Wi-Fi capability is growing fast. In-Stat estimates that, from 2007 to 2008, Wi-Fi-equipped device sales inreased more than 50 percent. Service providers also are encouring users by offering Wi-Fi hotspot access as an amenity to their fixed broadband, smartphone or PC card customers.

More devices able to use Wi-Fi, plus a "no incremental cost" charging model are boosting activity. The other development is use of devices other than PCs and phones that can use Wi-Fi. The Apple iPod "touch" is perhaps the best example, but In-Stat points out that shipments of Wi-Fi-enabled entertainment devices, such as cameras, gaming devices, and personal media players, will increase from 108.8 million in 2009 to 177.3 million in 2013.

Android Now 14% of Mobile Web Sessions

If you are considering creating a mobile app, the Apple iPhone and Touch still represent the single largest target.

But Android is growing fast. According to an analysis by Flurry, Android users now represent 14 percent of mobile Web sessions.

The iPhone represents 50 percent and the iPod Touch generates 35 percent of mobile Web sessions.

Android seems to be taking share from the iPhone, but not from the Touch.

iPod Touch: Optimized for Video and Web

The newly released iPod touch is for all intents and purposes an iPhone with reduced functionality. The iPod Touch skips Bluetooth, phone capabilities, a camera and has a lower quoted battery life.

It has more storage than the iPhone though, which tops out at 8 Gbytes. The Touch is available in 8 Gbyte and 16 GByte versions, whereas the iPhone is only available in 8GB capacities. Other than that, the iPhone and Touch are identical. 802.11b/g Wi-Fi is available on both devices.

The Touch uses the same interface as the iPhone as well, but the Touch is shorter and thinner. Brilliant people, those marketers at Apple. They are creating a family of products each optimized for a different use case. The iPhone is the most capable phone. The Nano is a cheaper video player. The iPod has the most memory if you a music player.
The iPod also has dedicated volume control buttons; Touch doesn't.

The Web browser on the Touch probably is a major positioning feature. Lots of users will focus on using Wi-Fi to download music. Personally, I see it more as a Web browsing platform. Email access is not something you'd really want to do on a Touch. That's a better experience on an iPhone but arguably not as good as an iPhone as on a BlackBerry.

To prevent people from confusing a Touch with an iPhone, Touch has no audio input jacks or Bluetooth, so you really can't use a microphone. It definitely is not a phone.

So the issue is what people will make of it. It's a better Web browser and video player than a music player. The iPod is a better music player. The video-capable Nano is a cheaper music and video player. The iPhone is the only phone. The Shuffle is a better device for running and exercising because of its non-existent footprint. Unless you need to keep stats on your training progress, in which case the Nano works with some Nike shoes to collect data for you.

The net result is that lots of users will wind up owning multiple Apple products, while Apple covers the whole range of price points for devices that all are mobile music players. Clever, those marketers at Apple.

All of this is interesting for other reasons as well. One wonders how long it will be until data-optimized, communicating mobile devices might develop as a distinct niche: optimized for Web applications primarily, though capable of handling email and voice. Would such a niche necessarily require full-time mobile access? Or is there room for use cases based on Wi-Fi connection as a primary access method? Perhaps dual mode capable, but without the recurring monthly post-paid fees? Perhaps prepaid mobile access as a supplement to Wi-Fi as the primary access? Using WiMAX perhaps?

The new use case would be based partly on the characteristics of the device, partly on the nature of the access, partly on the user payment model and partly on the provider business model.