It occurred to me today that you really don’t hear much about Beelzebub in a political context anymore. I was thinking about my childhood (and gaming in particular – and by gaming I don’t mean video) and remembered all of the dire warnings hurled at me regarding the dark lord.

Dungeons & Dragons was a tool of Satan. Heavy metal music was a tool of Satan. Alcohol was the Devil’s elixir. It seemed like just about everything you might enjoy doing was a tool of corruption placed on Earth by Satan.

You just don’t get that much anymore. I mean, in some pockets, I’m sure those charges are still leveled. They just don’t enter the mainstream consciousness the way they used to. Video games are allegedly bad, but not because they’re a tool of Lucifer, they’re bad for much more concrete reasons. People rage against video games because they claim they rot the minds of our youth or they lead to school shootings, or they’re a gateway drug to heroine. They are no longer simply written off as a tool of the dark arts.

In some ways, that makes me kind of sad. Satan is no longer the guilty party in any activity today’s youth engage in. I actually miss a world where every issue was discussed and debated in terms of Satan’s presence. Even if you partook of the devil’s playthings, there was a certain comfort in knowing it was all part of a great cosmic Yin & Yang. Now we have scientific studies of kids who go on to commit crimes and whether too many hours spent playing Sonic the Hedgehog was to blame. It has become all too sterile, and it’s just not the same.

I originally found Toy Soldiers because Microsoft featured it in their booth at CES.  I swung by to look at their games and was seriously impressed by this one. It’s a war game that features planes, tanks, blimps, foot soldiers, bullet cam views, and countless forms of merriment in blowing things up.

It will be sold via the Xbox Live Marketplace for about $15.  They hadn’t given out a release date, but yesterday they said March 3rd.  So don’t call me that day, I’ll be shelling some krauts.

I joked on Facebook the other day that telecom and tech companies are like your boy/girlfriend – you love what they bring to your life, but on some level you are always kind of annoyed by them.

It may be interesting to draw that analogy out a bit further.  It occurs to me that your ISP (and most other companies, frankly) are very much like your significant other.  And on a certain level, that has serious implications for consumer satisfaction.

When you are dating, most of your friends will never hear about how great your bf is on a daily basis.  When he screw ups, however, you’ll tell all your friends.  You’ll tell just about anyone who asks.

That’s actually very similar to your ISP.  Typically, most ISPs have tremendously reliable service. When that service fails – on the voice, video, or data side – you’ll tell everyone.  If the repair guy is late or doesn’t show, you’ll tell everyone you were stood up.  If he tracks mud on the floor, you’ll tell everyone he was a slob.  If it isn’t resolved when he leaves, you will tell everyone he left you unsatisfied.

Since everyone has similar experiences, they’ll commiserate, tell you that guy is just no good for you, you deserve better, it’s just a shame that there are no decent guys is no competition in the ISP marketplace.

A week later when you are browsing freely, cuddled up watching TV, or talking to your mom back home, will you mention that they’re taking care of you today? Will you talk about all the great things they do for you? All the great places they take you?  Probably not.

Most of your friends will eventually grow to think your boyfriend is a big douche who’s always running around and never makes you happy.  How many of them have ever heard you say anything good about your ISP?

The fact is, like relationships, telecom can be messy.  You may not always get what you want.  You may feel you just can’t count on them.  You might think you’re putting a lot of yourself your money into the relationship, and they just take you for granted.

But like relationships, we’ll get through this together.  Let’s just get a pint of Ben & Jerry’s, browse the web, or just settle down to watch Sleepless in Seattle OnDemand.

To me, the ultimate and unresolved questions are “What is the iPad?” and “What does it offer that is substantially better or different from its likely competitors?”

At dinner Tuesday night, I was discussing those points with a bunch of guys I consider to be very bright technologsts. One of the guys at the table argued the iPad isn’t meant to replace a laptop for business use, it is meant as a consumer device – a user friendly extension of yourself, I suppose. I agreed, explaining that the iPad is useless as a mobile office solution because it is limited in applications to what is web based, or what is available at the app store.

I like using Office, I really don’t like OpenOffice/GoogleDocs. I’ve tried them and found them incredibly wanting. Say what you will about Microsoft, they make a hell of an office product. (Don’t get me started on how inferior Entourage is to Outlook, though. That’s another post in itself.)

But here’s the problem, as I explained to them. The iPad isn’t really a good platform for personal use either.

What do you use a personal device for?

A personal device, especially one expected to become the standard for such devices, needs to have a lot of capability for personal media.

The iPad is clearly based on the assumption that everything is in the cloud. That’s not the case for most users, though. Most users still install applications, download mp3s, play DVDs, etc. With only 16GB on the low end device, the amount of space available for any of that media is minimal. Even at 64GB, the iPad is seriously underpowered for storage compared to a 160GB to 250GB netbook – especially at two or three times the price.

Assuming you want to get everything online, you still have the problem of actually achieving that. Since the iPad doesn’t do Flash, you’re going to have problems with a staggering number of websites, especially if they use it for video delivery. Flash is installed on the overwhelming majority of computers. There is rampant talk of HTML5 replacing it, and many big names are looking at implementations to replace Flash, but there are significant hurdles.

George Ou at Digital Society (of which I am a Director), looked at YouTube’s implementation of HTML5 and found it lacking. In addition, you have the issue of battling codecs that has made adoption by browsers inconsistent.

Assuming the iPad only allows Safari, and since Apple has significant concerns with the lack of patents on the Ogg Theora codec, it’s possible that some site video won’t work even with HTML5.

Absent a reliable streaming solution, and without enough storage space to handle stored media, the iPad falls short on the media front.

What is the iPad’s Value Proposition?

The other problem with the iPad is the fact that it is unlikely to function well as a standalone product. The lack of any type of drive prevents the direct install of applications and requires the iPad be connected to something else. So now you have to shell out the $500 to $700 for the iPad, and you still have to have the $300 netbook, or the $1,000 laptop to connect it to. The iPad was billed by Jobs as an intermediary device with the best features of a smartphone and a laptop. However, since it is far too large to hold up to your ear, and way to underpowered to replace the laptop, you have left neither of those behind, and instead spent $600 for a device that does little the other two don’t.

If you will still need a laptop/computer as well as a phone, there is a serious question as to what the iPad gives you that makes it a unique value.

When the iPod came along, most people were still listening to CDs. The value of the iPod was in a) the storage capacity to keep larger amounts of content with you at any time, b) a menu system that made accessing that content quick and easy. While other mp3 players were in the market, the iPod made digital music easily accessible. The best mp3 available offered significantly less as a value proposition.

Similarly, the iPhone put more power in the phone. The Blackberry was the smartest widely-deployed smartphone available at the time of the iPhone’s release. Yet the iPhone rose quickly to dominance because it gave you more power, more capability, and more storage at a similar price point, and in an easier to use package.

The iPad Has None Of That

A few years ago I helped organize an event at which Marc Andreessen spoke. He had requested a white board for an audience participation event. With almost 800 people in the room, that just wasn’t reasonable. So I arranged with a Dell sales rep the use of their first tablet. We connected it to a projector, and turned Andreessen loose.

Midway through his remarks, he started talking about convergence, and the tendency to take things that work perfectly well on their own, and jam them together. He commented that his first cellphone was a brick – big, bulky, heavy. But he had just gotten to a very small, very lightweight phone, and now here come smartphones to make us carry the brick again.

Then he held up the tablet and said, “A paper tablet is cheap, you can get it wet, you can use it in broad daylight… this thing has none of that!”

And that’s the problem with the iPad. It’s not robust enough to be either a business device or a consumer device. It relies on Apple’s closed architecture, has far too little capacity, and limits your ability to consume the media you want as you choose. Further, it has far greater limitations than a netbook, but at a substantially higher price point.

A netbook has similar battery life, but also allows you to add your own software. A netbook has a larger hard drive, and doesn’t require another more expensive computer to run. A netbook costs half, but does twice, as much. Are they perfect, no. Will they get much better over time, yes. But I would still pit even the worst one against the iPad.

The iPad simply doesn’t offer any value compared to what else is on the market. Cheaper, but more powerful netbooks, or slightly more expensive, but far more capable Macbooks offer much more. Even the iPod Touch and iPhone give you most of the same functionality, but with a smaller screen at half the price. There is simply nothing that differentiates this product. And that’s the fundamental problem with the iPad.

I was at a meeting over near the Hill yesterday and had a chance to wander past the throngs of people storming the halls of Congress. I had an opportunity to chat with some of them, and to listen to many others. There were several things I picked up on, and I thought I’d share them.

First, let me say that in the 10 years I have been in DC I have never seen a crowd like that trying to get access to their elected representatives. The lines to get into the House office buildings literally wrapped around the buildings like a nightclub rope line. Several of the buildings stopped letting people in, so people familiar with the HOB system were telling those turned away to go to another building, then enter the basement tunnel system to get to their representatives.

On some level it appalled me that the US Capitol was telling people they were not allowed to go inside and see their members, but the sheer volume made me understand it simply from a security perspective. I would say, however, that I did not get the sense from anyone that they would have turned violent. In fact, everyone I saw or talked to had a very sunny disposition. Given their agitation that was remarkable to me. There was no “mob rule” that escalated the anger at all.

I would not, however, say that there was no anger. There was, in fact, plenty. What really struck me about the anger, however, was its direction.

This was not a Republican crowd. This was an American crowd. The people I talked to were just as angry with the right as they were at the left. They were just as happy to disrupt the normal cycle of business in Congress for both sides. When men and women in well tailored suits walked past the crowd of people in jeans, dockers, polo shirts, and jackets, they were subject to mocking and derision without regard to what party they may belong to.

The suits, for their part, looked none to pleased. They were scowling at the crowds as they walked by, and seemed disdainful of the effort by the crowd to make their voice heard. That seemed true universally among what were clearly the DC class.

It became very clear to me that this crowd wasn’t anti-Democrat, anti-Obama, or in any way pro-Republican. It was simply anti-Washington. It was a crowd incensed at what it perceived to be the arrogance of DC. I heard time and again as people passed by, or chattered in line, the refrain that these were people happy to come remind Washington that the rest of the country is watching and demanding respect.

When I returned to my office, I saw a reference to Ramseh Ponnuru’s column in Time magazine titled “The Rebirth of the Republican Middle“. In it, Ponnuru argues that the results on Tuesday were less about party than they were about people clamoring for ideas and results. Deeds in VA clearly had no ideas. Corzine in NJ clearly had not delivered results. Hoffman in NY seemed ill-prepared for the local issues. Ponnuru argues that the lesson for Republicans is to run campaigns based on a message of specific achievable fixes for what ails us.

I assume that the upper case “R” in the title is due to a style requirement at Time magazine. I assume that because Ponnuru’s column specifically goes on to state the question of whether the GOP is too conservative or not conservative enough is really secondary. Ponnuru’s focus on ideas and solutions has no partisan stripe.

However, based on what I saw yesterday, I do believe that there is a republican wave in the sense that people feel government has gotten too big, and ignores them freely. Democrats didn’t get elected because people felt Washington was too small. They got elected because people felt that Washington, under the GOP, was unresponsive to “we the people”. The Democrats have proven that they’re no better. Now is the time for candidates to run on making government work, not simply adjusting its size.