Yeah, it could be better.

It’s what they do. They’re working on computing products that are several years out from production (or even introduction), and not a single person will ever open his or her mouth about it. And honestly, I think that’s a great way to do it. Mystery breeds curiosity, and in Apple’s case, fanaticism. And sometimes it pays off big, but only when they also master the messaging that does get out.

In January 2007, Steve Jobs gave what I believe might be his Magnum Opus in the introduction of the iPhone. Not only was the device simply revolutionary (at the time, against my usual MO, I believed that particular marketing-speak was actually on-point), but the structure of the presentation was absolutely perfect. The flow of the information that Steve presented was really conducive to getting everyone excited, on the edges of their seats, and dying to know more. He set it all up with context. He pointed and laughed at the horribly Photoshopped mockups. He did the quick, teasing reveal of the device he had in his pocket. And then he showed people how to use it, by using it. And narrating. And being fucking excited.

Yesterday, though, the iPad presentation was simply horrible and awkward. It pains me to say it, but as awkward as Phil Schiller has always struck me, Phil’s portion of the presentation was the only bit that got me excited about the iPad. The iWork software was really nicely done (and new!), and Phil was good at describing what he was showing, and his enthusiasm struck me as genuine.

Compare that with Steve Jobs, whose mind seemed to clearly be elsewhere. Now, if rumors are true (and I usually doubt they are), then it’s likely that Steve was hoping to present more/bigger news yesterday, possibly with regard to media services for iPad. But regardless of cause, it seemed clear that Steve was either disappointed, or pissed, or otherwise failing to focus on the awesomeness he held in his hands. Possibly the dumbest thing he could have said, he said several times: “It just all works.” Scott Forstall said the same thing a few times later on.

As some have already noted, Steve’s demonstration of web browsing on iPad just felt like an awkward session of watching Steve Jobs dick around on the web. There wasn’t much in the way of narration, and it felt as if he just forgot we were all there. Compare this with the presentation of the first-ever iPhone, and the contrast is stark. Steve was genuinely excited to show us the multitouch gestures, the new ways to interact, the fancy scrolling and rubber-banding, and the awesome ability to rotate the screen for better viewability. With the iPad? Not only did Steve take for granted that we all know the gestures he was making, but he also didn’t make hardly any allusion to the fact that the super-phenomenally-popular iPhone is this thing’s older sibling.

Now, I know in theory that this should actually be a good thing. When introducing a new style of device that fits in between your mobile phone and your laptop computer, you really have to tread a fine line with the comparisons to either device. Because, on the one hand, you don’t want to knock your other devices because you want people to keep buying them. And on the other hand, for the people who already own both of those other devices, you need to give them a good reason to buy this fancy new dealio.

That’s actually similar to another problem they had: they didn’t compare it enough to the other products in the marketplace. Of course, Apple is usually good like that. They don’t want to bash the Kindle. They didn’t really bash any other competing products when they introduced the iPhone. But what they did do was to look at those devices, and point out the specific ways in which they wanted their new device to stand apart. All they said about the Kindle was that it paved the way, and that they were going to stand on its shoulders. More needed to be said, if for no other reason than to point out who will be in the market for one of these things. Most people who say they won’t buy one are saying it because they don’t see this thing replacing their laptop. This means you’ve failed to tell them why they would want one. The message should have been clearer, especially after years of no messaging at all for this product.

So, the problem — as I see it — is that in reality they didn’t nail it when they really needed to. Steve didn’t nail it. I really think he needed to draw our attention to the fact that the iPad is a much larger and supercharged version of the iPhone, and that simply by nature of its sheer size, it is an extremely different type of platform. Things that could never be done on iPhone can be done on iPad with ease.

Of course, Steve can’t shoulder all the blame for a badly-done presentation. Scott Forstall, whose presentations have usually been well-received, made a pretty bad blunder. In terms of organization of content, the first major demonstration he gave on the iPad was a one-eighth-screen demo of an iPhone app. Really? That’s the first thing you want to show the world on your new device? Usage of 1/8 of the screen? You don’t do that with a “magical” device. You show how truly effing magical it is, and then you follow up by saying “by the way, all of your iPhone apps will run on it right away, so you’ve got a little time to fill the AppStore with awesomeness for iPad. Now, my Pokemans. Let me show you them.”

Everyone points to Steve Jobs as a great presenter, with an innate ability to get you wanting their latest piece of kit. But the truth is, in terms of keynote presentations, the only one I’ve ever gone back and watched multiple times was Macworld January 2007 (iTunes link). I’m hoping, next time they introduce something brand new, that they’ll do a better job of getting me fired up. I know they have it in them.