It was back in January that Steve Jobs took the stage at a San Francisco event and told hundreds of excited Apple enthusiasts to hold the Internet in their hands.

After a three-month wait, on April 3rd, Apple fans were finally able to not only hold the Internet, but also the future of computing in their hands.

Ever since rumors of the launch of Apple's tablet computer started circulating across the Internet, opinions regarding the device have been divided. While some observers have not been optimistic as to what the iPad may mean for the future of media, some media pundits have gone so far as to call it the messiah of print media, hoping it will become a significant source of revenue for newspapers in the near future.
On its April 3rd official U.S. launch date, Guardian reports that Apple sold 300,000 iPads - quite the Easter gift for Steve Jobs. Guardian qualifies this claim by adding that it included deliveries of pre-ordered iPads to customers, possibly the 152,000 that had already been sold back in March, deliveries to channel partners (Apple's lingo for shops), and sales at Apple Retail Stores. So, although 300,000 users may not have the iPad in their hands yet, many could soon. The NYT reports that Apple expected the device would sell more than 300,000 devices on its first day. These figures represent at least $150 million in first-day sales for the tech giant.

Apple released figures that claim more than 1 million apps and more than 250,000 e-books were downloaded through its stores over the weekend. It wasn't made clear as to whether the Apps were downloaded from the iPad app store or from the iPhone store, as iPhone apps also run on the tablet.

Fans across the globe greeted the device with similar enthusiasm. In New York, Apple fans lined up outside the store to be the first ones to get their hands on the iPad. In Britain, a high demand for the iPad that has not been released there just yet has generated reports of "grey importing," according to Guardian. Some users are trying to outsmart Apple by buying the device through forwarding companies in the U.S. Apple is reportedly trying to block these "grey importers."

However, the enthusiasm the iPad has garnered so far does not mean the device will be an instant success.

An analyst at Needham Research, Charles Wolf, told the NYT that the enthusiasm that has surrounded the introduction of the device "says more about the role Apple is playing in our culture and little about the ultimate success of the iPad."

Other analysts estimate Apple could sell up to 3 million of the devices this year. Great news for the companies that create the content Apple is providing an ideal platform for - games, online TV, ebooks, and online newspapers. Guardian claims that it is online newspapers that could become big "money-makers" through Apple's App store.

The previous success newspapers like Guardian and New York Times have had with their iPhone apps suggests that the iPad apps could become a significant source of revenue for print media.

Reviews: iPad is extremely well-suited for reading, surfing the Internet

But, what does the iPad offer in terms of user experience? Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal said on Guardian that the iPad was most suitable for web readers and light writers. Without a mouse and a comfortable and easy-to-use keyboard, the iPad will mean much media-consumption, but little media-production.

In terms of battery life, the iPad runs for more 11 hours, even on battery-consuming options like film-watching and internet-browsing. On the App front, nearly all of the 150,000 apps developed for the iPhone will work on the iPad, but will probably run in small sizes. At launch, 1,000 iPad apps were on offer between $3.99 and $49.99 in the U.S.

E-reading is much better on the iPad than on the Kindle, said Mossberg. This is good news for all of those hoping to get some use out of the iPad's e-reader capabilities. The iPad may be heavier than the Kindle, but what it lacks in lightness, it makes up in a color screen and no eye strain. The Kindle; however, still has a far bigger bookshelf however with 400,000 titles compared to 60,000 for the iPad. This is probably set to change as Apple negotiates with other book publishers, or if it reaches an aggrement with Random House, the world's biggest trade publisher, who previously declined Apple's revenue-sharing agreement .

iPad apps: will newspapers cash in on them?

But, when it comes to apps, the biggest opportunity for content-creators to cash in on Apple's device, there's a high demand for them. The NYT says over a million apps were downloaded before the weekend drew to a close.

PaidContent reported that after the first day of iPad app sales, the best-selling paid-for apps were those that were meant to enhance the iPad's productivity.

What is perhaps somewhat disappointing for publishers is that it was mostly game apps that rounded out the top 10 best-selling apps on the iPad's first day. In fact, Games represent 35% of all downloaded iPad apps.

Although games and practical apps did better on the paid-app front, this does not reflect news apps' lack of popularity among iPad users. In fact, users are downloading news apps, they just are not paying for them yet.

USA Today, NYT Editors' Choice, and NPR for iPad were among the top 10 most-downloaded free iPad apps on the iPad's first day in the sun. Rafat Ali from PaidContent speculates that this is because users may have realized that they can get the same content for free on their browsers, so there's no point in paying for the apps.

The general trend seems to suggest that big media and entertainment companies are only doing well on free iPad apps, says PaidContent.

Bottom line, as Gizmodo puts it, expensive newspaper iPad apps are not selling well.

Although the WSJ iPad App is getting great reviews, at a hefty $17.29, it is not getting plenty of downloads. The newspaper is charging 67 percent more for the iPad app than a joint subscription to the online and print editions. However, media consultant Ken Doctor on News on News says an early reviewee was "blown away by the Wall Street Journal" adding that there was no reason for him to get the print paper anymore. For him, WSJ is combining the best of two worlds leaving the reading part intact but also embracing video, touch, and social sharing.

While the iPad experience seems to offer great benefits, Alan D. Mutter says it "combines the strengths of print, web, and mobile into a satisfying - and yes, transformational - experience," the question is whether users will pay premium for this experience through iPad apps.

Both USA Today and the Financial Times are some of the newspapers currently offering their app for free, and the USA Today's app was one of the most downloaded over the weekend, but will this early enthusiasm wane once the USA Today starts charging for it? And, when it starts charging for it, will people pay even though they can access the newspaper on their iPad web browser and get the same content for free?

The iPad has only been out for less than a week, so it is a bit difficult to predict how apps will fare, as some prepare to launch later this year. Only time will tell whether users will adopt the iPad and whether they will pay for iPad news apps.

Sources: Guardian (1), Guardian (2), Guardian (3), PaidContent (1), PaidContent (2), NYT, News on News, Newsosaur, Gizmodo