Is Apple’s iPad Really Going to Save Old Media?

Apple Inc. (AAPL) has finally done it. The computer/gizmo company has finally prodded its way into the media’s delivery system the way it did with wireless phones [via the iPhone] and music [via the iPod]. The latest Apple tentacle is reaching straight into the news media world with the recently-launched iPad, with hopes that it will revitalize subscription-based (for pay) journalism.

Maybe it will, but it would be nice if Steve Jobs would first simply admit the iPad is just a really, really big-screened iPhone.

High hopes: While the iPad can play music, run apps, act as an e-reader, and do everything else most iXxxxx’s can do, the iPad is being billed as a device that can also serve as a platform to deliver revenue-bearing news content.

Media companies like The New York Times Co. (NYT) and Time Warner’s (TWC) Time Magazine are interested too. The New York Times has already begun work on a tablet-based version of its newspaper for online (paying) subscribers; Time was working on a mockup of a digital version even before the iPad was unveiled. Both hope to follow in the footsteps of News Corporation’s (NWSA) Wall Street Journal, which began charging for some iPhone content in October.

Though it’s not clear what sort of revenue the popularization of for-pay news delivered through the iPad will mean for Apple or the media companies, it is clear that Steve Jobs is forging ahead on the idea.

Reality check: Critics of the iPad plan point out – correctly – that the iPad itself does nothing that other Apple devices can’t do other than display the media’s message on a bigger screen. But, a wi-fi-enabled e-reader like Amazon.com’s (AMZN) Kindle, or the disappointing tablet from a Microsoft (MSFT)/Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) co-venture that was unveiled in early January, can offer comparably-big screens. So, there’s no particular Apple ‘edge’ on the technology front.

But is the media message in this case more important – and more profitable – than the device itself? Steve Jobs thinks so, as he’s assuming news readers will pay for news they can get for free almost anywhere else… including from the free websites the iPad will (ironically) be able to access for the very same folks Apple is hoping will pay for news. That’s more than a little ambitious.

Bottom line: While the iPod’s and the iPhone’s success is undeniable, the iPad – intended as a newspaper reader – may not be able to get by on the “buy it because we’re Apple” mentality from consumers. Don’t forget, Apple’s iTV has not been the raging success it was supposed to be, verifying that Steve Jobs’ intuition isn’t always spot on. So, the iPad may not be journalism’s savior after all.