It’s hard not to be underwhelmed by a product that we already had a good idea of what it would be, especially if you’ve ever used an iPhone. But aside from there being little surprises, and an arguably terrible name (there’s nothing poetic about iPad), what I find more interesting are services the device will enable.

I work for Nokia, so I’m either working on or analyzing new service opportunities created by mobile devices. I’ve been using an iPhone since 2007. At this point, the phone itself is no longer what impresses me. It’s the services that others have built on top of the platform that continue to impress. It’s the same for Nokia devices. Sure, our phones have some pretty solid technology. But it’s the services that mobile devices enable that are really compelling. Nokia Life Tools, which provides agriculture, education, and entertainment services in emerging markets, is a good example. So is a mobile service I worked on last year to help HIV positive youth take their medication.

And While the iPad isn’t marketed to address agricultural issues for farmers or medication adherence for HIV positive youth, I cannot help but wonder what services this new device (and I predict future devices much like it) — somewhere between a mobile phone and laptop — will enable given its size, portability, slick interface, and robust application delivery platform. So while the iPad seems somewhat predictable, the new services it will enable are not. And that, I find exciting.

Recently, Jonathan Ive, of Apple, had some thoughts on the key to Apple’s success. He bemoaned designers who always have excuses for their work not turning out as intended. His advice:

“If you really do care about the quality of what ends up getting made, wouldn’t you find an answer, some sort of alternative, and somehow figure out a way to take your idea and do something with it?”

I could very easily be pissed off at the naivete of this statement. But it’s not his fault. After all, he works for Apple. Current Apple culture (I’m assuming I know what this is) is built around the quality of the design. This makes it easy for designers to produce quality work and see it executed as designed. The issue is not that in other organizations designers do not care about quality, it’s that most organizations are not designed to produce designs of the highest quality.

Designers the world around complain that their ideas are not implemented due to myriad outside factors. And they complain because it’s true. Whether it’s power or politics, time or resources, designers are not in control of the forces that affect the outcome of the quality work that goes into the products and services they make.

Unfortunately, in their current positions, designers do not have the power to do what Ive suggests: figure out a way to take an idea and do something with it. There is too much working against that, despite passion for quality or a willingness to do something.

Organizations that prohibit great designs from being realized need to be redesigned. That’s right, organizations are design products, and can be designed. Who better than designers to participate in, or perchance lead, this effort?

Perhaps Ive was onto something after all. If the forces at be prevent good design from being realized, and the structure, environment, and culture of organizations are to blame, we need to figure out a way to change the situation. We need to shift our focus from the ends, and refocus on the means that enable design in the first place. We need to redesign organizations.

Yesterday I read about iLike providing a syndication platform to help artists connect with fans through custom iPhone Apps. It seems the commercials don’t lie. “There’s an app for that” is increasingly true. The iLike move reminded me of when web tools first emerged to help people create sites to promote themselves, their business, or whatever. Now it’s happening with iPhone apps.

Then I read a quote pulled from the Buckinster Fuller Challenge website: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

Apple has done that with the app store, and others are following. On the mobile phone, the web browser is being replaced by a new model: apps powered by Internet data. If making apps become easier, and services like iLike facilitate the creation of apps by layman, like a website, every company, brand, and individual will soon have their own mobile app. As if reading my mind, Advertising Age had this article about brands that already have apps: Mobile Marketing: Is ‘App-vertising’ the Answer? Uniqlock, Adidas, Chanel, Audi, Dockers, Burger King seem to think the answer is yes.

But if everyone and brand has an app, like most websites, there will be some that we use often, and many that we don’t. And if apps on mobile phones become more like how we interact with websites, we’ll need tools to help us navigate and manage the system. I have seven full screens of iPhone apps, which make navigation and management a chore. What will happen with more? Sadly, it doesn not seem that Apple has addressed this for iPhone 3.0. I wonder if another soon to be unveiled app store, which promises 20,000 download possibilities, has considered the impact of the shift to apps.

But don’t let this discourage you from creating your own app and adding it to the system. A rush to app overload may speed up the design of new services to solve the problems created by the new model.

Tonight I was at a party in San Francisco and someone from Apple had an iPhone.

At first it seemed like a privileged few got to sneak a peak. But then as the drinks were flowing and the guy with the iPhone wanted to get laid, the phone was on display much more openly.

Naturally, since the guy seemed to be straight, it was mostly being shown to girls.

I didn’t bother to check it out, except in passing. All I think I heard—and I could be wrong—was something about how difficult it was to make something in regards to the Apple logo on the back.

I know. That’s incredible insight.