Just recently, in a move to head off the latest “uncarrier” marketing scheme from T-Mobile, AT&T offered to you a bribe if you leave its rival carrier. Now most of you recall that, at one time, the two companies were planning to merge; that is until the U.S. antitrust people at the Department of Justice said no way.

Since then, T-Mobile has been on a tear. Flamboyant CEO John Legere has been fighting front and center against rival carriers, with a main focus on, not surprisingly, the former suitor in that failed merger.

Before you get to the price wars, there are the service wars. So Legere says that, according to the surveys he quoted, largely based on users running benchmarks of smartphone LTE speeds, T-Mobile delivers results that are somewhat faster than the competition. AT&T, citing a more industry-standard survey, claims to do best. I’m sure Verizon Wireless will have something to say about that, though the carrier’s performance in midtown Manhattan, in New York City, has been troublesome according to recent tests.

But the real fight is over money. Last week, AT&T offered T-Mobile subscribers up to $450 in credits to switch. This week, T-Mobile offered up to $650 to switch from any other carrier. The reason for these spiffs, or bribes, is because many users who might want to jump ship would have to pay huge early termination fees to get out of their wireless contracts. That, however, doesn’t apply to recent T-Mobile deals, although you might still owe something on your hardware.

You see, T-Mobile’s current marketing scheme dumps traditional contracts. You pay a fee for the service on a month-to-month basis, and you can finance the purchase of your mobile gadget if you don’t buy it outright. Even if you stop using T-Mobile, you’re still stuck for whatever you owe on that hardware purchase, though I suppose you can sell off the thing to one of those online vendors and use the money to pay off your loan. However, once you pay for the hardware, your monthly bill is reduced by that amount.

AT&T actually now has a similar arrangement, where you pay a lower price for service if you own your own phone. That might induce some of you to do the math and see if it makes sense. After all you could, I suppose, finance the $649 purchase price of an iPhone 5s on your credit card, and pay off that balance, with interest of course, over whatever period you like.

In any case, T-Mobile’s new pricing arrangement, which has influenced the price plans of the competition, meant that 869,000 of those cherished postpaid subscribers joined the company in the fourth quarter of 2013, up 34% from the previous quarter. Customer churn, the percentage of users leaving T-Mobile, dipped to 1.7% from 2.5% a year earlier. This is a critical number, because it means more people are satisfied with the company, or at least keeping the service. After all, it’s expensive to acquire new customers when you count the ads and the upfront payments to switch.

But despite T-Mobile’s claims of superior LTE performance, and let’s assume it’s true for the most part, that doesn’t make the U.S.’s fourth largest carrier the best for everyone. LTE deployment is not as widepread as AT&T and Verizon Wireless. But it gets worse, because T-Mobile coverage may be decent in larger cities, but suffer severely in rural areas.

To get better coverage, T-Mobile has made a spectrum purchase/swap deal with Verizon Wireless. What this means is that some of T-Mobile’s high frequency spectrum is moving to Verizon, assuming regulatory approval, while the cherished low frequency spectrum is being acquired as part of the deal. The lower frequencies provide better performance over long distances and inside buildings, and are critical if T-Mobile wants to improve coverage in outlying areas.

Even if the deal passes regulatory review, and it surely enhances competition, it may take months or years to modify cell towers to support T-Mobile’s technology. In addition, some older handsets may not work on these lower frequencies.

In another development, Legere is denying published reports that Japan’s Softbank, who now owns Sprint, is interested in acquiring T-Mobile. Sure, the combination of T-Mobile and Sprint wouldn’t quite match Verizon Wireless, but it would still sharply reduce competition and would possibly get a no verdict from the authorities. Worse, the two companies support different wireless standards, which would create the threat of serious compatibility issues as the networks are ultimately combined. Besides, when mergers are afoot, the marketing plans impacting the two companies are pretty well dead in the water.

So T-Mobile is growing fast now. Maybe Germany’s Deutche Telecom, the company’s owner, would love to sell it off at a favorable price. But that doesn’t mean being acquired by a rival carrier. There are other possibilities, such as Dish Network, the satellite TV service, who has bought cellular spectrum and has been looking to make a key acquisition. Indeed, Dish lost out in an attempt to beat Softbank in acquiring Sprint. It is now being reported that Dish would love to get ahold of T-Mobile.

But if T-Mobile became part of Dish Network, it wouldn’t necessarily change marketing plans, or hurt the company’s rapid growth prospects. Indeed, it would make sense for Dish to keep Legere at the helm. He’s clearly getting the job done.

When the Flashback trojan horse outbreak occurred in 2011, an estimated 600,000 Macs were infected, a frightening development for those who felt the platform was pretty safe and secure. A Java virus, Apple received lots of criticism for not releasing a fix promptly. At the same time, those who felt that Mac malware would intensify no doubt felt vindicated by the circumstances, although this was not the sort of exploit that caused serious harm; in other words, your data wasn’t in danger of being corrupted, though that sort of infection could have done some serious damage if the hackers took that approach. It was also easily removed by apps that were released by Apple and others.

Now even though you hear about security vulnerabilities of Mac OS X and the Safari browser from time to time, it’s not as if there’s an epidemic of outbreaks. Most have been small, confined to a tiny portion of users. Apple also periodically issues security fixes for recent versions of OS X that are designed to close the holes before they can be exploited.

But Flashback didn’t represent a shortcoming in OS X. It was all about Java, a cross-platform development system currently published by Oracle. But until things changed, Apple had the responsibility to maintain Java on the Mac platform, and issue security updates as needed.

Indeed, Flashback took advantage of loopholes with the Java plugin used for some apps, such as chat rooms, which run through a browser such as Safari. One step Apple took to reduce such problems was to disable the plugin, though you can enable it if you wish. Oracle has also taken over maintenance of Java, so if there’s a vulnerability that needs to be fixed, it’s their responsibility.

Now the dream of Java was to have cross-platform apps, apps that would run on Macs, Windows PCs and even Linux boxes. Some are still around, but not so many. Most Mac users can exist perfectly well if Java wasn’t present on their computers. If you need it, it can be installed the first time a Java-enabled app is run, which delivers a prompt from OS X to that effect. That works for me.

As to the Flashback trojan horse, according to Intego, a publisher of Mac security software,  “Intego purchased some of the command and control server domain names to monitor the Flashback threat that infected hundreds of thousands of Macs. It studied those domains, recording all connections from Macs where Flashback is still active and trying to contact the C&C servers. After recording for five days, it counted at least 22,000 infected machines.”

All right, so it’s still around, but, as I said, if your Mac has the latest version of Java, and you keep up with OS X updates, your not susceptible to the infection. If you can avoid anything that requires Java, you won’t have to worry.

The larger issue, however, is whether, after more than 12 years of OS X, you need to install security software on your Mac to stay safe. Every time there’s a minor outbreak, you can bet some tech pundits will say, yes, it’s time to take that precaution because things will inevitably get worse. Obviously the publisher of security software is only too happy  to sell you their apps. But, other than Flashback, has there been any reason at all to consider such protection?

You see, with Flashback and other trojan horses, they rely on social engineering. It’s all about convincing you to download someone’s app or sign up for their services, in order to open up your Mac to a possible infection. If you are careful about the sites you visit, the email links that require a click, and certainly what you download, you’re probably going to be safe.

My personal experience with Mac malware has been fairly limited, and not very recent. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I encountered a few. Indeed, I once bought a commercial app for my Mac and, upon loading that app, it caused a serious infection that required rebuilding my system. This was before I understood the need to backup, but my critical documents were kept on floppies, so I didn’t lose anything other than time.

Somewhat later, when I was employed at a prepress service in New York City, we received a bunch of floppies from clients infected with what were known as desktop viruses. Annoying, yes, but they didn’t actually cause you to lose your data or, it seems, damage your apps, OS or your documents.

From time to time, I still receive emails from readers and listeners that have encountered problems with their Macs and wonder about virus infections. But most of what they hear about such threats is the result of exploits on the Windows platform. I have yet to actually hear from a Mac user, in recent years, who has been infected by malware of any kind. Not that it doesn’t happen, and not that the risk isn’t there. But it’s not commonplace.

At the same time, some of you will install security software either because your office requires it or you just want to feel safe. Some of these apps also protect against Windows malware, so you aren’t in any danger of passing on something nasty to a PC user. There’s no harm in having an added ounce of protection, but try app demos first to see what works best. Some security software, the result of background scanning, may slow down your Mac, particularly when opening apps or documents.

This week, the tech blogs and the tech pages in many newspapers will be filed with news of all the supposedly wonderful things that are being presented at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. But this is very much an annual ritual where loads of would-be products are on display, but many will never see the light of day.

It’s also fair to say that, typical of recent years, some companies are acting in anticipation of what Apple might do, or is rumored to do. So we have Samsung introducing the 12.2-inch Galaxy NotePRO and Galaxy TabPRO tablets. While a case for larger tablets of this sort really wasn’t made in Samsung’s presentation, don’t forget that an alleged iPad Pro is supposedly under development by Apple for release later in the year. The online chatter talks of a 12.9-inch display, and possible use as either a tablet or a note-book. But it’s not that convertibles have had much success so far, so why would Apple want to play that game?

A look at the announcements by TV makers clearly demonstrates the near-desperation in trying to entice you to buy a new set. Unlike smartphones, which are usually upgraded in a couple of years, a well-built TV can last a decade or more. For those who have already endured the high definition transition, and have 1080p sets in the living rooms or master bedrooms, is there any compelling reason to upgrade now?

Ultra HD? Well, having four times as many pixels sounds good in theory. A number of new models are being introduced with that standard, and some budget lines are coming in at less than $1,000, but don’t expect much for that price. Among the features touted are the enhanced ability to upscale lower resolution content. This is important, because there’s not much Ultra HD around. Indeed, aside from some streaming video, Pay-Per-View and Blu-ray, there’s not a huge stock of 1080p content either. TV channels, even the cable and satellite feeds, generally use 720p or 1080i.

So is there any reason, other than the bragging factor, to go Ultra HD? Well, I suppose if you have a large display, above 60 inches, or sit real close. Otherwise the visible difference isn’t significant. Indeed, at a normal viewing distance, 720p and 1080p don’t look altogether different.

Regardless, the TV industry has decreed that you shall have Ultra HD, kicking and screaming, so might as well get used to it, particularly when prices come down to a point where they’re not much higher than 1080p. At the same time, such TV makers as VIZIO — successful mostly for lower-cost gear — are moving upscale. So VIZIO announced a no-holds-barred Reference product line ranging from 60 inches all the way to 120 inches. There’s even a built-in sound bar, and the promise of cutting-edge display technology. Prices have yet to be announced, but they won’t come cheap.

Now some high-end sets are even offering curved screens, bowed towards the center. Supposedly you get a more dimensional image, though I expect people who watch TV from the sides or at close range will find this scheme an overpriced source of discomfort. There are also super thin OLED screens described as bendable, but again I wonder about the advantage in any normal setting.

One feature getting much lower priority this year is 3D. None of the newest HDTVs from VIZIO include that feature anymore, and other TV makers are cutting back. Clearly 3D hasn’t gone anywhere, so why not sell the TV sets for less without a feature most people don’t care about?

Now with Apple supporting Ultra HD on the latest Mac Pro and MacBook Air with Retina display, and the latest Final Cut Pro X revision, there’s good reason to take it seriously. But will Apple deliver a full-blown Ultra HD set? Or will it just be an Apple TV on steroids?

When it comes to Apple TV, one report even suggests that media streamers are a dying breed, as more and more sets offer improved “smart” apps, which supposedly supplants the need for an add-on box. That might explain why Roku is licensing their technology to some TV makers, though only the cheaper brands have taken them up on the offer so far. But Apple TV offers more than just a few dozen third-party channels. There’s iTunes and AirPlay, which aren’t duplicated on other set top boxes or TV sets, though I suppose Apple could also license technology to selected TV makers and gain some advantages against possible inroads by Google.

And, as you might expect, there are more and more wearables, ranging from smartwatches to other gadgets that are designed to do nifty things when affixed to your wrist. So far, none of these products has really taken off. If you expect an iWatch from Apple, you know it will never come at a CES, that Apple would hold one a special event to launch such a gadget.

Are the tech companies really pushing smartwatches just to steal Apple’s thunder? Well, do you remember 2010, when a number of companies introduced tablets when rumors arose about Apple’s solution? But when the iPad was announced, most of those contenders ended up stillborn.

Yes, many of the products being touted at CES will go on sale, eventually. But some won’t, and I can assure you that a TV set that you can bend is definitely not on my shopping list.

So there’s a published report this week, timed for the opening of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), which boasts that Roku’s video streaming interface will soon find its way onto regular TV sets. This isn’t so surprising considering that Roku received some $60 million in additional working capital last May.

As many of you know, Roku, a private company that sells a popular TV set top box roughly similar in concept to the Apple TV, is regarded as the number one alternative. Indeed, if you want the widest selection of content, Roku currently boasts more than one thousand channels, with over 31,000 movies to choose from. The product lineup consists of four models that range from the entry-level $49.99 Roku LT, to the top of the line $99.99 Roku 3. There are also two versions of the Roku Streaming Stick that are designed to mate with so-called “Roku Ready” TV sets that largely consist of a few budget products.

Predictably, features are fleshed out as the prices increase. The Roku LT, for example, only supports 720p video, but is said to be compatible with “Virtually any TV.” The Roku 3 offers a “5x faster processor” and requires an HDTV with an HDMI connector. But any recent set is suitably equipped to work with the high-end model.

Now if you want to cut the cable cord and aren’t involved in Apple’s ecosystem, you’ll find a rich selection of channels on a Roku. There’s even direct access for customers of Time Warner Cable, so you may not have to use their set top boxes, although it requires a “modem” interface from the cable provider. Unfortunately, the app from the cable provider is strictly designed for live streaming and not for time shifting, so you still have to use the service’s hardware if you want a DVR.

Having so many channels, however, can clearly lead to endless confusion. If you thought confronting the 300 channels delivered by your cable and satellite provider in a single interface is difficult, imagine more than 1,000 separate channels with separate apps and interfaces. This may very well be the danger of what might happen on an Apple TV if a lot more content offerings become available.

That, indeed, may point in a direction to a possible solution, some way to handle all this varied content in a more digestible form. We’ll see.

In any case, Roku’s plan is to offer its software to serve as the “de facto operating system for a new wave of smart TVs.” So instead of buying the set top box, the technology will automatically become a part of TV sets that are so equipped.

At present, two low-end TV makers, Hisense and TCL, are expected to ship TV sets with the Roku system this fall. Perhaps others will join them, but it would mean replacing their own smart TV interfaces and paying licensing fees to Roku. I wonder how many mainstream TV makers would consider that move, considering that profit margins on TVs are already pretty slim as the result of cutthroat competition.

Of course, the elephant in the room is clearly Apple. The company’s intentions are still unclear, even though CEO Tim Cook has continued to speak of “intense interest” in the TV space and your living room. How that interest will be exploited is still anyone’s guess.

Some have suggested that the Apple TV will be expanded to support such newer technologies as Ultra HD, which doubles vertical and horizontal pixels and is clearly the feature du jour at this year’s CES. This would seem to be a given considering that the new Mac Pro and the latest MacBook Pro with Retina display have Ultra HD, or 4K, support, and the latest Final Cut Pro X update supports the standard as well. Clearly Apple expects this technology to grow in popularity. It’s also true that Netflix is expected to be rolling out 4K streaming this year, although you are going to have to have a broadband connection with thick pipes to be able to receive the higher definition content.

The other lingering possibility is that Apple will enter the TV set market with the most amazing or magical interface of all. This is what appeared to be hinted by the comments dropped by Steve Jobs in his authorized biography from Walter Isaacson. But I also wonder whether Jobs merely wanted to spook TV makers, and maybe Roku’s move into licensing its OS to TV companies is meant to stave off this move.

Yet another possibility exists, that Apple might want to do what Roku is attempting now, which is to license Apple TV technology to different manufacturers. This would be somewhat consistent with what Apple is doing with cars. More and more auto makers are in the process of adding some level of iOS in the Car into their new vehicles.

But I don’t think that Apple would license technology willy nilly to a TV maker without some controls on the finished product. They might, for example, want to require a minimum level of picture quality and features. I find it hard to believe that any old $400 flat panel TV would be eligible for an Apple TV interface if Apple chooses this direction.

However, it’s fair to say that Roku is clearly working hard to expand beyond the basic set top box offering. Let’s see how it flies, or whether it’s restricted solely to the cheapest sets on the market. Meantime, it’s clear there’s a lot more to come from Apple — and even Google for that matter.