There’s a story today — which I will not link to — suggesting that the popularity of 7-inch tablets, and the iPad mini, at 7.85-inches, is proof positive that Steve Jobs was dead wrong about the usability of smaller tablets. The article also included some statistics that showed, in some cases, that larger tablets were more popular for certain makers, which seems a curious way to reinforce one’s argument.

But let’s go back to Jobs, who famously suggested that you’d need to sandpaper your fingers to use those small tablets. Understand he was talking about 7-inch widescreen versions, and this is of critical importance.

No matter. Rumors soon arose that Apple was readying a smaller tablet to compete with all that stuff from Amazon, Google (the Nexus line) and, naturally, Samsung. Stories reflected different form factors, but, near the release of the iPad mini, finally settled in close to the final 7.85-inch display size. So, therefore, Jobs must have been dead wrong, for why would Apple put money into developing a tablet that people didn’t want, or couldn’t use?

Now those of you who saw Philip Schiller demonstrate the iPad mini might recall how he smartly addressed the issue. You see, those 7-inch tablets are widescreen and thus, when tilted horizontally, you had very little vertical space to view your stuff. The iPad mini uses a standard 4:3 aspect ratio, same as the full-sized iPad. Thus you have far more usable screen real estate. Sure, widescreen videos might look better on the widescreen tablets, but just about everything else works better on the iPad mini. Making the screen resolution same as the larger iPad 2 — before the Retina display model came to be — means that the same content appears on the smaller model, only, of course, tinier. But not as tiny as on a 7-inch tablet.

The public bought into the argument, as did reviewers. The iPad mini took off fast, and supplies were constrained in the 2012 holiday season. That situation appears to be repeating itself this quarter with the somewhat late release of the iPad mini with Retina display. But the original model is still available for those who don’t think that an extra $100 is worth it for more pixels.

Now I suspect it’s possible that sales will skew more towards the iPad Air this quarter, in part because of constrained supplies of the iPad mini. The other is that the Air weighs just a pound, which makes it a far more convenient load to handle. It doesn’t mean it’s perfect for extended one-handed use compared to the iPad mini, which weighs about a quarter-pound less. From the reviews, I gather it depends, and I can see where a lot of people would prefer the more convenient form factor, and somewhat lower price, of the smaller model.

But suggesting the iPad mini isn’t usable, or that Steve Jobs was wrong to suggest the 7-inch form factor was bad, doesn’t necessarily reflect reality. No doubt the 7.85-inch screen came about as the result of testing different sizes and see what worked best. Other companies simply release tablets in every available size and hope customers will pick the right model, or any model. It’s about giving them a choice, or confusing them, depending on your point of view.

Besides, this isn’t to say that people don’t like those smaller tablets, or even phablets, which combine a smartphone with tablet-related functions at sizes above five inches. Clearly there is an audience for such products, though no single model outdoes Apple in sales. There are even rumors of larger iPhone form factors, and maybe even a super-sized iPad in the 12-inch range. But, as I said in yesterday’s column, a rumor isn’t a fact. It may even be true that Apple is testing all sorts of form factors for mobile gear to see what has the most potential. But testing and releasing to the public are very different, though perhaps some of those rumors are based on supply chain leaks involving prototypes.

What’s more, this doesn’t mean that Steve Jobs didn’t first say no before he green lit some of the companies most popular products. Consider his skepticism for the iPod, the iPhone and even the iPad over the years before his executives convinced him to take a chance. It seems clear from his management style that he expected members of his team, who were convinced they had a good idea, to do what was necessary to sell it to him. That might involve lots of shouting back and forth, but Apple clearly made the right decision in the end.

Sure, Tim Cook’s management style is reportedly far more subdued, though he’s clearly not afraid to fire people, and it does seem that Apple’s recent products are well crafted and are achieving much success in the marketplace. But don’t assume Apple got it right all the time with Steve Jobs at the helm. Don’t forget the Power Mac G4 Cube, or even the failed launch of MobileMe. That near-catastrophe made today’s iCloud glitches seem tame by comparison.

Normally, the news covers something that happened, or is about to happen. But when there are no stories, yet another tact is to speculate about what might happen, or should have happened, rather than what is actually expected to happen. You can also write about what might be happening now behind the scenes, assuming you had inside knowledge about it. But if you don’t have inside knowledge, you just speculate, perhaps after you do some research, look at the tea leaves, or deal out the Tarot cards.

This week, there are reports that Apple may have postponed release of a TV until 2015. Postponed? Well, Apple has not, in fact, admitted that they are actually working on a TV. Yes, the living room is part of a “grand vision,” and the Apple TV set top box remains a hobby. But that doesn’t mean that the end game is a TV set and not an enhanced set top box. Nor does it mean its might end up being a combination of both.

There’s yet another story that shipments of Apple TV have slowed, which would seem curious as it’s an ideal holiday gift. This would mean that sales would be expected to increase, rather than go the other way.

But don’t forget that all of these stories are unconfirmed. Apple rarely speaks about future products, unless those announcements fit in with a marketing strategy. So you know about a forthcoming new version of iOS or OS X, because developers will be seeded with preview releases months earlier, and there will be the promise of new products to accompany these releases. The Mac Pro was announced in June to build demand, even though it won’t be out till next month.

The very first iPhone and the very first iPad were also announced way in advance to tempt you to crowd the Apple Store in your neighborhood when they came out. In the case of the iPhone, the announcement came at a time when Apple was still participating at a Macworld Expo, and the required application for FCC certification would have spilled the beans anyway. So Apple unleashed the iPhone on their own terms.

Now one reason why there’s so much speculation about what Apple is up to is that the company keeps things close to the vest. You just know that if Samsung is working on something new, such as creating a 64-bit processor to compete with Apple’s A7, that announcement will come way in advance. They won’t hold back. Microsoft and other companies also announce products or services months or years ahead of release, and sometimes they release nothing, though at least there’s the hope for some media coverage.

By being mostly silent, Apple simply builds anticipation for new products. Sure, close to a release date, stories may emerge from the supply chain that will often reveal the essence of a new product design. That genie is out of the bottle, and it’s hard to think that Apple can shut things down ever again.

At the end of the day, though, few people outside of Apple know exactly what’s being planned when it comes to TV, Apple TV, or even an Apple-branded or iTunes TV subscription service. When and if such products are actually slated to appear, Apple will decide what to reveal and when. Indeed, when you begin to read stories that appear to rely on “informed sources” or “sources close to the company” in mainstream outlets, you can be sure something is afoot, and Apple is probably the source of the story.

Now when it comes to the alleged iWatch, it seems as if Apple is indeed working on something. Clearly Tim Cook admits to an interest in so-called wearables, and a watch is the quintessential wearable that appeals to both men and women. Indeed, there’s a story this week claiming that there will be men’s and women’s versions, with different sized OLED displays. From a fashion viewpoint, that would seem to make sense, but what direction will really Apple take?

Will an iWatch be something in the vein of a Pebble, meant as something that works as an accessory to an existing mobile gadget? That is the way smartwatches have been designed up till now, but it it’s not an efficient solution. What happens if you forget to take your smartphone or tablet with you? Are you left with a doorstop until there’s something with which the watch can pair?

It’s also true that smartwatches have not yet shown traction. Pebble seems to be doing well enough, but the numbers are nowhere in the league of what Apple would expect for an iWatch. That existing products haven’t set the tech world afire doesn’t mean Apple should give up. Digital music players went nowhere before the iPod, and tablets were moribund before the iPad arrived.

So if Apple, as the rumors suggest, really releases an iWatch, it would have to be very different from existing gear. Otherwise, why bother? The reports of an iWatch even have some level of support, with claims that Apple hired 100 engineers to work on the project some time back, not to mention recruiting people from the fashion industry who would be able to help deliver something that’ll make a first class design statement even before it actually does something.

But don’t presume what Apple might do. Even if an iWatch were in the pipeline, it still may not come to pass, and the jury is out on what sort of TV-related products and services are going to appear.

It’s generally assumed that Apple’s PR machine is top-notch, always on point, seldom making missteps. Executives are rarely made available for interviews outside of a media event, and, even then, responses are almost always carefully rehearsed. When you hear Tim Cook on an interview show, you can almost hear the wheels clicking inside his head as he regurgitates carefully calculated and rehearsed talking points. You ask him a tough question, he is smart enough to revert to his planned spiel. Too bad the members of the media “honored” to speak with Cook ask softball questions.

Even when other executives are made available to selected members of the press, you know that there will be little that’s unexpected. They are skilled not just at doing their jobs, but at adhering to Apple’s message. This is very much part of the DNA Steve Jobs embedded into the company.

Yes, Apple is good at selling product, but maybe not so good at dealing with problems in the public arena. Take the infamous AntennaGate episode in 2010, involving the iPhone 4 and its unique antenna design. When some people complained about lost reception if you held it a certain way, Steve Jobs said, “hold it differently.” That’s not the sort of offhand sarcastic comment that conveys the feeling that Apple cares. At the time, some members of the media suggested that Apple made a design decision that failed to take into account end-user issues.

To make matters worse, Apple PR’s first official foray into dealing with this mess was to announce the release of a carrier update that presented cellular signal strength more accurately. It didn’t prevent signal loss, but the visual effect wasn’t quite as severe. So nothing changed, until Jobs realized he had to call a press event to explain the company’s design process. It wasn’t Apple’s fault, he said, but the laws of physics. Other smartphones also had problems if you held them in certain ways, and for a time Apple posted videos of direct competitors suffering from similar effects. Indeed, when independent testers looked at Apple’s claims, they were found to be correct.

Except for Consumer Reports, which decided not to recommend the iPhone 4, even though the signal loss phenomenon disappeared with a case, and even though other phones had the same problems to a greater or lesser degree. CR evidently didn’t test that gear in a way that caused the problems to appear, and the publication never bothered to correct the mistake.

With the release of an industry-standard video editing app, Final Cut Pro X, Apple touted the new technology and the, supposedly, more efficient ways to edit video. But the new code base and interface brought with it the loss of key features that video editors required for their work. After an outcry, during which some FCP users elected to use Adobe Premiere or Avid, to name the most popular competitors, Apple explained that the new features would mostly return in a new and better form, so be patient. Although the previous version, Final Cut Pro 7, was discontinued, Apple began to sell it again for a time for those who absolutely refused to buy the upgrade, despite the much lower price.

Did Apple learn a lesson?

You might have thought so when Tim Cook apologized for the serious flaws in Maps for iOS 6. Apple seemed just too desperate to reduce reliance on Google technology, but the app wasn’t ready. Had Apple labeled it a beta, and invited people to send their bug reports, it may not have been a big deal. Still Cook promised improvements — and there have been many — and assured iPhone and iPad users they could just download competing apps, including Google Maps.

These days, it has been reported that most iOS users rely on Apple Maps, and Google has lost a lot of market share. Most of the more serious problems also appear to have been dealt with, although people still remember a buggy app, and it will take a while to change perceptions, at least for those who care about the ins and outs.

You would have expected Apple would have realized the downsides to releasing a new version of the consumer-level office suite, iWork, without a number of key features that power users required. Apple merely presented the cool stuff during the recent media event, but didn’t bother to explain why some features had to be removed when the code base was revised.

Perhaps Apple was up against a deadline, and the features weren’t ready. No matter. In a support document, it was promised that at least 18 key features for iWork would be restored in the next six months, and there would be ongoing updates. That implies that pretty much all of the lost features will return, perhaps in a new guise. Just as important, the iOS and OS X versions share the same file format, as does the iCloud version, which means you can work on a document on all three platforms and be assured that things won’t suddenly change.

But Apple’s explanation didn’t come in a press release. That support document just happened to be discovered by members of the tech media who check for things of that sort. Apple realized the word would get out, but had they been a little more forthcoming on Day One, there would have been a lot less criticism, and folks who took the one-way street to update documents to the new format wouldn’t have bothered.

Yes, Apple PR is powerful and disciplined. But they’ve got to do a whole let better in dealing with the bad news.

While considering what I would write about for today’s column, I ran across this headline, “Apple’s new iWork: another missed opportunity to set expectations.” Missed opportunity?

Evidently the writer in question, who doesn’t deserve a link, is attacking Apple for two reasons. First that iWork doesn’t have the sprawling range of features of Office and, second, that Apple dared to reduce the already inferior feature set of the new version, thus facing the wrath of disappointed power users. It sort of ends there, but lacks context.

First and foremost, Apple never promised that iWork would match the capabilities of Office, or even come close, only that it would be free and do a lot of cool things. Period. There is no feature-for-feature comparison at Apple’s site, because the newly free apps, which include iLife, aren’t being positioned as being suitable for high-end business users. Instead, Apple has delivered lightweight software with core features that are sufficient for most consumers, along with almost seamless sharing across the iOS, OS X and iCloud platforms.

There’s no monthly subscription fee either, although getting more than the basic 5GB storage on iCloud is optional. Again, only a subsection of Apple customers have a need for this extra storage, although I do believe Apple should offer 10GB standard before optional subscription plans come into play.

Now about that article, what was the real missed opportunity? What might Apple have done to do what the writer in question expected? From the article, it appears Apple’s biggest error was to remove some features across the iWork suite and leave a few bugs in place. Of course, if you want to talk about being bug-free, you need to take Office out of the equation real fast, for otherwise you’ll compile a list that will be far larger than this article, or the one I’m writing about. But Apple will surely address critical bugs as needed, witness a recent GarageBand update.

The real criticism of the new iWork is all about the features, or lack of features. Apple wanted the suite to be the same on all platforms, from file format to document formatting. In order to do that, and exist within the constraints of iOS and iCloud, some features had to be set aside. Apple claims that the apps were rewritten from the ground up to support 64-bit, implying a substantial refresh. Apple no doubt expects to deliver feature updates almost simultaneously, so that all users benefit from them, not just, say, those using the Mac. Indeed, the promise is that more than 18 lost features will be restored in the next six months.

To some people, removing features is a crime, unforgivable. But it’s also true that Apple has left the existing Mac version of iWork 09 intact, in its own folder. If you don’t want to lose anything, don’t use the free versions. End of story. You can always wait until new versions appear that contain the missing features you need. In passing, the same was true when Apple refashioned iMovie a few years back, and released the controversial Final Cut Pro X. Nothing prevented Mac users from sticking with the older versions while waiting for the feature sets to be fleshed out in the new versions.

Apple, however, should have been more forthcoming about what was really going on. That PR misstep no doubt lost some loyal Final Cut Pro users. It may not be so bad with iWork, since most users were able to get the new versions free. I say most because, it seems, if you didn’t have iWork 09 or iLife 11, you might be expected to pay for the updates. It appears the free policy has been a source of confusion. At the Apple media event announcing the free stuff, it was stated that iWork and iLife would be distributed free to those buying new iPhones, iPads and Macs. Later, it seemed that anyone with the previous version would get the updates, as I did, but maybe not if the ones you had predated the most recent. I hope Apple has sorted this out by now.

Regardless, the free stuff approach clearly wounds Microsoft. Apple has attacked its perennial rival’s main sources of income. Sure, Microsoft Office does far more than iWork can accomplish, but most of those features are unnecessary for most users, even to many businesses. That iWork can read most Office documents with usually decent fidelity also eases the transition. Besides, if a company is starting from scratch, considering which computers to use and which software to support, if the free Apple apps accomplish what they need, why buy costly user licenses from Microsoft? Why bother with Live 365? Sure, a Mac may cost more to purchase up front, but when you factor in the free apps, the (so far at least) ability to avoid having to purchase security apps, and the easier and thus cheaper maintenance, the long-term cost of going Apple may be less.

The mess that is Windows 8 doesn’t demonstrate that Microsoft has figured out what simple and efficient really means. The next CEO is going to confront a situation where the company is making decent money, but the long-term prospects are extremely cloudy with little chance for good weather.