So Microsoft has taken the wraps off a sorely needed refresh for the failing Windows 8. To some, it couldn’t come at a better time, because Microsoft has been vilified for totally misreading the trends in the PC industry, or just acting out of total desperation. Regardless, it’s pretty certain that Windows 8 has done nothing to encourage more people to buy a new computer; at least a Windows PC.

But it is true that the forthcoming Windows 8.1 is designed to fix a few things that were roundly criticized with the first release. That Microsoft is, compared to their usual timeline, rushing out a fixer-upper a year after the original release, clearly indicates the company was stung by the criticisms. They were couldn’t anticipate the unfavorable response to this unfortunate mess, and thus had to send their developers scrambling for a solution. Or at least that’s the impression.

So, for example, there’s a more useful Start menu, which may take away business from those shareware developers who came up with their own variations on this theme. Apple is being severely criticized by some just for changing the artwork, not the core functionality, of iOS 7. But Microsoft didn’t have any valid reason for tossing the Start menu in the first place. It’s not as if the original replacement was better; just different.

There will also be a way to default boot to the Windows 8.1 desktop, which addresses the concerns of users who don’t want to constantly confront the interface formerly known as Metro and need to use legacy apps that look and work like Windows apps.

For those with large displays, you’ll be able to run more apps side by side, but why is there any limitation on a traditional multitasking OS? You’d think that might be needed on a smartphone, where you just don’t have sufficient screen space or system resources to handle multiple windows. But a regular PC?

The real issue, however, is that Windows 8.1 comes across as just a rushed shave and haircut in a desperate effort to address some of the most serious concerns about the original release. It will be a free upgrade, according to published reports, and will arrive in time for the holiday season. The hope, I guess, is to fuel sales of new PCs, but will Microsoft again cut the upgrade price, as they did for early adopters? What if Apple makes OS X Mavericks a free upgrade? Will Apple continue to attract more PC users to the Mac?

So the changes in Windows 8.1 appear for the most part to be commendable. However, Microsoft is still focusing on the touch-based tiled interface, rather than expand what you can do in the desktop environment. Microsoft expects — or hopes — that customers will embrace the changes and get with the program. It’s not that the company will just throw out the entire Windows 8 train wreck and return to something based on Windows 7.

But what if, as industry analysts indicate, PC market share continues to erode, meaning Microsoft sells fewer and fewer Windows licenses? What if the forthcoming Modern UI version of Office fails to catch on? Can Microsoft just drop everything and dump Windows 8, or give the desktop environment greater emphasis?

I suppose that, in the scheme of things, the Windows 8.1 refresh is pretty much all that Microsoft could do to salvage this mess. It’s not the same as the “New Coke,” where Coca Cola company simply introduced a new product, “Classic,” that restored the original recipe for the soft drink.

Or maybe…

Would Microsoft consider a Windows 7 fork, perhaps dubbed Windows 7.5, which would enhance the OS with a smattering of touch-savvy features, but focus mostly on improving the traditional or “Classic” Windows look and feel? That might be an even smarter way to get out from under this mess.

Right now, the PCs that work best with Windows 8 require touch support. That, of course, makes them more expensive, and suddenly even the entry-level Macs, such as the Mac mini and the MacBook Air, begin to look downright affordable in comparison. Sure, Windows RT tablets, supporting the ARM mobile processors, are relatively inexpensive. But sales remain simply awful, and it’s not certain that Windows 8.1 will be so much better as to make a difference.

These days, the market has swung to tablets. The iPad and Android tablets dominate, and it is reported that tablet sales are poised to exceed PC sales within a couple of years. Unless things suddenly change, that situation isn’t going to help Microsoft’s prospects. Regardless of the worth of the modest changes, it’s not at all certain that Windows 8.1 is going to have much of an impact in reversing the tide.

So where does Microsoft go with this mess? Well, there’s that forthcoming corporate reorganization, but whether it really improves the company’s prospects or is just another case of executive musical chairs isn’t clear yet. The OS strategy has already been laid out, so will that strategy be tossed or simply followed through with little or no change? And will it help improve Microsoft’s future prospects? Or will the Microsoft Death Watch continue?

As many of you no doubt recall, Apple received lots of negative publicity in 2010 amid complaints that there were serious defects with the iPhone 4’s external antenna system. Touted as a unique feature, there was one critical defect: If you held the phone in a way that covered the lower left side of the unit, reception quality took a nosedive. Under optimal signal conditions, it might not mean much, but in marginal conditions, not uncommon on the AT&T network, for example, you might lose your connection.

When Steve Jobs, perhaps responding early in the morning without thinking about the consequences, said you should just hold it differently, that sarcastic comment was the last straw. Well for some. It didn’t even matter that all mobile handsets exhibited similar problems in different ways. It was all Apple’s fault, and the company had to hold a press briefing, and allow a few journalists to visit their state-of-the-art antenna testing facility to understand how things really worked. But not Consumer Reports, which refused to recommend the iPhone 4, and continues to rate other smartphones higher than Apple’s for reasons not always backed up with facts.

Yes, other handset makers put warning signs in their user guides and sometimes with stickers on the device itself warning not to hold them the “wrong way” because of the possible impact to reception quality. Yes, subsequent iPhones had a revised antenna system, a diversity system similar to what you have on cars, where the antenna that gets the best signal receives priority. But Antennagate will not be forgotten.

First impressions count.

Take Maps for iOS 6. It surely had teething pains, resulting in some heads rolling over at Apple Inc. and a promise to make things better. Indeed, published reports indicate that Apple has fixed many of the ills for which they were rightly criticized. But the initial missteps aren’t being forgotten. The tech media still treats the Maps app, and the potential for the one that will debut in OS X Mavericks, with the same level of disdain. Once broken, never fixed and frozen in time.

It doesn’t matter that Google’s mapping apps come with beta notices, and warnings that they aren’t responsible if you get lost while using their navigation instructions. Google has been working on mapping longer than Apple, and thus they have to be better at the game. They seem to be, but the gap has narrowed. Things have changed, but some still believe it’s the fall of 2012 when Apple’s mapping troubles were discovered and viciously attacked. Curious that the existing problems with Google’s mapping service are seldom mentioned, even though they can be annoying. I’ve seen problems even when getting directions to nearby locations in a fairly large metropolitan region, where up-to-date mapping software really shouldn’t screw up.

These days, it only takes a casual rumor about something going wrong at Apple, whether real or imagined, for the stock price to fall. Apple surely met expectations during the WWDC keynote, and most of the announcements were praiseworthy. Sure, the new interface of iOS 7 has been regarded as controversial to some. After all, it looks a lot different, even though the basic functions should work mostly the same. But maybe there is a developer revolt, because Apple must set things in stone and never, ever change. How dare they? This comes after Apple was criticized for having an aging and boring mobile OS that never changed. You can’t win!

Well at least you don’t hear as many complaints about OS X Mavericks except, of course, that it doesn’t seem to be near as significant an upgrade. At least the Finder is getting some sorely needed attention, what with tabs and all, though it’s not certain if the inconsistent behavior, such as frequently failing to remember resizing and positioning, will ever be fixed.

Then there’s Tim Cook. He’s the operations guy so therefore he knows nothing about products, and therefore is not regarded as a right and proper replacement for Steve Jobs. What about Jonathan Ive, the designer, who has never demonstrated the ability to manage an entire company, despite the brilliance at what he does? Did Cook just arrive at Apple on the day Jobs resigned as CEO? Obviously not, since he had been an acting CEO on several occasions and clearly demonstrated his ability to run the company. Besides, he’s been working there since the mid-1990s.

But it all comes down to the products and, aside from the refreshed MacBook Air and the forthcoming Mac Pro, the questions aren’t answered yet. The “real” rollouts will happen this fall, with the promised arrival of iOS 7, OS X Mavericks, and no doubt new iPhones, new iPads, and maybe a few more Mac upgrades to accompany the 2013 Mac Pro. But what about the iTV or the iWatch? Do such products exist beyond the test labs? Is Apple going to release some “real” game changers? Then again, what about Samsung? Where’s their game-changer? Doesn’t anyone ever ask that question? Does anyone even care?

People like to tell Apple what to do. Release a larger iPhone, don’t release a larger iPhone, add this feature, that feature or the other feature. They say the customer is always right, but if the customers have 1,001 different opinions, which opinion do you accept? Whatever you do, there will be complaints, and maybe sometimes it’s better just to do nothing.

So when Apple brought over a few features from iOS to OS X, some felt that this was part of the nefarious scheme to merge the two operating systems. What they forgot is that, under the hood, there were already loads of similarities. The two operating systems were spawned from the same parent, so the very question is already a little silly, or at least highly exaggerated.

Some of the largest complaints focused on the part-time scrollbars and reversing the scrolling order to use a supposedly “natural” scheme, both of which mirrored what you did with your fingers in the iPhone and iPad. I suppose there’s an inherent logic in this maneuver, because having things work the same makes it easier to switch from one to the other. However, both “features” can be switched off with a few clicks in System Preferences, so the potential harm is negligible.

When it comes to bringing over iOS apps to OS X, Launchpad is a failure, but Contacts and Messages seem pretty successful. With Mavericks you won’t see the look of a leather-bound address book in Contacts, but that’s not an issue so long as it works properly.

Using iCloud to sync passwords, contacts, bookmarks and other stuff across all of your Apple gear is actually a good thing, when it works. The almost seamless integration among your Apple devices makes it easier to move among them and have access to the same data. But it doesn’t mean iOS has merged with OS X, or that this is Apple’s plan for the near future.

Certainly, the look of iOS 7 has diverged even more from OS X with the new flat, translucent, multilayered and parallax interface. So far it doesn’t seem as if there are many interface alterations in Mavericks, though I suppose Apple could be holding onto a few goodies until the final release. But at this point, with developers busy making their apps compatible, it’s not that Apple can make major changes without causing a huge mess. So, beyond some fleshed out features and some minor artwork refinements, the core of Mavericks has already been demonstrated.

I suppose the successor to Mavericks, which I presume will appear some time in the latter half of 2014, might indeed offer a total interface change. It’s quite possible Apple didn’t have the time to finish the job ahead of the WWDC, and just put it off until next year. There is that rumor that Apple pulled engineers from OS X to finish up iOS 7, so planned changes for Mavericks were put off.

But even if the themes converge, it doesn’t mean that iOS and OS X must necessarily become one. Although some Apple pundits continue to make that claim, the Mac platform would have to be on its way out before that would even make sense. Even then, Macs don’t have touch screens, and a Mac is not seriously resource limited, so some of the nuts and bolts of iOS simply aren’t necessary.

Yes, Microsoft expects the desktop and mobile OS to be essentially one and the same. The Windows 8 RT and Windows 8 Pro tablets seem identical at first blush. Well, at least until you attempt to run a traditional Windows app on the former, and you find it won’t work. But Microsoft’s approach is a proven failure. Trying to be all things to all people, and not optimizing an OS for the device, doesn’t make sense, even though some expect Apple to do just that.

I don’t know about Tim Cook’s remark about mixing refrigerators and toaster ovens, but it’s certainly possible to offer similar core apps and feature sets without merging iOS and OS X.

Forgetting Apple’s eventual plan, too much of the criticism of Apple’s forthcoming OS updates, particularly iOS, focus on form rather than function. The claim is that iOS 7 doesn’t properly integrate with the features; in other words form is not following or logically emerging from function. But is that really true? Most functions are the same or simply updated, so the theme may not matter so much except for apps that benefit from improved graphics. Weather comes to mind, particularly being able to see a visual presentation of backgrounds that mirror the current conditions. Nothing wrong with seeing a backdrop of rain or snow or whatever, though I wonder how Apple would best address a tornado warning.

However, as much as the critics are denigrating Apple for not changing the game enough, they criticize Microsoft for, with Windows 8, changing things too much. And just what is Google planning for the next Android? Will it be just a minor refresh from the current version, or something altogether different, maybe reminiscent of iOS 7? It’s not as if Google doesn’t know how to follow Apple’s lead.

So a certain financial publication that pretends to cater to the rich and informed has posted an article intended to convey the impression that designers and developers are in “revolt” over iOS 7. Certainly, the new coat of paint results in a fairly drastic change compared to the previous versions, at least on the surface, or multiple surfaces. The flattened icons represent only a small part of the picture. There’s also the multiple layers, transparency and parallax views, which gives the thing a sort of 3D effect.

So what’s their beef? The article quotes some developers who are allegedly freaking out over having to redo their designs to comport with the new interface. One of the complaints is about the presence of Apple’s corporate logo. Of course, you expect an Apple product to sport the company’s logo here and there. Why should it be otherwise?

The key point of these alleged complaints is design. Supposedly the developers in question are concerned about the huge changes and what’s required to adapt their apps. But nothing in the article mentions actual functioning features, just the artwork. The author seems utterly ignorant about such niceties. Artwork can be changed, but what about the new features in iOS 7? This appears to be a constant among the most vociferous complaints. They don’t like the icons, they don’t like the color choices, they don’t like the main font (Helvetica Neue Ultra Light), although Apple appears to be the only developer of a mobile OS to actually use a licensed version of a font. The rest appear to be relying on knockoff versions; a fine point, but one that shows the extra level of detail to which Apple subjects their designs.

Those of you who have focused on the fine details of typography will realize the significance. In the old days of traditional typesetting, the differences between the real and the knockoff versions of a typeface were extremely important issues, particularly for graphic artists, ad agencies, and the publishing industry. Some designers relied on a specific company’s typesetting computer if they released official licensed versions of typefaces, rather than imitations. It made a difference.

Yet another article, this one from Gizmodo and worth a link, focuses on the functionality of iOS 7, and there are loads of fascinating possibilities. The theory is that some of the new capabilities, or potential capabilities, pave the way for enhancements in future iPhones and iPads and perhaps “a new generation of mobile devices.”

Apple is certainly known to lay the groundwork for the future in an OS refresh, and iOS 7 may only be a harbinger of what’s to come. Indeed, some features may only work on new generations of mobile hardware, and thus aren’t obvious yet except in theory. Consider swiping the lock screen, a common gesture. But what if the next iPhone has a fingerprint sensor? The same action would be read by the onboard sensors, and your device would only be unlocked if you passed the test.

However, when supposed tech pundits concentrate on the surface design details, which are a matter of taste of course, and ignore the underlying technology, they are failing to do their jobs. A product’s design is certainly a matter of taste, and what you like I might dislike. I do not expect Apple’s themes for iOS 7, or OS X Mavericks for that matter, to be favored by everyone. Apple didn’t take a poll when they built these operating systems, nor did they take a vote when they designed a new Mac Pro.

And lest we forget, iOS 7 is still an early beta. The first developer’s release arrived on June 10, and the second developer’s beta arrived this week with some key additions and changes; a new Welcome screen for example. Over the next two or three months, there will be more releases, perhaps with unexpected changes, and maybe even refinements of the artwork, particularly the icons that have received the highest degree of criticism.

As development continues, Apple will continue to receive comments and criticisms from the developer community, and there is certainly enough time to fix critical bugs and maybe modify the artwork here and there. If developers encounter serious problems migrating their apps to iOS 7, perhaps Apple can address some of those concerns early on. But right now, even the author of that curious article about an alleged “revolt” quoted one developer as saying, “I’ve been working on redesigning the app I work on in an iOS 7 style in my spare time to see how it would work and it pained me to admit that it actually looked pretty good.”

So much for a revolt. But the most important issue of all is the fact that the author doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of the word. If a reasonable number of developers decided not to continue to develop for iOS, or to avoid an iOS 7 upgrade, that would be considered a revolt. But the article fails to demonstrate that such a movement exists, or even an understanding of the underlying technology of Apple’s forthcoming mobile OS. I just hope the writer in question hasn’t quit his day job, assuming this isn’t his day job.