Every so often you hear from one tech commentator or another about how they converted to a different platform. At first it was a PC to Mac switcheroo, mostly where someone who had used Windows for years decided to give a Mac a try. The results were usually the same. Most things worked about the same or better, but there might have been a few apps (we called them applications then, by the way) that they couldn’t use unless they installed a virtual machine (Parallels or VMWare Fusion) to allow them to continue to use Windows.

A current level of switching is from personal computer to tablet. The goal is to attempt to replicate all or most tasks on an iPad or someone else’s tablet. The results are predictable. Most tasks can be accomplished, but typing longer messages or documents is a chore without an accessory keyboard of some sort. In a sense, it’s about trying to do things pretty much the same way, except for the touch interfaces. The solution may require rethinking the work process, perhaps using Siri or some other dictation method to put your words on the screen.

The other popular switching story is about jumping to and from the iPhone. Sometimes it happens as an experiment, where a tech columnist simply wants to see how the other half lives as fodder from an article. Recently, for example, Macworld’s Lex Friedman decided to give a Windows Phone device, the Nokia Lumia 920, a 30-day trial, and, so far at least, finds that it’s working  better than he expected.

What this means, for the most part, is that the most popular desktop and mobile platforms are at the very least decent and usable. The issues of excellence and elegance spark debate. I have long preferred the Mac and iOS, but I understand, from personal experience, why millions prefer other platforms. There are often enough similarities that it may not matter to people who aren’t steeped in the game of inside baseball we tech writers play.

The most recent defection involves a high-profile tech journalist, Andy Ihnatko, who switched several weeks ago from an iPhone 4s to a Samsung Galaxy S III. Now Andy appears to have done this simply because he felt the Galaxy S3 was a better product, not to get hits for his site, which is something other tech commentators are known to do.

He’s written a multipart feature on the reasons for Macworld. But unlike some tech pundits, he doesn’t come up with some outrageous reason for ditching Apple. He continues to use Macs, for example. The key reasons for his switch are well explained in the course of his articles. I understand his reasons in a very direct fashion, since I set up a Galaxy S3 myself several weeks ago, probably about the same time Andy made his move, though I don’t necessarily think my decision somehow influenced him.

In my case, it’s more of an experiment than a life-altering decision, and I also plan to give the Galaxy S IV a try when Samsung makes a unit available to me, and that will probably happen after the product is launched next week.

The difference, of course, is that my move isn’t meant to be permanent. I just felt the need to become more familiar with the most popular mobile platform on the planet, and I can understand why some people might indeed prefer Android, although it’s clear the platform has ongoing difficulties.

Two of Andy’s key reasons for the switch: The 4.8-inch display on the Galaxy S3 provides way more comfort than even the 4-inch iPhone 5. Although it’s not suited to one-handed operation, being able to just see more information on the screen at one time is a huge plus. He’s also pleased that he has a choice of keyboards. If he doesn’t like the default Samsung layout, he can download others from the Google Play store.

The keyboard is one area where I find fault with Andy’s decision. I am still getting my feet wet with the Android keyboard, though, to be fair, I haven’t tried the low-cost alternatives. Andy prefers the SWYPE keyboard scheme, where you swipe instead of tap letters, which may be a more flexible alternative for some of you. But I did find such apps in the App Store, so you don’t have to switch platforms to try this alternative.

But the ability to customize an Android handset or tablet to a fare-thee-well may be an important plus. Apple prefers to give you a simple, elegant user experience out of the box, with minimal configuration options. That works fine for people who just want things to work, but if Apple’s settings, or the limited choices for change, aren’t sufficient, where can you do?

Looking at Android, you can see features that Apple ought to adopt, not necessarily when it comes to more expansive customization schemes. It would also be nice, for example, to be able to store apps in alphabetical sequence, so that ones you buy aren’t just tacked onto the end of the list.

The upshot of all this is the fact that Android has grown much better over time, and in many ways is a dead-on competitor with the iOS, although security is one issue that still needs plenty of work. In any case, Apple needs to pay attention, and maybe the rapid fall in the stock price will help. But that doesn’t mean that Apple should crib features from Android, although it’s clear the reverse has happened. On the other hand, there are various and sundry shortcomings that can and should be addressed in iOS 7.

Apple also needs to be a bit more open in accepting apps for the App Store. The sandboxing restrictions work fine from a security standpoint, but apps need to talk to one another. You should, for example, be able to choose a default email or browser that isn’t made by Apple.

Let me give you another example: The network that carries my two radio shows, GCN, has had problems posting software in the App Store. The latest complication involves supplying separate apps for each show. Evidently the powers-that-be in the Apple Store review department don’t consider the same app, with different artwork that streams a different show, to be unique enough. Yes, you can get separate apps for my shows in Google Play, except there’s a bug that prevents them from working on some versions of Android and some handsets. Fragmentation is rearing its ugly head again, but that doesn’t make Android useless. But apps of that sort should find an easy road to acceptance in the App Store.

So here we go again. An AP story out of Amsterdam this week reports that the European Union Commission has fined Microsoft the princely sum of $733 million. Why? Well, as many of you recall, Microsoft was supposed to offer Windows users in Europe a choice of browsers when they first setup the OS, or their new PCs.

That agreement came out of a 2009 settlement, in which Microsoft paid a fine of 860 million euros (over $1.12 billion based on current exchange rates) to give customers a way to choose a browser other than Internet Explorer. You’d think that would have been the end of it, as this agreement seems one that’s fairly easy to fulfill, right? But not so.

According to the report on the latest findings, Microsoft failed to offer the browser choice on some 15 million installations of Windows 7 in Europe from May 2011 until July 2012. Microsoft admitted the transgression, saying it was a mistake, and evidently cooperated in the investigation.

The mind boggles.

It’s really hard to believe that Microsoft wasn’t aware of the violation or the cause of that violation from Day One. You’d almost think they never tested their OS installations after shipment, and wouldn’t Microsoft’s rivals in the browser wars, such as Opera, complain? But I’m more concerned about the regulators at the European Union who allowed this clear violation to continue for so long before clamping down. Sure, exacting hundreds of millions of euros from Microsoft had to be an attractive prospect. I’m not saying it was deliberate. But the failure to notice what happened simply doesn’t make sense.

Or maybe so few people care about Microsoft these days that they simply didn’t bother to complain. After all, it would take but one phone call and a few photos or screen shots to confirm the lack of browser choice on a new Windows 7 installation in Europe. How was this allowed to go on for so long?

In all, Microsoft has paid some 2.2 billion euros ($2.86 billion) in fines as the result of their alleged abuse of market power. These days, of course, Windows users routinely install other browsers, and not just in Europe, and that decision is made without a ballot box. Firefox and Chrome have both taken a hefty portion of the market, but have yet to unseat MSIE.

According to one survey from Net Market Share — and the numbers vary considerably depending on the source — all versions of Internet Explorer held 55.82% of the market as of the first part of 2013. Firefox remained in the number two spot, with 20.12%. Google Chrome had 16.27%, and Apple Safari held position number four with 5.42%, but Apple’s browser is evidently no longer being developed for Windows users.

Such surveys don’t reveal mobile browser share, where Apple and other WebKit browsers, including the ones supplied with Android (Internet or Chrome) have the sort of dominance that Microsoft enjoyed on PCs for many years.

But Microsoft isn’t just squandering money on fines, and this latest fine could have been easily avoided. They are also throwing bad money into those terrible ads for Windows 8 and the Surface tablet, not to mention Internet Explorer. Evidently Microsoft believes that sound and fury, in a sense yelling at potential customers for attention among the clatter of TV spots, has to have a positive outcome. The facts, however, are otherwise. Windows 8 has not been that well accepted, and Windows Phone 8 and the Surface tablets have essentially gone nowhere.

Faced with this situation, you’d think Microsoft’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, and his executive team, would be working overtime to deal with the company’s serious problems, and not pretending everything is just peachy. Were there any consequences when the company failed to properly configure Windows 7 installers for the European market? Was one person, or a whole team, responsible for failing to present the browser selection interface?

When it comes to Windows Phone, rather than doubling down and updating the platform as if nothing was wrong, why isn’t Microsoft going back to the drawing boards and figuring out how to deliver a compelling mobile OS that would help drive cutting-edge hardware, rather than also-rans? With PC sales declining, why isn’t Microsoft rushing to build a Windows 8 Service Pack to address the worst ills? What about just restoring the Start Menu for starters, a feature to which users have been accustomed for years? The apparent popularity of third-party solutions has to convey a message, one hopes.

Doing fast fixes shouldn’t be difficult for a company with Microsoft’s resources. Take a look at an auto industry example. Despite great sales for the 2012 Honda Civic, the new model received tepid reviews, and lost the cherished “recommended” rating from Consumer Reports. Honda did a fast refresh, and the 2013 Civic is far better in almost every way, from looks, to comfort, interior fit and finish and, of course, ride and handling. This relatively quick fixer-upper must have costa Honda hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and it had a positive result.

Microsoft should follow Honda’s example, and get on with the job of revamping Windows Phone and Windows 8 into platforms customers might really like.

It’s fascinating how certain media predictions come to be. So there’s a story that Apple will introduce an iPhone 5s, and a cheaper alternative, come August. This would be in keeping with the introduction timetable for the iPhone 5, which arrived 11 months after the iPhone 4s.

But there’s yet another story suggesting it’ll happen in June, which doesn’t leave very much time for Apple to announce iOS 7 and get betas to developers to update their apps. Regardless of the truth of this story, or the one about the August introduction, you wonder where the alleged sources get this stuff.

This doesn’t mean these reports don’t have some basis in fact. Aside from the curiously later than usual introduction of the iPhone 4s in 2011, assuming an annual upgrade cycle, you’d expect that the next iPhone would arrive in the August or September timeframe. Suggesting an earlier introduction would appear to be an anomaly. On the other hand, if iPhone 5 sales really collapsed, and I mean in the real world, not the fantasy world portrayed by some misguided members of the media, Apple might indeed want to push for an earlier introduction.

Sure, it has been the norm for Apple to release a major iOS upgrade with the launch of a new iPhone, but that doesn’t mean it has to happen this time. Whenever Apple seems predictable, the rules are apt to change. But a lot of that unpredictability may be as much about perfecting a product before introduction than timing considerations to suit the needs of marketing.

Now the most sensible prediction about an iPhone 5s would be in keeping with the way the product changed between the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4s. The physical design appeared nearly identical, with the key changes occurring inside. Keeping with that tradition, an iPhone 4s would have a speedier processor, perhaps a camera with more megapixels — although just adding megapixels doesn’t guarantee better snapshots — and other assorted component changes. Some predict a larger battery, or at least one with more capacity. In fact, there’s yet another rumor, also unconfirmed, that Foxconn, Apple’s Asian manufacturing partner, has already begun production of the iPhone 5s.

The possibility of a major change — an iPhone 6 — would seem little to none. Apple doesn’t routinely make huge form factor changes of that sort after just one year, although the media wants you to believe it happened all the time when Steve Jobs was running the show. Apple only recently got control of the complicated assembly of the iPhone 5, so it would hardly make sense to throw it all away and start over. This is not an iPod nano/iPod mini situation.

A real question is whether Apple will switch from selling older models for less money to building a new, cheaper iPhone for people who want an affordable unlocked phone, or cannot get a subsidized deal. The media keeps suggesting Apple is leaving tens of billions of dollars of potential sales on the table, and all Apple will say in response is that they don’t build junk. But that doesn’t mean an entry-level iPhone won’t happen, if Apple can find a way to make it cheap and elegant at the same time. Remember there is a cheap Mac (the mini) and a cheap iPod (the shuffle).

Another set of predictions seems somewhat more reasonable, that there will be iPad refreshes come April. This would mean that the requisite media invite might go out before the end of this month.

The WWDC would likely bring news of iOS 7, and OS X 10.9, although I sort of expected a preview of the latter by now. But what do I know?

When it comes to Macs in general, other than spreading the Retina display joy to some more models, or bringing the prices down to more sensible (or affordable) levels, you wonder what Apple is going to do to keep the Mac platform cruising along. There is, for example, the Mac Pro. When and how will Apple deliver this long-awaited update to the Mac workstation? Sure, the iMac is plenty powerful for most users, but a fair number of content creators require the additional rendering performance and the expandability the Mac Pro minitower offers.

The existing model, which has a form factor that began with the Power Mac G5 back in 2003, hasn’t had a serious update since 2011. The 2012 refresh was limited to a minor processor change. But since Tim Cook promised a whole lot more this year, expect something more significant than swapping out the parts, and adding Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 ports. Perhaps Apple will devise a way to include the same expansion capabilities in a much smaller case. Looking at the existing Mac Pro, if the cooling system were made more efficient and other space reduction schemes were employed, I would be willing to bet Apple could cut the thing down almost in half, and bring the weight down accordingly.

The main holdup appears to be the arrival of the next-generation of Intel Xeon chips, which may not happen until late in the year. So that is the stopping point, even though I suspect Apple would have preferred to get it out by the WWDC this summer.

There will, of course, be predictions about an Apple smart TV and an iWatch. Maybe they will come, maybe not. But it may not matter so much in the end, so long as Apple remains profitable and keeps customers — and maybe Wall Street — happy.

On Monday, Apple’s stock price remained in negative territory, falling faster than the market as a whole. You have to think the company must be in bad shape for such a thing to happen. But when you read reports that Apple reported record revenues last year, that Mac sales reportedly increased 31% in the U.S. in January, it doesn’t seem as if the people in the financial community are listening. The highly successful iPhone 5 was even mistakenly characterized by one commentator as “tepid.”

Now through all this, Apple hasn’t said very much about this state of affairs, even though Apple’s market cap has lost tens and tens of billions of dollars. Clearly that’s a problem of the first order, and Tim Cook’s mild-mannered responses appear lame in comparison.

Sure, we know that Apple plays long ball, concentrating more on long-term success than short-term spurts. Sure, we know that Apple is very likely working on some cutting-edge gear for 2013 that may become iconic, but the critics will probably still complain.

Unfortunately, when Apple says little to nothing about all the false information, it is assumed, rightly or otherwise, that these stories must be true. If they’re not, where’s Apple’s denial?

Yes, I realize Apple will not say anything about unreleased products — unless it suits their marketing plans of course — but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t speak up. Yes, I suppose Tim Cook did some of that during the last call with financial analysts, when he commented indirectly about reports of a cutback in display orders for the iPhone 5. His comment, not widely quoted, was simply that you can’t use a single metric to gain an accurate picture about the overall supply chain. Policy wonks no doubt loved the comment, but most people heard nothing more about it.

In his remarks at the recent shareholder’s meeting, Cook broached the subject of Apple’s falling stock price, but not in a way that got headlines.

Since Cook clearly knows how to handle himself before the media, or maybe they are afraid to ask more than softball questions, he really should schedule a press conference to talk about Apple’s past, present and future. Speak to the public directly, in plain language explaining what’s right and wrong about the public perceptions about the company. He should explain why the launch of the iPhone 5 wasn’t tepid, and how analyst estimates may or may not have anything whatever to do with the actual financial performance of a company.

Sure, Apple can’t — and shouldn’t try — to answer every media critic. But when a false meme is being played out in the media, they need to get ahead of it. When the AntennaGate scandal, such as it was, arose over complaints about a serious degradation of reception if you held an iPhone 4 a certain way, after a brusk suggestion to hold the phone differently, Steve Jobs held a media event to explain what was really going on. iPhone 4 owners were even offered free cases in case they still had problems.

Now I realize that some members of the press were unimpressed. Consumer Reports erroneously claimed that the iPhone 4 was the only smartphone to exhibit reception problems when held in certain ways that covered the antennas, ignoring the fact that pretty much all mobile handsets can be induced to produce similar results. You may have to hold them differently, but it doesn’t matter. CR also ignored the existence of warning labels, and references in user manuals about the phenomenon. Evidently they didn’t believe in reading manuals, or had a different agenda, which is unfortunate for a publication that prides itself on being fair and balanced.

The fact that Apple went to a new antenna system, similar to the diversity scheme used in cars, clearly indicates they wanted to improve reception as much as possible. But that doesn’t mean the iPhone 4 necessarily had a flawed design. Besides, putting a case on a smartphone is always a good idea, regardless of the manufacturer.

In any case, it’s also true that, if Apple chooses to correct the falsehoods, or perceived falsehoods, some members of the media would label the company as thin-skinned, or regard it as a case of sour grapes. Sometimes you just can’t win, but that doesn’t mean Apple’s executive team should allow tens of billions of dollars to be shaved off the company’s market cap without responding.

At this point, it may well be that Apple is hoping upcoming product introductions will change perceptions about the company; actions speaking louder than words and so forth and so on. Perhaps, but if the current Apple-is-in-deep-trouble theme keeps playing out, new products viewed against those perceptions might still come up short. But it’s also true that the arrival of the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad were all viewed skeptically, but customers weren’t paying attention. They delivered record sales to Apple.

So if there’s an iWatch or an Apple connected TV coming real soon now, the media and industry analysts might just suggest it’s all too-little-too-late regardless of how well these products fare in the marketplace.