Early sales reports are heralding a possible bang-up quarter for Apple, with stellar sales of the iPhone 5, the iPad and, of course, the iPad mini. But if you can believe what Steve Jobs said about the value of a smaller tablet, you might just wonder why the latter exists at all.

But it’s not about Jobs exaggerating about the need to sandpaper your fingers to use one. For many users, the iPad mini is the perfect tablet. Let’s recall how Apple VP Phil Schiller touted the iPad mini’s larger screen, offering roughly a third more screen real estate than the those 7-inch tablets from the likes of Amazon and Google.

You see, most other small tablets I know about are widescreen; Apple uses the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. While widescreens are great for watching movies, they aren’t so great for other content, especially in the horizontal orientation. Schiller made the point crystal clear during his presentation at the October Apple event announcing the iPad mini, where one of those other tablets could barely display the header of a Web page horizontally, while the iPad mini gave you a decent (though not exceptional) amount of actual content without endless scrolling.

The big problem with the full sized iPad is that it may just be too large for many of you. You cannot imagine holding the unit in one hand for very long, which can make book reading a chore. It’s a poor fit for anything but a real large purse, and carrying one on public transportation is extremely awkward. Yes, you may cherish the larger screen real estate, but Apple needs to find a way to make it lighter and thinner.

Here the iPad mini is actually near as light or lighter than the 7-inch tablets, so it’s real easy to handle. By supporting the same apps as the larger iPad, with the same aspect ratio, there are no display issues to confront. It just works, and it’s more flexible than its larger sibling.

Although the $499 starting price for the iPad is actually cheaper than many expected before it was introduced, these days that’s a bit high, since so many tablets are cheaper. Yes, many hoped the iPad mini would come in for less than $329, since you can get tablets from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Google and others for $199 or even less. But it’s not so steep a climb as to put off customers, or at least that’s how it seems so far.

This isn’t to say that Apple didn’t make some sacrifices to get the product out. It may well be that icons and text are a tad too small for some, because Apple didn’t make any iOS changes that reflect the new design. The display, while quite good, isn’t Retina, which means text isn’t quite as razor-sharp, though you will probably not notice a severe difference unless you put the two side by side.

Why no Retina display? It may have been a matter of time to market, component costs, and getting sufficient quantities. I do not necessarily believe in the common conspiracy theory that Apple will hold off a feature, hoping to make a bundle on that feature and get you to upgrade to the next version. It’s not as if millions of iPad mini owners will suddenly rush to its successor when it comes out, as expected, in 2013.

For now, it seems that the iPad mini is expanding the market, not taking much business from the regular iPad. On the long haul, however, I expect that the combination of affordability, usability and packaging will draw more and more users to the iPad mini. This will be particularly true when there is a Retina display and when or if the iOS is better optimized for a smaller device.

In the next year or two, we’ll look at the iPad mini as a sea change. It’s not just another market niche for Apple, but the possible future of general purpose tablets. Sure, the larger iPad will be around for quite a while yet, and I do not expect to see loads of different sizes. That’s the approach taken by other tech companies that seem to believe that if you throw enough darts in the air at random, a few might reach a target. Apple is just not going to play that game.

As for me, neither iPad is a replacement for my iMac. I still want the large screen, the traditional keyboard and mouse, because I type and edit audio and words an awful lot. It’s possible I’ll adapt, maybe as I get older, and voice recognition capabilities make it possible to mostly give up on keyboards, except in places where I’d prefer not to make people believe I’m just talking to myself.

I also realize that some of you expect the iPad mini to continue to play second fiddle in Apple’s product line. Maybe now, but that will change faster than you think.

So I noticed this week that my iTunes Match account entered the second year, and I am sort of on the fence about whether this year will be the last or not. You see, the concept is great, but the execution remains a tad flawed.

First and foremost, at $24.99 per year, iTunes Match is a pretty decent deal, and a great space saver. If your entire music library consists of tracks you’ve purchased from iTunes, don’t bother. But if it’s the usual mixture of ripped tracks from CDs, songs you’ve acquired from other sources, and some content from iTunes, it may be a huge bargain.

When iTunes Match is activated, all the songs in your iTunes library are compared with the 26  million tracks at the iTunes Store. If there’s a match, you get a pristine 256K AAC DRM-free version stored in the cloud for easy download to a Mac or PC, or to an iOS device. That’s true even if you have a lower quality track. It may also mean that if iTunes has a more recent mix of that track, you’ll benefit from the newest version, which appears to apply in large part to The Beatles, for example. And best of all, the storage space of matched tracks doesn’t count towards the meager allotment of space Apple gives you in iCloud.

But let me explain further.

It’s fair to suggest that 256K AAC is extremely close to CD quality, but not perfect. Under a double-blind, level matched listening test with a high-caliber audio system, you might hear the differences, and, depending on the source material, those differences may seem significant to you. In practice, the differences are probably not worth the difference for the vast majority of iTunes customers. Apple has begun to upgrade songs using higher resolution master recordings from the music companies, and that helps to reduce the perceived gap between the CD and the iTunes version.

Besides, if you listen to most of your music from inexpensive earphones, it’s not anything to be concerned about. I know that, in downsizing to a smaller home (and for other reasons), I long ago sold off my high-end audio equipment. The system I’m using now sounds real good for something fairly cheap, but golden ears will not be satisfied by any means.

Beyond the bit-rate, the other limit for iTunes Match is 25,000 songs. Songs matched in iTunes aren’t included. Certainly this seems to be an amazing limit, and I’m sure that over 99% of you don’t have a music library that could possibly be any larger. But a few of you do. I know one person who has three times that many songs, most of which aren’t duplicated in iTunes. This means picking and choosing, having multiple Apple IDs and iTunes Match accounts, or just not bothering.

I suppose Apple could provide some sort of higher-priced unlimited service, but the existence of iTunes Match clearly involved making special deals with the music companies. Remember that iTunes Match doesn’t discriminate, which means that songs that may have been downloaded from unsanctioned (let’s call them illegal) sources suddenly become street legal. But this may also be a way for the industry to get payments from downloaded content from which they would never have earned a dime. So it may present a pretty good deal all around.

For the most part, I’m pleased with iTunes Match. But there is one glaring deficiency that has not as yet been addressed over the first year. Apple doesn’t even recognize that the problem exists, apparently, at least in my interactions with iCloud and iTunes support.

You see, a random number of tracks that, by every indication should be matched in iTunes, aren’t. Under these circumstances, those unmatched tracks are simply uploaded to the cloud, so the problem may be fairly minor in the scheme of things; that is, unless your source track is of lower quality.

But it still doesn’t make any sense. Take the song, “She Came In Through the Bathroom Window,” from the great Beatles album, “Abbey Road.” For me it doesn’t match, and, apparently it doesn’t match for others either. Now perhaps the meta data on the original CD mix throws the system off to some degree. Perhaps if I had the digitally remixed and enhanced CD version, which came out in 2009, everything would match perfectly.

But it gets worse with the classic Elvis Presley collection from the late 1960s, “The Memphis Record,” which features “Suspicious Minds” and “Kentucky Rain.” I ripped it from the original two-CD package, yet only five of the 23 tracks on that album were matched by iTunes. In all fairness to Apple, that particular collection has no counterpart in iTunes, although the various songs are available in other compilations. Blondie fares better, with just two songs out of the 12 on “Best of Blondie” failing the iTunes Match test.

Perhaps I’m just being too picky about such matters, but I think a service of this sort ought to be as perfect as possible, and, if there’s a miss here and there, Apple ought to be addressing the shortcomings. But it doesn’t seem as if Apple has taken any of this seriously, or maybe I’m just whistling in the dark.

Let’s start with Apple: We can assume that the recent executive changes at our favorite fruit company were the result of failures. iOS head Scott Forstall apparently got dumped for his Maps misfire, his refusal to sign the letter apologizing for the mapping defects, and perhaps for being  a jerk. John Browett was fired because he was doing a poor job managing the Apple Store retail chain.

While there is an awful lot of speculation about the specifics surrounding these two departures, I think the foregoing sentences sum up the major reasons for the changes, not to mention the new corporate pecking order at Apple that may mean big changes in the OS look and feel going forward.

Sure, some suggested that making these changes was really a bad thing, that it shows a lack of leadership at Apple. I think it’s precisely the reverse. Things weren’t working properly, and CEO Tim Cook did what he felt was necessary to right the ship.

Now with Microsoft, there are questions about how well Windows 8 and the Surface tablet are doing. CEO Steve Ballmer boasted that some four million copies of the new OS were purchased during the first three days on sale. It may sound encouraging, except for the fact that Apple, with the much smaller Mac market share, reported three million downloads of OS 10.8 Mountain Lion during the first four days of availability. As percentages go, Apple did far better.

Understand that Microsoft is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into advertising Windows 8 and the Surface tablet. How many ads did you see for Mountain Lion during the last few months? I’m waiting for the answer, because I’ve seen none, but I don’t watch every TV ad, and I don’t dwell on radio spots either. I would have thought Windows 8 would have done far better, considering all the publicity it’s received, and maybe there will be new stats revealing amazing sales in the near future. Or maybe not.

Then there’s the Surface tablet. How many did Microsoft move into the sweaty hands of eager customers? Well, despite some early reports of sell outs, Ballmer says sales are “modest.” That doesn’t sound too promising. Sure, I suppose alleged limited availability can be used as an excuse, since there aren’t that many Microsoft Stores around. But the Surface is also available online, where there are no limits to how many can be sold, except for available stocks. Modest indeed!

But the biggest indication of the problems Microsoft might be encountering with these new products is news of the departure of long-time executive Steve Sinofsky, who headed the Windows division. While the usual “sources” told Kara Swisher, of AllThingsD, that Sinofsky’s departure had been in the works for several weeks, you have to wonder why the person in charge of Microsoft’s most important products of the decade really stepped down. It can’t just be because Sinofsky wasn’t easy to work with. He’d been with Microsoft since 1989, and served as President of the Windows division since 2009.

In other words, Sinofsky shepherded the development of Windows 8. If Windows 8, and, in turn, the Surface tablet, which was designed to be the flagship product running the new OS, haven’t hit the ground running, who gets the blame? Well, no doubt it’s Sinofsky. It can’t be the result of deciding, after putting up with the guy for 23 years, that Ballmer really didn’t like him. Oh yes, the reason mentioned for Sinofsky’s departure is that Microsoft is seeking to get rid of the fiefdoms that plague the company, and make all the divisions play nicely with each other.

But the real problem with Windows 8 may be best expressed in a survey published this week in USA Today. Clearly Microsoft is facing serious resistance in getting customers to consider the new OS. Worse, “about one-third of Windows 7, Windows Vista and Windows XP users who are ready to buy a new personal computer say they intend to switch to an Apple product.” I expect the iPad is high on their shopping lists, but Mac sales may also grow, despite rumors of further delays in delivering the 2012 iMacs.

With the Sinofsky era now history, you have to wonder when Microsoft is going to hire a new executive tasked with the job of fixing what’s wrong with Windows 8 and related problems. But that is a tall order, and it may take a few years for anyone to accomplish major changes, assuming Windows 9 is well along in the development process. It’s not as if Microsoft moves terribly fast.

One story about Sinofsky’s departure contained the offhand suggestion that maybe Microsoft would try to hire departing iOS executive Scott Forstall to become “Mr. Fixit” for Windows. That makes little sense, however, for two reasons. First is that Forstall will remain a salaried advisor to Tim Cook for the next year — no doubt to keep him off the job market and ease the transition to the new leadership — and then there’s the expected non-compete clause. Besides, Forstall is a very rich man, so does he really need to stay in the rat race?

Other speculation has it that Steve Ballmer may be the next to go. Although Ballmer is his pal Bill Gates’ handpicked successor at Microsoft, the company hasn’t done so well over the last decade. The various Windows OS upgrades have been either too little, or with Windows 8, too much. Microsoft’s mobile initiative has gone nowhere. Despite decent reviews, people aren’t lining up to buy smartphones powered by Windows Phone. The modest launch of the Surface tablet is yet another potential nail in Ballmer’s coffin.

But even if Ballmer is next to go, where does Microsoft go to find someone to fix Microsoft’s ongoing problems? Does Gates take on the interim CEO position to keep things going while a new executive is being sought? Is there any executive on the planet who’d want to attempt to sort out this mess? Firing someone isn’t very hard. Finding the proper replacement at Microsoft may be near impossible.

When Steve Jobs said he would go “thermonuclear” against Google and all those Android licenses, because he felt they stole Apple’s designs, just how liberally should he have been taken? Sure, it’s quite obvious Apple has invested hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing patent lawsuits against the likes of Samsung, Motorola, HTC and other companies. At the same time, other companies have sued Apple with similar complaints.

Don’t forget that Apple can’t always win, having agreed to pay a reportedly large but undisclosed sum to Nokia to license patents, which materially enhanced that company’s bottom line. So I would expect it was hundreds of millions of dollars, which is chump change for Apple. Sure, it didn’t help Nokia that much, since the company is still hemorrhaging market share. But Apple resolved the patent disputes, just as they did this past weekend in an unexpected settlement with HTC.

According to published reports, HTC will be paying Apple up to $8 for every single handset to secure rights to certain patents. One estimate had it that Apple could be getting up to $280 million dollars each year as a result, but HTC’s sales aren’t going so well these days. At least it’ll help cover some of Apple’s legal fees.

Some columnists have begun to suggest that this settlement is likely to form the blueprint for others, possibly with the main “culprit” in the current legal actions, which is Samsung, and also with Motorola and perhaps Google. In each case, there would be a multiyear pact and cross-licensing of certain disputed patents. Where industry standard patents are involved, it’s possible Apple will end up paying something, though it’s possible there will be an exchange of cash, or it’ll be a wash. In HTC’s case, the company had a far smaller number of patents to license than the others.

So far as the industry is concerned, settlements of that sort would be a good thing. Everyone can concentrate on competing fairly in the marketplace, and not concerning themselves over whether this widget, or that rectangle, or some OS feature somehow violates someone else’s intellectual property.

I do, however, find problems with pundits who complain that Apple has become the tech industry’s bully in pursing these actions so aggressively. Think about those patent trolls who buy up loads of intellectual property, but instead of actually creating a product or service, they push paper. Patents are licensed, and alleged violators are sued. How does that help advance any industry? Aren’t these the real bullies? They depend on most companies settling rather than fight it out in the courts, and, if that happens, the lawsuits will be handled in certain parts of Texas where patent trolls somehow manage to routinely prosper.

Apple got caught by Microsoft in the 1980s, as many of you know. And maybe the entire existence of Windows in its traditional form was the result of tricking Apple into licensing portions of the Mac OS. Apple won’t make that mistake again, and patenting key inventions (or any invention) is simply today’s way of doing business. Apple is doing nothing different from any company that wants to protect intellectual property.

Lest we forget, a number of handset makers building Android gear pay license fees to Microsoft that have been estimated at roughly $5 per handset. Does that somehow make Microsoft the bully, or just another company protecting their intellectual property?

Why should Apple be any different? Besides, there are loads of companies suing Apple for the very same reasons. Sometimes Apple even loses, such as the lawsuits from Nokia and, some years back, Creative Labs over iPod-related patents. Were they bullies too?

So is Apple suddenly becoming more amenable to friendly settlements as opposed to legal filings against companies who may have violated their patents? Is Tim Cook being less arrogant about such matters than Jobs?

In my humble point of view, Jobs simply had the more abrasive personality, more apt to exaggerate and threaten when angered. Certainly spending hundreds of millions of dollars in legal actions amounts to going thermonuclear in a sense. Jobs was still the rational businessperson who knew how and when to make deals, just as he did with Microsoft in the 1990s. Don’t forget the Creative Labs and Nokia settlements, not to mention deals with a number of other companies, also occurred during his watch.

The agreement with HTC is just par for the course. It’s not as if Apple expected to HTC to just close up shop and go away, any more than Apple expects Samsung to stop making Galaxy mobile gear, or Google to give up Android.

Apple clearly wants its pound of flesh, and to, in turn, set a precedent for companies to be more careful about hardware and software design. Besides, Apple’s filings against Samsung haven’t stopped Galaxy sales, nor do I expect that Motorola will sell any fewer handsets. But with the limits established, the industry will be freer to release new products without the fear of confronting eager lawyers who are ready to pounce.

Of course, redefining patent laws in a more sensible fashion so patents are awarded for real innovations rather than minor variations on a theme wouldn’t hurt.