So the discussion about the iPad mini, the early release of a fourth generation full-size iPad, the promise of the ultra-thin iMac, Fusion Drives, and other Apple related stuff continues to consume the tech media. As usual, some segments of the media appear to be in way over their heads in trying to assess what’s going on.

Take the pricing. At $329, the iPad mini seems a mixed bag. After all, you can buy a 7-inch Amazon Kindle Fire HD for $199; same for the Google Nexus 7. So why pay more for a tablet with a “mere” 7.9-inch screen for $130 extra?

Well, there is the fact that the iPad mini’s screen real estate is about a third larger and, when viewed in the landscape position, the display depth is two thirds more, meaning that you may actually see more of a Web site than the headers without scrolling. All right, the Amazon and Google tablets are useful for widescreen movies, but not much else.

Is that larger, more useful screen worth the extra cost for the iPad mini? What about an elegant, relatively easy-to-use OS, with 275,000 apps optimized for the platform? Even if specs and real world performance aren’t demonstrably better than the competition, those factors alone should make the iPad mini a compelling choice, well worth the premium.

I won’t get into extended arguments about the limitations of 7-inch Android tablets, where there are few apps optimized for those products, OS fragmentation and frequent performance lapses. With the Amazon tablets, it’s all about providing a pretty front end for media consumption and, of course, to make it easier to buy products and services, the better to overcome the lack of profit on the sale of the Kindles.

Yes, I do suppose some people are concerned about the starting price, but it’s not as if Apple ever sells much of anything at a loss, or with little or no profit. And don’t expect the iPad mini to get cheaper. It’ll get faster over time, no doubt earn a retina display, and the already thin form factor will get thinner and lighter. But the price probably won’t change.

The surprise in Tuesday’s announcements, although some expected it, was the fourth generation iPad, a simple refresh with faster components. One commentator, who will go unnamed, suggested Apple was making a big mistake coming out with a new new iPad so soon. Or maybe Apple took the smart move, which was to leverage the capabilities of the A6 processor family, add the new Lightning port, and provide significant performance boosts in most significant respects. This way Apple enters the holiday season with an invigorated iPad product line, ready to do battle with all comers, including the Microsoft Surface. And don’t think the Surface didn’t have something to do with the rapid arrival of a fourth generation iPad.

This hasn’t stopped some from suggesting that the iPad should have been lighter and thinner, but the fast time to market — at least for Apple — may not have offered enough time for that sort of revision, or maybe Apple is waiting for newer components to leverage such a design, such as a larger version of the in-cell display that premiered last month in the iPhone 5.

So I suppose there will be a fifth generation iPad in the spring of 2013, assuming Apple is now committing to a six to seven month upgrade cycle. Will that happen to the iPhone 5? Why predict what Apple does, anyway? I would assume if sales dipped, or didn’t increase as fast as they hoped, they would revise mobile products sooner than the presumed timetable.

Actually, of all the new products that debuted this week, I’m most intrigued by the 2012 iMac. Having a thickness of 5mm is certainly a fascinating choice, but don’t forget that the depth thickens gradually and is far more than 5mm at the middle. That’s just design fluff.

I’m more intrigued by the fact that it weighs eight pounds less. In recent weeks, the result of moving to a new home, I had to lug my 2009 27-inch iMac from home to hotel (while the new place was being readied) and to the new residence. Stored in the original shipping carton, the iMac, though a lot lighter than a Mac Pro, was still awkward to carry, and it didn’t help that I injured my back during the move process. However, if the 2012 iMac was no different from the immediate predecessors externally, I would still give it serious consideration. Yes, I’m somewhat disappointed by the loss of an optical drive, but, as Apple VP Phil Schiller told the media, you can always get an external USB SuperDrive if that’s what you really need. It may just be the crutch that few will buy after a while.

But I’m most intrigued by Apple’s variation on the hybrid drive theme, known as Fusion Drive. In the standard hybrid scheme, there is a SSD cache of 64GB for your frequently used stuff. Apple uses a more intelligent data transfer scheme, where the files are actually moved to a 128GB cache based on how often they’re opened, plus the OS of course. If you can, as advertised, get most of the performance of a dedicated SSD for a $250 premium — that price is based on the upgrade cost for a 1TB Fusion Drive on the Mac mini — it would be a hot ticket. Once you’ve used SSD, as I have with a client’s 2011 iMac, you’ll never go back. It’s that good.

All in all, Apple did good this week, and really upstaged Microsoft, who launches Windows 8 and the Surface tablet on October 26. That, and the fact that early Surface reviews are a mixed bag in ways that Microsoft doesn’t like, the software, augers well for a successful holiday season for Apple.

All right, so Apple’s huge worldwide network of component suppliers has made it just about impossible to keep secrets. So, there weren’t many surprises to be had at Tuesday’s Apple event in San Jose, CA, where the iPad mini, a fourth generation iPad, and some new Macs were introduced.

One thing is sure: Tim Cook took a much larger amount of time on stage with various announcements, such as the fact that Apple has sold some 100 million iPads so far, and comparing recent iPad sales with those of all the PC makers. The result? If you count the iPad as a PC, Apple is the number one PC maker on the planet.

Of course, the larger amount of attention was focused on the iPad mini and how it might differ from existing smaller tablets, such as Google Nexus 7. During his portion of the presentation, Apple VP Philip Schiller said that the iPad mini contains a 7.9-inch display, not 7.85 inches as previously speculated, which means roughly a third more screen real estate than those 7-inch tablets. But the difference is really more drastic, since Apple uses a 4:3 aspect ratio, compared to the widescreen 16:9 aspect radio of the 7-inch Android tablets. So when you switch the unit to a landscape orientation, you’re getting 67% more screen space on the iPad mini. That’s clearly very significant and a key reason why Apple can get away releasing a smaller tablet and still honor the extravagant claim by Steve Jobs that you’d need to sandpaper your fingers to use the 7-inch tablets.

Compared to the $199 Amazon and Google tablets, the iPad mini starts at $329 for the 16GB version. While paying $130 extra may seem a bit much, consider the greater usability. But the iPad mini is also  lighter than the Kindle Fire HD, weighing 308 grams compared to the Fire HD’s 395 grams. Schiller made a big deal about being able to hold one with one hand, a chronic problem with the full-sized iPad.

Granted, the Amazon tablet has a higher resolution display (1280×800) compared to the iPad mini’s 1024×768), but it’s at best a modest difference, at least in theory. As reviews of the iPad mini appear, you will see direct comparisons of display quality.

The only possible surprise was the speedy introduction of a fourth generation full-size iPad. While there were some rumors of an iPad refresh, this announcement wasn’t telegraphed in as much detail by the rumor sites. The new (or new new) iPad’s specs mostly scale up from the previous model. The processor is a dual-core A6X, with quad-core graphics, compared to the A5X on the third generation model. The promise is twice the performance. In addition, the front camera supports HD, there’s a Lightning connection port and superior Wi-Fi performance. Predictably the price and looks are the same.

According to Apple, preorders for both iPads start on October 26, the same day as Windows 8 and the Microsoft Surface tablets are released. The Wi-Fi versions will go on sale the following week. Contrary to some reports, the 2011 iPad 2 remains in the lineup.

The Mac upgrades were also predictable, including a $1,699 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display and a Mac mini refresh. But the most significant upgrade was the ultra-thin iMac, which receives, as expected, Intel Ivy Bridge processors, and NVIDIA graphics. The major change is a much thinner case, 5mm thick at the edges. Apple had to remove the optical drive to make it that thin, but there’s also the added benefit of a 27-inch model that weighs some eight pounds less than its predecessor.

Other than the slimmer form factor, the most significant change from a performance standpoint is the use of what Apple calls a Fusion drive, a variation of the hybrid drive theme. While previous iMacs have offered the combination of a solid state drive and a mechanical hard drive as costly options, the Fusion Drive, a $250 upgrade for a 1TB mechanism, appears to offer the best of both. There’s a 128GB Flash component that will store the OS and your most frequently used apps; an intelligent management system automatically moves apps to and from Flash storage. Assuming near-SSD performance, the Fusion Drive may just be the perfect option in a custom configuration. While combining traditional hard drives with a Flash memory component is not new, Apple’s data management scheme appears to be unique in the scheme of things compared to other hybrid drives.

The 21.5-inch iMac will debut in November, and the 27-inch model, as predicted by the rumor sites, will go on sale about a month later. Those who hoped for a Mac Pro refresh will, I suppose, have to wait till next year, when Tim Cook promised a major revision in a letter to a Mac user some time back. And, yes, I do expect the Mac Pro to remain the only Mac with an optical drive. They wouldn’t dare eliminate it on that model — or would they?

In one sense, I’m impressed by the iMac revision. In another I’m a bit disappointed, because of the loss of the optical drive, and the fact that installing or replacing the hard drive seems as difficult as ever. However, I’ll withhold judgement until iFixit or some other site specializing in disassembling such gear as a look at the iMac.

But at least I now know what I might have two months to save for. I’m less certain about the possibilities of the iPad mini. Mrs. Steinberg says she prefers the 9.7-inch version, but I’ll let you know what I think soon as I have some extended face time with the smaller model.

Such a curious state of affairs. Apple writes checks in the billions of dollars to Samsung to purchase key components for a host of products, including LCD displays. At the same time, Apple and Samsung are embroiled in a worldwide barrage of lawsuits over intellectual property. Apple charges Samsung with slavish copying of the iPhone and iPad, while Samsung appears to want to counter with claims of violation of industry-standard patents.

Certainly Samsung has a multi-billion dollar incentive to want to keep Apple’s business, and that should have presented sufficient motivation to work out some sort of cross-listening deal to put an end to the lawsuits, but things haven’t quite worked out that way.

There’s also a published report that Apple has been steadily cutting down on the number of LCD panels acquired from Samsung, and will phase out such purchases by 2013. Even though the A6 processor is reportedly being fabricated at a Samsung plant, Apple appears to be moving that component to another company’s factory. It won’t be long before Samsung does no business with Apple, and it’s not as if other companies aren’t lining up to get some of those orders.

If the report is true, you have to wonder why Samsung’s CEO isn’t freaking out big time and seeking a solution. It’s not as if any company can afford to give up billions of dollars of business every single year. Just because Samsung makes a decent profit from selling tens of millions of smartphones shouldn’t prevent them from seeing the forest from the trees. To be fair, Samsung is denying the story, which may, at this point, mean little to nothing.

But maybe it serves Samsung right. I mean Apple was able to work out a satisfactory agreement with their former fiercest rival, Microsoft. Yes, they still compete on operating systems and mobile platforms, but at least they aren’t arguing the points in court. Clearly Samsung has smarter ways to spend money, maybe by changing some of the custom interface elements on their Android gear, so that Apple’s lawyers won’t bother them with legal threats.

A lot of those problems, however, might be blamed on Google, which developed Android to closely resemble the iOS while former CEO Eric Schmidt was sitting on Apple’s board. No wonder Steve Jobs felt betrayed, and it’s not as if Android has actually paid off in revenue. In the most recent financial quarter, Google reported lower revenue and profits than analysts expected, and the recently-acquired Motorola Mobility division continues to hemorrhage large sums of money.

Yes, this is a curious state of affairs. Microsoft, for example, appears to earn more money from Android than Google, because of payments to license certain patents. Now it’s not as if the validity of those patents has necessarily been tested in court, but the handset makers pay up anyway.

So you have to wonder whether Android, despite being the number one mobile platform on the planet, is really paying off for Google. Sure, they are getting an audience of millions to, they hope, click on targeted ads and keep the cash registers ringing. But what if Google exacted a modest fee from handset makers and ditched the ads except for search and and perhaps mapping? Would that, ultimately, yield more revenue? Or would handset makers consider other options? But what other options are there, other than the failed Windows Phone platform?

Of course, things in Android land are still as fragmented as ever. As before, only a tiny percentage of Android smartphone and tablet users are running the latest OS versions. Google doesn’t push the upgrades direct to consumers, so they have to deal with handset makers and wireless carriers who continue to modify the interface and add lots of junkware to promote various products and services. In contrast, some 60% of iOS users reportedly upgraded to iOS 6 in the very first month.

Then again, if customers aren’t protesting, I suppose there’s no harm, except for potential security lapses of course. How many Android users are clamoring for the latest and greatest, and how many simply use whatever they are given, without concerning themselves about whether a newer, more efficient and more secure OS is out there?

Returning to the Samsung situation, it’s clear the lawsuits will continue without letup for the foreseeable future. Even though Apple emerged victorious from that jury trial in northern California, it may take a while to see any final resolution, what with appeals and more appeals. Meantime, Samsung is losing lots of business from Apple. So even if, in the end, they conveniently workaround any potential patent abuses, that will not help them reclaim the lost contracts.

How many Galaxy S III smartphones must they sell to make up for not being able to ship LCD panels and other parts to Apple? Does it make any difference at all to them? Or perhaps they just don’t get it. But since Samsung is a company with many separate divisions, so long as total sales and profits appear to be moving in the right direction, maybe it won’t make a difference.

As far as Apple customers are concerned, only those who care about the geeky details will concern themselves about who makes what part. In the end, it doesn’t impact Apple, but, when they come to their senses, it may eventually matter to Samsung.

Unlike Amazon and Google, which sell tablets at or near the build cost, with the hope of making it up elsewhere, Apple expects to make a decent product on every single product they build. Their margins are among the highest in the tech industry, despite being able to remain highly competitive when it comes to the actual purchase price.

Yes, I realize that Apple gets attacked for the perceived high price of a Mac, but these are all premium models, using premium parts. In the PC world, OEMs continue to race towards the bottom, using cheap components in order to deliver those $500 note-books. Apple will never play that game, and hence they are regarded by some as a company that charges you more for essentially the same product, even though that’s not exactly true.

With the arrival of an iPad mini pretty much a given, there have already been estimates on what it’ll cost to build one. Understand those estimates have been made without access to a real shipping product. It’s just an educated guess based, in part, on what it costs to build one of the existing iPads, plus estimates on possible new components.

Continue Reading…