In a disappointing move, Google announced that a 7-inch Nexus 7 tablet, built by Asus, would ship in July. Disappointing? Well, you have to wonder whether it’s a mark of foolishness or desperation, and what sort of message Google is sending to their Android licensees.

Certainly the Nexus 7 comes across as a rush job. How do I know? Well, that foolish admission from Google’s Andy Rubin that it took four months to develop (Apple worked years to bring the iPad to fruition). Worse, at a list price of $199, industry estimates have it that Google and Asus will be making exactly zero profit. Clearly, they’ve followed the Amazon Kindle Fire playback, which is to depend on the sale of apps, movies and TV shows via Google Play to generate profits. Of course, the real origins of this marketing scheme go back the original Gillette razor concept. You got the razors real cheap, or even free, but paid and paid and paid yet again for the blades.

The very name, Play, implies that the Nexus 7 is meant strictly as a consumption device, which means any productivity capabilities are meant as an afterthought. If Google Play delivers good sales as the result of Nexus 7 adoption, Google may turn the thing into a money-making proposition. So far, however, Google hasn’t made huge revenues from Android. It’s still mostly ad-clicks.

But trying to imitate Amazon may not be a smart strategy. Yes, it appears the Kindles have been successful for Amazon, particularly as a way to generate e-book sales. But it’s also reported that the Kindle Fire, which is similar to the Nexus 7 in some respects, only registered good sales during the 2011 holiday season, and essentially tanked after that. So why does Google, with no proven reputation as an online retailer, expect to do any better? Or were they desperate to come up with something, anything, in time to present at this week’s Google I/O conference in San Francisco.

The other major product intro was the Nexus Q, a successor to Google TV that has some nice features but, at $299, is going to have a high mountain to climb against the $99 Apple TV. Some design choices seem curious, such as the built in 25-watt two-channel amplifier. One expects that the built-in audio system on most any TV these days is roughly comparable. If you want an external speaker system, you can choose from many models that contain far more powerful electronics. Curious indeed.

At the same time, Google does have one potential bragging point, which is the claim that the Nexus Q is assembled in the United States from mostly domestic parts. As you know, Apple’s products are mostly built in Asia, although some parts in an iPhone and iPad, such as the glass and some of the internal components, are American made.

Now the argument over where Google and other tech companies assemble their products is a worthy one, with lots of political implications. But that’s no reason to buy a Nexus Q if it is otherwise far more expensive than the competition, and fails to deliver compelling features to justify the higher price tag.

Curiously, I’m not seeing much chatter suggesting that the Nexus 7 and the Nexus Q are potential Apple killers in any respect. The Q seems nicely designed, however. At $99, minus some of the wasteful features, it may have been considered a decent alternative to Apple TV. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that Google fully understands what Apple is doing with hardware development. That said, the next Android upgrade, version 4.1, also known as Jelly Bean, does seem to have some useful features, although most appear to be under-the-hood, such as the promise of greater touch responsiveness. But that won’t mean a thing if most of the people who own Android gear are unable to upgrade.

In the scheme of things, Google’s new products amount to a non-event. Those desperately seeking an iPad killer will, once again, look to Microsoft for solace. But the Surface tablets leave lots of questions unanswered, the most prominent of which is whether they will truly see the light of day. As you recall, the reporters who attended last week’s media event were given very little face time with tablet prototypes. One reporter described touch responsiveness as lagging, a problem that has long plagued Google tablets. Sure, you can chalk it up to a preproduction glitch that will be fixed in the shipping product, but Microsoft doesn’t have a lot of time to get it ready for a fall release.

I still have the nagging feeling that Microsoft’s announcement was, first and foremost, meant to strike fear in the hearts of their OEMs. If they cannot create competitive tablets, Microsoft will do it for them. At the same time, few members of the media have learned the lessons of history, it seems, that Microsoft often announces new products that do not actually see the light of day. Or they are released in a form that loses key features with the usually unfulfilled promise those features will arrive later. Shades of Windows Vista.

But at least you can expect Microsoft to sell the Surface at a profit if it really comes out, although some analysts are suggesting Google’s aggressive price for the Next 7 might cause problems for Microsoft. The show may not be over, but it doesn’t appear that the iPad is has a part.

When I dared to characterize my experience with OS X Lion is pretty good, I heard from some readers suggesting I was on the wrong side of the facts. The basic point, to them, was that Lion had proven to be a source of instability, with kernel panics and sluggish performance. Clearly they preferred Snow Leopard.

Now I feel their pain, but at the same time, I do spend an awful lot of time navigating the online message boards, and I think I’ve got a sense of most of the complaints. There are, as usual with every version of OS X (or Mac OS X if you will) to date, people who just cannot get things to run properly. How could Apple betray them this way?

But it’s not is if every point-zero version of any OS is necessary perfect. There will always be bug-fix updates. To date, Apple is up to 10.7.4 with Lion, with unconfirmed reports of a 10.7.5 undergoing preliminary testing. The original Lion release produced Wi-Fi reception problems and other glitches for some users, which Apple has evidently been working to fix.

My current Mac hardware lineup is fairly straightforward. There’s a late 2009 iMac, customized with a 2.8GHz Intel quad-core i7 and 8GB RAM. My note-book is a 17-inch MacBook Pro, circa 2010, which is said to be only slightly slower than last year’s final version, and lacks Thunderbolt. But since there aren’t many Thunderbolt accessories yet, I’m not feeling the loss of flexibility.

Neither computer has been subjected to loads of system enhancements. While I will occasionally install something for testing purposes, or to write a column or review, I prefer a clean system with very minor enhancements otherwise. What I install, I remove if it doesn’t fit with my workflow.

Currently I use Growl, a third-party app notification tool that influenced the Notification Center in Mountain Lion, and the one already present in iOS 5. I also use CrashPlan for cloud-based backups, and TotalSpaces, a utility that cleans up the vagaries of Apple’s Spaces feature, which offers virtual desktops and was merged with Mission Control for Lion.

I’ve installed and uninstalled a number of printer drivers while reviewing new products, but the impact to the system hasn’t been noticeable. A few run background apps that had to be uninstalled, but no crashes. Indeed, one of the few apps to crash on occasion in recent years was Bias Peak Pro, a pro audio app that, until recently, was a key tool for the post production of my two radio shows. Even Microsoft Word 2011 has behaved decently, although the original release of Outlook 2011 was impossible to use for more than a few minutes without freezing.

Unfortunately, Bias, Inc., publisher of Peak Pro, is now out of business, so I have focused on Amadeus Pro and Sound Studio for most audio editing chores.

Although I don’t use the MacBook Pro so much these days, since I haven’t traveled a lot in recent months, the iMac is running every day, set to enter Sleep mode from the late night until the morning. It’s never shut down, and usually only restarts when installing software with that requirement.

What’s more, I didn’t perceive much difference with general performance when going from Snow Leopard, the OS that shipped with the iMac, and Lion. I do not recall having seen a kernel panic in years. The reviews I’ve read about Lion may complain about some of the iOS-inspired stuff, but they aren’t reporting serious stability or performance problems.

I do not presume to account for the reasons behind any problems you readers might have. I can see the potential for system add-ons causing grief. I realize that some of those security apps that perform background scanning for malware might cause apps to launch more slowly, as a result of the on-demand app probes for possible security problems. One free antivirus utility, Avast, did a number on the iMac’s print queue, where documents sent to my Xerox Phaser 8560DN solid ink printer would back up and take “forever” to output. That problem left with the removal of the security app.

You may also see frequent crashes with defective RAM. It’s well known that some versions of OS X have been more sensitive than others to such problems, but diagnosing bad memory can require a lengthy scan, or just removal as a test, if you have a Mac where some of the installed memory is removable. Based on the layout of the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro with Retina display, removable memory may be an endangered species. But if the problems spread to more than a single computer, maybe a little hands-on diagnostics or a visit to an Apple Store would help.

It may also be that some Macs will simply be more susceptible to system nasties from Lion than others. That’s the sort of thing that’s difficult to evaluate, especially from afar.

As to Mountain Lion, even those who feel they are comfortable violating their Apple NDAs haven’t reported any serious performance or stability problems. In a few weeks, we’ll all know just how well 10.8 fares compared to 10.7 and its predecessors.

As it stands, over 40% of the current Mac user base is running Lion, either because they upgraded, or bought a new Mac on which 10.7 as preloaded. There have not been an avalanche of complaints, beyond the expected gripes about the iOS-related stuff, and the loss of the Rosetta feature that let you run PowerPC apps on Intel Macs. If things were going wrong for a lot of people, you’d hear about it real fast. Take that as you wish.

There’s a report this week about Google’s expected announcement of their take on a tablet that best exploits the perceived values of the Android OS. As you know, previous Android tablets have essentially gone nowhere. The possible exception is the Amazon Kindle Fire, which, although it uses an older version of Android, carries a custom interface theme that essentially hides its true origins. Even there, Fire sales reportedly didn’t hold up after the holiday season ended.

Now I wouldn’t presume to comment on a product I haven’t seen, and anything you read so far about Google’s supposed “Nexus” tablet is pure speculation, unless it was fed directly by Google. But then it would be little more than corporate spin.

Google has used the Nexus branding to introduce smartphones that supposedly represent the best in Android technology. Of course, the media forgets that the first Nexus was a miserable failure in the marketplace, partly because Google didn’t have a clue how to sell and support consumer products. Well, maybe they will learn when that expected tablet appears.

In any case, the media is once again suggesting that whatever Google offers must be a legitimate competitor to the iPad. It can’t possibly be another also-ran in a long line of also-rans because that would play against the meme that Apple must fail, someday, when the right iPad killer comes along. As you recall, they said the same about would-be iPod killers for years. When Microsoft rolled their own with the Zune, the claims of inevitable success for Apple’s competitors rose to a fever pitch. But the customers weren’t listening.

Update: The $199 Google Nexus 7 (for seven inches I suppose), to be built by Asus, will ship in July according to Wednesday’s announcement. But it seems more of a media consumption tablet, competing with the Kindle Fire, than any potential competition for the iPad. The base model has 8GB RAM. A 16GB version will cost $249, taking it closer and closer to iPad 2 territory. I fail to see what’s so compelling about it, but the Nexus 7 may represent Google’s conclusion that they can only hope to compete with the iPad by selling cheaper gear. I’m also skeptical about the prospects for the $299 Nexus Q, yet another TV set top box, when compared to the $99 Apple TV. Didn’t Google get the memo?

Just last week, the media was suggesting that the Microsoft Surface tablet would be “the one” to give Apple a sorely deserved comeuppance. Microsoft will show Apple a thing or too, but it also seems as if the Surface is fundamentally a tiny PC. That impression is clear when you see the photos that depict an open cover sporting a keyboard and trackpad. It’s a miniature PC, not a tablet in the iPad tradition. Think of netbooks revisited. Microsoft still believes in Windows everywhere, and thus is striving to make all their computing products sport nearly the same user interface, including touch-based gestures.

Now the claim of the Surface vanquishing the iPad sits on thin ice. Even those alleged “hands on” reviews of the Surface were nothing of the kind. Where reporters were given a chance to touch the prototypes at last week’s media event, facetime was limited to seconds, not even long enough to type a short sentence. Just what doesn’t Microsoft want you to know? Oh yes, one journalist who tested the touch interface briefly found that it lagged. From a promised flagship gadget to demonstrate Microsoft’s “expertise” and building mobile computers?

At best, even if the Surface does actually appear in one form or another, Microsoft says sales will be limited to their online store and tiny Microsoft Store chain. Hardly a way to promote mass acceptance of any product, or maybe a way to avoid offending their OEMs. But it may well be that Microsoft merely hopes to give those OEMs a wakeup call in response to their lame concepts for Windows 8 tablets. Maybe Microsoft will ultimately agree to license Surface as a reference platform, similar to what Intel does for Ultrabooks.

The reason there’s an Ultrabook platform at all is because PC makers weren’t able to come up with their own compelling ideas to compete with the MacBook Air. At the same time, you have to realize that these PC makers don’t have lots of spare cash to pour into R&D. They have to pay Microsoft fees for OS licensing for every computer they sell, and they are forced by the competition to make PCs as cheap as possible. So profit margins are slim. Here the Microsoft ecosystem and the rush to the bottom have actually helped Apple.

That doesn’t let Apple off the hook. It is very possible for a Google, a Microsoft, or some other company to build products that are superior to the iPad in many respects. It is possible for these and other companies to build an OS that delivers a better user experience than the iOS. But I don’t mean adding features to the hardware and software that Apple lacks. It’s about the total widget, and building gear that customers will love, feel empowered by, and, for the most part, just work. That’s a tall order, and other companies haven’t been up to the task.

As for Apple, it’s the early days of the Tim Cook era. So far, Apple is firing on all cylinders, but they could become complacent, particularly if the competition remains inferior. Complacency could raise the possibility of another company, whether a startup or one of the traditional tech powerhouses, delivering gear that truly puts the iPad and the iPhone to shame.

However, being pronounced an iPad killer by the media amounts to nothing more than using a tired cliché. There’s no muscle behind that claim. There might be some day, but not yet.

There’s a headline from one provocative blog this week suggesting that Apple has conceded “defeat” on the platform’s alleged resistance to malware. This comes in the wake of the reports earlier this year that over 600,000 Macs, over one percent of the estimated user base, was infected as a result of the Flashback outbreak. Therefore, Apple’s claims of enhanced security for oS X must not be believed, I suppose.

Now there are legitimate reasons to fault Apple. One is that they aren’t being as proactive as they should be to protect Mac users, as evidenced by the apparent “late” release of a fix for the Java security vulnerability that allowed Flashback to spread. That fix wasn’t released until months after Oracle reportedly plugged the hole.

As you might have noticed, Java is, these days, an optional install on a Mac. If you run a Web applet or full-blown application that requires Java, OS X will offer to install a copy for you if it’s not there already. After a period of disuse, it is disabled. Otherwise, you can get on with your life without being concerned about Java’s presence or lack thereof. Oracle reportedly took over development of the Mac version of Java, but why Apple didn’t distribute that update until it was too late for lots of Mac users is a question that cries out for a response. It may have been an error, or due to some programming issue that perhaps a future ex-Apple employee will reveal, if it matters anymore.

The point is that the problem was fixed, and infected Macs were easily repaired running the Apple updates. There was even a utility that dealt with Macs that were infected by another version of Flashback that didn’t use Java. In the interim, third-party Mac security apps were updated to address the Flashback outbreak, and there were even free removal apps. So it’s not as if there were no other solutions.

Unfortunately, there is that long-running and totally wrong assumption that Apple has long claimed OS X cannot be infected by malware. Until Flashback appeared, there were several lesser outbreaks that impacted some Mac users. A few were essentially social engineering schemes, where you’d visit a site that falsely claimed your Mac was infected by a computer virus, and offered to sell you a bogus app to fix the problem for a license fee. While the app in question could have infected your Mac with a real virus or some other form of malware, it’s main function, other than to fix a non-existent problem, was to separate you from your money. But it didn’t represent some sort of innate Mac vulnerability. There are Windows versions of such schemes as well, and no doubt even Linux users could be susceptible to the same sort of scam.

Evidently the controversy arose over some alleged changes in Apple’s security claims for the platform, and thus arises the perception that Apple has silently admitted to being wrong. Evidently the furore has arisen over the removal of the phrase, “It doesn’t get PC viruses,” and related information, as if that’s a significant factor. But that doesn’t change the fact that OS X is not susceptible to Windows-only malware, although some malware may impact all platforms. But the change in the description of OS X’s security capabilities appears to have been mostly designed to reflect the changes to Lion.

So there is a reference to sandboxing, which is a recent requirement for apps submitted to the Mac App Store, the XTS-AES 128 encryption capability of FileVault 2, and Apple’s promise to deliver needed security updates in a timely fashion. Well, they fell down on that promise with the Flashback episode, but a more recent Java fix arrived in a timely fashion. They learned from their mistake.

The profile for Mountain Lion includes the promise of even greater security with the Gatekeeper feature, which puts restrictions on the first launch of a newly downloaded or installed app. In addition to further beefing up OS X, there will be daily checks for security updates. You can no longer select the interval in System Preferences.

Does this mean that Mountain Lion will be totally safe from malware? Obviously not! Nobody in their right mind can make such a promise, let alone expect to keep it. At the same time, it does appear to me that Apple is definitely taking security seriously. Where Apple continues to fall down on the job is the low-key nature in which they seem to deal with the issue. You have to visit Apple’s site to learn the security protections afforded by OS X. When security updates are posted, there is no formal announcement. It just happens, and the media is forced to go over the documentation to figure out what fixes are included. You usually learn about Mac malware outbreaks in press releases from thirty-partly security software publishers.

Perhaps Apple doesn’t want to draw unneeded attention to potential Mac security issues. It’s easier to point to something on the site if someone complains. But maybe Tim Cook will realize that security is paramount these days for many existing and potential Mac users. We hear over and over again about hackers stealing banking information and other important financial data. We hear about attempts to hack government computers, and there are ubiquitous TV and radio ads about computers being infected with malware. Sure, those ads cover Windows-only products, although the lurid copy doesn’t say that. But Mac users are surely not blind to potential security threats. Apple just needs to be more forthcoming about the threat and the promise to make your computing life safer. It will make it easier to drown out the fear mongers who believe that the Flashback episode proved that the sky is falling.