With reports that Mac sales may continue to flatten, or may have declined slightly when compared to last year, there is a growing amount of speculation on the form and contents of the next generation Mac hardware. Depending on which story you believe, these product refreshes may be on time or somewhat delayed.

Unlike the days when Apple used PowerPC chips, it’s fairly easy nowadays to grasp when a new Mac may be in the offing. All it takes is a look at Intel’s processor roadmap, and the introduction of major new designs. So with the launch of the Ivy Bridge family, which has begun to ship, it seems inevitable that new Mac hardware will come real soon now. Indeed, you can even search for a set of benchmarks said to be based on the new Macs running OS 10.8 Mountain Lion.

I suppose potential performance might even be calculated in a reasonably accurate fashion by comparing the specs of the Ivy Bridge parts compared to their counterparts from last year’s Sandy Bridge family. Or you can check online for preliminary benchmarks using standard Windows PCs.

So it doesn’t take rocket science to realize the chips will deliver more power, be more power efficient and will offer improved performance with Intel’s usually poky integrated graphics. You can expect that new generation MacBook Airs will stick with the integrated graphics, while the higher-end MacBook Pro configurations will contain both integrated and discrete parts, with the usual automatic switchover depending on the needs of a specific app. The real question is whether there’s going to be a 17-inch model, which is the configuration I’ve preferred.

Now even with loads of MacBook Air imitators coming out, including a certain HP model that attempts to mimic its silver casings and black keyboard, you have to wonder whether Apple will make serious changes, or leave things well enough alone. I mean, I don’t see it being much thinner, which means Apple will likely concentrate on making it faster, more power efficient, and perhaps eking out additional battery life.

When it comes to peripheral ports, with USB 3.0 support in Intel’s Ivy Bridge chipsets, it will likely arrive at last on the Mac platform. Although USB 3.0 seems to be playing second fiddle to Thunderbolt, the estimated 5 gigabit speed is still 10 times faster than USB 2.0. It’s more than enough for any hard drive, and surely puts the nail in the coffin for FireWire 800. That said, it’s likely Apple will continue to offer FireWire on some Macs for legacy support, although an adapter cable of some sort would be a useful option to offer as a replacement.

Of late, the rumor sites have shown possible mock-ups of a 2012 MacBook Pro, which are typically thinner than the previous model, though not tapered. This slimmer form factor will evidently come at the expense of the built-in optical drive, which I expect will continue to be offered as an optional extra for those who need the lifeline. I suppose Apple could also use some of the saved space to add a beefier battery, so maybe the next MacBook Pro will survive longer plane trips without the need to recharge.

When it comes to solid state drives, they will be offered, but traditional hard drives will probably still be available for customers who need the extra storage space and don’t want to pay huge premiums for SSD. The era of the affordable SSD is not quite here, except for modest capacities. Then again, I could certainly survive with a 256GB SSD on a MacBook Pro, but not as a $300 option.

One possible innovation from Apple would be the availability of lower cost SSDs. Even a $200 premium would be encouraging. Apple has the power and the checkbook to order huge quantities of parts to get the best possible prices. But the era of the 512GB SSD for even $300 is still not upon us.

Another rumored feature is the Retina Display. Since the iPhone and iPad have them, it must be inevitable that such displays will appear on regular Macs, or so they say. There are even reports that higher resolution icons are already present in OS 10.7.4, which would appear to make that development inevitable. Or maybe Apple put them there to test future products — or to fuel the rumors.

However, Apple would still have to confront a much higher bill of materials for 13-inch and 15-inch displays, not to mention panels as large as 27 inches. Apple is already paying a decent premium to outfit a third generation iPad with a Retina Display. Those prices will be far higher for larger parts, assuming they are even available in decent quantities. While I never say never with Apple, the arrival of a Retina Display on a traditional Mac is not a given.

The next question is when will the new Macs arrive? For some reason, the speculation has it that they must show up around the time of the WWDC. That would be a little late, assuming Apple wants to garner the highest possible Mac sales figures for this quarter. But it would also be a curious time, unless Mountain Lion becomes available for immediate release. It wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to release a new Mac one month, and upgrade the OS the next. If new Macs came out in the next week or so, with Mountain Lion due by September, that would seem a sensible development. I haven’t heard much chatter that Mountain Lion has reached a point where it may only be a few weeks from release.

Now that the MacBook refresh chatter is out of the way, I suppose we can return to the iPad mini and other unfounded rumors, or even whether there will ever be another Mac Pro.

So there are widely published reports this week claiming that Apple has teamed up with Kaspersky Labs, publisher of antivirus software,  to receive advice on bolstering OS X security. How do we know that? Because Kaspersky’s chief technology officer, Nikolai Grebennikov, said so, according to an interview published in Computing. Since we’re talking about a heavy-hitter in the security software business, the quote is being taken as accurate.

But that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true, because there are some other questionable statements from Grebennikov, particularly the one claiming that “Mac OS is really vulnerable,” that the Apple may be ten years behind Microsoft when it comes to shoring up OS security. More to the point, other than this single comment in a published interview, how do we know that Apple actually reached out to Kaspersky or any other security company for help?

So far, Apple hasn’t responded to our requests for comment, nor to Ars Technica, perhaps one of the few media outlets who attempted to confirm this report.

In the meantime, I asked security expert Rich Mogull, who has sharp ears when it comes to security issues, what he knew. His response? “I have no knowledge of Kaspersky working with Apple so I can’t comment on that. But it seems weird that Apple would allow a security partner to discuss the relationship in the press.”

What’s more, for reasons revealed later in this article, the original Computing story will probably be updated by the time you read it to correct the questionable claim about a partnership with Apple.

It’s also true that third-party companies are generally admonished not to announce anything about an Apple partnership without approval from the mother ship. Consider a recent story quoting a Foxconn executive that Apple is gearing up to produce that rumored smart TV. Turns out that this quote was buried in a single story, and could have been the result of an incorrect translation, since other media outlets present when this statement was allegedly made never confirmed it. Again, you have to believe that Foxconn respects the trade secrets and marketing plans of their clients and wouldn’t betray them in such a clumsy fashion, or at all. In fact, Foxconn has since denied the report.

When it comes to the state of OS X security, Mogull had some very pointed comments to make that sharply contradict those of the Kaspersky executive: “OS X is now very close to the latest versions of Windows in terms of security. This gap will close even more with Mountain Lion. That 10 year line shows a lack of understanding of the current operating system fundamentals.”

The largest security issue Apple faces, according to Mogull, is not necessarily the result of Apple’s own OS components: “Overall OS X security has improved dramatically in the past few years, especially with Lion. Apple still struggles due to extensive use of third party software, like Java or the many Open Source components included in the OS, which is out of its direct control. Their biggest current security issue is closing the gap of time between when one of those components is patched, and when Apple updates the OS with their version of the patch.”

A key example of that gap is Apple’s failure to inoculate Mac users against the Flashback virus in a timely fashion. Although Oracle patched Java to remove the vulnerability in February, it took weeks for Apple to get around to releasing a series of OS X patches to address the issue. And not before an estimated 600,000 Mac users were affected. Certainly Apple ought to explain what happened, and promise to do better.

It may well be that there was a communications problem between Apple and Java’s developer, Oracle. Maybe Oracle was late in delivering the patched source code to Apple from which to build an OS X updater. Maybe the efforts to build that updater were stalled because the fix generated other problems. Modern software is too complex to just release something without thorough testing. Even then, fixes can, themselves, introduce unexpected problems.

When Apple did release a new version of Java, they followed with two more in rapid-fire fashion, both of which removed the Flashback malware if it was present on a Mac, and, in the final release, disabled Java if it hasn’t been used lately. Apple also released a standalone Flashback remover and, later, Safari 5.1.7, which disables older versions of Flash. Indeed, the original Flashback malware exploited a Flash vulnerability before it was modified to target Java.

As Mogull states, Apple has taken positive steps towards enhancing OS X security. The new Mac App Store will soon insist that posted apps be sandboxed, meaning they will be walled off from the OS and other apps, so malware or other instabilities can’t impact your Mac. Mountain Lion’s Gatekeeper feature will help reduce the possibility of a Mac user launching a potentially malware-ridden app.

As to Kaspersky, after the original story came out, they walked it back, claiming the original quote was taken out of “context.” As quoted by Engadget, Kaspersky reportedly announced, “Apple did not invite or solicit Kaspersky Lab’s assistance in analyzing the Mac OS X platform. Kaspersky Lab has contacted computing.co.uk to correct its article.” Or maybe Apple simply told them it was time to stop boasting about an alliance that didn’t really exist, but that’s just a casual assumption.

Meantime, I suppose it still possible that the keynote at the forthcoming Apple WWDC will mention enhanced OS X security, and how Apple is working with key industry players to make the Mac user experience safer.

But I’m more concerned that far too many members of the media believed Kaspersky without reaching out to a second source to confirm or deny that story, and I mean Apple.

When Apple was struggling to stay afloat in the 1990s, tech pundits and so-called industry analysts went hog-wild telling them what they should do to stay in business. Now that Apple is amazingly successful, they haven’t stopped talking. To them, Apple’s ride on the gravy train is about to reach the end of the line, and they have to change real fast.

The objections usually cover a narrow range, and thus are predictable. Also, you’d think Apple’s executives can read, so they know full well what the media is saying, and are quite smart enough to know what they have to do to succeed.

Over the years, one of the most popular admonitions was for Apple to open up their OS platform. They used Microsoft as the example. Open platforms work, closed platforms fail. However, opening the Mac platform in the 1990s nearly killed the company, which is why Steve Jobs shut it down. But facts don’t matter when they get in the way of advancing one’s agenda.

As speculation about the possibilities of the next Mac note-book revision heat up, some are wondering whether the MacBook Pro will become just another MacBook Air? Maybe it will be lighter, thinner, and perhaps contain a longer-lasting battery. At the same time, with the arrival of Intel’s Ivy Bridge chips, it’ll run faster too.

It sounds good so far. But I won’t speculate as to when you’ll see them in the stores.

There will also likely be a wider selection of solid state drives, and maybe prices will begin to come down to the point where you don’t go broke having a larger storage capacity. An SSD means much faster start times, quicker app launching, faster file copying and so on and so forth.

But ultra-thin also means that something has to go, and that something would be the optical drive. Certainly anyone who owns a MacBook Air — or one of the Intel-sponsored Ultrabook imitations — is familiar with this drastic change. Sure, an optical drive is a fairly inexpensive option, but how many people buy them?

Indeed do you need an optical drive anymore on a personal computer?

Certainly Microsoft is considering the options, inasmuch as Windows 8 ditches DVD support in Windows Media Player. Suddenly it becomes an extra-cost option if you still want it, and certainly the tens of millions of Windows users who own PCs equipped with optical drives aren’t going to be happy.

Although Apple never added Blu-ray support for OS X, you’ve been able to play DVDs, except for the original 10.0 release where it was missing in action (it was restored in 10.1). There appears to be no evidence Apple plans to kill that DVD playback support anytime soon, or ditch optical drives from all Macs.

But the real question is how often Mac users still rely on optical drives nowadays. I got my most recent desktop Mac, a 27-inch iMac, in late 2009, which means that I might be tempted to consider a 2012 model whenever the next iMac is released. In any case, about the only time I use the optical drive is to rip a CD from my collection. The drive stopped working briefly, although spraying some compressed air into the slot cleared that up. I still have another few dozen CDs to import into iTunes, and once that’s done, the optical drive will be dormant.

I also have a 17-inch MacBook Pro, 2010 vintage, and I do not recall ever using its optical drive other than to test it to make sure it still works. So I do not think I’ll be that disappointed if my next Mac note-book doesn’t have one. Sure, I’ll probably buy an external drive as a crutch.

That harkens back to the days of the first iMac, in 1998. The critics howled at Apple for having the temerity to drop floppies. Other Macs lost them soon thereafter. As you might expect, several companies sold external drives as replacements, and I had one that supported a floppy-based format that went nowhere called SuperDisk. The floppy-like media had a storage capacity of up to 120MB, and a later version doubled that. I used the drive to copy floppies to the hard drives, and sometimes to make CD copies.

A year later, the SuperDisk was idle. It remained attached to my various Power Macs for another year or so, until I concluded it wasn’t worth the bother. Sure, PCs still had built-in floppies, standard or optional, and it took a while for the other platform to catch up, but they did.

With the increase of cloud-based storage, online software repositories, and streaming multimedia content, the need for the optical drive has been sharply reduced. So it would appear that Apple and the makers of those Ultrabooks are betting you won’t need them soon. Whether Apple will eliminate them on all note-books this year is anyone’s guess. I expect there are still people with CDs and DVDs who will chafe at the loss of a built-in optical drive, but I don’t expect the trend to move to desktop computers for a while. Apple, for example, could build a slimmer iMac without sacrificing an optical device.

Certainly I can see the benefits when traveling. A note-book can lose up to a pound in weight, and be much thinner. Consider the airport scenario, where you break out your MacBook Air, and observe with pity other passengers struggling to set up their thick, heavy note-books and, perhaps, find an outlet with which to charge the batteries before the flight leaves.

Indeed, the main factor that keeps me from getting a MacBook Air, other than budgetary considerations, is the small screen size. I’ve grown accustomed to 17 inches, and wouldn’t like to cope with a smaller display. There are even rumors Apple wants to drop that size, because of relatively low sales. But we content creators would object strenuously.

But if there is a 17-inch MacBook Air in Apple’s near future, I would consider it seriously. I wouldn’t worry for a minute if it didn’t have an optical drive. But I still have to get around to ripping those CDs. I’ll have to remember to do that before Apple removes optical drives on desktop computers too — they’ve already started with the Mac mini.