Last winter, the Apple haters were delighted to learn that Amazon appeared to have a winner on their hands with the Kindle Fire tablet. That 7-inch gadget sold for a “mere” $200, and evidently did pretty well over the holiday season, with reported sales of several million units. Well, at least that’s what the industry analysts said since, of course, Amazon never discloses unit sales of hardware in their quarterly financials. I suppose sales were to be inferred by sampling dealer sell-throughs, or by examining Amazon’s earnings. But since many of those Kindles are sold directly, the results are little more than educated or not-so-educated guesses.

Indeed, if you can believe those reports, the Fire took control of more than half the otherwise stagnant Android tablet market. Sure, Amazon puts their own face on the Fire, so it’s not obviously Android, but that still counts as support for the platform.

In any case, sales of the Fire appeared to have collapsed after the holidays, although the lesser figures are also estimates. Regardless, it’s reported that Apple now has a 68% share of the tablet market, which puts that in a similar tier as the iPod.

So where does that leave the tablet makers, or is this just another iPod in the making? It’s a good question, and you can bet Apple’s competitors are just scared to death over that prospect. Buying an iPad doesn’t’ necessarily mean a customer is just buying another device to sit beside their PC. They may not buy another PC, or Mac, now or ever. Indeed, more and more iPad users have found that they can use it as their one and only personal computer. Sure, maybe they need an accessory keyboard — and I grant that’s an awkward setup — but the iPad’s screen is otherwise not so different in physical size from early compact Macs and Mac portables. It’s not so bad a place to do your work as more and more productivity apps appear.

With iPhoto for the iPad, in fact, I’d be willing to suggest that tweaking your family’s photo album is a lot more fun than on a Mac. That doesn’t mean Adobe should release a full featured version of Photoshop for the platform. For now, you have Adobe Photoshop Express, available free (except for optional in-app enhancements). But there’s also Adobe Photoshop Touch, which, at $9.99, offers a respectable number of features that indicate a potential if not a realization that a lot more is possible.

Because Apple makes so many iPads, economy of scale takes over. Apple is able to get the parts they need for less than the competition, and I don’t think any other company is able to get LCD panels that would come close to the new iPad’s Retina Display. So Apple can sell the iPad at a fair price yet make a good profit. At this point, mainstream Android tablets are priced about the same, and the cheaper ones are sold with little or no profit, or with features removed. The Kindle Fire, for example, has no camera, and strikes many as bare bones. It was also sold at cost or at a small loss.

So the Android tablet makers are being forced to fight for bottom feeder products at the lowest price possible, almost in the same way traditional PC makers have flooded the market with cheap junk. They aren’t profit-making machines, and thus manufacturers will have little incentive to differentiate them very much, except for minor differences in screen size or hardware specs. Besides, there’s no proven tablet app ecosystem outside of the iOS App Store. Apple has 200,000 apps optimized for the iPad. What about the rest, or can you just count them on the fingers of your hand, or maybe the toes?

Some suggest that Microsoft will be the savior for companies who want to compete with an iPad. Sure, Microsoft has been touting the arrival of the tablet for over a decade with few takers. But a Windows 8 tablet will offer the same interface, Metro, as a regular PC running the Intel version of that OS. Sure, you’ll only be able to run apps optimized for ARM processors — except for hefty and expensive Intel-based tablets that never succeeded — so potential customers may be few and far between.

I realize Microsoft will want to stoke the development process with some cash, but that doesn’t mean you’ll soon see a flood of serious apps to rival the iPad. Microsoft may be put in the traditional position of offering less with a new product, and promising more later. But the competition, particularly Apple, won’t be standing still.

So maybe, if Android tablets continue to fail, the industry will pin their hopes and dreams on Microsoft and Windows 8. But it’s not that Windows Phone handsets, featuring the same interface, have shown any potential for success. Sure, Microsoft still has roughly 90% of the traditional PC OS market. Windows 8 may do decently simply because consumers will get the OS with a new PC. If Microsoft makes Windows 8 upgrade pricing affordable, maybe they’ll do well there too. But the business market will remain highly skeptical.

To be perfectly realistic, I don’t dispute the possibility that another company can beat Apple at their own game with a superior tablet and a better OS, one that’ll tempt developers seeking an alternative. But that’s just a possibility, not a reality. For many potential Apple rivals, it may already be too late to beat the iPad unless Apple really screws up.

Some felt that Apple CEO Tim Cook was being conciliatory when he suggested the company would be willing to work out settlements for those ongoing intellectual property lawsuits involving Samsung, Motorola and other companies. At the same time he didn’t hesitate to assert that he wanted them to invent their own stuff, so it’s not as if he’s willing to let them off the hook for perceived patent infringement.

Now this week it’s reported that both Apple and Samsung have reduced the number of claims of patent infringement they’ve filed against each other in a California lawsuit. This action was taken at the request of Judge Lucy Koh, who remarked, “I think that’s cruel and unusual punishment to a jury, so I’m not willing to do it.” In response, Apple cut their claims roughly in half, and Samsung is dumping five out of their 12 claims.

But there is an admittedly slight possibility that the case may never go to trial, since the CEOs of Apple and Samsung are due to meet starting May 21st to discuss the possibilities of a settlement. The meeting was ordered by Judge Koh, and will take place in San Francisco. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero has been selected as mediator.

Now the fact that the two sides are meeting doesn’t necessarily signal a settlement is in the offing. It may only be a last ditch effort by Judge Koh to get rid of the case, and may end up with little more than corporate posturing.

Certainly, a patent infringement case on any level is difficult to try. There will be arcane legal issues to decide, and the winner may be the side with the best attorneys, litigators who are able to sort through the complexities and explain everything in plain English to the jurors. This doesn’t mean the jurors are necessarily stupid. But being on a jury quite often depends on whether the people involved don’t have a ready excuse to escape jury duty, have free time on their hands, can get an extended leave from their jobs, or believe in the system. Being an expert on intellectual property issues is not part of the job description.

Assuming that Apple emerges victorious on most of their claims doesn’t mean that Samsung will, of a sudden, be forced to stop selling Android smartphones and tablets. It’s quite possible a jury will rule that they need to cut a deal with Apple to license their technology. Absent that, remove the infringing features and maybe restore them in a way that doesn’t infringe on Apple patents. I suppose it’s even possible that there will be a mixed verdict, with Samsung winning on some claims, which would probably force some sort of settlement; that is, unless extended appeals keep the case active for years.

I suppose it’s also possible that Samsung will decide to simply not build any more Android gear, and concentrate on improving their own OS, or licensing Windows Phone. Even now, it’s reported that many Android licensees are paying Microsoft a fee for every unit sold to license intellectual property. Since they’re already paying Microsoft, why not go all the way and use their OS too?

Indeed, it has been suggested that Microsoft earns more money than Google on Android hardware, and consider that Google is also earning more money from the iOS too. You wonder why they bother with Android in the first place?

Now there is also that mixed jury verdict in the intellectual property lawsuit involving Oracle and Google over Java licensing. Android uses Java, but that doesn’t mean Google will be forced to write huge checks to Oracle. The money involved may be minimal, and, besides, the trial was divided into three parts, and the outcome won’t be certain until the remaining two acts are played out.

In the meantime, these ongoing intellectual property lawsuits have reportedly cost the parties hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees. The various legal teams around the world trying these cases are no doubt earning a bundle, and it doesn’t appear that the gravy train will ever stop.

From a customer’s standpoint, those legal expenses surely impact a company’s bottom line, which means that prices could, I suppose, ultimately increase. Maybe not with a subsidized wireless phone plan, and Apple is large enough to absorb huge legal fees without missing a beat. But other companies may have to find other ways to cover their losses.

The larger problem may simply be that patent laws are just too lenient, and allow for protection for inventions that simply do not deserve protection. But that’s not something any of these companies can resolve, though I suppose they could lobby for more realistic laws in the appropriate countries. At the end of the day, the flurry of lawsuits may not abate for years. It has already reached a point where I expect more and more people are just plain bored about the ongoing corporate patent wars.

Meantime, ever the optimistic sort, I have a very slight hope that Apple and Samsung will find a way to settle. While fighting vigorously over mobile patents, Apple is spending billions of dollars for parts from other Samsung divisions. Maybe they should just accept the reality of the situation, find a middle ground, exchange some cash, shake hands and get on with their business.

Not so long ago I read a piece that quoted a supposedly respected industry analyst suggesting that the iPad’s share of the tablet market would begin to take a huge dump later this year or the next. With more and more Android tablets with which to compete — and don’t forget the Android-powered Amazon Kindle Fire — along with the forthcoming expected avalanche of Windows 8 tablets, Apple’s overwhelming dominance may be short-lived.

Now I suppose the estimates about a declining market share might have been vindicated some because of the apparent success of the Kindle Fire, a 7-inch tablet, in the holiday quarter last year. On the other hand, the latest reports of sales appear to indicate that the Kindle Fire has tanked. While lots of people were willing to try them out as possible gifts, the Fire doesn’t seem to have staying power. That’s clear. Worse, if Amazon does deliver a 10-inch version, as reported, the higher price will put it in iPad territory. Amazon has not yet demonstrated the ability to compete in the general-purpose tablet space.

Now I suppose it’s possible millions and millions of customers will embrace Windows 8 tablets. At the same time, though, it hasn’t been proven that Microsoft’s Metro interface will succeed. It didn’t do so well on the Zune or on Windows Phone handsets, so you wonder why Microsoft is so willing to invest in an unproven interface on one of their most important products. Because Apple is adding iOS elements to OS X? Is that what inspired this potential train wreck?

One thing that Apple has demonstrated is that hardware only counts to a point. It’s mostly about software, except for the third generation iPad’s Retina Display, of course. Otherwise, customers need an elegant OS, and loads of apps to buy. Apple says that over 200,000 iOS apps are optimized for the iPad. There are hardly any on the Android platform, which may be one reason why Android tablets have failed. With a Windows 8 tablet on an ARM processor, you won’t be able to run traditional Windows apps. I realize Microsoft isn’t hiding that unfortunate fact, but it may not be obvious to people who buy a Windows 8 tablet thinking that, since the interface is essentially the same as a PC, it must run Windows apps too.

Sure, it’s quite possible that Microsoft will be able to lure a reasonable number of developers to the platform, though the selection on a Windows Phone handset don’t come close to competing with the iOS and Android in any meaningful way. Developers aren’t going to build new versions of their Windows apps if they don’t see the potential for a decent return on their investments with a Windows 8 tablet. That’s the nasty fact that Microsoft may hope to obscure, or overlook, but customers aren’t going to be rushing to embrace a new platform unless they can run the apps they want. Sure, there will be a tablet version of Office, but what about all the other Windows apps that Microsoft’s customers want?

You wonder if Microsoft will try to allocate lots of money to persuade, some say bribe, Windows developers to deliver their apps for the new tablet OS. But even if a developer is persuaded with some sort of spiff to build such an app, they aren’t going to hang around long if there aren’t many customers.

So, yes, I suppose it is possible that the growing competition will mean that the iPad’s market share will decline over time, and maybe the latest estimate that it’ll dip below 50% by 2017 is true. Or maybe it won’t happen until the year after. But don’t forget many of the same so-called experts who are looking for Apple’s decline were once saying the same thing about the iPod.

In a sense, the iPod is in a similar position to the iPad. In 2001, digital music players had gone nowhere. The iPod turned a failed market around. Imitators jumped in, hoping to get a piece of the action, but the iPod held onto a market share in the 70% range plus or minus a few points. When Microsoft’s Zune arrived, and pretty much killed other potential iPod killers in the process, it basically went nowhere, but it still took a few years for Microsoft to take the hint and give it up — except for the interface that will, it appears, never die.

The iPad also entered a market that had shown promise but little success. The Apple bashers were skeptical, but the iPad took off far faster than I bet even Apple expected. As more and more competitors arrived, they believed it was inevitable that the market would soon be dominated by other players. They came closer, as the iPad’s market share dipped below 60% in the holiday quarter. It’s estimated to be 68% now.

Of course, when evaluating the iPad’s piece of the pie, estimates of competitor sales may be far off the mark. Amazon doesn’t report how many Kindles they have sold, let alone how many of those Kindles are Fires. Some companies will offer figures that are based on units shipped, not units sold. Don’t forget the HP TouchPad, whose departure left dealers with lots of excess inventory because HP flooded the market, perhaps to be able to honestly report that they shipped loads of them. Yes, dealers held a fire sale, selling the things for $99, and lots of people bought them up. But it’s a dead product from a dead platform, and not much more than a curiosity these days. That’s no way to compete with Apple or anyone else if a company hopes to sustain a profitable business.

The topic of net neutrality is surprisingly divisive. At its core, it means that your ISP shouldn’t be allowed to prioritize traffic on their Internet pipes to favor big companies who pay for special access. All Internet content should be available on an equal basis to subscribers to those services. That was the dream of the creators of the Internet.

Certainly, the benefits of net neutrality are clear. If a big content provider or merchandiser can just pay off the ISP, it means that their sites will load faster. If they load faster, they will get more of your business. Surveys demonstrate that, even if a site is just a few tenths of a second slower, that alone can mean lost business, because impatient customers will simply go elsewhere. This is one of the reasons, by the way, that we’ve signed up with CloudFlare, a content distribution service, so we can take advantage of the power of their worldwide server network and play with the big boys.

While net neutrality seems so simple and logical, it is also a political football. Some opponents of net neutrality want you to believe that it’s some sort of crafty scheme to allow a government, particularly in the U.S., to somehow control the Internet. I won’t attempt to explain how they came to such a silly conclusion, because it just doesn’t make any sense.