You’ll notice that the ongoing speculation about the “inevitable” arrival of an Apple “smart” TV is beginning to die down somewhat. While so-called industry analysts were jumping all over themselves claiming you’ll see such a beast by fall, now there are stories that this new gadget won’t arrive until next year, and maybe not until the year after.

At the same time, the rumor sites have been busy suggesting that Apple has been sampling parts for the new product, maybe not always aware of the fact that Apple may sample components for all sorts of gear, but only green lights a very few. Most never leave the prototype stage.

Now I can personally attest to the fact that some Apple products never seeing the light of day. Back in the 1990s, before my media credentials caused me to be tossed out of the group, I was a part of an Apple program called “Customer Quality Feedback” or “CQF,” where prerelease Apple products, both OS and hardware, were given out to some customers, under appropriate NDAs, for their feedback.

One of those products was a high performance Power Mac G3 variant, one actually mentioned in rumor sites at the time. But one day, I got an email from Apple requesting that I send the machine back to them post haste for disposal. The product bit the dust, and Apple, predictably, never explained why, nor would they acknowledge its existence. Sorry, folks, I don’t recall the code name, though I suppose I could remember with a little prompting.

But the last Mac I beta tested actually reached the market. It was the famous Bondi Blue iMac. They even offered to let me keep it, if it sustained a final firmware upgrade. But it didn’t, and thus the unit was returned. I wonder if it wasn’t meant to be that way.

Now when it comes to building a regular TV set, Apple would confront clear obstacles that weren’t present when they created the iPod, the iPhone and especially the iPad. The TV market is fully saturated, and most everyone who wants a high-definition flat panel set has one, even if it’s just a cheap entry-level model. TV makers are falling over themselves to stuff existing products to the gills with apps and, for pretty much all but the cheapest products, 3D. Whatever it takes to get you to sell your not-so-old TV and buy a new one.

Prices predictably continue to drop. My sister-in-law bought a perfectly respectable 40-inch LCD set for $350 late last year. Compare that to the price of my first color TV, in 1976, when it cost all of $1,000 for that 19-inch Sony Trinitron. When you count the impact of inflation, that $1,000 would be worth $4,032 in 2012 dollars, more than enough to get a high-end 64-inch plasma set along with a 3D Blu-ray player and a decent home theater sound system. Plus sales tax if applicable in your locality.

The point is that TV makers are barely making a profit in the rush to the bottom. It’s very difficult to persuade customers to upgrade unless their sets are getting a little long in the tooth. Yes, there are logical reasons for people whose sets are more than five years old to upgrade, but even that’s a hard sell. Yes, picture quality has improved somewhat, sets run cooler, consume less power, and last longer.

Into this breach, just what can Apple offer? A spiffier user interface? That may mean something to the few of you who ever change the settings on your set. But when it comes to programming, you don’t need a new TV to provide a friendly environment with which to change channels and record your favorites for later viewing. You don’t even need a TiVO, since the standard cable and satellite set top boxes are getting a little better. DirecTV’s new HD interface looks nice, and isn’t hard to use. Sure, I can see areas where navigation isn’t so user friendly, but it gets the job done. It’s also smart enough to automatically change the times on a scheduled show when the network moves it around.

So maybe Steve Jobs did solve the mystery of offering the best TV interface ever, a statement made in Walter Isaacson’s authorized biography of Apple’s late co-founder. But did that mean Apple was really going to make such an animal, or was that just something Jobs said to spook the consumer electronics industry? Certainly they were spooked, witness Lenovo, a maker of note-book computers, who decided they need to enter the smart TV space. Wherever he may be today, Jobs must be laughing hysterically.

Another argument in favor of the Apple smart TV is that they are busy negotiating content deals with the entertainment companies and maybe even other streaming services. But that would likely happen anyway, even if the only device on which to deliver that content was an Apple TV set top box. Besides, any user interface breakthrough could just as well be provided on the Apple TV for your present set. Apple could even offer a built-in picture calibration tool with a simple interface, so you can use your TV’s set up menu to get the best possible image. Again, Apple wouldn’t need to build the whole widget.

And now there’s yet another report indicating that, for this TV venture to succeed, Apple would have to deal with existing delivery systems, such as the cable and satellite providers. Maybe they’d just offer apps for the TV set, so you can use your existing service and get an Apple-designed interface.

Remember, also, that if Apple were to truly offer their own subscription service so you could cut the cable cord, 24/7 streaming would quickly blow the bandwidth caps imposed by most ISPs. And remember most of those ISPs also offer some sort of cable-style TV service, and they aren’t going to be too happy about giving you extra bandwidth if they’ve lost part of your business. But that is the dirty secret about TV streaming that most of the mainstream media — and the tech media for that matter — continues to ignore.

There’s a report this week that Microsoft’s security researchers have discovered malware that, curiously, might impact Mac users of Office. I say might, because the vulnerability was supposedly fixed back in 2009 by patching Office 2008 and Office 2004. If they weren’t patched, the exploit could potentially impact users of Mac OS versions prior to Lion.

It doesn’t appear to involve Office 2011, which had a recent SP2 update that cured a number of ills, followed by a second version that repaired an Outlook database bug introduced in the original update.

Now the problem with this story is that it gives the impression of blaming the potential for malware infection on the Mac platform, even though the infected app was built by Microsoft. That Lion is not susceptible also indicates that Apple has worked towards making OS X more secure. But, at the end of the day, only Mac users with an older version of Office, who haven’t kept it up to date, may potentially be impacted — that is, if they’re still using an older version of OS X.

I’d blame that one on Microsoft, although some might suggest that Apple needs to do more in protecting Mac users from security vulnerabilities.

This takes us back to the recent Flashback malware, said to have infected hundreds of thousands of Macs around the world. Apple is getting hit hard in some quarters for failing to deliver a fix in a timely fashion.

Now the source of this security lapse was a vulnerability in Java, an application development environment that’s owned by Oracle. Technically, it’s not a problem with OS X, but due to an issue involving a third-party product that used to be bundled with OS X. However, these days, Apple no longer includes Java — or Flash for that matter — as part of the core OS installation. If you open sites that require either, or launch a Java app, you’ll be presented with a prompt to download and install the required software.

I suppose it would be the same as Apple being accused of lax behavior because of a Flash problem, but Adobe now handles distribution of Flash direct to users on the major computing platforms.

With Java, however, Oracle only recent took over the responsibility for ongoing development and updates for the OS X version. Until then, it was Apple’s responsibility to update in a timely fashion. At the same time, the vulnerable version of Java was patched by Oracle weeks before Apple released an update. That update wasn’t released independently by Oracle, though they should be taking on that task from here on out.

So the real question is who should be blamed for all those Flashback-infected Macs? Is there anything Apple could have done to push the release to Mac users faster, or did they have to wait for the fixed code from Oracle first, and test it to make sure that the new release didn’t cause any new problems on a Mac? I don’t pretend to have the answer, because Apple isn’t telling.

I’m glad they finally fixed the problem, although third-party malware detection tools came out first. However, Apple hasn’t been very forthcoming in their responses, or even their responsibility. Although they don’t exactly tell Mac users that they do not need to install security software, they don’t make a big case in support of such a move.

Yes, the Gatekeeper feature in OS X Mountain Lion will make it more difficult to run potentially infected apps, assuming two of the three options are selected. The third will give you no warning of any potential problem. But Gatekeeper would not have prevented a Mac from being infected with Flashback which, in later versions, was available as a drive-by applet that would open in a Web browser. Only disabling the ability to run Java applets would have prevented that from happening until the Java fix was in.

Certainly, Apple is taking measures to make OS X more secure. The sandboxing feature that will soon be required of all apps available from the Mac App Store, would potentially prevent malware-ridden apps from infecting other apps or the system. And there are other under-the-hood features that have improved OS X’s security profile. So I do not accept the claim that Apple may be years behind Microsoft in protecting Mac users. Clearly the truth lies elsewhere.

But maybe Apple’s relative silence on the matter is one key issue reason why security researchers, and tech pundits in general, believe that Apple isn’t doing enough to keep the Mac platform as safe as possible. Maybe it took Flashback to serve as a wakeup call.

Yes, it is true the recent malware outbreaks were caused by vulnerable software not built by Apple. But that may be a distinction without a difference for most Mac users. Besides, security researchers, shouldn’t confront the situation where sending evidence of malware to Apple is a one-way street, with everything going on, little coming out.

Maybe Mountain Lion’s arrival will signal a difference. I hope so.

There are published reports this week that claim that Samsung sold more smartphones than Apple in the last quarter, reclaiming a number one position. Good news for Samsung; that is, if the news can be believed. You see it’s not based on any actual sales information from Samsung. According to one of those reports, “Since Samsung doesn’t report unit numbers, IDC and its competitors have to estimate how many devices the company sells.”

But those estimates aren’t even consistent. IDC estimated 42.2 million smartphone shipments for Samsung, compared to Apple’s 35.1 million number. Yet another firm, Strategy Analytics, pegged Samsung’s smartphone shipments at 44.5 million units, but IHS iSuppli said it was “only” 32 million. That figure, if true, would leave Apple in the lead, a position they earned in the previous quarter.

Now when you see estimates with that much variation, you have to wonder whom to believe. Besides, that Samsung might have shipped over 40 million units doesn’t tell us how many they actually sold to real people. That company wouldn’t be the first to flood the market with product to pad their totals. Besides, if Samsung’s smartphones really outsold the iPhone by such a huge margin, why aren’t they touting those numbers to the skies? Why keep it all a secret?

That behavior sounds suspicious, even if it’s normal corporate behavior. Certainly Apple doesn’t break down sales in as detailed a fashion as analysts might want, but at least you get actual totals for a product category; well, mostly. I don’t recall much being said about the third generation Apple TV.

Forgetting the uncertainty over whether Apple is number one or number two among smartphone makers, the real issue is whether it really matters. Just how many sales does Apple have to report to remain competitive in the markets in which they participate? Back in 2007, Steve Jobs said he’d be happy if the iPhone had 1% of the cell phone space by the end of 2008. As of the last quarter, the iPhone stands at 8.8%, although that, too, is based on an IDC estimate. So make of that what you will.

The same market share argument is being made about the iPad, which is consistently described as Apple’s market to lose. As more and more competitors appear, how will the iPad fare? Would the reports that makers of Android tablets plan to move to the low end hurt Apple, particularly among people for whom a starting price of $399 is perhaps a little too high? But it’s also reported that half of the current Android OS tablet sales may be attributed to the Amazon Kindle Fire. Yes, it’s an Android device, although the interface has been thoroughly customized by Amazon, so the connection is not readily apparent. For better or worse, the Android version Amazon uses is rather old as far as a mobile OS goes.

But some tech pundits suggest that Apple shouldn’t worry about Android as much as they should worry about that onslaught of Windows 8 tablets that’s due later this year. Of course, that assumes that Windows 8 ships on time, and even then, there’s no evidence whatever that Microsoft will find a silk purse in the sow’s ear this time. It’s not as if that highly-touted Metro interface has shown any serious traction on Windows Phone devices. Yes, Microsoft’s alliance with Nokia is said to signify a whole new ballgame. But Nokia’s stock has fallen to the junk level, and the new Windows Phone handsets, particularly the Lumia 900 being touted by AT&T, may be the only hope for the platform. If the Lumia 900 doesn’t demonstrate long-term success, how long will tech pundits and industry analysts tolerate the situation before they begin to recognize reality?

Oh yes, we don’t have any sales figures for the Lumia 900, just claims of sellouts the first week the smartphone went on sale for AT&T, with no specifics whatever. And nothing since then. Even a few hundred thousand units the first week would seem encouraging, so what is AT&T hiding? Well, I suppose the truth will be out there when they reveal their next quarterly results. Or will they pull a Samsung and hide the true figures?

I suppose the Mac may be considered the lone “vulnerable” area in Apple’s hardware arsenal, although sales were still somewhat higher than last year, and growth is ahead of the PC market. At the same time, the entire product lineup is in serious need of a refresh, and you will likely see new desktop and note-book Macs any day now. That should really boost the quarterly numbers for a while, and Apple has plenty of space to grow, considering the ongoing dominance of Windows.

But the greatest obstacle to moving Macs likely includes not just Intel’s processor roadmap, but the fact that more and more people regard an iPad is a suitable replacement for a PC. There’s no doubt there’s growing cannibalization from both the Mac and Windows markets.

However, this is all inside baseball. The real indicator of Apple’s ongoing success is year-to-year growth. If they continue to report substantial increases, they have to be taken seriously, even if there may be a company here and there that may — I said may — report higher sales in a particular product category.

If Apple’s sales flatten over time, and Apple has difficulty sustaining a decent market share on their key product lines, there’d be reason for some concern. But that doesn’t appear to be an immediate danger, even if some commentators want to convey a different impression.

Apple CEO Tim Cook surely charmed Twitter users — and lots of others — with that famous comment about Windows 8 and the merging desktop and mobile operating systems. It would be very much like trying to combine a refrigerator with a toaster, he said, using extreme examples to get his point across.

But maybe there’s more to be said about that subject.

The feeling that OS X and the iOS would some day merge was fueled by the arrival of Lion, which represented a clear move in that direction. Not only were there more gestures in OS X, although I won’t bother to list them, but certain features, such as full-screen apps and even that dreadful Launchpad, were reminiscent of the iOS. Well, you don’t have to use either, nor accept the reversal in the direction of the scrollbars, or their part-time mouse-activated appearance.

To many, that shotgun engagement of OS X and the iOS was poorly designed. Some suggest that the migration from Snow Leopard to Lion isn’t as rapid as it should be, although the evidence suggests otherwise. In addition, Apple is giving away Snow Leopard free to entice MobileMe members to upgrade to Lion before that online service folds in a few weeks. They need to get with the plan and install iCloud. But that decision isn’t necessary the result of a perceived failure of Lion.

But you have to wonder why Apple can’t just offer iCloud to users of the older versions of OS X. Some people will not be able to upgrade to Lion or Mountain Lion simply because they need to use PowerPC apps as part of their workflow. Yes, there’s a new Quicken 2007 out there for Lion users, but some older apps weren’t published by multibillion dollar corporations that can afford to fix their apps. Lion and its successors remain non-starters to many, and I can understand why they feel abandoned by Apple with the end of Rosetta, the PowerPC emulator.

Now with Mountain Lion, the integration of the iOS is far smoother. Changing iChat to Messages is a well implemented solution. The public beta version of Messages seems very much the same as iChat, except for support for Apple’s own instant messaging replacement for cell phone texting. Notification Center only makes sense, particularly to those of you who are used to the Growl app or the iOS 5 solution. Gatekeeper is a helpful security feature, though it could go farther. It wouldn’t have stopped, for example, Flashback, which depended on Java Web applets, and not on launching newly downloaded software.

But the overall look and feel of Mountain Lion is otherwise nearly the same as Lion, based on my experiences with the beta versions. But you have to consider Lion and Mountain Lion as merely first steps in what may be a long road, and it’s not at all certain how closely OS X and iOS can align in a practical sense. I don’t disagree with Cook’s skepticism about what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. Maybe Microsoft somehow believes that doing more, trying to go all the way with OS integration, one ups Apple. That’s why they’re doing it, not because it’s a better solution. There are even more gestures with which to confuse and befuddle the new Windows 8 user who might be forced to engage in wrist exercises, or take pain killers, to cope.

Now some suggest that Cook was playing the usual Apple game of decrying a concept only to embrace it eventually in a new way. So it’s true that Mountain Lion represents only a partial integration with the iOS. It’s not as if the iOS is, in turn, inheriting much from the desktop, although handling multiple windows on the iPad would seem to make sense. After all, the iPad’s display offers more real estate than the original compact Macs, and the first few generations of PowerBooks. So why shouldn’t the iOS take on more of the aspects of OS X where it makes sense?

What’s the end game? Well, the time is obviously coming where the traditional personal computer will occupy a far smaller role in the tech universe. More and more of you will be using mobile devices, perhaps a tablet or smartphone or something similar, instead. There will certainly be a growing incentive towards easing the transition from one to the other and back again.

But that doesn’t mean total integration is necessary, or even a worthwhile scheme. I still fail to see the logic in Microsoft’s Windows 8 solution, although the warm and fuzzy look might appeal to many consumers. Even Windows Phone, with essentially the same “face,” gets good marks from customers, even though there aren’t many of those.

On the other hand, it’s not as if Apple isn’t aware of all these possibilities. If the engineers who develop OS X and the iOS can devise a better way to offer near total integration, they will do it. Apple’s excuse, then, will be that other solutions, particularly those from Microsoft, were poorly implemented. Apple had a better idea. After all, it’s not the first time they’ve come out with a new product after severely attacking existing gear. Don’t forget the iPhone, not too many years after Steve Jobs was down on mobile handsets.