If you look at the sales figures, you are tempted to say that Google’s Android OS is trouncing the iPhone. But there’s a lot to be said about those figures and how they can be interpreted. Despite the ubiquity of Android handsets, there’s that incredible amount of fragmentation — I suppose Google would rather call it it diversity — that can cause troubles for users of those products. The same problem afflicts Android powered tablets, but since sales are pathetic — other than the Amazon Kindle Fire, which uses a tricked out version of Android — it doesn’t really matter.

Thanks to a link from one of our regular readers, I learned that Google has actually admitted to the problem, although they are predictably giving a positive spin on something that otherwise ought to be a huge negative. The link to an AOL Daily Finance report on the situation is posted over at our community forum, in case you want to check it out and comment further.

The most damaging bit of information is the fact that Google’s latest and greatest OS, version 4 Ice Cream Sandwich is, as of this week, only available on 3.3% of the mobile handsets measured in that survey. The first release came out last October, roughly in the same timeframe as Apple’s iOS 5 and the iPhone 4s. The current ICS version is 4.0.4, released at the end of March.

Can you imagine that?

What’s the most popular Android OS? Version 2.3.x Gingerbread, released in December 2010, which is found on roughly two-thirds of Android smartphone users.

Now to put this in perspective, the various versions of iOS 5 are in use on anywhere from 75% to 80% of Apple’s mobile gadgets, based on two independent surveys. It’s clear that Apple has discovered the incredible secret of reliably pushing OS updates to the highest number of customers.

But it’s not really a secret at all. Apple feeds updates directly. Beginning with iOS 5, you don’t even have to tether your iPhone or iPad to a Mac or PC running iTunes. The cloud-based update process can be done directly on these devices. In 10 or 15 minutes or so, maybe longer if you have a slower broadband connection, the download is installed and your Apple mobile gadget is restarted. Update problems are few and far between.

Google’s problem is that they’ve handed off the upgrade process to their licensees. It’s up to the handset maker to test those updates with their own hardware — and they may have dozens of models to configure — and then add their special customizations. The carriers also get into the act with their own proprietary junkware. When all is said and done, most Android gear doesn’t even run the latest OS, and customers stand little or no chance of getting those updates.

Obviously, Android developers are left in a touchy situation. If their apps are commercial, they want to cater to the largest possible audience to earn the most profits, even if that audience is using a version of Android that’s 16 months old. What this also means is that support for the latest and greatest features may be little to none. I mean, it’s hard enough just to support all sorts of different hardware configurations, but being forced to also limit themselves to older OS versions has to be discouraging.

But the larger problem is security. From time to time, Apple has released security fixes for the iOS. Not many, because apps are carefully curated, and they won’t approve software with the potential for malware infection. But that doesn’t mean the OS doesn’t have to be shored up from time to time to plug a security leak.

Now consider the plight of the owner of Android hardware. OS feature and performance updates may not be so serious, but what about a security fix? Remember, the Android Market isn’t curated in the same way as Apple. Just about anything can get on there, and apps will only be removed after someone discovers a problem. That may come too late for customers who have already downloaded the offending apps. Indeed, there’s actually a market for security software on Android because it’s open season for Internet criminals to spread their misery.

But if the handset maker and the wireless carrier don’t care, how do customers cope? Well, I suppose most people who aren’t running lots of apps — and then only the more popular, tried and proven stuff — probably won’t notice. They will go about their business and probably not have to confront any security issues. That, however, doesn’t mean a major malware outbreak won’t occur that will require a major OS fix, rather than just updating a security app. How does Google reassure users of their product that they will be safe?

Unfortunately, if you own an Android smartphone, you’re not Google’s customer. You may not even be regarded as a customer of the handset maker, who simply sells their stuff to wireless carriers and washes their hands of the situation. Their only interest is in selling new handsets when your current wireless contract is up.

When you buy an iPhone, you are Apple’s customer. Apple provides the support, and Apple wants your repeat business, and will make sure you are able to run the latest and greatest iOS that your iPhone or iPad supports. It makes developers happy, of course, to have a predictable audience for their products, and that’s also why Apple’s mobile gear gets the highest praise from customers.

In turn, it’s been reported that Google earns less money from Android than from the iOS. Isn’t that the unkindest cut of all?

It’s inevitable. Steve Jobs’ footprint on Apple was so large, so all-encompassing, that it’s hard to look at the company he co-founded without feeling his presence. Certainly Apple’s situation before Jobs returned for his second coming is a key reason why. In the early-to-mid-1990s, Apple went through several incompetent CEOs, the strategy was failing, and they were burning money real fast. It was easy to accept the threat of their imminent departure as real, which is why the word “beleaguered” was often uttered in the same sentence as Apple.

When it came to a corporate presentation, whether a Macworld Expo keynote or separate media event, Jobs ran the show, although other Apple executives and representatives from other companies did make brief appearances. Only in his final years did his coworkers get extra time on stage, and maybe that was largely because Jobs wanted you to know that he wasn’t the only person responsible for the company’s success.

Even though CEO Tim Cook is surely making his own mark, he is destined to operate in the shadow of Steve Jobs for at least a few years, at least when it comes to media perceptions. He won’t prove himself unless Apple continues to execute at an amazing rate, with new products and continued record profits year after year.

Now I realize this makes sense, particularly since memories are long, and Apple doesn’t have a stellar history with CEOs other than Jobs. I suppose John Scully did all right for a while, and it’s true that Macs became more viable products for content creators under his leadership. Also, let’s not forget the LaserWriter and the desktop publishing revolution, which afforded Apple a loyal coterie of Mac users who stuck with the platform over the years through thick and thin. And it was mostly thin for quite awhile until the changes Jobs made began to take hold.

But the current state of affairs has made some journalists hypercritical of Apple, as they complain about the lack of product changes that they’d would never have complained about if Jobs was still running the company. In a sense, Cook is being forced to achieve a higher standard of excellence as a result. Unfortunate, but true.

Besides, as I’ve already said, the products that Apple has so far introduced were pretty much finalized while Jobs was still alive, and that includes OS X Mountain Lion and the third generation iPad. That will likely be true for the next iPhone and iPad as well, and maybe even Mountain Lion’s successor (10.9?). What the means is that any perceived shortcomings in those products might as well be blamed on Jobs as well, unless those shortcomings were the result of changes made during the final stages of preproduction and quality control testing. But that certainly wouldn’t apply to the form factor of the iPhone 4s or the third generation iPad. It’s not as if Tim Cook flew down to the Foxconn production lines and demanded significant last minute form factor changes before those products reached the store shelves.

If Apple does indeed deliver a smart TV set later this year or some time in 2013, that, too, will be based in large part on the decisions made by Steve Jobs. What will count are the decisions Apple’s executives are making now for products that will take the company through the middle and latter part of the decade. If Tim Cook ever thinks, even for a moment, “What would Steve do?” he would be making a serious error. Apple cannot respond to the future needs of the company while resting on their laurels. Apple has never really looked backward, which is why there are no anniversary products or specials, and why, among other things, they are so eager to throw out older technologies and embrace new ones.

But it’s also important to look at the broad bench of talented executives that Jobs brought to the company. Consider the snazzy looks of Apple’s gear and imagine what might have happened were it not for the presence of Sir Jonathan Ive as head of the design team. Tim Cook revolutionized Apple’s production cycle and inventory controls, which are at the core of the reasons he rose so high in the company’s ranks and became the number one CEO candidate.

These days, Cook has already placed his stamp on Apple’s corporate philosophy and behavior. From employee donations to the relationships with the suppliers who assemble Apple’s gear, Cook has been front and center. Consider that recent photo of him Foxconn plant, and you will recall that there’s no comparable photo of Jobs. Sure, Jobs surely visited those plants, but no photo-ops please. Cook realized the media was watching, and he observed the politics of the situation in a smart fashion.

Besides, how many people buy Apple gear because of who runs the company? Yes, we might be fully aware of the life and times of Steve Jobs and, in fact, Tim Cook. But most of Apple’s customers aren’t paying attention to those fine details. They have better things to do.

As you might expect, the critics are coming out of the woodwork struggling to find things wrong about Apple’s third-generation iPad. Certainly, the attempt by Consumer Reports to paint the best-selling tablet as somehow defective because of an alleged heat problem failed miserably. In the end, CR gave it a top rating, but just barely ahead of someone’s Android OS tablet. Most troubling, though, was the fact that CR’s tests results evidently didn’t match anyone else’s in terms of heat generation. They got 113 degrees (116 degrees when the unit was hooked up to a charger), whereas Macworld and others managed a mere 100 degrees. Worse, it doesn’t seem as if CR has bothered to run temperature tests of tablets from other companies.

Now since this is the first Apple product to appear since the death of Steve Jobs (the iPhone 4s was launched the day before), they had to aspire to a higher standard, the critics say, because of skepticism that Apple can continue to out-innovate the rest of the tech industry. There’s even one story suggesting that the new iPad is “chunkier,” and hence runs against the “Jobs Doctine” of making product upgrades lighter and thinner.

As a practical matter, the extra thickness is almost impossible to see unless you put the third generation iPad next to the iPad 2 and look real close. Without a scale, you probably won’t readily notice the slight weight difference. Obviously the Retina Display and the need to house a larger battery explains why Apple couldn’t make it any thinner or lighter, although that might happen with future generations as production increases, and components become thinner and lighter. The need for a larger battery also raised a red flag from that unnamed blogger, who frets over the fact that battery life didn’t improve. I don’t see the need to spend much time explaining how the new iPad’s display requires more power. More power requires a battery capable of delivering that power while still meeting Apple’s battery life requirements. Why do I have to explain this?

At the same time, it is not true that every Apple product update is necessarily lighter and thinner. As a matter of fact, Apple will often keep a design running for several generations, only making internal component changes before there’s a wholesale form factor revision. That also puts the lie to the complaints that the iPhone 4s should have looked different from the iPhone 4, and thus should have been an iPhone 5. Apple’s history doesn’t necessarily support that contention.

More to the point, it’s pretty obvious that most any new Apple product you’ll be seeing over the next couple of years was approved for production while Jobs was still alive and directing Apple’s strategy. This is a question that may have some importance in 2013 or 2014, but not today.

Another silly complaint has it that Apple should have made the processor more powerful, complaining that the A5X doesn’t deliver real performance improvements, except for games, as if that was a serious problem. As it stands, the iPad 3 is equal or better in benchmarks when pitted against competing tablets, so where’s the beef?

I suppose some might complain that Apple could have delivered better cameras. Instead of having “only” a five megapixel sensor for the rear camera, why not eight megapixels, same as the iPhone 4s. What about the lack of a front camera that supports HD for FaceTime or even for the GoToMeeting service from Citrix? Would beefier cameras have hurt Apple’s bottom line that much?

A personal complaint: The internal speaker is still mono. That’s so 1950s. Why couldn’t Apple deliver stereo speakers? Mono might make sense for a smartphone, but a tablet? Certainly Samsung has no compunction about touting “surround sound speakers” on the 10.1 inch version of the Galaxy Tab. Sure, surround sound might be overkill, but stereo? Yes, I agree the audio enhancements on such a small device might be minimal, but it would be audible. Yes, I realize you can use an earphone, or external speakers, but that means needing extra gear just to hear stereo playback. Even original PowerBooks with similar-sized screens had stereo speakers.

The crux of my argument, however, is that there are legitimate reasons to criticize the latest iPad or any other Apple product. I often wonder why certain decisions — or compromises — are made. Granted Apple is keeping a tight lid on component costs, and they may have opted to make a few sacrifices to compensate for the more expensive display and beefier battery. Yes, I suppose one with a cynical mindset might believe that some features are being held back to persuade you to buy the 2013 iPad. There has to be a reason to entice people to upgrade every year or two.

At the same time, media freak outs based on a few minor quibbles or just plain incorrect assumptions do little but drive traffic to certain sites. That’s the reason why, for example, the person who raised those nonexistent red flags won’t be getting a link from me. Sure, I realize you can just Google the source, but I hope you will spend your time reading material that tries to be fair about such matters. There are enough fake stories online as it is.

When Apple went to glossy screens on the iMac and note-book models, a groundswell of protest erupted from some customers. Yes, glossy screens were brighter and more vibrant. At the same time, they were highly susceptible to room reflections. To some, it was a non-issue. To others, it became one huge distraction, and made it impossible to get work done, unless you were ready to do some home or office redecorating.

Now when it comes to note-books, the 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pros offer an alternative. Apple’s sales literature defines the display options this way: “Choose a standard glossy display that lets you view graphics, photos, and videos with richer color and deeper blacks, or an optional antiglare display.” That option is not available for the 13-inch model, nor for the MacBook Air or the iMac. Worse, with the 27-inch iMac, you aren’t going to have the same amount of flexibility in moving the computer to a more suitable location if you cannot take to glossy.

So to Apple, going for “antiglare,” which is their parlance for matte or something close to matte, you are giving up “richer color and deeper blacks” in exchange for relative freedom from room reflections. I suppose you’d have to examine both versions side by side — if you can find them on display anywhere — to see which you prefer. But if screen reflections are intolerable to you, you have no choice.

That, by the way, is one major argument against plasma TVs, which are more prone to reflections than LCD. That, to some, negates plasma’s well-known advantages of wider viewing angles, richer blacks, and superior handling of movie action scenes. Yes, I realize plasmas also tend to consume more power.

But wouldn’t it be nice if you could have the advantages of a glossy screen and antiglare in the same display? Well, if you can believe some published reports from a few of the Mac rumor sites, that might become a reality for the iMac. Supposedly a major upgrade is expected in the second half of this year featuring a slimmer form factor, more in tune with the latest high definition TVs, and anti-reflective glass. If true, it would be a boon for some people for whom the iMac remains a non-starter.

Of course, one might think that, if such a display were available for an iMac, it would also be available for the next generation MacBooks. It’s also not at all clear if the anti-reflective glass is meant to replace all existing configurations, or will be offered simply as an option. Obviously, it would be great if the technology allowed for the best advantages of glossy in a non-glossy display. Certainly, LCD TVs are already offering reduced sensitivity for reflections, so it would make sense that personal computer displays would offer similar capabilities.

But the other change in the next-generation Macs might even be more significant. There are reports that OS X Lion (and OS X Mountain Lion) already support higher-resolution displays, which has given rise to the possibility that Apple might go the Retina Display route.

As a practical matter, you tend to look at a computer screen from a farther distance, which means that text and pictures may already be sufficiently sharp for most of you. Yes, I can see a possible advantage in close-in detail work, but nothing stops you from simply zooming the image if you need to examine things up close. On the other hand, if an image is designed to reveal four times as many pixels, stuff that might break apart in Photoshop when zoomed would be significantly sharper. How this would work out in practice, however, is more difficult to determine. Clearly developers would have to deliver enhanced apps, and Adobe and Microsoft would take years to get with the program.

The larger issue in delivering a Retina Display on a Mac is only hinted in the bill of materials for the new iPad. Apple is reportedly spending a lot more per unit to outfit the hot-selling tablet with a 9.7-inch higher-resolutin display. Scaling that up to the range of 13 inches to 27 inches will mean an incredible cost increase, perhaps one beyond Apple’s ability to absorb into the existing price structure. Apple might be forced to consider a custom Retina Display option for the first product generations, until further development and yield rates reach a point where component costs aren’t altogether different.

Remember, too, that the Retina Display is more power hungry. To keep battery life the same on a MacBook or MacBook Pro, Apple would have to improve power efficiency of the other components and, perhaps, provide a heftier battery to make up the difference. They’d also have to find ways not to make the units heavier. You can see where Apple’s engineers struggled to keep the iPad 3 nearly the same weight as the iPad 2. The challenges would be greater in a larger form factor.

For now, though, I suppose Apple’s greatest achievement in a new iMac or note-book would be to get rid of the glare. The existing products don’t bother me at all, but I realize some of you have other ideas about the situation.