So one of the cable TV news networks interrupts the broadcast one morning this week with a musical stinger meant to signify a major news story. The story? Well, it seems that Apple plans to hold a media event in early March (perhaps Thursday, March 1st) to launch the iPad 3. This is a world-changing event?

While I’m as curious about the next iPad as anyone, I prefer to think there are far more important stories to cover. At best, this report, sourced from AllThingsDigital, confirms pretty much what everyone expected about the next iPad. ATD earns credibility because it’s owned by the same company who publishes the Wall Street Journal, and Walt Mossberg, an Apple-favored journalist, hangs his hat there. Therefore, even though the article quotes unnamed sources, you have to take it seriously. After all, when the next iPad shows up, Mossberg will post his review the day it ships. He may even have it now.

The rest of the piece pretty much repeats what we’ve all heard, that it will sport a high resolution, or 2048×1536 pixel display. This will deliver the iPad equivalent of a Retina Display. No doubt there will be much snappier graphics and a far more powerful processor, one that some have dubbed the Apple A6.

Now some rumors suggest this is going to be a quad-core processor, while other stories say it’ll be fast, but still double core. Regardless, nobody is going to complain about performance, even gamers.

In the run up to the release of the supposed iPad 3, there are even some published reports about an alleged rear casing that was discovered and evidently photographed, if you can believe it’s genuine. The internals indicate a different mounting for the display and space for a larger battery. So if the new processor and LCD panels require heftier amounts of power, the battery will be able to accommodate those needs yet still deliver battery life of at least ten hours on a Wi-Fi connection.

To nobody’s surprise, Apple refuses to comment on the story. As you know, they never comment on unreleased products unless, of course, they feel that such an announcement fits in their marketing plans. That may be true for a first generation product, where there are no sales of a previous model to kill, other than those from competitors of course. So this would mean that the iPad 3 will go on sale within days of the media launch.

Now the remaining possibilities for the iPad 3 don’t seem to significant in the scheme of things. Perhaps there will be higher resolution cameras, and a better mic. I’d like to see stereo speakers, since it seems strange that the current iPad is saddled with mono. Some folks even suggest Apple will drop an LTE chip in the 3G version (thus making it 4G), so you can take full advantage of the fastest cellular networks on the planet. Indeed, that might explain the need for a larger battery, to accommodate the greater power needs of current LTE hardware.

Sure, it’s possible Apple will toss in some surprises. Perhaps the expected iOS 5.1 release will deliver Siri support for the iPad. But the larger question is whether Apple will follow their iPhone marketing strategy and keep the present iPad 2 in the lineup at a lower price. If that’s the case, the iPad 3 will cost essentially the same as the current model, but the older version will be available for $349 or $399 for the entry-level configuration.

Certainly a cheaper iPad will be a good way to fend off possible competition from Amazon and other cheap tablet builders. But, no, don’t expect a 7-inch model. Steve Jobs would be rolling in his grave if Apple did that, after he was so emphatic in saying that the smaller form factor isn’t suited for a tablet. While I don’t have much experience working with the Amazon Kindle Fire, the best-selling 7-inch tablet, I can tell you that I felt seriously constrained navigating through the small screen, not to mention coping with the erratic sensitivity to finger movements. Well, maybe Amazon fixed some of the touchscreen issues in a software update that arrived a few weeks after the Fire went on sale.

Now since so much of what might be delivered in an iPad 3 is already out there, I have to wonder whether some members of the media will declare the new version inadequate. You heard that when the iPhone 4 looked the same as the iPhone 4s, and it does seem that the next iPad will look very much like its predecessor, although it would be nice to see if Apple can give it a diet and shave a few more ounce from the weight.

It’s not that 1.33 ounces (1.34 for the 3G version) is necessarily heavy. But it’s not all that convenient for one handed use, as most of you know.

Unless Apple springs some unexpected surprise, I suppose the big question is whether owners of older iPads will want to upgrade. And, yes, I have little doubt it will be backordered for several weeks after going on sale. How could it be otherwise?

As you know, we’ve been running a series of articles strongly suggesting that Microsoft is on the skids, suffering from what has become a long-term decline. With the major part of their sales coming from legacy products that are no longer growing, they need to find ways to succeed in the mobile space. So far, they haven’t done so well.

But there’s yet another tech company that’s seen its best days, and I wonder whether they are making decisions that will sacrifice their future too. It all comes to the fore with the news this week that Nokia plans to axe another 4,000 employees from their rosters. This cutback involves people who assemble Nokia smartphones in Finland, where Nokia’s headquarters are located, Hungary, and Mexico. As with many other tech companies, this factory work will move to Asia. Since September 2010, when former Microsoft executive Stephen Elop took over as CEO of Nokia, a total of more than 30,000 jobs have been shed.

You almost begin to think that Elop has earned the label as a slash and burn specialist, but I wonder how well it speaks to his capabilities as an executive or lack thereof. For example, in the last quarter, Nokia reported that earnings had fallen by some 73%, and smartphone sales had contracted some 31%. Clearly Nokia is having problems getting a solid footing against Apple and Google’s Android partners, most particularly Samsung.

Last year, Nokia inked a pact with Microsoft to become first among equals in building smartphones featuring the Windows Phone OS. Microsoft even granted them a cool one billion dollars to as an incentive, or a bribe if you want to call it that. At the time, I wondered if Elop had come to Nokia as a stalking horse for Microsoft to resurrect their failed smartphone platform. But so far it hasn’t happened, despite the arrival of the Lumia smartphone series. So why are they keeping Elop as head of the company?

So far, Microsoft’s smartphone platform continues to suffer, with a market share in the single digits and falling. At the same time, Microsoft is porting the face of that interface, dubbed Metro, to Windows 8. Perhaps they hope that familiarity will bring acceptance. As people migrate to Windows 8, they will embrace the similar look and feel of a Windows Phone device. As a matter of fact, it’s not a bad interface. Reviews have been pretty decent, but in terms of the feature set, Microsoft continues to lag a year or two behind the leaders of the smartphone universe.

As the iOS and Android continue to advance, Microsoft is stuck in the rear seat. While this situation didn’t hurt Microsoft in the PC market, there’s no compelling reason for someone to buy a Windows Phone handset just because Microsoft promises that critical features will come, but not for another year or two. By then, the same customers will already be ready to buy new smartphones that are even further advanced, as Microsoft continues to play catch up.

Understand, I do not like to see a company go under. The executives will often suffer the least, since they’ve already made their riches, or have golden parachutes to protect them in case they lose their jobs. But when tens of thousands of people are left jobless, that’s a tragedy of the first order. Certainly success isn’t guaranteed, but a more prosperous Microsoft and Nokia will help fuel innovation and advance the state of the art, and, of course, keep workers on the job. I’d love to see a version of Windows 8 that trumped Mac OS X in critical ways, in the same way I’d love to see a version of Windows Phone that was superior to the iOS or Android.

If Microsoft learns the true art of innovation, rather than shabby imitation, it will mean that other companies will have to advance their own platforms in order to compete. You’ll have a wider selection of wonderful gear at your favorite electronics boutique, and your experiences will be far more rewarding. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But the real issue is that a skeptical public just won’t give Microsoft and Nokia passes if they fail to deliver the goods this time. All the promotional gimmicks in the world won’t stop people from ignoring these gadgets, or, if they buy one, taking it back to the dealer before the money back guarantee has lapsed.

I won’t pretend to know how Microsoft’s problems can be fixed, or whether an executive shakeup would be sufficient to save the company. They continue to live under the 1990’s illusion of Windows everywhere, naively believing that a 90% share of the desktop computing market ensures success going forward. Certainly they are aware that they need to do something to advance their mobile platform, but I wonder whether that deal with Nokia is the solution. Why not try to strike another deal with, perhaps, Samsung, which is second to Apple in overall smartphone sales?

If Microsoft went to Samsung with a similar proposal, they would deliver the benefit of a platform that is not, so far at least, vulnerable to intellectual property lawsuits from Apple. Sure, Samsung would have to pay royalties for Windows Phone, but many smartphone companies are already doing that because of the fear that Android is infringing on Microsoft’s intellectual property. Maybe if Microsoft offered a billion or two to Samsung, they might get somewhere, but if they don’t deliver the compelling OS that will make customers switch from Android and the iOS, maybe it won’t matter.

Meantime, both Microsoft and Nokia are clearly living on borrowed time.

For several years, I have written at great length about the problems that arise when Consumer Reports tackles tech gear. Yes, the magazine has a stellar reputation, in large part because tested products are all bought retail, they don’t take ads from other companies, and don’t even allow those companies to quote CR reviews in promoting their products. CR is also run by a non-profit corporation that is funded by sales, subscriptions and even reader donations.

This veneer of incorruptibility means that most everyone takes the magazine’s ratings seriously. That would be a good thing if the reviews were thorough, and the ratings made sense. Quite often they do. So the information in the March 2012 issue about the excessively high calorie and fat count of the buttered popcorn you buy for inflated prices at the local multiplex shouldn’t come as a surprise, but maybe moviegoers will pay attention and seek healthier refreshments. The roundup of LCD and plasma TV sets accurately described the differences between the two technologies, and why plasma is often better unless you want the brightest possible picture.

But when it comes to such personal tech gear as smartphones, tablets, and particularly personal computers, CR falls down on the job. Way down.

A notable example is the curious way in which they handled the alleged “Antennagate” scandal, involving the original iPhone 4 and the possibility that you could kill reception with what became known as a “death grip.” Despite all the visual evidence that a similar phenomenon could be easily duplicated on other phones when held in somewhat different ways, CR decided that only the iPhone 4 was at fault and, despite getting the highest numeric rating in a smartphone feature, still wouldn’t recommend the product. CR was even oblivious to manufacturer warning labels and printed documentation that also cautioned against holding their mobile handsets the wrong way.

To be perfectly fair, yes, the iPhone 4s did get a recommendation due to the superior antenna system and relatively high test results. But other models got higher scores for having larger displays and/or 3D. It doesn’t seem as if CR bothered to consider the usability of a larger form factor, and how the gadget might fit in pants and shirt pockets, not to mention the ease of one-handed manipulation. Larger must be good, period. CR also didn’t bother to actually compare the user friendliness of the various smartphone operating systems, nor the quality of the various app stores in terms of selection and quality of software.

When CR reviews personal computers, it’s not at all clear how closely they try to match the various specs, or whether the basics, such as display size, hard drive capacity, and memory, are sufficient for them to put products in the same overall category. Although CR is aware of the existence of Mac OS X and Windows as separate, distinct platforms, they do not actually compare the two in any meaningful way, so you can decide whether to go Apple or with one of the Windows PC models.

The same issue that carries those reports about movie theater snacks and high definition TVs also contains an article entitled, “Light & lively laptops.” Here, CR seems oblivious to the difference between traditional note-books and so-called “Ultrabooks,” since it seems they rate them all in the same category, defined strictly by display size.

Even then, Macs rate at or near the top in the 11-inch and 13-inch categories. Why a 13-inch Samsung scores a tad higher than a 13-inch MacBook Air isn’t really explained, other than the former having a lower price. Curiously, CR compares two versions of the 13-inch MacBook Pro, which appear to be from different generations, rating one better to the other when it comes to something called “Versatility.” How so? With CR, you never know, because they don’t explain such fine distinctions.

At least on this occasion, the tested Macs were priced comparably to the Windows note-books, except for the lower-rated models. At least these ratings indicate that, yes, you should get better value for a higher price. That’s good as far as it goes, but the ultimate questions of usability and OS elegance are off the table for CR, which only seems to understand specs and raw benchmarks. To them, it appears that there is no Mac versus Windows question, not any reason why, for example, Apple is gaining sales while most PC companies are suffering from flattened or lower sales. Certainly you cannot attribute this to the alleged Steve Jobs reality distortion field, since he’s no longer here, yet Apple’s sales are better than ever.

On the other hand, if I were in the market for a new vacuum cleaner, I suppose CR would be a good place in which to compare the various models, although most are at least good enough. For autos, CR isn’t interested all that much in the “fun to drive” factor, since they are more attuned to basic ride, handling, safety and comfort issues. A car may be supremely comfortable in all respects, an efficient people hauler from here to there without guzzling a lot of fuel, yet be a total bore to drive. But that’s not CR’s market.

Now what’s unfortunate about all this is that CR seems tone deaf to the problems with their reviews. They aren’t asked the hard questions by a fawning media, and thus have nothing to explain. But with all the resources at their disposal, they should do a better job than anyone. Too bad they haven’t figured that out.

As you’ve no doubt heard, the PC industry is in the doldrums these days, mostly with the exception of Apple of course. Sales are flat or declining, and more and more people have decided that they don’t need to replace that old computer after all. A smartphone, a tablet, or both, are perfectly suited to their needs.

Certainly Apple knows this, continuing to refer to the iPad as a “Post PC” product, telling one and all that the PC era is yesterday’s news, although it’ll be years before you can say the PC era is over and done with. Even then, there will be many power users and business customers who will insist on a traditional PC, be it Mac or Windows.

Certainly Microsoft is fully aware that they cannot continue to depend on PC OS and office software to fuel the majority of their revenue. But they haven’t done so well with their mobile OS and similar products. Their latest gambit is to make a version of Windows 8 for ARM-based processors, although traditional PC apps probably won’t be compatible. This is the sort of situation that Apple confronted twice, first when going to PowerPC and, second, to Intel. In each case, Apple devised a translation layer to convert software supporting the old processor so those apps would run with decent performance on the new processor. At the same time, developers were given paths to upgrading their apps, most recently with a “Universal” feature in Apple’s Xcode that lets your apps run on both PowerPC and Intel. These days, most software is strictly Intel only, to take advantage of 64-bit and other key OS features.

In any case, if Microsoft hopes to make Windows apps work on regular PCs, and ARM-based tablets, they’d have to devise a similar strategy. Or expect developers to build Web apps for both, which won’t be the most efficient route to take by a long shot.

But the key question here is, when your computer is no longer suiting your needs, do you just buy the latest model, switch from Windows to the Mac, or look for another solution? A similar question is posed in the March 2012 issue of Macworld, where the cover bears this headline: “Is the iPad Ready to Replace Your Laptop?” The conclusion in Dan Moren’s article on the subject seems to be that it depends. Now since I’ve been working on Macs since the 1980s — with occasional forays into the Windows world — you might expect that I would prefer to continue to use Macs as well.

In large part, that’s true. I cannot see any iPad-based solution, for example, for doing post-production on my radio shows. Most of that work is accomplished in Bias Peak Pro 7, although I also do some editing in Amadeus Pro 2.0.5. Audio interviews via Skype are captured courtesy of Ambrosia’s WireTap Studio 1.2.0 and Rogue Amoeba’s Audio Hijack Pro 2.10.1. Although there are useful audio apps for the iOS, such as GarageBand, I am not able to produce the same results in as efficient a fashion. I also have to upload the completed files to the GCN network, which would still require use of my Mac. An iOS solution to accomplish similar goals would not be effective.

This doesn’t mean I won’t be able to eventually move my workflow to an iPad; the tiny screen of an iPhone just wouldn’t work. Over time, I do grant that there will be iOS-based audio apps that will allow me to migrate my workflow and, perhaps, make it more efficient. If I could accomplish the same tasks at similar or better production levels on a $499 iPad as I can today on a two grand iMac, great.

But forget about writing articles of this sort on an iPhone or iPad. Perhaps the latter with a physical keyboard, but I might just as well switch to my MacBook Pro and have all the capabilities I need in one box, rather than engage in a clumsy setup of an iPad and a physical keyboard. Yes, I know people do it, but I am not one of those people, at least not yet. Maybe if I get used to some sort of dictation scheme, or maybe I’ll just be too old to care when people stop buying Macs and PCs.

However, I can see where many of you are able to use an iPad to fulfill all your computing needs. My wife is one example. She never took to a Mac, and used it grudgingly. But the iPad she embraced with a passion. She doesn’t write long letters, but manages to peck out short notes on the virtual keyboard, and the remainder of her computing needs are well served by the iOS versions of Mail, Safari, and a few other apps.

Now Barbara is not alone. I know of many others for whom an iPad is all the computer they need, and this is certainly demonstrated in Apple’s most recent financials. Many iPad sales came from PC users who gave up on the traditional computer, a smaller number were Mac users. If Apple can continue to leapfrog the industry with future versions of the iPad, more and more PC users will switch. Sure, there may be other tablets — I regard the Amazon Kindle Fire as a more limited purpose gadget — that will become functionally competitive with the iPad. That will only speed the trend.

Certainly I don’t presume to be able to tell you what sort of computer to purchase when you upgrade. But it’s pretty clear where the market is going, and quite clear that Microsoft must be in a state of total panic if they’ve yet grasped the reality of the situation.