Let me preface this article by telling you that, while I have not personally had much face time with an Amazon Kindle Fire tablet, I’ve spent a fair amount of time talking to people who have reviewed the product. I’ve also done a fair amount of research, so I think I have a decent handle on its capabilities and shortcomings.

I also expect to be in a position to spend more time with one shortly, and I reserve the right to be wrong in some of my assumptions. But I don’t think I’m that wrong!

The long and short of it is that, except for the iPad, tablets have been failures. Some of those failures have been notable, such as the RIM BlackBerry PlayBook and Motorola Xoom. At least HP was able to move a fair amount of TouchPads, simply by almost giving them away for $99 each, while at the same time losing a bundle on each item sold.

The sole exception has been Amazon, where an unknown but apparently reasonably large number of Kindle e-book readers have been sold. Since they occupy a form factor similar to a tablet, you might put them into that category. With the Fire, Amazon has gone all the way. This 7-inch minimalist package is evidently designed to provide a much wider consumption capability, starting with e-books, and extending to videos and games. There’s even a bare bones email client; you can get better selections from Amazon’s app repository, and there’s a Web browser that sports a feature “borrowed” from Opera and, believe it or not, AOL.

In order to speed up the browser, Amazon has set up a proxy server network that caches Web content. This is meant to speed up access, particularly for the sites that are more frequently accessed by fellow Fire customers, because those are the ones most likely to be stored. Now in the old days of AOL, when they offered a mediocre home-brewed browser, they used their servers to compress images, and thus reduce the time it took for those images to appear on your computer. Unfortunately, this also meant that image quality was reduced, although you could turn the feature off if you liked.

Reviews of the Kindle Fire have been mostly middling. Even the Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg, notorious for understating his product criticisms, was clearly unimpressed. To him, the Fire has a sluggish, somewhat unfinished user interface. He was also clearly displeased that it lacked a built-in camera, GPS, or even the ability to access a 3G data network. It’s Wi-Fi or nothing.

Perhaps the most compelling feature is the price. At $200, Amazon appears to be taking a loss on every unit sold, hoping to make it up by selling you e-books and other content from their huge product catalog. In a sense, you are paying for a front end to a sprawling online retailer, for that’s how Amazon expects you to use it. Within these limitations, the Fire may be a success, despite the version 1.0 bugs.

The 7-inch form factor is a mixed bag. The display presents about 40% of what you see on an iPad, and even the iPad’s screen may seem small if you’re used to a standard note-book. But the Fire’s smaller size means greater portability. You can probably fit one in a coat pocket, and certainly in a purse. When it comes to reading a book, you can hold it in one hand, something you just cannot do with comfort on an iPad.

Now Steve Jobs has ragged on those smaller tablets, claiming they come across mostly as swollen smartphones, without the phone of course, and that the display area just isn’t enough to do the sort of things you can accomplish on an iPad.

Of course, the marketplace will make the ultimate decision. Obviously, the Kindle Fire doesn’t offer the breadth of features of an iPad, and Amazon’s app selection is quite small right now, although there appears to be some level of developer interest. The other question mark is the operating system. Amazon has taken Android 2.3, an OS never optimized for tablets, and heavily modified it with a distinctly different interface. Reviews also indicate that, when you get past Amazon’s book shelf styled opening screen, you run into problems with inconsistent functions and a somewhat soft text display.

I expect that Kindle fans will probably embrace the Fire, as will people who want a more traditional tablet but cannot afford the iPad’s asking price. But if the OS bugs turn off the early adopters, Amazon might have a problem. Such issues are symptomatic of a product that wasn’t fully baked before being released. No doubt, Amazon wanted to ship the Fire ahead of the holidays, to deliver the maximum amount of sales. But if customers are put off by the bugs, they are going to tell their friends, who might, in turn, cancel their orders, or never place them in the first place.

Then again, there is no reason why the iPad and the Fire can’t each succeed on their own merits. There are more than enough people out there to create lots of demand for both. Right now, it looks like the Fire, despite its shortcomings, will likely do well this year. But it’s clearly not an iPad replacement by any means.

As you read in yesterday’s column, I’ve been unable to activate iTunes Match on an iPhone 4, running iOS 5.0.1. Each time I try to switch it on under the Music settings, I’m warned that “This Device Is Already Associated With an Apple ID.” I’m warned that I can only change Apple IDs once every 90 days, and when I click the OK button on the prompt, I’m taken to a browser window within the App Store, where the function to “Add This Computer” won’t accept a tap.

Now the message implies that I’ve used a different Apple ID for that iPhone within that 90 day window. Evidently this is a hard-coded block put there by Apple to — what? — keep you from accidentally or deliberately using your iOS device with different Apple IDs? Surely that can’t be the only reason.

For me, this complicated situation began with a request for help from Apple’s Express Lane chat support center, which is available for iCloud users. I had run into that “Already Associated” block when I first tried to use iTunes Match on my iPhone. The support person returned me to the Mac, where I was asked to remove my iCloud username, which was simply the original MobileMe account ID, and enter my iTunes Apple ID instead. Understand that the latter ID was established years ago, and has been used for all my Apple gear.

In turn, the 40GB online storage — a bone, evidently, offered to paid MobileMe subscribers — shrunk to the standard allotment of 5GB. And, no, there’s no way to transfer the storage, or, as I said, combine the accounts. Some time back, Apple CEO Tim Cook said the company was looking into the problem, but evidently they have to do a lot more looking before a solution is at hand.

Anyway, it turned out that my 2009 iMac, 2010 17-inch MacBook Pro, and an iPad 2, were all set up with my iTunes ID, and thus were able to retrieve my cloud-based music. That’s the good part. But the iPhone still hit me with that inscrutable message whenever I tried to activate iTunes Match. Indeed, the message frequently repeated itself simply by unlocking the iPhone and clicking on any app, including Mail, which had to access an Apple account of one sort or another.

My subsequent efforts to straighten things out resulted in several support hand-offs. iCloud support said go to iTunes, which only offers email help if you can’t find any relief in Apple’s online document collection. In turn, iTunes support said go back to iCloud, so I set up yet another Express Lane chat. There I was told the iTunes people got it wrong, but they evidently got someone from that department on the line to assist further. Between chat sessions, and awaiting iTunes email responses, I had used the Reset and Restore feature to clean things up on the iPhone without success.

Are you with me so far? It is exhausting.

The iCloud support person’s solution was to ask me to call Apple for help. Once phone support was alerted to my problem, they agreed not to exact a $49 fee for support (that particular iPhone doesn’t have AppleCare). Their solution involved doing a “full” Restore, meaning that I would be basically setting up the thing from scratch, without using a backup from which to gather old settings and apps.

The upshot? Well, after undergoing this entire process, I set up the unit for my Apple ID, and iCloud, with fingers crossed. Once again, the dreaded message reared its ugly head, this time because, for some reason, the newly wiped iPhone 4 “thought” that it had been set up with my MobileMe ID. The Apple rep said that, if nothing changed, I’d have to wait the required 90 period to set things right.

Now willing to take no for an answer, I wrote to iTunes support yet again, demanding a solution, since the Apple ID mixup on the iPhone occurred as the result of following their advice, not as the result of my attempts to troubleshoot. Within a few hours, I was assured that the iPhone had been removed as a device on my accounts, though I suspect they forgot that I had two, as you’ll see shortly.

Not willing to take chances, I did yet another Restore, though this time I used a recent backup so I wouldn’t have to endure another complete setup process. At the same time, I rejoined iCloud with my iTunes ID.

Now came the acid test, as I attempted to link the iPhone to the iTunes Match account. As you might have guessed, there was no change whatever. The problem was still there. I checked the MobileMe ID, and no devices were associated with it, so I’m back at square one, hoping Apple will devise a workable solution in my lifetime.

Meantime, that other iTunes Match defect I encountered, in which a small number of songs from an imported album weren’t matched while most were, is nothing unusual. I’ve done a little checking, and it appears this symptom is not at all unusual. Evidently the iTunes Match database needs some work, but I do hope the Update iTunes Match feature in iTunes will be sufficient to fix the problem once everything is working properly. I hate to think one might have to remove and re-add a music library from scratch to set things right.

But that’s enough for today. I definitely need some rest.

I have anticipated the arrival of iTunes Match with somewhat mixed feelings. I’ve only purchased a modest number of tracks from iTunes over the years, and many of the gems in my aging CD collection date back to the earliest days of the classic rock era. I can already rip my songs and have them accessible by the Macs and iOS devices on my account. So where’s the gain?

At the same time, there are undeniable advantages in matching all or most of your music with Apple’s online equivalent. If you captured (ripped) your music with a lower bit rate, you’ll get the 256K AAC version, with one major exception. Apple sets a floor of 96K or less, no doubt to stop people who are trying to match low resolution pirated music with a legal version. At the same time, it doesn’t appear that Apple otherwise looks for any internal data in an effort to verify legality, so that $24.99 annual fee you pay for the service may make you essentially legal. I don’t know if this encourages or discourages pirating. But the music industry, who shares in these subscription fees, may be happy to get something out of the deal rather than nothing.

The other issue is whether Apple will match older masters of an album with the latest and greatest. As I wrote yesterday, my first test, using the classic “Revolver” album from The Beatles, had a positive result. I had purchased the original CD in the 1980s, but these tunes have since been digitally remastered, and I expect the version sold by iTunes is based on those remasters. To test this possibility, I ripped the CD, and had iCloud update. I was pleased to see the entire album was listed as “Matched.”

However, I didn’t fare quite as well with “Abbey Road” or “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.” In each case, one tune was labeled “Uploaded” instead, meaning that it couldn’t be reconciled with the online version. Oh well, no big catastrophe.

Next, I tried “Magical Mystery Tour,” but this time I was afforded a message asking which version I wanted of the two offered. I choose the “2009 Stereo Remaster.” The same selection was made for “Let It Be.” I’m not a mono person by any means, though I realize the early Beatles albums were recorded that way (but not these). I’m sure the died-in-the-wool purists in our audience will complain about my lack of taste, but I don’t really care. The more channels the better. On the other hand, no such choices were offered for the “White Album” or “Help.” Oh well.

When iTunes Match scanned these albums, it was the same mixed bag. Some tracks were “Matched,” but others “Uploaded,” with neither rhyme nor reason. It wasn’t a Beatles thing either, because I ran into the same situation with “Best of Blondie.” Album artwork was also unavailable for some of these albums. I would love to know the inscrutable logic the service uses to scour the databases to sort these things out. My only hope is that there will be a further opportunity to resync these songs, perhaps after some of the early bugs are worked out.

I still have over 100 albums in my storage cabinet that have never been imported into iTunes, but I’ll be doing  a few each day until the process is complete. It’s going to make a load of a difference on a long trip, at least when I’d rather listen to something in my music library than a satellite radio feed.

Aside from the early hiccups with the iCloud transition, the new service has worked all right, except in the key category of handling multiple Apple IDs. That’s where things get dicey.

Now in my case, I followed a direct route, transitioning my MobileMe account to iCloud. That left me with the MobileMe username as an Apple ID used for that service. However, my iTunes content, and that includes my iOS App Store library, was acquired with yet another ID. Are you seeing the dilemma?

Unfortunately, your Mac, PC, or iOS device expects to see one Apple ID at a time. It’s not that you can use both, nor has Apple devised a scheme to allow you to merge them. So I was put in a situation where, when trying to get new apps on my iPhone, it would ask me to login via my iCloud ID, not the standard Apple ID, which, however, worked for updating existing apps. You with me so far?

I contacted Apple support to attempt to sort things out. The iTunes people responded via email, and they punted me to the iCloud section, where you can communicate with Apple via an online Express Lane chat.

The solution: Log out of the iCloud accounts on all my gear, and delete these accounts. Login with your iTunes Apple ID. You then have to manually add your former MobileMe email account, which is easy enough on a Mac using Apple Mail, because all the settings are filled in for you once you enter your email address. But it’s not so easy on an iOS gadget. There you have to be counterintuitive, choosing “Other” among the choices for the email accounts you want to add, even though iCloud and MobileMe are offered. All the setup information has to be manually entered and rechecked.

When all is said and done, this kluge was only partly successful. Although the same Apple ID is entered on my iPhone 4’s iCloud, Music and Store settings, I’m not able to play music. Instead, I see a message warning me that “This Device Is Already Associated With an Apple ID.” I’m also reminded that you can only change IDs once every 90 days, but clearly that wasn’t the intent of this screwy arrangement, so I’m awaiting an email response from iTunes support to sort this out. And I do hope Apple CEO Tim Cook keeps his early promise to allow you to combine your Apple IDs. The arrival of iTunes Match only increases the need for a final solution.

The very first Mac arrived in 1984 without the ability to upgrade anything. Even opening the case was a chore best left to service technicians when troubles arose. Although the Macs that arrived in the years after Steve Jobs left Appleoften sported relatively easy upgrading, it wasn’t always a cake walk.

I remember, for example, the Quadra 800, a precursor to the similarly designed Power Mac 8100. If you wanted to add or replace RAM, you had to separate the chassis from the case, which involved removing lots of screws and separating cable assemblies. The process, while theoretically not difficult, presented the potential hazard of damaging delicate cables and wreaking havoc. Understand that this model, and some of its successors, were minitowers designed for professional content creators who required smooth internal expansion, and Apple fell down on the job big time.

It required several generations of Power Macs to right the wrongs. When one of those models featuring simple RAM upgrades was demonstrated by Apple to an audience of Mac users, there was a round of applause as the simple disassembly process was exhibited.

But it’s not as if the return of Steve Jobs signaled the arrival of simpler upgrade schemes. The original iMac, for example, also required extensive internal disassembly to add or replace RAM. It was a monstrosity. And please don’t remind me about the original Mac mini form factor. You needed a putty knife or a similar tool in order to take apart the case, and perform internal upgrades or part swaps. Some versions even put the memory slots below the hard drive, requiring you to remove the latter to expand the former. All under this happened under the micromanagement of Steve Jobs.

Today’s Mac mini is not so user hostile. Memory upgrades are simple, because the bottom cover is easily opened without the need of tools. This is, by the way, the sort of feature I had suggested Apple adopt for quite some time, but I wouldn’t suggest that my urgings influenced their decision. Certainly lots of Mac mini owners voiced similar complaints.

Nowadays, RAM upgrades are fairly simple on all current Mac desktops and portables. Things get dicey if you choose to expand or replace a hard drive, and I won’t even consider what you have to do on today’s iMac. Only the Mac Pro is suited for simple upgrades beyond basic RAM. Apple clearly doesn’t want you to open the cases of their consumer models.

When it comes to an iOS gadget, it’s a no person’s land inside. Yes, repair people will take them apart, but regular people aren’t expected to change anything. When it comes to major repairs, it’s often better to just buy a new one, assuming that you’re not locked into a wireless carrier contract and face potential high early termination fees. That’s why extended warranties make lots of sense for an iPhone, though having one for an iPad isn’t a bad idea.

For Mac users, the situation creates problems when the computer seems long in the tooth, can no longer run the apps you want, and OS upgrades are out of the question.

Take the case of a friend, a semi-retired book author whose first-generation Mac mini has recently become less useful. He found that he couldn’t ryb some of the apps that he wanted, particularly a version of Flip4Mac, essentially a QuickTime add-on that lets you view a fair amount of Windows Media content, which requires Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard); he has 10.4 (Tiger). In theory his Mac mini can upgrade to Leopard, but in practice, finding a copy and paying someone (me) to help him through potential pitfalls didn’t make a lot of sense financially for a six-year-old computer.

I suggested he buy an entry-level 2011 Mac mini. He isn’t saddled with software that will only run on a PowerPC processor (it appears his third-part apps are Universal), and the performance advantage would be tremendous. I haven’t told him that the latest mini comes without an optical drive, but I’m not at all certain he really needs one. He can always back up to a USB stick.

His kids suggested he consider upgrading his old computer, since he doesn’t have a whole lot of excess cash, which is understandable. But the Mac mini is essentially a closed box when it comes to any upgrades that would make a difference to him. You can’t replace the processor, installing a bigger, faster hard drive is a costly process because of the hostile internal expansion process. When it comes to a personal computer, the mini is closer in concept to your TV. You’re not about to change anything inside your TV unless something breaks and, even then, you’ll want a repair person unless you enjoy tinkering with consumer electronics of that sort and have the ability and ready access to spare parts. Besides, when the display panel dies, it becomes much cheaper to replace the whole widget.

In the scheme of things, the Mac mini adheres to the original concept of a Mac as a pure computing appliance, though it lacks an internal display and even some input devices. You use it, and, when it can no longer suit your needs in terms of performance and the ability to run current software, you hand it off to a family member or hope for a modest return if you sell it. And based on the current listings on eBay, a clean 2005 Mac mini can be sold for over $230. Not such a bad deal.