Now imagine, just imagine, that Southwest Airlines had the potential to become a major competitor to GE. All right, I realize that’s ridiculous since the two companies aren’t playing in the same industry. But if you look at the recent chatter, you’ve got to wonder the source of the boneheaded conclusion that Sirius XM, the U.S.’s lone satellite radio service, has something serious to fear from Apple Inc.

Apparently this theory is based on the fact that Apple’s iconic gadgets, such as the iPad, iPhone, not to mention the iPod, seem to garner a higher approval rating from customers than Sirius XM. Ipso facto Apple stands to gain at the expense of a provider of satellite radio.

Well, maybe that’s closer to comparing the radio with the radio station. But it all goes to show that, when web traffic is the goal, writers will twist and turn and do everything they can to make something out of nothing.

What is evidently being ignored is the fact that an Apple mobile device and Sirius XM can happily coexist. Indeed, it’s quite possible for the latter to benefit from the success of the former. However, I thought this concept was logical, so why would it become an issue?

But here’s the reasoning: Surveys demonstrate that a growing number of people use their Apple gadgets to listen to radio shows. Rather than turn on a radio (satellite or terrestrial), or listen to the music feed from a cable or satellite service, you use your Apple device. You can listen directly, plug it into your car radio, or perhaps an accessory audio system. All well and good.

But the real issue is what you are listening to, not the device you’re using to listen.

One popular choice is Pandora, an online service that lets you create your own virtual radio station simply by specifying your listening preferences. AOL Radio and other alternates also offer a rich selection of stations. If that’s not enough, you can simply visit iTunes and download and hear your favorite podcast, which is my personal preference for the self-serving reason that I have two shows offered in that format. More to the point, lots of radio stations and networks now offer mobile apps.

In fact, our network, GCN, offers a decent iOS app (it’s also available for Android OS users) that allows you to listen to their entire programming lineup, including mine. You can tune in to the rebroadcasts, or the live feeds. Your choice. Since the iOS multitasking feature is supported, you’ll be able to continue to listen to a show while doing something else, but that applies to all current radio apps.

To nobody’s surprise, there’s also an app from Sirius XM that allows you to hear your favorite satellite stations. Or just use your personal computer and go direct to their web site.

So do you see where I’m going here?

Apple is not in the business producing radio shows. Other than podcasts, Apple is not distributing radio shows. Their gadgets serve as simply another medium through which you can receive such content, and any company who builds an app can compete for listeners in the open marketplace.

So if Sirius XM has a potential competitor, it is not Apple Inc. However, this isn’t to say that they are in the clear. You see, you pay a monthly fee for satellite radio. It’s not a large fee, but that could be a deal breaker for some, although the company seems to be doing well financially, particularly after the two original companies, Sirius and XM, joined together a few years back.

One way to boost Sirius XM signups is to make partnerships with auto makers to deliver a satellite radio with many of their models, sometimes as standard issue. So, for example, the 2011 Hyundai Sonata, and the equivalent from Hyundai’s Kia affiliate, the Optima, offer one of the two satellite networks on a three-month trial on new vehicles. After three months, you have to sign up and pay the monthly fee to continue to receive your favorite satellite stations.

There’s a lot to be said for the flexibility of satellite radio here in the U.S. You can listen to a single channel all across the country, except in regions where a usable signal can’t be acquired, such as in a tunnel. Even then, Sirus XM has installed lots of satellite repeaters in various locales to improve reception. I have to tell you that, having done interstate trips from time to time, it’s awfully convenient not to have to continually switch the radio to a different station as signal strength ebbs. If you listen to a syndicated show, you otherwise have to hope that there will be another station that carries the show.

The other advantage with satellite, other than loads music channels in all the popular genres without commercials, is that you can hear a live broadcast. With Pandora and podcasts, you’re getting something prerecorded.

But it’s hard to argue against free, and if you don’t have a lot of discretionary cash lying around, even the small sum you pay for satellite radio, starting as $12.95 per month for a standard package, may be too much. For this service to survive and prosper, they will have to continue to offer something special, compelling. Consider, for example, shows where such rock legends Bob Dylan and Tom Petty hang out for a half hour and play their favorite tunes. For me, such offerings are well worth the price of admission. Maybe it’s not to you, but it wouldn’t be because Apple had anything to do with it.

Just this week, Consumer Reports posted an online review covering the iPad 2, and a small number of also-rans in the tablet PC world. This report was meant as an upgrade to an article that appeared in the May 2011 newsstand issue, which was prepared before the iPad 2 was available to evaluate.

The conclusion was predictable. The iPad 2 gets an “excellent” rating in nearly every category. Curiously, the original iPad was placed in a tie with the Motorola Xoom, though heaven knows why. Well, at least CR didn’t find any bogus antenna issue with which to downgrade Apple’s iconic gadget, but they aren’t entitled to much more credit than that, simply because they still haven’t a clue how to properly review products of this sort.

They have, for example, an ephemeral “ease of use” category, but they don’t really explain the criteria for such ratings. If they were really paying attention, it would seem highly questionable for the Xoom to rate very highly because, if you consider what you can do with this gadget, it barely rates a xero — make that a zero.

You see, you can rate CPU and graphics performance, and whether the interface is snappy or not. You can certainly judge the features, such as onboard cameras, or, in the case of the original iPad, the lack thereof. You might also look at accessory ports, such as an SD card slot, or an HDMI port, neither of which Apple incorporates, even though they offer convenient and relatively low-cost adapters for both.

But none of this matters if there are no apps to run. Apple has over 65,000 specifically designed to run on an iPad. In contrast, the Motorola Xoom, which uses Android 3.0, or Honeycomb, has a few dozen.

As a result, the argument is over. Your usability options on a Xoom, or any other Android-based tablet, are extremely limited, unless you want to stick with regular smartphone apps, which look horrible when blown up to the full size of the display.

Other Android tablets, using older versions of the OS, are in worse shape. Those products are dead ends, because they weren’t designed with tablets in mind, and new apps will never be compatible. That’s their fault for not paying attention to Google. This, along with the growing and irritating fragmentation issue, are the reasons that Google is asserting greater control over the ways licensees can fiddle with the interface and bundled software. Indeed, they are also holding off on releasing the source code, with no definite date as to when it might be available.

Unfortunately, CR doesn’t grok any of this. They seem utterly unable to judge these products on the basis of real usability, which means having enough apps to actually afford a choice of what to do beyond email, Internet access, and access to your favorite social network. Indeed, one of the reasons that the Mac was denigrated early on was the myth that very few applications were available for that platform. In that case, it wasn’t true for the most part, except for certain vertical applications for business consumers that were only available on Windows.

When it comes to an Android 3.0 tablet, the situation is dreadful, utterly dreadful. Worse, app developers aren’t going to have much of an incentive to build apps for the Xoom and its ilk, simply because the iPad has swamped the marketplace. Developers who want to make money know which platform is best.

Understand that CR’s editors are entitled to their opinions, and they even entitled to publish highly flawed reviews that fail to address the needs of the end user. Rather, I’m concerned why the media, tech, mainstream and elsewhere, largely accepts CR’s word as gospel. The vast, vast majority of articles about their reviews are not critical. They never consider whether or not the magazine is using poorly conceived testing methods.

I can see where manufacturers might avoid public criticism, simply because it will sound like sour grapes. Indeed, when it comes to auto testing, CR has it right when handling tests revealed certain vehicles nearly tipping over or swerving out of control in extreme handling tests. While CR was once sued by an auto maker over this issue, more recently Toyota promptly responded to a reported handling flaw by rejiggering the onboard software so the electronic stability control would kick in faster. But you wonder why they never noticed during the product design phase.

When it comes to consumer electronics gear, Apple didn’t suffer in any noticeable way because the two flavors of the iPhone 4 weren’t recommended, based on that alleged “Death Grip.” Certainly, if there was an ounce of evidence that sales might be hurt, I’m quite sure Apple would have gotten ahold of CR in order to set them straight. Certainly what CR reports flies in the face of Apple’s tests, once posted online, and still mirrored all over the globe, not to mention blogs populated with antenna experts, and all those people who posted YouTube videos demonstrating that antenna sensitivity issues can be duplicated on many smartphones. I’m most troubled, however, that CR doesn’t seem to know about warning labels, and those cautions in user manuals about the unsavory impact of holding a mobile handset the wrong way.

Or maybe their test team doesn’t believe in reading manuals. While I realize consumers don’t either, a magazine that prides itself on thorough and balanced product testing ought to know better.

After the tragic earthquake and tsunami occurred in Japan, some tech analysts were suggesting that Apple might be in deep trouble building their trend-setting gadgets. Some of the parts, such as batteries, were all or partly sourced in Japan. The supply chain was disrupted, thus Apple couldn’t possibly meet customer demand. This resulted in a temporary drop in Apple’s stock price, predictably of course.

At the same time, Apple is selling every single iPad 2 they can build. It’s not uncommon for people to line up in front of an Apple Store at the crack of dawn, waiting for the day’s shipments, and hoping to be among to first to take home a new iPad. That same scene has been repeated in pretty much all the countries in which the iPad 2 is available. If you can’t wait, prepare to pay a few hundred dollars extra via the gray market, or from someone on eBay who bought a bunch of them for the sole purpose of taking your money because you aren’t patient enough to wait for production to catch up.

Now understand that Apple’s supply chain commander, COO Tim Cook, is a brilliant production person. I’m quite sure he understands that natural disasters, weather, strikes, and other factory disruptions might impact Apple’s ability to get the components they need. So he makes arrangements for alternate suppliers, where possible.

So you’ve seen that the iPad 2 online backorders were once as long as four to five weeks, but have, as of this week, decreased from two to three weeks. No, not because people are no longer buying them in huge quantities. Remember that this device only went on sale outside the U.S. towards the end of March. Clearly demand is higher, but more product is being assembled and shipped.

This doesn’t mean that can’t or won’t be a slowdown because of the production uncertainties in Asia. But there’s no sign yet that Apple has been hurt any. However, I’ve little doubt that Apple’s financial team will be asked just that question during the quarterly conference call on April 20th, after the financials for the last quarter are announced. Then you’ll know what’s really going on.

Now I suppose you could argue that Apple’s competitors stand to gain. If you can’t get an iPad 2, what about the Motorola Xoom? Well, the May 2011 issue of Consumer Reports, never known for accuracy or consistency in reviewing computing devices, admits they didn’t actually have an iPad 2 on hand when the article was written. But they correctly point out that other companies have had serious difficulty coming close to Apple’s aggressive price points. But the most curious statement of all appears in a blurb, “Motorola Zoom may be iPad’s biggest rival.”

Or maybe not. There’s no evidence at all that, despite all the heavy-duty sci-fi flavored ads, large quantities of Xooms are being sold. Already there are reports that the product is being dead-ended, and that a new model will appear this summer. So much for the manufacturer’s confidence in the Xoom’s potential, not to mention reports that production has been cut back severely.

Unfortunately, Consumer Reports is so wedded to hardware specs, that they fail to consider issues of usability, OS stability and, most important, the availability of apps. The iPad is nothing without apps, and with 65,000 choices, nobody seems able to catch up. Even the highly-touted Android Market hasn’t exhibited much in the way of software sales, compared to the number of smartphone apps in that inventory. Most are free, but hardly worth the download. And there are only a few dozen earmarked for tablets. CR mentions that new apps will likely require Android 3.0 or later, which immediately sets tablets with old OS versions, which didn’t actually support tablets, at a severe disadvantage. Why buy those products if you won’t be able to get new apps for them?

Also consider just one more thing: Why would anyone want to buy even a Xoom when you consider the limitations in the number of apps? As I said, that’s the biggest charm of Apple’s mobile gear. Even though Android OS smartphones are selling in higher quantities than iPhones, apps sales are still in the toilet. Certainly lots of customers may not care. Perhaps the standard email client, Web client and the various and sundry standard add-ons are sufficient. I understand some users might even prefer the alleged “open” marketplace, free of restrictions imposed by Google.

But they may not appreciate the recent outbreak of malware-ridden apps. Google received accolades from an uncritical news media when the infected apps were pulled, not realizing that, with even casual reviewing, most of those apps would never have made it into the store.

Even Google is beginning to have second thoughts about Android’s purported openness. The source code for version 3.0, code-named Honeycomb, is being withheld for now. It’s also clear that Google wants to impose some restrictions on their preferred partners so they don’t tamper so drastically with the user interface and bundled software.

So Apple may be the enemy to Android users for now — assuming the products weren’t purchased because iPhones and iPads weren’t available on the day of purchase — but it’s also clear Google can learn a thing or two about branding, and the need to exert a little control to enforce that concept.

Let me tell you that I have always lusted after great technology. I suppose my addiction began in the days before personal computers became commonplace, when I bought an electric typewriter with rudimentary word processing capabilities. What that meant was a storage card that would record a limited number of characters, offering a barely capable method of actually editing your document before committing it to paper.

During the 1980s, I had taken a hiatus from my writing and broadcasting careers to work in the prepress industry. I spent hours laboring over keyboard terminals that hooked in to a large phototypesetting system. While not as exciting as the entertainment industry, I was assured of a regular, predictable paycheck. My wife was also pleased that she could prepare a household budget with a reasonable degree of confidence that we’d be able to actually meet our financial obligations.

When the Apple Macintosh arrived in 1984, my bosses at the prepress agency examined the possibilities closely. As one of the main production people, I was charged with keeping tabs on the new arrival to examine its potential. When PageMaker, the famous desktop publishing application, arrived, along with the Apple LaserWriter featuring Adobe’s PostScript page description language, we were prepared to make the leap.

Yes, people still existed in the command line in those days. The idea of pointing and clicking on pretty icons and buttons seemed, well, childish. People told me that you can’t get real work done on Macs, or any other PC with a graphical user interface. Well, at least until Microsoft cribbed the basics of the Mac OS, and begat Windows.

Continue Reading…