There’s a story this week from CNN that purports to list the best laid plans by Apple’s competitors to surround and smother the iPad’s momentum. Corporate executives and industry analysts are quoted, and I’ll take the story as accurate, since the latest tablets from these companies confirms the story, and clearly betrays their total ignorance of the reasons behind Apple’s success.

To their questionable way of thinking, the best way to compete with Apple is just to build as many different alternative models as possible, replete with features that Apple doesn’t have. After all, why stick with a 9.7-inch tablet, when you can add models with 7-inch screens, 10.1-inch screens, and any size in between that your chosen flat panel factory can build for you.

If that’s not enough, add models with 3D capability. Maybe include a free set of 3D goggles with your purchase. And if letting your fingers doing the walking across the touchscreen isn’t sufficient for input, why not add that tried and true stylus? If you’re afraid of losing one, just have it connected via a wire, and provide a convenient storage clip on the unit itself. It begins to sound like we’re returning to the era of the original Palm Pilot or Apple Newton here, but this has to be a good idea. After all, Apple hasn’t done it on their iPads.

Of course, there is that niggling question about apps. Apple has 60,000 tailored strictly for the iPad. Android has a tiny fraction of that, but that’s no big deal, right? Developers will soon come on board, and the entire iPad killer ecosystem will soon be in place.

Continue Reading…

Some years back, a few of us made the pitch for a “Mythical Midrange Mac Minitower,” to use the term coined by Macworld Senior Editor Dan Frakes. I preferred to call it a “headless iMac,” since I envisioned something with the guts of the iMac, but without the display. I was thinking of a 21st century equivalent of the fabled Mac IIcx/IIci. These were powerful (for their time) relatively lightweight Macs with a room for expansion cards and other goodies.

Well, Apple has their own concept of what a mid-priced Macintosh should be, at least so far as Steve Jobs is concerned. Don’t forget that, under his tutelage, a Mac is primarily an all-in-one computer with minimal expansion possibilities. That tradition was first restored with the original iMac, and let’s not forget the various portable Macs over the years. Today’s MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air families sell far more units that any of the traditional desktop models.

Where the original iMac was a relatively inexpensive entry-level computer, today’s iMac, when it comes to performance benchmarks, plays a very close second to the humongous Mac Pro; that is, unless your app diet consists of software that has been specially tuned to sing when extra processor cores are available. For most of you, the difference won’t be perceptible, though you will perceive the serious lack of internal expansion.

Yes, Apple does sell some iMacs with a second drive, solid state, in its build-to-order section. This is not something offered by Apple aftermarket, although MacSales, a Mac accessory and memory supplier, will take your 2010 iMac and do the upgrade for you in their own facility, if you care to live without your computer for a few days. And, of course, spend lots of extra money for the convenience of that extra drive.

Now since Apple is offering an iMac with two drives, would it take very much engineering to provide easy rear access to a second drive slot? That way you could buy your own internal expansion drive, mechanical or solid state, whenever you want, and simply pop it in. Understand I realize that retrofitting the current model is a chore, but surely Apple’s brilliant designers can devise a user-friendly alternative.

Consider the possibilities.

Now remember that most people who buy a Mac Pro do it because of the ability to add up to four internal drives, plus expansion cards. But let’s not go there, because a second expansion card isn’t really practical in an iMac, unless Apple somehow achieves much greater feats of miniaturization. The solution is Thunderbolt, with essentially gives you a two-way external PCI Express port for up to six devices. You can add a second display, hard drives, and whatever accessory makers design in the months to come.

Suddenly, the iMac becomes a worthy replacement for the Mac Pro for many power users and content creators. Yes, I realize that, as consumer-grade processors become faster and gain extra cores, the workstation parts, such as the Intel Xeon, will also gain in CPU horsepower. Depending on Intel’s design goals, there probably won’t be a convergence, where a single product line serves both consumers and professional users.

Regardless, it’s clear to me that the iMac, though a descendant of the original compact Mac, can serve a variety of customers with different needs, at a pretty affordable price. Yes, I grant there are loads of PC boxes that sell for hundreds less. But when it comes to all-in-ones, the iMac is extremely competitive.

As I said before, I realize there are many Mac users, although the number continues to diminish, for whom an iMac is a poor substitute for a digital audio or video workstation. Although the form factor is wrong, Apple also expects Mac Pros to also serve as high-end replacements for the now-departed Xserve. The low-end is occupied by a special Mac mini, and that actually may be enough server in certain environments. Indeed, a Mac mini with Thunderbolt port (and I expect one to arrive in the near future) will mean that you can hook up high-performance RAID drives. Maybe it won’t offer the redundancy of a real server, meaning the second power supply. But the mini is cheap enough that, if it fails, the techs at the data center can quickly unplug the external drives and move them to another box.

As far as the iMac Pro is concerned, actually you don’t have to call it a “Pro,” or offer any special model designation. Since Apple already gives you a two-drive option, the only real change involves making the expansion process easy for customers. Again, it probably won’t cost a lot for Apple’s engineering team to devise a solution.

Unfortunately, Apple continues to make far too many products that are hostile to internal changes, except in a very limited way. I realize it’ll probably never happen on an iPhone or an iPad, though I suppose an SD card and/or Thunderbolt port might be practical some day for the latter.

As with the “Mythical Midrange Mac Minitower,” this is probably all a pipe dream. Apple no doubt has other priorities.

Quite often there’s a disconnect between the subjects the media deems popular and what regular people really care about. I know, having worked for traditional news services, that it’s extremely easy to fall into this trap, but I hope that I can use my perspective to avoid it where possible.

So, for example, there’s the ongoing discussion about the impact of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. I have already covered this story to some extent, and I don’t think there’s a whole lot left to say. At this point, you’ve heard some reactions from politicians, media pundits, from Dan Hesse, CEO of Sprint, who will be most affected, and other industry players.

What I will say is that, after a year or so, the deal will be approved with a few token conditions imposed by the government on AT&T to make it appear as if they are standing up for the consumer. T-Mobile customers can probably look to the iPhone 6, in 2012, as the first one they can buy. Not too long after the merger is consummated, AT&T customers will probably have fewer dropped calls in the cities where T-Mobile’s cell towers have been integrated into the system. Sprint will be in trouble, but that’s nothing new, and, no, I don’t think Verizon Wireless wants them. Such a transaction would raise far more serious obstacles to overcome.

Another discussion is what sort of configurations Apple might offer with the next iMac. There are published reports that the 2011 models will ship late this spring, possibly in May, and will incorporate the desktop versions of Intel’s Sandy Bridge chips. That means more power, bringing the iMac closer in performance to the Mac Pro. I suppose it’s possible that solid state drive offerings will be cheaper as well, and there’s always Thunderbolt, the new Intel/Apple peripheral connection scheme that will ultimately mean something for professional users who need to add high-speed hard drives and other accessories.

For the regular iMac owner, you’ll probably need a stop watch to measure the speed bump, unless you’re regularly doing things that’ll tax the CPU cores to the max. More powerful graphics will likely mean superior frame rates for your favorite games. Again, only a subset of users will care, but yet the media will be talking up the next iMac’s benchmarks to fill space. Unless there are changes in form factor (inside and outside), it shouldn’t be worth a whole lot of extra discussion. Apple will probably announce the upgrade with a press release and nothing more.

I suppose the next iPhone, call it iPhone 5, will garner a fair amount of coverage, simply because it’s an iPhone. Speculation has it that some of the same parts that debuted in the iPad 2 will find their way into the next iPhone, primarily to provide superior CPU horsepower and graphics. Maybe Apple will redesign the antenna system so Consumer Reports won’t rant about the mythical shortcomings of that dreaded “Death Grip.” Or maybe they’ll find something else to complain about. You might even see cameras with more megapixels, because that represents the expected advance of technology when it comes to tiny camera sensors.

I suppose the case design might be somewhat different. Some suggest Apple will forego the extra glass and revert to a more traditional aluminum backing. But the enhancements will be mostly incremental. The real story will be all about iOS 5, and whatever new features Apple is working on.

When it comes to the iOS, any changes or improvements are ripe for discussion, because they will have a far greater impact to your experience in using an iPhone or an iPad. I would only hope that both the smartphone and tablet versions will be released simultaneously, and that iPad users won’t have to stay on the sidelines.

The other major point of discussion is Mac OS X Lion. I suppose there might be some concerns resulting from the departure of Bertrand Serlet, Apple’s senior vice president of Mac Software Engineering. After all, Serlet has worked for Steve Jobs on operating systems since the days of NeXT, and is one of the prime movers behind Mac OS X. He’s being replaced by Craig Federighi, another software executive who has been on the front lines in both NeXT and Apple.

Don’t forget that no operating system is the work of a single software engineer. There are surely some candidates in Apple’s tightly knit crew to replace other senior executives when it comes time for them to leave the rat race and enjoy a more relaxing life. That assumes that they will be taking time off, rather than just starting a brand new company, and going through the pressures all over again.

The real discussion is all about Lion’s interface changes, which are heavily influenced by the iOS. Having similar desktop and mobile operating systems will make the learning curves easier, particularly for users who were attracted to Macs as the result of buying iPhones and iPads. The problem, of course, is whether some of this eye candy can be easily switched off. I don’t think everyone will take to these “enhancements.”

Of course there will be other stories in the tech universe that may receive more coverage than they deserve, but I’ll try to find a kernel of significance where I can.

On the surface, an iPad comes across as a pretty innocuous gadget. It’s just a rectangular object with a display, and buttons for volume and muting (or rotation lock if you prefer). It’s a blank slate in the best sense of the term, meaning it does nothing till its turned on and you start running apps on it.

Indeed, the media’s initial reaction to the iPad’s rollout last year was a collective yawn. How could this possibly be the killer tablet that would turn that failed market on its head? To all intents and purposes, it was just a swollen iPod touch; the original version didn’t even have a camera.

According to published reports, Apple CEO Steve Jobs had been shepherding development of the iPad for several years. Indeed, the iPhone essentially branched off from the iPad project, and surely the similarities are obvious. The flexibility afforded by the much larger display is the main differentiator when it comes to apps, along with the subtle differences in the iOS.

What makes the iPad special is the fact that Apple had already built a home-brewed ecosystem for it, consisting of loads of apps, easy syncing, and virtually seamless integration with a desktop Mac or PC. As developers quickly fleshed out the possibilities for the iPad, it became indispensable, not just for consumers, but a growing number of businesses. In fact, luxury car makers are beginning to put their humongous owner manuals on spanking new iPads. For once, customers might actually read them.

Until the iPad arrived, PC makers had a single, aging concept of a tablet computer. Just take a Windows PC portable, add a swiveling display whose surface can be controlled with a stylus, and you have the Microsoft vision of innovation. The uptake was slow and halting, and only a few specialized businesses, such as physician’s offices, bothered. Each year would be the “year of the tablet,” but it took Apple to devise a solution that actually worked.

If you look at most of the tablets being built by Apple’s competitors, they are clearly heavily influenced by the iPad. They don’t promise superior usability, or a decent selection of apps. Instead, the ads, often with science fiction overtones, tout processor power and other arcane measurements that may have little impact on how those gadgets really work. Perhaps it’s also a lame attempt at deflection. The Android OS has very few compelling apps amidst the clutter of ringtones and wallpaper backdrops. Aside from the basics, such as email and Web browsing, the number of apps tailored for Android 3.0 Honeycomb, the first version of Google’s OS designed with tablets in mind, is far lower.

The iPad 2 can be outfitted with the modules that make up Apple’s iWork, plus GarageBand, iMovie, and tens of thousands more. What can you do with a Motorola Xoom?

Worse, the competition can barely compete with the iPad 2’s aggressive pricing, although the RIM Playback will reportedly match them when it goes on sale. A forthcoming version of the Xoom will also closely match the retail price of a similar iPad 2. But that may be a fire sale, since the original Xoom is more expensive.

However, the iPad is a cultural icon. Few pay attention to the Xoom, for example, which is why there are published reports that production is being scaled down, and that a newer model may be coming in the near future. Talk about being stillborn. There’s no indication that any of the forthcoming competitors will fare differently.

This doesn’t mean I don’t want to see competition. A monopoly position can mean stagnation when it comes to innovation. Ask Microsoft. Sure, Apple keeps moving the envelope. But it’s clear that, despite the thinner and lighter form factor, the changes in the iPad 2 are largely incremental. Apple has no incentive to do any better, simply because nobody else can even approach the simplicity, elegance and flexibility of the iPad.

As I’ve said in the past, the best way to compete with a market leader is to build a better mousetrap. Yes, having a lower price helps, but Apple has already cornered the market on many of the critical components needed for a tablet computer. The impact of the tragedy in Japan is uncertain when it comes to the supply chain. Although Apple has no doubt attempted to compensate for possible component shortages, I can’t think the situation will help them as they attempt to ramp up the production lines.

The rest of the industry is going to have to confront an extremely difficult situation in attempting to build product, and keep the bill of materials reasonably low. As the iPad 2’s sales soar, the cost of building each unit will be reduced.

That leaves the iPad killer industry with a serious dilemma. Look at the history of the iPod, where Apple entered a market where sales were few, and fueled a revolution. The iPad may simply repeat that event all over again. The only way consumer electronics makers can cope would be to beat Apple at their own game. Make a markedly superior product, and keep the prices down. That doesn’t necessary mean a better iPad, but perhaps something altogether new that would make Apple’s gadgets seem old fashioned. I doubt that they’re up to the job.