The original prediction had it that Apple’s brand spanking new Mac App Store would arrive at Noon Eastern Thursday, but it went live hours earlier, in sync with the arrival of the Mac OS 10.6.6 update. I assume, for the moment, that most of you who are using Snow Leopard did see signs of that file when you ran Software Update. If not, no problem. The updater is also available at Apple’s support site for direct download.

Now in theory, when you install 10.6.6, a new App Store icon will appear in the Dock after you restart your Mac. But theories don’t always work in practice. My experiences have been mixed. On my MacBook Pro, it was there, no problem. But not on my iMac. Since both had the same Snow Leopard revision ahead of the installation, and I don’t use strange system enhancement utilities, something was evidently lost in the transaction.

Sure, the App Store, well, app, is safely stored in the Applications folder, but if it’s not in the Dock by default, lots of Mac users won’t see it if the installation goes awry. I don’t pretend to know if my anomalous experience represents a large number of Mac users or not. Let’s just talk it up to a fairly unique glitch, at least for now.

As of Day One, some 1,000 apps were reportedly available in the App Store. My Inbox was stuffed with press releases from companies hoping to enlarge that number really fast. While you may not see 300,000 apps there within three years, as was the case with the iOS App Store, it’s quite possible loads of developers will rush to the platform to get their day in the sun. The relative ease of porting iOS apps to the Mac means that some of those programs will soon be available for both.

Among the earliest entrants are, of course, Apple’s iLife 11, and iWork 09, both of which are available ala carte for somewhat lower prices than the bundled versions. Here you see the advantages and limitations of the App Store approach. If you want, for example, Pages and not Keynote or Numbers, you don’t have to pay for them too.

Multiple user licensing is, however, slightly confusing. With iTunes, you’re licensed for up to five computers, but the App Store’s terms indicate, “After you purchase an application, you can install it free of charge on every Mac you use.”

Even 10? What about 50? I’m curious as to how far this licensing expansion extends. Regardless, it frees you of the obligation to pay for “family packs,” thus saving some money in the bargain.

On the negative side of the ledger, developers are severely constrained in some ways if they opt to participate in the App Store. For one thing, updates are presented as free. They can’t charge you for the revision, although I suppose there will be some method of packaging major upgrades different to require a brand new purchase, but that means you won’t be eligible for a lower price if you already have a previous version of an app. Transferring the user list from a developer’s files may be possible ultimately, but many developers would prefer to keep their customers rather than pass them on to Apple.

Support for the apps you already have installed is also mixed bag. It works fine with Apple’s products and, evidently, with at least some freebies. But paid apps are another story, and how Apple would extend support for the tens of thousands of third-party products out there . More than likely, if you’re already a paid customer, you’ll either have to buy an all-new version when it becomes available from the App Store, or acquire a cheaper upgrade version from the developer’s own site; the same is true for the maintenance updates you got directly from the publishers.

Support for suites appears to be lacking for now, which excludes not only Apple’s professional content creation apps, but products from Adobe, Microsoft and loads of other developers. I suppose they could unbundle their suites and enter the App Store if the installation process is otherwise compatible, but we’ll have to see how such scenarios are handled, or maybe Apple will consider offering full-blown suites. And remember, even if you buy an entire album from iTunes, you are still just downloading a bunch of separate tracks. It’s just a matter of batch downloading, whereas an app suite would require special installers to integrate shared libraries and that sort thing.

Also prohibited, at least for now, are apps that place files in other than the accepted locales (such as the Applications and Application Support folders), and ones that install kernel extensions. That means that loads of system tools, plus audio capture apps that include Ambrosia’s WireTap Studio, aren’t allowed.

But that’s now, and I expect that Apple will expand the possibilities for App Store products as the service grows. For now it appears that the mere existence of such an integrated software download repository is going to ultimately mean the end of direct sales, either from dealers or the developers themselves.

For many Mac users, the absence of third-party app resources might be a good thing. It means, as with the iOS App Store, that you can go to one place to get the software you want, assuming it’s available. The end of retail boxes and third-party distribution channels may, in the end, mean more profits for developers. In many cases, they will be able to cut the prices and more than make up for the difference in higher unit sales, along with having a fixed cost of doing business (aside from their own employees of course). As with the original App Store, Apple gets a 30% piece of the pie to do all the back-end work of delivering apps to millions of loyal Mac users.

As I said, it’s a work in progress, and we’ll see in the next few days just what sort of flaws, accidental or otherwise, Apple will have to confront.

With CES in action this week in Las Vegas, as usual, you can bet that Apple’s absence will be felt more than ever. Apple doesn’t do the trade show circuit; they even stopped attending the Macworld Expo, emphasizing their own specially targeted media events, and the ability to reach customers via a growing retail chain and online presence. And I haven’t even begun to include the massive press coverage to which everything Apple does — or might do, or won’t do — is subjected.

Last year, with the arrival of Apple’s tablet looming heavily on the event, some PC makers introduced tablet prototypes, mostly running Windows 7. Few if any actually hit the marketplace, since the arrival of the iPad changed the rules. Suddenly, tablets, which went virtually nowhere for nearly a decade, were the “in” product of the 21st century. iPad killers of several stripes were introduced, but, aside from the Samsung Galaxy Tab, few demonstrated the potential for decent sales. And Samsung’s product, stung by middling reviews, may not do as well after an initial 600,000 units were shipped in its first month on sale.

Most pathetic was the claim that HP’s tablet was a success because they sold 9,000 rather than 5,000 units, as originally expected. Yes, businesses must have been lining up outside of HP’s headquarters to get their hands on one.

Now there will be loads of press releases of not just tablets, but smartphones, 3D TVs and lots of other gear, emerging from CES. Some of these products will go on sale right away. Others will be prototypes with launch dates somewhere in the indefinite future; some of these will go on sale, others will vanish without a trace.

Regardless, tablet makers will be looking closely at the iPad for inspiration. They will build product design presentations, and add bullet points for each feature that they believe trumps what Apple is offering. That will be the main basis on which to claim superiority. Their contention will probably be buttressed by Consumer Reports, which is totally unable to understand issues of usability and vast operating system differences.

You can see the approach in, say, the Samsung Galaxy Tab, with front and rear cameras, whereas the iPad has none. But it’s quite likely that will change in version 2.0. At the same time, the tablet form factor is terribly awkward for regular photography. This is why your MacBook (any version) doesn’t have a rear camera either, but Apple’s rivals in the consumer electronics business don’t see things that way. A feature that Apple doesn’t have is a feature that must be added, however unnecessary and however badly implemented.

Unfortunately, far too many members of the media will examine these new tablets and use the specs as a means of evaluation. Of course, if they don’t have hands-on experience with them, that may be the way they can be compared. But the differences between the products are far more than the raw components, or the feature breakdowns. You want to know how well the features are implemented, particularly since, with the Android OS, a version certified for tablets, version 2.4, has not yet been released.

If the reporters do get a hands-on, you’d want to know about the flexibility and fluidity of the operating system and, frankly, how snappy the interface feels and the quality of the touch screen. The latter is an issue even Consumer Reports is able to write about. No, they can’t be all the same.

The other question is how many of these tablets will stick with 7-inch displays, or have something between nine and ten inches to match the iPad. And if they do have similar screen sizes, will they be lighter, easier to carry around and use? Certainly a net weight of around one pound or less will make a tablet easier to manage for extended reading and other chores that involve the use of one hand. That’s an area where the first iPad actually suffers, which is one reason why the speculation points to a thinner, lighter form factor for the next version.

You’d also want to know the purchase price, and whether or not a data contract is a requirement. That can seriously impact the price (making an expensive product seem cheaper), and also impair your flexibility. At least with the iPad 3G, you can buy your data plans by the month, and not be stuck with paying that fee for two years, whether you need to or not, or suffering from an early termination fee if you cancel before the expiration date.

This isn’t to say that a subsidy deal isn’t a good idea. If you are reasonably certain that you’ll need a data plan year-round, you might save a fair amount of money on the original product purchase.

Regardless, one thing is sure: Until the new tablets get direct comparisons with the next iPad, a real evaluation of the advantages and otherwise will be largely guesswork. Some members of the media may think they’re able to write reviews without using the actual products, but I’ve never seen that happen in the real world.

As most regular readers know, I’m not enamored of Consumer Reports and the way the magazine handles personal technology. Their efforts to simplify and generalize possibly complex information ends up helping nobody. While they no doubt accurately represent reader surveys about product and service reliability, the actual reviews are tragically flawed.

I’m also concerned why so many members of the media accept CR at face value, and don’t question the clear and present flaws in their test methodology. It can’t just be me!

Consider the February 2011 issue, which was just dropped into my mailbox a short while ago. One of the feature articles is entitled: “Tablet computers,” and the subtitle pretty much sums up the conclusions: “Apple and Samsung offer the most for your money.”

The tested products include, of course, the iPad, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab, along with a smattering of lesser products from Huawei, Archos, Coby and Maylong. The later, with a 7-inch screen, retails for a mere $100, and that may be too much, considering that CR concludes that its “Touch screen has poor response. No access to a standard app market.”

Unfortunately, the key areas where you might compare tablets of different sizes and configurations are omitted. Almost as bad, CR tested the iPad with the older 3.2 OS, even though version 4.2, with multitasking and loads of other features, shipped in November. Then again, the differences between the iOS and Android, which powers all but one of the remaining tablets in this lineup (the Archos 9 PCtablet uses Windows 7), are never explained. The closest you get are some generalities about the app markets. iOS and Android are good, but “Third-tier app stores we visited were simply not up to par.”

Maybe so, but CR has an extremely low level of acceptance, failing to point out the obvious differences between the App Store and Android Market, such as far more substantial apps, including games, in the former’s repertoire. Worse, nothing is said about the fact that Google has never certified current Android OS versions for use in tablets. What this means is that the apps are designed for smartphone screens, not even the 7-inch displays tested by CR. As a result, the images, particularly text, might be pixellated when expanded to fill a larger screen.

Then again, the difference between the smartphone display and a 7-inch tablet isn’t such a stretch. Going to 9.7 inches on the iPad required compromises for existing iOS apps, which open in a smaller window, but can optionally zoom to fit the larger borders, with the expected sacrifices in quality. But with tens of thousands if apps that now support the iPad, you’re more likely to find what you need without compromise.

Alas CR, which has managed to stick feet in the mouths of its tech crew with that lame review of the perceived flaws of the iPhone 4’s antenna, doesn’t attempt to examine the usability of a 7-inch versus 9.7-inch tablet. Steve Jobs had made a large issue of this perceived disparity, pointing out that the 7-inch screen gives you only 45% of the real estate of the iPad’s display, which he believes is too small. CR didn’t test this contention, although they cover the difference in passing.

So the iPad “is a tad clunky to carry around,” and I would agree with that statement. The 7-inch Galaxy Tab “is more portable, even if the smaller screen won’t wow you the way the iPad screen will.”

Well, I suppose that sort of covers some of the differences, but the actual experience of consuming content and performing some basic productivity chores isn’t evaluated. The issue of usability is seldom on CR’s radar when it comes to personal computers and related products. They seem too focused on the hardware differences, real or imagined, and the most basic functionality, emphasizing the usefulness of the touch screen on tablets. Beyond that, they have nothing to say.

But that’s been true about CR’s personal computer reviews, where they compare Macs with under-equipped Windows PCs, which simply makes the Mac seem a lot more expensive. Windows? Mac OS X? To CR, they are two flavors of the same ice cream, with only minor differences, or at least that’s the impression the lack of a meaningful comparison conveys.

I suppose if there’s anything you can take away from CR’s mediocre coverage of tablets is that they don’t recommend paying extra for 3G capability, because they believe Wi-Fi access is ubiquitous enough for most users. I don’t disagree, but that’s just me. It’s also clear that price does impact quality. For the most part, the cheapest tablets were seriously downgraded for one reason or another. However, the Archos Windows 7 model, listing for $430, got dinged for poor app access and a subpar touch screen that isn’t “very responsive.” That, however, is likely as much the fault of Windows 7 being nudged into a direction for which it wasn’t designed, as the design of the touch screen itself. But CR doesn’t consider those possibilities.

The review will, naturally, be outdated when the next iPad debuts, probably in a month or two. But I don’t expect CR’s coverage of the next model, and its competitors, to be any better.

Almost from the first day the iPhone debuted on AT&T’s network in the U.S., some of the critics were busy complaining loudly that Apple should have selected Verizon Wireless instead. It was all so simple. Just pick and choose the carrier you want, and that’s all it took.

Unfortunately, the real world didn’t work that way. There are such things as contracts, and Apple’s fairly stringent requirements for a wireless partner. For one thing, when you buy an iPhone, you are Apple’s customer as much as you’re a customer of the carrier. Indeed, when I phone AT&T about an issue, I am asked to press one for Apple and iPhone issues, and two for AT&T, if you have a question or problem with their service. That’s control.

Although never officially confirmed, Apple allegedly went to Verizon Wireless first, but the carrier chafed about Apple’s demands, which ended up being their loss as history demonstrates. AT&T agreed to Apple’s terms, along with an extended period of exclusivity.

How long? Well, there was a published report in USA Today that said five years, although it wasn’t certain if the starting date was the first day the iPhone went on sale, or a year or two earlier, when the product was still under development. Regardless, it’s not certain how that agreement may have changed going forward.

So when the critics demanded a Verizon iPhone, it’s not as if Apple could suddenly abrogate their contract with AT&T and make a new deal. I suppose it could be done in theory, but lawsuits aren’t theories when agreements are broken, and you can bet there would have been a huge one from AT&T.

Now I understand why people are craving another provider. AT&T has had problems dealing with the high data demands of iPhone users. The company, cobbled together from several carriers over the years, has had growing pains improving their network to not just boost performance, but to reduce dropped calls and the lack of service in certain cities, and even specific neighborhoods in those cities. Lest we forget, AT&T has, over the years, gotten a bad rap for network quality. You no longer even hear those proclamations of “fewer dropped calls” on their TV ads.

Verizon Wireless became number one as the result of the merger with Alltel, but that company had a compatible CDMA network, and the integration doesn’t seem to have been so difficult. More to the point, all those Android OS phones seem to work just fine when it comes to network quality. Verizon continues to be rated number one, although, in some cities, it appears that Sprint and T-Mobile are extremely competitive. But never AT&T.

Regardless of the specifics of AT&T’s exclusive deal with Apple, more and more respectable media outlets are predicting that the long-awaited Verizon iPhone will debut early this year. Some of those reporters are relying on “informed sources,” which may include company executives who know what’s really going on. That Verizon started offering the iPad for the holiday season appears to signal that this prediction is poised to become true.

The question is, naturally, what form this new iPhone might take. At the very least, it would be the very same iPhone 4, with a CDMA chip, period, to function in the new network. Some suggest a hybrid chip that supports both CDMA and GSM; in effect, this creates a world phone, and Verizon already offers several costly models of that type. Another open question is whether this iPhone would also support the new LTE network Verizon is rolling out this year. It’s not as if Apple is ahead of the curve on such things, witness the fact that the very first iPhone didn’t support AT&T’s then-fledgling 3G network.

More controversial is whether Apple will make any changes to the external antenna layout to reduce the so-called “Death Grip” effect. The answer is probably not. If that happens, it’ll be on the iPhone 5, due this summer.

The other issue is whether Apple might just wait for the next iPhone before launching a Verizon model, but that would lose them millions of potential unit sales, at the expense of further growth in the Android OS market. More significant is how Apple will cope with the supposed weakness in Verizon’s technology, where you can’t make phone calls and use other services, such as email and Safari, at the same time. This is one of the perceived advantages of AT&T’s GSM network, one they’ve touted in their ads from time to time.

On the other hand, it may be possible to alter Verizon’s network to accommodate a similar setup, although that, too, may wait for the LTE rollout. I’ve seen speculation on different sides of the question, and since cell phone engineering matters are way above my pay grade, I’ll avoid further comment on this issue.

But consider this: The iPhone will come to Verizon when all the pieces of the puzzle come together, and that includes the expiration of the exclusive deal with AT&T. And the latter, my friends, was the biggest impediment of all, although some media pundits don’t seem to realize that simple fact.