One thing some of the nasty negativists in the tech media fail to realize is that new products aren’t necessarily one-offs. What that means is that, if this year’s version doesn’t have all the features you want, maybe next year’s will.

The first iPad, for example, shipped without a camera. I don’t pretend to know why. Maybe Apple just wanted to entice you to upgrade to version 2.0, maybe the development process to add a camera wasn’t complete, or perhaps the bill of materials was a few dollars higher than the bean counters would like. Or maybe all or none of these are true. Regardless, a front-facing camera is probably number one on the feature list for most everyone, even those who love their iPads, and if Apple hopes to spread FaceTime far and wide, that capability is absolutely necessary.

The other issue is the lack of direct USB support. Yes, there are dock adapters, but that means there’s yet another appendage  for you to place in your carrying case. One published report I read the other day suggested there would be a new mini-USB port on the next iPad, similar to the one you find on a digital camera. Now this feature may be added strictly to adhere to new European Union requirements about standardized connection interfaces. Or it may just be an extra connector designed for peripherals, rather than as a replacement for the 30-pin proprietary dock connector.

Suggestions of a screen with a Retina Display seem less likely, if only because the cost of adding those extra pixels might be prohibitive.

Other reports speak of a tinier iPad, sporting a 7-inch screen, which could no doubt shave at least $100 from the purchase price. Imagine a $399 iPad, which would drive the competitors nuts, since that’s not much higher than the price they are considering that also requires you to sign a two-year data contract with your wireless carrier.

On the other hand, as has become apparent already with early reviews of 7-inch tablets, the form factor is limiting. Yes, it’s considerably larger than a traditional smartphone, but not large enough for a decent-sized book page, although it would certainly be easier to lug around.

One thing that’s certain, however, is that Apple won’t release iPads in loads of sizes. There are six versions of the current 9.7-inch model, but the distinctions make sense, focusing on whether you want 3G support, and the amount of storage you require (or can afford). While I suppose it’s possible there will be a 7-inch version, the real question is the need and the sales potential, and I’m not about to judge either. It might depend on how the supposed iPad killers in that size fare. If they become popular because a smaller version makes sense, perhaps Apple will build one. Indeed, I’m quite sure there are loads of iPads with varying form factors in the test labs.

In addition to a camera and a more convenient connection port, there are also suggestions that Apple will attempt to make the iPad thinner and lighter, which would actually be an extremely good thing. At 1.5 pounds (1.6 pounds for the 3G version), the iPad is a difficult beast for one-handed use. When I spent several weeks reviewing one recently, that awkwardness came close to being the deal breaker, and I still haven’t seriously considered buying one.

If the 2011 iPad is lighter, and is equipped with a camera, I would definitely want to consider allocating a portion of my budget for one. However, that’s just me. It appears iPads are still flying off the shelves. Now that Apple has apparently caught up with production, the iPad will be available from more and more dealers, and I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how many units will be sold during the remainder of this year.

So far, not a single iPad killer, despite the favorable press coverage, seems to hold the promise of coming close to the iPad’s iconic status, not to mention attracting a large portion of customers. The lame business model such companies as Samsung are considering, tying you to a two-year data contract to get the purchase price down to a sensible level, won’t appeal to large numbers of people. That is, assuming they aren’t just opposed to anything with the Apple label on it.

Then again, I wonder how many people, other than power users who want the utmost in control, early don’t consider Apple because of that alleged walled garden. I think the main argument against the iPhone in the U.S. is AT&T. Far too many people live in areas where AT&T’s coverage, despite promises of ongoing improvements, remains downright unacceptable. I suspect a fair number of people who buy Android OS phones simply want something almost as good that won’t drop calls so often.

When it comes to a tablet, that may be a non-issue, unless a 3G data plan is a must-have, and I’m not sold on that concept. Most people in an environment where they’d want to use an iPad are located in a region where Wi-Fi is usually available (other than the beach of course).  In places where 3G is the only connection option, the smartphone might just be a better mousetrap.

In the latest issue of our weekly newsletter, I brought up an article from Washington Post tech columnist that pretty much sums up the serious shortcomings of the Android OS. You see, open doesn’t always translate to something that’s actually good.

Think about the issue of interface consistency. With Mac OS X and Windows, you know that the computers you buy with these operating systems have tested and proven interfaces, and the skills you master to get things done can translate from model to model. Even though Windows is available to loads of manufacturers, from the individual who assembles PCs as a hobby to large, multinational corporations, you know how things will usually work. Certainly Apple’s infamous “walled garden” provides an even greater amount of consistency and reliability, because there aren’t thousands of different models to support.

Do you remember one of the first TV ads for the iPad, in which veteran actor Peter Coyote did the voiceover? He announced that “you already know how to use it,” meaning, in part, that tens of millions of iPhone and iPod touch users have already adapted to the interface, and, besides, the iPad is easy to learn without the need of a complicated user manual, or any manual.

Yes, I know there are those power user tips that the magazines, bloggers and book authors love to write about. But the average user just wants their tech gear to work without a lot of secret handshakes. If you want to discover those secret handshakes too, fine and dandy. But they shouldn’t be required.

When you look at the Android OS, everything that’s wrong with it can be defined with those two words: “open source.” Yes, it means that neither Google nor any other company can impose limitations on what you can do with the code. But it also means that handset makers and wireless carriers are free to mess with the user interface to provide their own slant on how things should work.

As a result, the Home screen of your Android smartphone may look very different from the one on another product using the same OS. Handset makers have the freedom to add their own selection of apps to promote products and extra-cost services. They can also change core functions to work in a way that benefits their design sensibilities, profit potential, or a combination of the two.

As Rob’s article, a review of the Verizon Fascinate, points out, you can’t even depend on what the default search engine might be. To add insult to injury, a contract between Microsoft and Verizon Wireless signed last year allows them to install Bing in place of Google.

Even if you like Google’s apps and services, you cannot depend on whether any of them will be available on the Android OS smartphone you buy. Getting rid of some of the bundle apps may require hacking the device. Power users won’t care; but regular people deserve better. They surely want things to just work, and that’s something that you cannot say about Android.

What’s more, Google leaves the software update process to the carriers and manufacturers. It’s up to them to decide whether to push the latest and greatest Android OS update to your device. If they opt not to let you have it, don’t expect complaints to help. You’re forced, once again, to root your Android smartphone to allow it to receive the upgrade, with no guarantee that the process won’t somehow brick your phone, or even if the update works, provide assured functionality.

While long-time PC users may be quite accustomed to the need to occasionally customize an OS, doing that on a smartphone, meant as an appliance, is overkill. Or, in fact, a royal pain.

This doesn’t mean that Android isn’t poised to take the top spot among OS share around the world in the next few years. The proliferation of Android gadgets and special two-for-one offers from the carriers are bound to move loads of product. Having to succumb to such deals may not be terribly profitable for the handset makers, but they’ve lived for years as slaves to the carriers, and some profit is better than none.

I realize many of you prefer open to closed despite the limitations, and will continue to attack Apple for wanting end-to-end control of their products and working environments. However, it’s also fair to say the downsides of Apple’s ecosystem are few, assuming Apple has the product that meets your needs. Sure, maybe there are apps that’ll never show up in the App Store, and features you want but aren’t yet available in the iOS. Such are the compromises you have to accept in exchange for near-total consistency and dependability.

Whenever you think Apple is the villain, consider that one thing the company can’t do, and that is to force you to buy iPhones, iPods, iPads or Macs. The marketplace will decide if Apple’s walled garden is a bad idea. You do, after all, still have a choice.

In recent weeks, Apple has decided to mend some broken fences and get the authorities off their backs. One recent example involves a loosening of App Store requirements and, at long last, release of a set of guidelines written in plain — and often very frank — English.

There are clear reasons for this change. One is that the policy that forces developers to use Apple’s own developer tools for iOS product is too restrictive and doesn’t recognize reality. The major gaming companies that Apple wants to support the platform often use cross-platform engines that allow them to write once, and easily deploy to different operating systems. Clearly it would be unrealistic to expect them to build an exclusive iOS version of many of their products.

Of course, most people focused on Adobe Flash, simply because Adobe’s spin machine was working overtime declaring that the big, bad Apple was being anticompetitive in denying them the right to port apps from Flash. That tool, by the way, is available in the latest version of the Adobe Creative Suite software bundle.

Apple’s posture was rather more technical, that such apps often catered to the lowest common denominator and would be late to support the best new iOS features. Substandard apps bring down the platform, and make it less competitive. How can you dispute that?

Continue Reading…

As regular readers know, the first of an expected large group of tablet-based gadgets are beginning to go on sale. These are the supposed iPad killers that will, some suggest, seriously erode Apple’s market share in the tablet market.

That assumes, of course, that any of these products are actually any good and properly marketed, and that’s saying a lot.

You see, there’s the unfortunate assumption, proven wrong over and over again, that Apple has gained ascendency in various segments with smoke and mirrors and clever marketing. A real tech company will ultimately do them in, a repetition of the Mac versus Windows wars of long ago.

Certainly, Apple is on a roll, selling far more iPads than any supposedly knowledgeable tech analyst dared to predict. Even as I write this, more and more countries are getting iPad shipments. Here in the U.S., additional dealers will be carrying them. Apple has also claimed that the iPad is being tested by many of the largest firms on the planet.

The problem with the supposed competition that’s been announced so far is that they do not present a superior interface or hardware configuration. Yes, there’s that Samsung 7-inch tablet with front and rear cameras. But having those cameras doesn’t mean they will take good pictures, or that the software is clean and elegant. Far too many consumer electronics makers believe that adding a feature your competition doesn’t have proves superiority. They don’t realize that Apple doesn’t always put all the eggs in one basket, nor will a new product have every conceivable feature.

Sure, Apple obviously wants you to upgrade to the newer versions, so they add improvements. But it’s not at all clear that features are withheld just to provide upgrade paths. Certainly the various iOS upgrades were free to iPhone users, yet lots of features were regularly added. It is very possible that Apple just wants to make sure everything works properly before the upgrade is released — not when it’s too late.

As to the iPad, it’s also clear Apple worked hard to keep the price down, and maybe the bean counters and designers decided that there was either not enough time to add cameras, or the cost of the raw materials was a little too high. Larger production quotas will clearly change that equation, and nobody is betting that iPad 2.0 won’t have one or more built-in cameras, and perhaps even a direct USB slot for easier connection of peripherals.

More to the point, Samsung, certainly a credible company when it comes to building smartphones, flat panel TVs and Blu-ray players, has yet to demonstrate any skill in creating the personal computer of the 21st century. The first entry, the Galaxy Tab, will reportedly be sold primarily with two-year 3G data plans through major wireless carriers. Sure the price of admission is apt to be reasonable, and it’s estimated at $300. But the tablet sans contract may cost as much as $1,000, which kills the potential to compete with the iPad on any reasonable basis.

So is it possible that Apple is better able to build affordable gear than Samsung? As you know, some of the parts used in various Apple products, including displays, are sourced at Samsung? What a strange turn of events.

More to the point, just what sort of operating system will the Samsung Galaxy Tab use? Well, published reports indicate it’s Android, and that Samsung is working to modify the open source OS so that it will yield better results on a larger screen.

All well and good, but what experience does Samsung have in developing a tablet or PC-based operating system, even if the underlying code on which it’s built comes from another company? Apple has been in this game since the 1970s. Yes, I realize Samsung has lots of brilliant engineers on the payroll, but believing that a full-fledged OS for a modern tablet computer can spring forth simply by throwing money and people at the problem is unrealistic.

There’s also a published report that Dell hopes to sell their tablet for 30% less than Samsung, which is still far more expensive than the iPad, if you don’t consider a possible data plan.

Has Dell demonstrated any affinity for building good products beyond their core cheap PC and server gear? Yes, Dell makes perfectly fine displays, but the underlying parts are sourced from the same manufacturers used by Apple and other companies. Where’s the innovation? Oh, right, Dell doesn’t innovate. They just sell — or try to sell — boxes cheaper than the competition, with the same features.

Yes, there is always room for a better mousetrap and, if marketed properly, there’s no question that a tablet PC superior to the iPad can get a good share of the market. But the iPad has already become an icon, in the best tradition of the iPod, so the window of opportunity for the competition is closing fast. It may not be too late, but any hopes of substantially displacing the iPad at least for the next few years are slim to none.