So right on the heels of published reports that Apple planned a special media event for September 7th comes confirmation that it will indeed occur — on September 1st.

No, gentle reader, I do not think Apple abruptly changed the date out of piqué with the media for prematurely disclosing when it might occur. It is pretty well known that Apple introduces new iPods in September, the better to fill the stores with new product for the holiday season.

However, two products are getting the lion’s share of attention this year, beyond the expected iPod refresh. The first is the iPod touch, which is widely expected to inherit some of the spiffier features of the iPhone 4, including the high-resolution Retina Display and front and rear cameras. The case design would also likely be slimmed as well to better match its corporate cousin.

The rest of the iPods will likely not change much, according to current speculation, though you never know. I suppose the biggest question is whether there will still be an iPod classic in the lineup. That may depend on whether Apple can deliver an affordable 128GB Flash-based iPod touch. If not, maybe there will be a continuing need for a hard drive version.

Unless, of course, Apple will soon introduce a cloud-based storage service that is meant to partly replace the need for local storage of your digital media. For that to work, however, you’d likely want to continue to use your local Mac or PC for backing up your data. I join lots of people who don’t want to rely on the cloud for everything.

That takes us to the reinvigorated rumors that Apple’s favorite hobby, Apple TV, will be replaced with a $99 iTV that runs the iOS rather than a slimmed down Mac OS X. If such a product does appear, it might be a set-top box that will also let you run App Store programs on your TV.

That may not count for much until you consider the possibilities.

Now there are also rumors that Apple is busy negotiating with the entertainment companies to offer 99 cent rentals to accompany the iTV’s introduction. But even then, the strategy doesn’t vindicate the concept of yet another box to hook into your TV. Steve Jobs has already expressed his concerns, the fact that free or cheap set-top box rentals from your cable or satellite provider make it pretty much impossible for any competing product to succeed. Certainly what few gains have come to TiVo are largely built on software licensing or successful lawsuits.

Even the highly-anticipated Google TV has, weeks ahead of its expected release, still fails to demonstrate a reason to exist. If it’s meant to replace your existing cable or satellite device, it is destined to fail, because Google would have to virtually give their product away to get traction. Of course, since Google depends on ads to earn their keep, I suppose an interface flooded with clickable banners would be the order of the day.

More to the point, why should the media take the Google TV concept seriously, since they have yet to deliver a credible business plan? No, having support from the likes of DirecTV and Sony won’t help encourage people to use Google TV instead of their vanilla cable or satellite DVR.

Apple’s problem is that the iTV, on the surface, would likely represent little more than an additional delivery service for movies and TV shows; it wouldn’t replace the standard cable or satellite package of up to hundreds of channels.

There is an “X” factor, however, which is only now getting serious consideration, and that’s games.

I expect that even Apple was caught by surprise when they realized that the iOS has become such a credible portable gaming platform. Many of the major software companies in the business have produced versions of some of their most popular titles for the iOS, and loads of iPod touches are sold to folks who play games ahead of music or movies.

Certainly, the existing game console makers are taking notice, because they may be losing sales to Apple. But these are all in the portable game space.

What about a gaming console?

What if the iTV, running iOS apps, could become a significant competitor against such products as an Xbox 360? A rich selection of third-party add-on input devices might seal the deal and turn the gaming industry around big time.

So, rather than replacing your traditional TV set-top box, Apple is setting itself up as a replacement for full-fledged game systems. It’s not as if they don’t already have the software to make a good start, and a straight-on contender for traditional gaming consoles, at an incredibly cheap price, would suddenly place Apple in a significant position in a market they’d never previously taken seriously.

Then again, that recent Snow Leopard Graphics Update is responsible for major improvements in gaming performance on regular Macs. Apple is also reported to be working with their graphics chip suppliers and such companies as Valve — whose Steam platform is now compatible with the Mac —to make even further improvements.

Regardless of how next week plays out, it seems certain that Apple will be making yet another effort to conquer the living room.

More and more of the speculation I’ve read of late talks about extensive proposed changes to the Mac OS. There is that Apple patent filing that would add a touch interface, activated, evidently, by the direction in which the screen is tilted. So if you hold it flat, as determined by the accelerometer, you will be able to use the display in the same fashion as an iPhone and an iPad.

I suppose it’s a convenient method to get the best of both worlds, though I question the utility of using a 27-inch Mac in this fashion. It may make sense on a basic MacBook, but as screen sizes increase, I would tend to think a more traditional user interface, based on keyboard and mouse (or trackpad or trackball) would be preferred.

But maybe that’s just me. For others, a desktop version of the iPad may strike them as an awesome concept.

In any case, it’s important to realize that Apple files those patents largely to protect intellectual property. Sure, some of those inventions might make their way into actual shipping products, such as the Magic Trackpad. Others no doubt represent products and services still in the test labs, with no guarantee they’ll ever see the light of day.

But Apple has little choice. If they don’t protect their innovations, other companies might get there first, thus forcing Apple to pay royalties or settle lawsuits. Even then, things happen. Remember when Creative Labs got $100 million to settle claims growing out of iPod technology? Was that an Apple misstep or just a symptom of the complicated nature of intellectual property and patents, where even minor changes might be granted patent protection.

At the same time, it’s clear to me that Apple is looking carefully at the future of personal computing and how you will want to interact with your Mac or PC in the years to come.

Certainly the stellar success of the iPad shows that a lot of people are ready to embrace different user interfaces. In passing, the concept of the iPad is not so new. Early prototypes can be traced back to the 1970s, and the 1980’s TV show, “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” featured a pad-based computer system that was used by the starship’s crew to enter data. Of course, you never really saw much of the actual user interface, but basic concepts can inspire incredible inventions over time.

Maybe an actual realization of a “pad” or slate computer couldn’t happen until 2010, with the arrival of the iPad. Certainly, PC companies had struggled and failed to devise credible tablet devices for a decade with little commercial success. The realization of that technology was always a year away, but it never arrived until Apple found a way.

Of course, when something innovative arrives, there are always bottom feeders who will try to live long and prosper with their own cheap knock-offs. As rumors of an Apple tablet arose late in 2009, and prior to the iPad’s introduction early this year, other PC companies brought out alleged prototypes of their own answers to the expected new gadget. Most of those products never grew beyond the demonstration stage.

Now that the iPad is a reality, loads of imitations, some using the “Pad” moniker, are arriving. How well they’ll do against the iPad is anyone’s guess. Clearly the odds are against them. Apple got there ahead of the curve, before credible competitors could be built. The imitations, as with the iPod killers of yore, will arrive with features that Apple’s gadgets don’t have. Or won’t have for a while.

The difference is that Apple doesn’t play the feature-itis game. As many tech commentators have observed, Apple tends to take baby steps in each system or hardware update. The original version may lack critical features, but over time, they’ll receive them.

You can’t, for example, understand how far the iPhone 4 has come if you don’t look at the original version and the first release of Apple’s mobile OS. In 2007, there was no App Store, and the only way to access third-party software came through a Web-based interface. There was no cut, copy or paste feature, and forget about multitasking.

But if you’ve been exposed to iOS 4 — and I realize multitasking doesn’t work on the earliest iPhones — you can see the vast number of changes Apple has made within a three year timeframe. This despite the fact that the basic user interface is largely unchanged. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn’t change things just for the sake of change, and you don’t need to endure a learning curve when you upgrade.

On the long haul, the natural evolution of the iPad and iOS are sure to cause a revolution in the personal computer universe. Already some are combining iPad and Mac sales figures to show just how much impact Apple really has in the marketplace.

I’ll repeat my prediction, made a few months back: By 2015, most of you will rely on an iPad or its successors for most computing-related tasks. Only a small number of high-end content creators will continue to depend on the old fashioned personal computer and input devices. I may be all wrong, but I expect that you can take that prediction to the bank.

I have to constantly remind myself that sales estimates can be all over the place, so when a recent report suggested Macs sales weren’t improving as fast as some expected, I was ready to attribute that state of affairs to the extreme success of the iPad.

However, it now appears that Mac sales may actually be growing faster than previously believed.

There’s a story in this week’s issue of Fortune that, in June, sales of new Macs to the enterprise actually soared nearly 50%, about three times higher than the rest of the PC industry. In addition, sales to government soared 200%, which is 16 times faster than the rest of the market.

At the same time, sales to consumers improved by roughly 35%, so it’s clear Macs aren’t losing their luster for home users either.

But the enterprise? Now maybe it’s just a statistical blip, since Apple has such a small market penetration in the business world. Perhaps the same is true for government users, but maybe, just maybe, so many business users are sick and tired of the ongoing problems with Windows that they’re looking for an exit plan. Sure, perhaps Windows 7 is far better than its predecessors, but when Microsoft can only list such silliness as pinning document windows on the corners of the screen as one of the most compelling new features, you just know that they have nothing important to say.

But what’s most fascinating is the fact that this is all happening when the iPad seems to be selling far more copies than anyone expected. At the same time, are new iPad users buying them as extra devices, or are sales being cannibalized from other products?

If the latter, just what products are we talking about? Macs? Evidently not, unless you want to argue that far more Macs would otherwise be sold. PCs? Perhaps, since sales of new PCs, outside of the business market, haven’t gone so well this summer, particularly in the netbook category.

Of course, you have to realize that a netbook is not a terribly inviting product. There’s not an ounce of innovation to be found. All the PC makers did was to shrink note-books down as small as they can, and use cheaper components, including slow processors. It’s hard to take a $300 netbook and expect it to offer anything close to credible performance for all but the most basic tasks. Everything is a compromise.

The iPad is a totally different product with extremely snappy performance and a smart, intuitive interface that actually takes the PC into a whole new dimension. Consider that, until the iPad came out, no other PC maker had a clue what to do about tablets. After touting the arrival of tablet PCs 10 years ago, the best Microsoft could so was to deliver a clumsy alternative to the regular Windows computer with a stylus to click buttons on the screen.

Watching one of these tablets in action certainly demonstrates how bad they are, and why they have been abject failures outside of certain business categories.

Our family doctor, for example, has a network of Fujitsu tablet computers in his office. The doctor and his assistants carry them around while examining patients and consulting records. They employ the ever-present stylus to activate functions using a special vertical market application that’s designed for physicians. But actual text is still entered via the keyboard. We’re not talking about an iPhone-styletouch interface here, but a kludge based totally on a traditional PC that employs a stylus in place (or in addition to) a touchpad or mouse.

It’s no wonder such devices didn’t catch on for the vast majority of users.

Of course, now that the iPad has been a proven success even early in its lifetime, the rest of the PC world is madly scrambling to deliver a credible competitor. But so far rather than deliver product, they are delivering hype. Claims mean nothing without a powerful product lineup to demonstrate they can truly deliver the goods.

Consider that recent silly statement from Chang Ma, vice president of marketing for LG Electronics’ mobile-devices unit, who praised the iPad and then promised they could build a better tablet. All this without any evidence that LG can develop an operating system that comes close to matching the iOS. Or maybe they plan to rely on the forthcoming Google Chrome OS, but that would put the LG tablet computer in the same range as other products using a Google-based OS. Where’s the differentiation?

Indeed, why are members of the mainstream press taking anything Chang Ma says seriously? Does he have experience in this product category that he can point to in order to prove his claims? Not a chance.

With all this nonsense, you don’t have to wonder why more and more businesses have opted to order the real thing: a Mac.

Let’s just turn back the clock a few months. Apple CEO Steve Jobs gets his lumps from my favorite enemies, an uninformed tech media, for stating unequivocally that Flash is not ready for Apple’s mobile platforms. Adobe cries crocodile tears to the Feds, and there’s an ongoing investigation by the FTC into this complaint and others.

On several occasions, I’ve issued a very public challenge to Adobe on this site and The Tech Night Owl LIVE: If they believe Flash can be made to run satisfactorily on the iOS — and that Apple is wrong to deny them the opportunity — it would be a trivial matter to stage a demonstration. Adobe is an Apple developer. They already build apps for the iOS, including a slimline version of Photoshop, so nothing ought to stop them from proving what they claim is true.

Except for one thing: Adobe has so far failed to demonstrate that they can build a credible mobile version of Flash!

After missing several self-imposed deadlines, there is a Flash 10.1 that’s now available for Google’s current Android OS, version 2.2. Unfortunately, Adobe didn’t realize, evidently, that product reviewers would actually put the thing to the test to see what it’s made of, and the results vindicate Jobs big time.

Continue Reading…