You just know that lots of so-called journalists and industry analysts promise to deliver the straight news about the goings on at Apple. But for a number of reasons, including the extremely secretive nature of the company, they fall down on the job big time.

Consider just speculating about new products. Back in the early days, Apple was pretty open when it came to feeding stories to the media. Magazines would get an early look at new hardware, so they could write feature stories that would coincide with the release dates.

With the Internet onslaught and instant journalism, Apple couldn’t depend on a standard print deadline. The story could be published minutes after it was written, and can you really trust the media to keep a secret? Well, to some degree you can. A handful of selected journalists are often given early access to stories and products from Apple, with the understanding they won’t release the information until the gadget is actually released, or perhaps a day or two earlier to build anticipation and fuel sales.

However, Apple will no longer trust dozens of journalists to keep secrets. All they need is for one to break a company nondisclosure agreement for news about a new product to be released prematurely, thus making it easier for the competition to deliver instant responses and make attempts to build similar gear.

Not to mention the surprise factor.

Nowadays, Apple is regarded as utterly paranoid about secrecy. The suspense about a possible new product can be overwhelming, and special media events get major coverage. Indeed, during that last-minute press conference over the Antennagate affair, cable news stations were broadcasting news alerts on the scene in anticipation. And all this about a fancy smartphone?

That plays into Apple’s marketing plans, which is why people line up for hours — or days — to get a new iPhone or some other highly-anticipated gadget. It also explains why, as I write this article, you still have to wait several days to get an iPad, and there’s that three-week wait for an iPhone 4.

Without any solid information, some members of the press find it convenient to just make things up, although the articles might masquerade as informed speculation. So there are loads of stories about what Apple might do, should do, can do, and shouldn’t do. None of these writers, so far as I know, have actually run a multibillion dollar multinational corporation. They haven’t a clue how to manage all the disparate elements of marketing, manufacturing and accounting that are required of the seasoned business executive.

This is not to say that the press shouldn’t criticize Apple when they do something wrong. Certainly the lame handling of the Antennagate issue is a prime example of mishandling the message. If Apple had been front and center about the real issue when it was first raised, that pretty much all smartphones anyone cares about are susceptible to death grips of one sort or another, the issue would have been over and done with. End of story.

Instead, Steve Jobs used sarcasm rather than attempt to be helpful to a concerned customer. Indeed, a few proper sentences then and there might have ended the issue. Sure, perhaps Jobs caught the letter when he was up late and didn’t pay much attention to how he crafted his response. That’s no excuse. The message he conveyed was that Apple just didn’t care about customers who had problems with the iPhone 4.

The press release announcing the alleged problem with displaying too many bars was also screwed up. This was yet another opportunity to explain the extent of the problem, rather just that the display was incorrect and it took several years for Apple to figure it out. Doesn’t that sound unbelievable to you? It sure did to me, even though it may have been perfectly true.

But that doesn’t let the media off the hook. Both media and industry analysts have shown again nd again they can’t predict what Apple might do, or how successful a product might be in a given quarter. Sure, it’s not that Apple is terribly forthcoming about product plans and sales, unless there’s reason to post a press release about it. But you have to wonder how one ill-informed analyst decreed that a mere five million tablet computers would be sold during all over 2010.

When Apple moved 3.27 million in the first three months the iPad was on sale, the people who delivered that original figure, plus similar low numbers, had lots of explaining to do, and they surely had make some really fast recalculations.

The truth is that the iPad, though in the same general category as other products, is sufficiently unique not to play by the rules. The success of the iPhone may have been a harbinger of what was to come, but even Apple admitted to being overwhelmed about the initial and ongoing demand of the iPad.

Even as they have figured a way to match production with demand — more or less — there’s no true indication yet how much traction the iPad has. And certainly nobody knows whether any of those alleged iPad killers will catch on. A tech industry analyst can say all they want about the subject, and even sound confident of their estimates. But they haven’t a clue. Maybe Apple does, but they’re not talking.

You just know that some members of the media are waiting for Apple to fail big time. Just the other day, I read a piece suggesting that the iPad had begun to cannibalize sales of new Macs. How did they know? Well, the sales growth rate wasn’t quite as high as they might have expected. On the other hand, except for sales to businesses, PC sales have barely grown at all. Is that also due to the iPad?

Now I actually do think that the iPad has the potential to knock the bottom out of low-end PC sales, particularly netbooks. Why buy a crippled note-book computer when you can have, for a little bit more, an iPad? Sure, Apple’s hot-selling tablet computer may not perform all the functions of a regular PC. But since a netbook is extremely crippled anyway, it ends up being a poor alternative.

Besides, how many PC note-books get ten hours battery life anyway and just look cool? I’m asking.

Now it’s also true that there are loads of so-called iPad killers on the horizon. The ones that seem to get the highest credibility will feature Google’s Chrome OS. Of course, there’s no evidence that Chrome is any good for anything. It’s a fledgling operating system, and I can’t imagine Google or any company is capable of building a decent operating system starting with version 1.0. Even the original Mac OS had its problems. The iOS, scaled down from Mac OS X, is at version 4 now, and there are loads of improvements from the original.

There is no credible reason to think that Chrome will enter the world as the OS that will trounce the iPad. Even if it’s mostly a scaling up of Android, there’s no guarantee how good it’ll be or what level of acceptance a tablet featuring that OS will receive.

That’s doubly true for the HP/Palm WebOS and there’s no reason to take a mobile Windows 7 seriously. Microsoft has never demonstrated that it can build a credible smartphone OS. These days, Windows Mobile simply isn’t competitive. It may well be that BlackBerry OS 6 will have problems too, unless, of course, RIM can overcome the lukewarm reception to the Torch.

The other problem the industry has is that Apple is moving iPads as fast as they can build them. Yes, the wait time is a “mere” three to five business days now, as the product spreads around the world. But that doesn’t mean demand has slowed. It’s just that Apple has begun to catch up with demand.

And, in case you’re wondering, getting an iPhone 4 is still hit or miss. Apple continues to quote a three-week delay, and there are suggestions that vaporware white version won’t be around till some time in the last quarter of the year, not that it matters.

Unfortunately, some members of the media treat the success of a mobile gadget that competes with something from Apple as a given. It doesn’t matter how good it is; existence is everything.

Also, there’s no reason to assume Google can suddenly become a software development powerhouse, simply because the Android has done all right. Remember that the people Google hired to get the job done were already experienced at building a mobile OS. It didn’t spring from nothing.

On the other hand, I wonder how Google TV might fare in the real world. Yes, they have some high-profile partnerships, such as Sony and DirecTV, but the content creators are so far staying away, and with good reason.

You already have decent set-top boxes for cable and satellite TV systems, even before you consider TiVo. The best of the bunch can easily schedule TV shows, even for an entire season, and add your favorite movies. The interfaces, while sometimes clunky, are good enough to get the job done.

So where does Google fit in? What good is a Google TV anyway, and how many people will seriously consider adding yet another box and remote?

From what I’ve read, Google TV will, in part, replace a set-top box, and add Internet capabilities, perhaps similar to the failed WebTV. It will also give Google plenty of display space in which to display targeted ads, which is their only real source of revenue for developing such product concepts.

In the meantime, there are reports about an updated Apple TV, dubbed iTV, which will reportedly be patterned after the iPhone or iPod touch. It will use the iOS and rely on wireless networking to transfer content to your TV set. However, the success of such a device again depends on partnerships with the entertainment industry. If you can’t get the shows and movies you want, what’s the point?

At the same time, the content delivery business is getting more crowded all the time. Netflix is working hard to add newer films to its streaming movie service. You can receive that content on a number of Blu-ray players, a few TVs, and, of course, your Mac, PC, or mobile device. You don’t need a new set-top box. So where goes Google TV fit in?

At least Steve Jobs admits that the Apple TV concept has loads of hurdles to overcome before it exits the hobby category. Too bad the rest of the consumer electronics industry isn’t taking the hint.

It’s fair to say that the market doesn’t give a new product much time before it’s declared a success or failure. Consider the Power Macintosh G4 Cube, for example, which was released in 2000. Reminiscent of the fabled NeXTcube, the Mac version didn’t survive a year until Steve Jobs — reluctantly I suspect — pulled the plug due to extremely low sales.

In retrospect, the Mac mini has probably vindicated the concept to some extent, but that doesn’t mean the Cube was any less a failure.

In the world of entertainment, a new movie usually has the opening weekend to demonstrate its box official potential. Unless it clicks, or shows promise, theaters will drop it like a hot potato, and the producers will redirect their promotional efforts elsewhere.

A TV show may be cancelled within just a few weeks, although the networks are showing more a tendency nowadays to give a struggling program a little more time to gain traction, including switching days and time slots. It’s not as if it’s cheap to develop a replacement.

In the fast-moving consumer electronics universe, the window of opportunity is seldom more than a few weeks. Microsoft suffered the most embarrassing defeat recently when its highly promoted Kin smartphone was summarily dispatched in short order as the result of pathetic sales.

This week there are reports that RIM, manufacturers of the BlackBerry smartphone, is suffering from a poor rollout of the BlackBerry Torch, their ultimate attempt to compete with the iPhone and Android OS devices. Despite loads of money spent on promoting the new gadget, sales over the first weekend were estimated at 150,000, a mere fraction of what Apple was able to move during the first weekend of iPhone 4 sales, and inferior even to the original iPhone rollout.

The price has already been cut in half, from $199 to $99, indicating a potential fire sale to move product.

That doesn’t necessarily mean RIM is in deep trouble. Unlike Apple, which basically has two versions of the iPhone 4, and a single iPhone 3GS model available, there are loads of choices for people who want a BlackBerry, available from all the major U.S. carriers. So no single model can kill the brand, but the Torch was the one that supposedly melded a workable touchscreen with the traditional BlackBerry physical keyboard, and sported a supposedly modern operating system.

What happened?

Well, it seems that most of the attention — and marketing efforts — are concentrated on the iPhone and Android smartphones these days. In that environment, it’s hard to take anything else seriously.

No, it doesn’t mean that the BlackBerry is destined to fail, nor does it mean that Android will trounce Apple. The smartphone business is far too fragmented for any one model, or manufacturer, to own the business. Unlike what some supposed media or industry analysts will have you believe, this isn’t a replay of the Mac versus Windows platform wars.

Apple can succeed, and the various makers of Android OS devices, led by HTC and Motorola, can also succeed without destroying one another. At the same time, no individual contender will be afforded much opportunity to shine before the public moves on to something else.

The major exception is Apple, since, until now, iPhone upgrades have largely been an annual affair. That may, however, change, assuming that the recent rumors of a January 2011 of an iPhone for Verizon Wireless are true. That model, however, is expected to be little more than the present iPhone 4 with support for a CDMA network.

Those claims that the iPhone is in deep trouble because Android OS devices have larger total sales, at least in the U.S., are nothing short of absurd. Remember that the iPhone is available from a single carrier. There are many Android OS phones from all the carriers, and, in particular, Verizon is dumping large sums of money — and product for that matter — to boost their share of the smartphone market.

The sales skew may even change drastically if and when there’s a Verizon version of the iPhone. With reports that roughly a third of existing iPhone customers at AT&T might jump ship when the opportunity presents itself and move to Verizon, along with intense interest of existing Verizon customers, it’s a sure thing that Apple stands to sell a lot more product with two U.S. carriers. Imagine if the joy spreads to the remaining major cell phone providers, Sprint and T-Mobile.

In particular, Verizon, newly flush with iPhone profits, may no longer see the need to spend so much time touting Android OS gear. The sales picture will change drastically.

But even if the Android OS continues to get a higher share than the iPhone, Apple can still demonstrate serious success with 50% to 100% year-over-year sales increases. You can’t argue with raw numbers, and if they remain compelling, it won’t matter whether Apple is number one in the smartphone market or number five.

As far as RIM is concerned, if the BlackBerry Torch is indeed a failure, they will have to work hard to find a replacement product. The market won’t tolerate failure.

On last week’s episode of The Tech Night Owl LIVE, I did a segment with Amanda Lefebvre, one of the product people at Microsoft’s Mac Business Unit, to discuss some of the most compelling features of the forthcoming Office 2011 for the Mac.

Due out in October, there are two key improvements of note, one of which is the restoration of Visual Basic support, which means that you will be able to read and create macros that are compatible with the Windows version of the office suite. This was one of the serious shortcomings of Office 2008 for the Mac, where some potential upgraders were stopped in their tracks. Microsoft said it would have taken another year to restore that support, and I suppose you can believe them, since their programming teams have never been known to be very fast at what they do.

The other key change is a brand new email/contact app, Outlook, which is said to be very similar to the Windows counterpart. In recent years, Microsoft has relied on a more consumer-oriented app, Entourage, to serve as an alternative to Apple Mail. And, no, I’m not going to mention the controversial ribbon, since that’s just an interface alternative and beyond the scope of this column.

Now this is actually Microsoft’s second attempt to build a genuine Outlook for the Mac. The original version appeared during the Classic Mac OS era, but never made the transition to Mac OS X.

In turn, Entourage was based on Microsoft’s other Mac email app, Outlook Express, onto which decent contact management capabilities were crafted.

Now don’t get me wrong. Entourage is a decent email app, and it does feature fairly robust handling of IMAP mail, the protocol where the messages are stored on the server so you can access them from any computer or mobile device and have them always stay in sync.

Unfortunately, Entourage can also be dead slow, and, by storing all your messages in a monolithic database, you risk the loss of everything if that file becomes corrupted. Yes, there is a repair tool, but the need for such a clumsy utility seems a throwback to a long-gone era.

Now I haven’t used Outlook yet, although some people have gotten unofficial access to the Mac BU’s betas. Since it’s allegedly a new app built in Apple’s Cocoa framework, there’s hope, assuming Microsoft gives it the proper fit and polish when it comes to the interface, speed and reliability. It will also reportedly use a file-based storage system, which will make it far easier to handle, particularly when you’re doing Time Machine backups.

However, the real issue is whether Outlook is truly needed by people who don’t have business email accounts on a Microsoft Exchange Server. Even then, Apple Mail already supports Exchange, although Outlook promises to offer more robust handling of messages and other data.

Indeed, Microsoft actually has plans for a low-end version of Office for 2011 that doesn’t even include Outlook for very much the same reason. Most of these consumer users will be well served with Mail.

More to the point, however, is whether Apple has largely removed the need for any other email app except for specialized needs. Compared to most third-party email clients I’ve tried, Mail has become faster, and offers most of the features anyone needs in such software. It’s Junk filter is trainable and quite robust. You might wish for a more sophisticated Rules feature, but if you just want to move certain messages from specific senders or meeting other criteria to different mailboxes, you can quickly get the job done without having to know anything about programming.

Along with Mail’s seamless integration with Address Book and iCal, you can perform many of the functions of a separate contact manager, even to the scheduling of special events, which may be one of the reasons why third-party alternatives, such as Now Contact, are now history.

This isn’t to say Mail is perfect. It can sometimes crash if a message contains HTML code it doesn’t like, or just bog down when you’re trying to quit the app. But Apple has clearly worked hard to eliminate Mail’s worst ills. What’s left is a speedy, predictable and reliable app that can probably serve the needs for the larger portion of email users.

Microsoft’s Outlook is going to have to be a truly excellent alternative to gain traction beyond the core complement of existing users of Outlook for Windows who want a capable Mac counterpart.

Yes, there are loads of other email apps out there. Just this week, I took a stab at the latest version of GyazMail, a shareware app that offers a credible feature set. But I fail to see that it performs any key function better than Mail. Indeed, when it comes to updating large message folders, it’s rather slow.

For users of Eudora, a venerable email app that’s long gone, there is a version derived from Mozilla’s Thunderbird that basically gets a slight theme change to emulate the look and feel of the original. MailForge, another shareware product, was originally offered as a ground-up recreation of the features that made Eudora popular. But perhaps the biggest reason some of you still prefer Eudora is the fact that, at one time, there wasn’t much else available with a decent feature set, and you’re already used to its look and feel.

For me, I’m sticking with Apple Mail for now, though I am always open to trying alternatives in the hope that there’s actually something better out there.