As you know, Apple seeded iPads to a select few tech journalists in recent weeks. Two days before the product’s official availability at the Apple Store and Best Buy, the fruit of those marketing efforts paid off, in the form of highly favorable reviews that have been plastered all over the Internet.

Now to be fair to such people as my friends David Pogue, Bob LeVitus and others, I think they did a great job with their reviews. You read through all of them, you can get a fair picture of just what the iPad is all about. It’s likely that the millions who do see those articles will soon begin making final decisions about whether to buy Apple’s spanking new tablet computer.

Certainly it appears they are largely complaining about the same things, even though we’re talking about different people in different places, having different backgrounds. So, for example, you just know that the larger form factor makes the touchscreen keyboard less comfortable. The iPad is too large for the single finger or two-finger routine to which many have become accustomed on the iPhone and other smartphones sporting some sort of multi-touch capability. Apple’s forthcoming accessory keyboard, and the third-party alternatives, will be needed if you plan to write lots of stuff.

However, the iPad is clearly superior for consumption, from books, to games to music and video. Apple Mail will look better, Safari will present a beautiful, full-sized rendition of sites that normally display in a reduced fashion on a mobile device, as this site does.

Among the other negatives is, of course, the lack of multitasking, but I’m still highly concerned that this issue isn’t always clarified. Multitasking works for Apple’s apps but not for third-party apps. Apple’s reasoning was the potential for excessive resource usage and shortened battery life on the iPhone, but what about the iPad? Maybe they are right, or maybe that was just a smoke screen for not having a final answer as to how to make it work effectively on a wider scale. The latest rumors indicate that some sort of multitasking scheme is on tap for iPhone 4.0, but it’s an open question how it might come to be.

One possibility is an Expose-style environment, where you see a list of, say, open app icons, and click the one you want to move to next. It would still be a two-step process, but it would also allow the inactive apps to actually do something in the background when needed.

And, of course, the lack of Flash support is mentioned as a negative.

What isn’t being discussed in the reviews I’ve read so far — and I assure you that I haven’t checked each and every one — is the lack of native support for printing. I made a big deal of this missing feature, and Macworld Editorial Director Jason Snell clearly feels the same in the interview he recorded for this week’s tech show. Yes, the iPad may be a simply wonderful device to read books, magazines and documents, but there will be situations where you just have to print something. The printing utilities available from the App Store usually pass along the task to your Mac or PC, but the iPad surely has more than enough native power to handle this critical function directly, so let’s see how it plays out.

Or maybe that’s something that will come in iPhone 4.0.

The other shortcoming not given much play is the fact that the iPad, despite being suited for tasks for which you might have used a note-book computer, cannot exist as a standalone device. You still have to dock it to your Mac or PC to synchronize apps and other content. So long as this tethering scheme is necessary, it cannot exist free-standing for very long.

This is something I would have liked to see discussed in those reviews, for Apple is going to have to find a way to separate the iPad from its hosts. The logical answer would be an entirely cloud-based sync system, and it certainly will use Apple’s MobileMe for some of this functionality. But a Time Machine for the iPad would be useful. That way you could wirelessly back up stuff to even a standalone networked hard drive, such as an Apple Time Capsule and, in fact, to any local network or cloud-based backup method. It shouldn’t be restricted to MobileMe, as much as Apple would like to get the annual gravy in the form of memberships.

When that occasion arrives, and it’s inevitable that it will, the iPad will truly come into its own as a note-book computer replacement. Right now, it appears to exist in that gray area between smartphone and note-book, and that may reduce potential sales to some customers. Yes, maybe Apple doesn’t want to cannibalize too many MacBook and MacBook Pro sales — although that’s going to happen anyway — but perhaps a final untethering scheme isn’t fully formed yet.

The real issue is that too many people are apt to expect the iPad to be fully realized, even though it’s a version 1.0 product. We all know about the features that it lacks. The software can be fixed, the lack of a built-in Web cam will wait for a future version. But that’s how things are if you choose to be an early adopter. I see huge potential in the iPad, but it’ll take a while before we know about its potential for long-lasting success. Right now the hype machine is in full force, and lots of units will sell quickly regardless of what happens later on.

Let me get my feelings about the matter out of the way first, so you know where I’m coming from. You see, I’m very old fashioned about my printed materials. I buy lots of real books and magazines. A large portion of my reading diet is served by the Internet, but I’m most comfortable printing lengthy documents for later review.

What this means is that I keep my printers running fairly consistently, and have to regularly feed them a diet of ink cartridges, and, for the Xerox Phaser 8560DN, solid ink sticks. While I’ve worked much harder to preserve resources of late, it’s not that the printers can be left completely idle.

I’m sure that this situation is mirrored to a large degree around the world, people having to spend boatloads of money for consumables. As you know, printers are routinely sold fairly cheaply, as the manufacturers expect to make up the difference by selling you ink and toner and extremely high prices. It’s the famous “Gillette Razor” effect. One estimate spoke of ink costing as much as $8,000 per gallon! Maybe you should give up your gold investments and select printer ink instead!

Well, the long and short of it is that the iPad, after the original Amazon Kindle, makes e-book reading come into its own. You’ll be able to read more and more documents comfortably on a portable device, which will, I expect, reduce the need for hard copy except for critical financial and legal documents where such things are required. And, of course, to satisfy old habits.

It’s clear to me that Apple is seriously downplaying printing capability in the iPad. It’s not even mentioned, although there are existing iPhone apps that will network a print job to your Mac or PC and let them do the heavy lifting, and they should work pretty much the same on the iPad. Since iWork and other apps will provide traditional productivity tools with the iPad, you’d think some sort of native printing capability would be a given, and I suppose there will be, since Apple can’t realistically expect people to give it up completely.

Now one of the reasons I might buy an iPad — and it’s by no means definite — is as a money saver. If I use it to read more material I’d otherwise print, I don’t need to feed those hungry printers. Considering the high cost of consumables, not to mention the chronic need for paper, it won’t be very long before I have covered the cost of the iPad, regardless of configuration. After that, it’s all gravy.

As far as the printer industry is concerned, I’ve always believed they severely overcharge for consumables. That’s the reason there’s a busy industry providing third-party alternatives, even if print quality and print head longevity might suffer. After all, even if a printer’s lifetime is shortened somewhat, all the money you save from buying cheaper ink might actually pay for a replacement or two.

On the long haul, perhaps printer makers will come to realize that they can’t live large forever, and they are already suffering due to the economic downturn. In fact, boasting of cheaper ink may be a good thing. That’s what Kodak is doing with their printer lineup, although it’s fair to suggest that their concept of cheap isn’t cheap enough, at least not yet.

You also have to wonder whether it may just be better for printer makers on the long haul to sell their hardware for a higher price, reduce the cost of consumables and be assured of getting more total revenue from the latter. How so? By reducing sales to third-party vendors. Or just get out of the business altogether and license their proprietary technology to third parties and collect royalties. Under these circumstances, they’d be able to evaluate licensed product to make sure it meets specs.

Regardless, I don’t see the iPad sharply reducing the need for paper by its owners right away. But as more and more publications move online, with versions for the iPad and other tablet computers, and people become more comfortable reading content on an electronic device rather than the printed version, I do see a valid reason why printer makers may be forced to seriously change their marketing approach.

As for me, there is still something romantic in the tactile experience of reading a real printed book. Besides, it’s just not so easy to pack an iPad in my back pocket, and the iPhone’s display is much too tiny for extended and intense reading sessions — at least to me.

But I can see where my need for printed materials may be sharply reduced were I to buy an iPad, so I will have to sit back, do the calculations and see if it makes sense. Of course if such decisions extend to millions upon millions of people, and printers are not used near as frequently as they are now, I can see where some manufacturers are going to have to rethink their marketing strategies. Or just get into the e-book business.

We’re just a few days away from the arrival of the iPad at your favorite Apple dealer or Best Buy electronics store. So the crazy critics of Apple are out in force telling you what’s wrong about a product that the vast majority of them have never actually seen, let along touched. All they know about the iPad what Apple has said about the product, plus the speculation, about which they strive to be expert.

No, I’m not going to attempt to guesstimate the number of iPads that will be sold the very first week. The estimates are all over the map, and I don’t claim any expertise in doing surveys, so I’ll avoid the issue and let the facts have their say.

What is worth commenting on, for example, is Apple’s battery replacement policy for the iPad. At $99 plus tax, the price of admission seems sensible enough. Remember that the battery will probably last three or four years under normal use before you need to order up a replacement; if it breaks prematurely, it’ll likely happen soon enough for the warranty to handle the repair. But the main criticism is that Apple requires dealer or factory replacement. You can’t do it yourself — or at least not easily.

All right, that’s one part of the equation. But the fact of the matter is that Apple isn’t just replacing your iPad’s battery. They are replacing your iPad, with a new or refurbished unit having the same specs as the original. Now consider that you’ve beaten and battered your iPad for several years and the battery suddenly won’t sustain a charge. Instead of installing a new battery in your worn out product, the whole widget is replaced. The scratches on the case and screen are gone, and any damage you’ve inflicted internally from too many drops is also history. How many consumer electronics gadgets get similar treatment — complete replacement for the cost of a new battery?

That, to me, is a good thing. Apple should be praised for having such a forward-looking policy. Instead, the critics want you to believe that there’s something wrong with it. All right, maybe it would be more convenient to be able to carry a second battery for special situations and swap it on the spot. On the long-haul, however, Apple’s methodology delivers greater value to most people. The critics are going to have to live with it!

Now Apple’s App Store regularly gets its share of criticism. With over 170,000 apps, however, and billions of downloads, clearly customers don’t fret over alleged arbitrary rejections of certain apps or the questionable handling of so-called “explicit” versions. While I have already said I know nothing about conducting surveys, I’m willing to suggest that a scientific poll of a representative cross-section of iPhone and iPod touch users will show that a good 99.5% of them are perfectly satisfied with the current setup.

The critics forget that the first Mac was touted as “the computer for the rest of us,” meaning the vast majority of regular people who don’t want to be bothered with the geek stuff, and Apple’s consumer electronics gear pretty much continues in that tradition. So long as they are hugely successful with this marketing plan, it’s not apt to change.

If you speak geek, Google’s Android OS and Windows may appeal to you more, but Mac OS X’s Terminal also presents a rich selection of possibilities with which to customize your computer, so long as you’re willing to accept the risks if you do something wrong and it ends up being destructive.

As the iPad reaches more and more customers, there will no doubt be lots of opportunities to criticize the way features work and why some just aren’t there. Front and center is multitasking, and it’s an open question whether Apple plans to somehow extend that capability to third-party apps for iPhone 4.0. The tech pundit scuttlebutt has it that Apple has found a workable solution and that you’ll see it this summer. If that holds true, Apple will demonstrate that superior solution and then that particular criticism can be pushed to the side. Once again, though, I really wonder just how many people even care about the lack of this feature, and remember it does work for Apple’s own apps.

Returning to the iPhone, just this week, the chatter about an alleged version for Verizon Wireless has reared its ugly head. This isn’t to say Apple wouldn’t build one, although handling a phone call and checking your email at the same time clearly presents a problem on the Verizon CDMA network. After all, isn’t that what those Apple and AT&T ads have been saying?

Unfortunately, nobody outside of Apple and AT&T knows the fine details of their contract. It may not expire until 2011, at which time Verizon Wireless will be busy deploying its fourth generation network, as will AT&T. Since they will both be using LTE, Apple could then build one phone and have it compatible with both networks. Then the doors open for Verizon, but maybe not before.

So after being predicted for weeks, Apple’s Mac OS 10.6.3 update appeared Monday, sporting loads and loads of fixes stuffed into a file that contains over 719MB of stuff. But, yes, if it shows up in your System Update preference pane, it’s apt to be somewhat smaller, so don’t think anything is wrong. Supposedly Apple tailors the upgrades to the needs of a specific model.

The short list for 10.6.3 consists of the following:

If you are at all curious about reading the entire list, you can consult it via this online document that describes some 49 fixer-uppers. However, don’t assume that’s everything. Over the next few weeks, as more and more power users download and install 10.6.3, they’ll come up with evidence of other changes, along with the full bill of particulars, which is the list of files actually replaced or added by the installation. What’s more, there are loads of security fixes, over 70 in fact, as documented in this message. If you haven’t migrated to Snow Leopard and you’re living with Leopard instead, you’ll be able to install a Security Update 2010-002 that contains all or most of the same security changes. In addition, there’s a version of the 10.6.3 update for the Server version of Snow Leopard.

The regular changes are understandable and expected as something that arises in the natural course of events for any large personal computer operating system. I could say the same for the security fixes, but you just know that some of the fear merchants will use this as evidence that Mac OS X is heavily-laden with security leaks that will be exploited any day now. So beware and be afraid, be very afraid. Maybe you should look for the nearest cave.

On the other hand, I think most of you know that, because a security hole is discovered on an Apple product doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s going to be exploited anytime soon. Indeed, some of the changes don’t impact Mac OS X so much as the open source software that comes with it. Here, Apple gets consistently attacked by some members of the tech media because it doesn’t react quickly enough to such issues. Since Apple isn’t terribly forthcoming about such matters, though, I suppose we can just keep guessing.

In any case, installing the update you need ought to be a pretty simple process. If Software Update doesn’t launch and present it to you, run it manually from System Preferences and be prepared to click Restart when the installation is finished. I fully expect that the vast, vast majority of Mac users can do that and have everything work just fine.

On the other hand, Mac troubleshooting sites will detail all sorts of religious rituals that you should engage in first to ensure a successful update. It starts with doing a full backup — and I can go along with that — but adds lesser preventive maintenance measures that have never demonstrated much of any value. The most consistent suggestion is to use the Repair Disk Permissions feature from Disk Utility before and after the update. While it’s perfectly true that permissions-related issues might cause trouble with certain applications and documentfiles, it doesn’t happen often enough to warrant this time-waster.

When it comes to permissions issues, I have had just one since I began to work with Mac OS X starting with the Public Beta in September 2000. It happened a few months ago, and the sole symptom was the inability to launch a newly installed copy of Parallels Desktop 5. Yes, I tried running Repair Disk Permissions, but that didn’t change anything. In the end, I had to use a command line process in Terminal suggested by Parallels support, which fixed permissions on a single file that Disk Utility wouldn’t have touched in the normal course of events. What’s more, I don’t know any Mac users among my small circle of friends and acquaintances who have had any difficulties involving incorrect file permissions, though I’m sure some of you might have on a rare occasion or two.

My best advice is just to hold off installing 1o.6.3 for a few days to make sure there are no reports of serious defects. Someone, somewhere will always report a problem, but if the general trend is highly favorable, do your backup, run the installation and don’t fret. It should work out fine. In the rare situations where something isn’t working properly, seek out the Combo updater from Apple’s support site.

And, yes, I installed 10.6.3 on Day One and it’s working just fine, thank you. Then again, I never encountered any of the problems that it fixes.