You just know that Apple’s critics are busy harping on the features of the Nexus One phone, from Google and HTC, which appear to trump those in the iPhone. This should, so they say, make it the ultimate iPhone killer.

But is any of that true?

It is very clear that Google and HTC have taken a bullet point approach to building the Nexus One, or at least that’s how it comes across. So, for example, the screen is larger and has much higher resolution than the one on the iPhone 3GS, which is no slouch by the way. The camera is five megapixels, compared to 3.2 megapixels on the latest iPhone and there’s also a flash capability, which the iPhone lacks.

Now in the real world, the Nexus One’s screen may not seem so much better with regular computer-generated graphics, but certainly the camera has better potential. This is one area where Apple has been traditionally behind the curve, though it seems it hasn’t hurt sales any more than the extra features on other so-called iPod killers hurt that product’s march to number one.

Other advantages to the Nexus One include real multitasking, evidently helped along by a newer generation processor, and decent power management, so battery life remains good. Unlike Apple’s handheld gadgets, you can also swap out the memory card and, typical of most mobile phones, replace the battery without a visit to the service depot.

Unfortunately, most of the glowing reviews of the Nexus One don’t mention some of its serious lapses, including one that really impairs this smartphone’s suitability for the enterprise. You see, there’s no support for Exchange email servers, a mainstay of the business world and a key feature offered by the iPhone, BlackBerry and other mobile devices. Google instead wants you to stick with Gmail, which may be fine for many, but it could be the deal breaker.

For the consumer market, the selection of apps is nowhere near as rich as the App Store. Yes, there are 20,000 apps, but how many of them fit into the categories that exploit the multimedia capabilities of Android devices, such as loads of games? In addition, because of the fragmentation in the Android market when it comes to hardware features and OS versions, the app that works on your phone may not work on another device from the same manufacturer. It’s not a seamless process, nor is the ability to upgrade the OS to the latest version guaranteed.

What’s more, you can’t use a Nexus One or any other Android smartphone as a digital music player in the fashion of the iPhone. That’s another key issue that is being forgotten. Now maybe these other companies expect you to just buy an iPod separately if that’s what you want, or pay the higher “ransom” to download music from your chosen wireless carrier. But that also reduces the all-in-one capabilities of these iPhone killers.

Apple, you say, may not always offer all the features of the competition, and hardware specs may be middling in some respects, but the seamless software integration and easy syncing of content with a Mac or PC make it shine. This is a main reason why it has taken off so rapidly and continues to be a hot ticket.

This isn’t to say that the Google OS is a bad mobile platform. Indeed, second to Apple’s, it may be the most compelling alternative for folks who don’t want to buy an iPhone for any number of reasons, including the fact that they don’t like AT&T, or just prefer another carrier. Indeed, I can see where some feel that Apple’s iron-fist control of the iPhone platform may be a severe negative, since it does restrict some of the things they can do with the device. Indeed, that taste for freedom is a prime reason for the fact that so many jailbreak their iPhones, other than just happening to live in countries where it’s not yet available.

Now as we speak, Apple is without doubt working hard on the iPhone 4.0 software and the next major revision to the product. It may well be that some of the features that the Nexus One possesses now, such as a superior camera, flash capability and a higher-performing processor with good multitasking, will be a part of the iPhone 3GS’s successor come this summer.

It may also be true that the operating system will incorporate loads of enhancements that many of you have been clamoring for. I, for one, would like to see a working Junk filter in Mail, which may not be high on anyone else’s list, but seems to be something that is truly late to the party. Indeed, the potential wish lists for iPhone 4.0 are no doubt going to be quite extensive, and if it happens that the Android OS has raised the bar in some areas, so be it.

I’m all for fair competition, which is why Microsoft isn’t a part of this discussion.

After months of hype, Google’s Nexus One smartphone is out the door, and they are beginning to take orders. As many of you realize, Google doesn’t build consumer electronics gear. Instead, they went to HTC, a successful smartphone maker who has experience with Android products, to do the heavy lifting.

At the end of the day, early reviews indicate that the Nexus One isn’t a game changer, nor does it rate as a potential iPhone killer. But it has lots of good hardware capabilities, including a five megapixel camera and flash, to tempt customers who are seeking alternative products. On the other hand, the Nexus One doesn’t sport a touchscreen interface that comes close to rivaling the iPhone’s Multi-Touch capability, and storage for apps is limited to the device’s internal ROM. You can’t store them on the external memory cards, which means that you’ll be partaking of precious few of those 20,000 Google apps even if they are compatible.

Despite its limitations, the Nexus One is still a showcase of Google’s latest technologies, but in the end it’s also a competitor to other Android phones from other companies, which puts the search giant in a position similar to Microsoft when the Zune came out. If a company is going to partner with third parties, releasing a similar product might be regarded as a smack in the face. If HTC makes the official Google phone, what about Motorola and other companies who also make Android devices?

More to the point, just what is Google’s end game here? Do they plan on becoming a consumer electronics powerhouse to go up against Apple? Maybe it’s just smartphones today, but what about portable PCs to run the Chrome OS? When does it stop?

Yes, Google no doubt gets a piece of the action from the Nexus One, but they are licensing Android free of charge. The same will hold true for the Chrome OS. Google’s real income source is, of course, ads.

So free Google apps and search links present you with ads, from which income is earned when you click the link to check out a product or service. More eyeballs increase the click-through rates and Google’s profits. Indeed, Google isn’t stingy about letting other companies distribute their ads, and a number of those Google features are available on the iPhone and will continue to be updated for that platform. So whether you buy an Android phone, an iPhone or any mobile device or PC that features something from Google, income is generated from ad placements.

The mainstream media wants you to believe that Apple and Google are destined to engage in a battle to the death, but how is that going to play out? When it comes to smartphones, I expect millions and millions of Android devices and iPhones will be sold in the years to come. At the same time, it appears Microsoft’s mobile initiative is toast. Companies are abandoning Windows Mobile to embrace the free Android OS. Developers who don’t wish to work within Apple’s App Store constraints will possibly choose Android, despite the limitations of the platform.

Limitations? Well, when a software company makes an App Store product, they can depend on their app running reliability on a guaranteed roster of compatible products. Yes, there are some features that won’t support the first generation iPhone or an early iPod touch, and there will be new capabilities in upcoming iPhone revisions that won’t be backwards compatible. But all of these devices can be easily upgraded to the latest and greatest iPhone software.

When it comes to an Android smartphone, there is no enforcement of strict hardware standards, and different devices will have different OS versions. Upgrading, where possible, may require a time-wasting visit to a wireless carrier’s retail store. Worse, not all stores have the equipment in place to perform software upgrades of this sort. Usually the factory stories have the capability, but there is no guarantee that a specific OS version will be available for any individual product.

So a developer may have to build different versions of a product to address these incompatibilities or limit the app to more limited feature sets that might support a greater number of handsets. The chances of having three billion downloads in a year and a half are slim to none. Besides, none of that really matters to Google anyway, since they only care about the number of people who use their apps and search features and click on the paid ads.

As to RIM and the BlackBerry, they continue to do quite well in the enterprise. But if they confront more and more of those server outages, there’s the danger that a fair number of customers will seek other options when the wireless provider contracts are up. However, I’m not about to predict the impending failure of this company. They are pioneers in the industry and surely smart enough to fix the problems and embrace newer technologies.

In the meantime, it does appear that Nokia, stung by all the new competition, is hoping to somehow get a big payday from Apple over the current patent disputes. In the end, someone will be paid off, and Apple does have deep pockets.

As to Google, they’ll just be laughing all the way to the bank.

You just know that Microsoft is struggling mightily to remain relevant in the 21st century, while making the lion’s share of its income from products and services that were first created in the last century. However, it’s also clear their executives have no taste when it comes to choosing the proper marketing methods to sell products to consumers.

Now producing stupid or just plain obnoxious TV spots isn’t too hard. That explains why the Fast Forward buttons on TiVOs and other DVRs are being regularly worn to the bone, and TV networks and local stations are struggling to stop ad income from sagging big time.

So Job One for Microsoft would be to actually deliver a message that stops you in your tracks when you are ready to push that button, or go to the fridge for some liquid refreshment as you wait for the show to resume. Apple has managed to do that with the Mac Versus PC campaign. GEICO, an insurance company, has captured plenty of attention with its “Gecko” lizard puppet, and those modern-day cavemen. In fact the latter marketing scheme proved so popular it actually inspired a short-lived comedy show, until they woke up and realized that the concept only succeeded within the 30 second constraints of a TV ad.

Into this clutter comes some of the most absurd TV spots on record. First, Microsoft teams ex-CEO Bill Gates with 1990’s sitcom veteran Jerry Seinfeld to produce two commercials about nothing. Well, wasn’t that the concept of Seinfeld’s show? In any case, when that campaign fizzled, Microsoft began its Laptop Hunters promotion, which garnered so much attention from Mac users over its misleading claims that Apple actually demanded that Microsoft fix the content. In retrospect, it was never certain whether Microsoft was actually selling gear from its hardware partners, or just pushing Windows.

With the arrival of Windows 7, Microsoft wants to create the illusion that it is not only something truly innovative, but that regular customers actually inspired some of the most significant features. So we have this nerdy character who rushes around his home with a laptop perched clumsily on one hand as he struggles to move two document windows to the corners of the screen. Other than demonstrating how not to handle a note-book computer, I wonder how many times the actor actually dropped the thing before making it through the scene successfully.

Worse, the slow, halting movement on the tiny display doesn’t reassure you about the graphic capabilities of Windows 7. But worse, the character in this spot goes on to claim that HE was the inventor of this particular feature. Well, I hope he doesn’t quit his day job, assuming he has a day job beyond appearing in poorly produced TV spots.

Another Windows 7 ad extolls the ability to use Wi-Fi. So we have yet another ignorant dude showing us his one-handed note-book move as he delights in explaining how he can print and share music wirelessly in his home. Again, he feels that this is a feature that he inspired Microsoft to place in Windows 7 and thus he, too, invented it.

I presume most of the people who spent the time to watch this misguided production realize that Wi-Fi is an international standard that was not only not invented by Microsoft, but has been available for years on both Macs and PCs. Maybe Windows 7 handles wireless networking a tad more efficiently than Vista, but how does Microsoft expect anyone to believe that it’s something new and different?

Why indeed!

At the same time, Microsoft continues to try to persuade users of Windows XP and older versions of their office suites to upgrade with fire sale prices; that is if you regard 50% discounts to small and medium-sized businesses as genuine discount pricing. Of course, Microsoft wants them all to forget the draconian upgrade process when moving from XP to Windows 7, which requires a clean install. That means backing up your hard drive, installing the new OS and then restoring your files.

Maybe Microsoft should take the money spent on foolish ad campaigns and invest it in developing a workable upgrade method. Up till now, Microsoft’s biggest obstacle to expanding use of its newest operating systems has been the insistence of tens of millions of users to stick with XP. Certainly many of these customers will probably adopt Windows 7 when they buy new PCs, but Microsoft earns much higher profits selling upgrade kits to end users as compared to OEM partners.

This doesn’t mean that Windows 7 is a bad operating system. So far the early reviews are extremely positive. Microsoft has apparently done some solid work to clean up some of the worst problems of Vista as well as adding some fancy new eye candy in the process. Stability is improved, and performance is at least incrementally enhanced. These are very positive developments, and worth crowing about.

But Microsoft lost its marketing mojo long ago, and the best they can manage these days is more and more hot air.

Regardless of what Apple really does later this month at a rumored media event, this might be considered the month of the tablet as far as they’re concerned. Indeed, so many people actually expect such a thing to happen that Apple might be shooting itself in the foot if no such product is actually released.

Certainly, buyers are ready, and no matter what the rumored iSlate or whatever it’s going to be called actually contains, millions will be sold within the first few months. Of course, sustaining a market will require a lot more than hype.

Indeed, there was plenty of hype surrounding the Mac Cube also, and initial sales were good, despite the fact that what many regarded as a museum piece was underpowered and overpriced. It goes to show that all flash and little substance cannot be an assured success.

These days, however, Apple receives plenty of positive press. The iPod was a huge success, the iPhone a phenomenon beyond most expectations and the Mac has staged a huge comeback in recent years. At the same time, Microsoft’s efforts to remain relevant have faltered, so they’ve been forced by the marketplace to rely on their old standbys, such as operating systems, office suites and server produces.

You just know that Apple’s competitors want to head the company off at the pass. There are already reports that new tablet-style computers will be introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show within days, although it’s questionable just what sort of operating system interface they’ll use. If it’s just the same old failed Windows-bred tablet motif, it’ll be too little and too late.

At the same time, is an Apple tablet a dream come true, or just a response to years of clamoring from the media and customers that such a product must be built?

Of course that’s the question I’ve been raising in recent weeks. If the iSlate is going to be a gussied up iPhone, how does it advance the state of the art? If the interface is the same, and the software is the same, except for modifications to accommodate a larger screen size, where’s the benefit?

An e-book?

As most of you know, the Amazon Kindle has been quite successful, and its manufacturer claims that some book titles are now faring better in electronic rather than printed form. However, don’t forget that iPhone and iPod touch users can already download and install a Kindle app. The iSlate would surely have an expanded version, and there are already other book and magazine reading apps. Nothing new there, other than a larger screen size to allow for greater reading comfort and perhaps more flexibility in managing different forms of content, such as textbooks.

There are, in fact, more and more stories that publishers, stung by the rapid decline of printed fare, are begging Apple to establish some sort of sales and subscription program, perhaps using the App Store. Another set of rumors addresses TV content, perhaps an effort to establish Apple as a dead-on competitor to cable and satellite TV.

A decent number of publisher partners might not be terribly difficult for Apple to collect, since most of them are desperate for new income opportunities, particularly those who have daily newspapers in their repertoire. But when it comes to TV networks, the recent skirmishes involving cable systems and carriage fees makes it crystal clear that contracts won’t be easy to negotiate.

Even if you consider the superior skills of Steve Jobs, Tim Cook and other senior Apple executives in navigating the rough waters of the entertainment industry, would are they seeking? Would it be just another service with 300 or so channels? Hardly, since Apple doesn’t deliver me-too products and services. Besides, even if you have all those channels, most customers still struggle to find a handful with shows worth watching.

Even if Apple does offer a new media content service, how does that relate to a tablet-based computer anyway? Certainly your Mac or Apple TV already serve the function of managing media, although you could certainly perform such chores within the diminutive screen environment of the iPhone and iPod touch. But I see them better suited as remote controls for larger devices.

So we return to the main issue: If Apple is going to build a tablet-based computer, they would have to devise new and better ways to allow you to create and consume content, and it would have to serve those functions with greater convenience and elegance than existing products. Otherwise, there would be no reason for such a product to exist, beyond the hopes and wishes from many that such a gadget is inevitable.

Honestly, these are questions I do not claim to be able to answer. But it’s a certainty that Apple doesn’t enter new markets unless they can make a genuine difference and earn healthy profits. The day of the tablet has supposedly been on the horizon for years. Maybe Apple has found a way to make that market segment successful and we’ll all be pleasantly surprised when and if the iSlate actually appears.

Till then, color me skeptical.