One thing quiet evident in this country’s seemingly endless debate about health care, and that is there is no statement false enough that will prevent it from being uttered over and over again if it serves the cause. So, for example, we have some supposedly astute political observers spewing forth nonsense about an alleged “death committee” in the various versions of the bills under consideration, which will allegedly allow the “state” to determine whether an elderly person lives or dies. Some refer to it as an “elderly euthanasia” plan.

That, of course, is absurd. It’s an utter distortion of a actual amendment submitted by a Republican that allowed payment for consultations where a patient and family can discuss options for such matters as living wills and whether extraordinary resuscitation measures should be taken in the event of serious illnesses or injuries. As you see, the reality is something other than the distortion. In this case, they took a tiny fact about a common sense initiative and distorted it way beyond logic and common sense.

In the tech world, Apple Inc. has been subjected to its own round of fake or at least misleding criticisms. Alas, some members of the media, who prefer to repeat rather than do research, continue to spread the very same misinformation over and over again.

Now every so often I try to present an article refuting the fictions, and I think, as we complete our tenth year, it might as well be now.

We’ll start with the so-called Apple Tax. Its origins date back to the time that a Mac really cost quite a bit more than a comparable Windows PC. Today, it’s true that Apple dominates the U.S. retail market in computers selling for more than $1,000, but that doesn’t mean that a Mac is necessarily overpriced.

The fact is that, in order to keep the ordering process simple and production lines efficient, Apple limits the ways you can custom configure a Mac, thus forcing you to sometimes accept options that you may not really need. But when you take the end result and compare it against a PC equipped as closely as possible to match the Mac in terms of hardware and equivalent software, the price difference tends to be very small. The Mac may be cheaper, the PC may be cheaper, but neither to a large degree.

However, Apple refuses to sell stripped computers, nor will they play in the low-end, where PC makers are rushing desperately to compete with netbooks and other cheap gear. So in the end you will be able to buy a PC that costs a lot less than a Mac, but that doesn’t mean the Mac is overpriced. I hope the distinction is now clear.

Another anti-Mac argument covers software availability. The fact is that there are a lot more Windows apps than Mac apps. This is particularly true for games, where the cost of porting to the Mac, despite the presence of Intel-based processors, may be too high to provide a good return on the investment. Indeed, sales of games aren’t nearly as high as they used to be, and that evidently applies to the gaming console market too.

It is also true that so-called vertical market apps, specially-designed software for dentists, doctors, legal offices and so on and so forth are more plentiful on the Windows platform. Certainly that situation feeds upon itself. People buy a PC to use one of those programs, thus providing less incentive to build a Mac version. However, the key productivity apps that most people use are usually offered on both platforms. Apple’s content creation apps remain Mac only. What’s more, the ease of running Windows on a Mac allows you to exist in both worlds if that’s what you want.

When it comes to Apple’s reliance on Mac hardware, I realize some of you are still clamoring for Mac OS X to legally support any appropriately-equipped Windows PC. Certainly there is a growing subculture of people who have figured out how to induce Mac OS X to run on their computers, and there are plenty of online resources available that’ll make the process fairly easy.

Apple has tolerated the hobbyists. But, as in the case of Psystar, will pull out all the legal stops to prevent a commercial business from violating its user license and selling non-Apple hardware with Mac OS X preloaded.

Don’t expect this situation to change any time soon or ever. Although they are considered bitter competitors, Apple and Microsoft have very different business plans. Apple sells hardware to consumers, and the software, including the operating system, is a value-added feature. Microsoft sells operating systems and other software mostly to PC makers and other businesses. Consumers play a much smaller role, and, in fact, are forced to pay a whole lot more if they have the temerity to buy a single or small number of user licenses for Windows, Office or any of Microsoft’s other software products. Shouldn’t we be attacking the Microsoft Tax instead?

And that, my friends, is just the beginning.

On the surface, a glossy computer screen ought to be a good thing. Images will usually seem brighter, more luxurious and colors will almost jump out at you. In a sense, you’re feeling the impact of a great plasma TV.

However, all those terrific features come at a price, and not a financial one. You see, such displays are subject to reflections, particularly if the sunlight streams through the windows of your home or office, and there’s the rub. Aside from issues of power consumption, this may be one key reason why LCD TVs are more popular, even though they have an inferior viewing angle and don’t handle action scenes quite as well as plasma. And yes I know that the differences are becoming less severe as technology improves.

When it comes to computer displays, reflections might end up as the deal breaker. Whether the display is set up in a fixed location, or comes on a note-book, where you have flexibility when it comes to positioning, some of you are severely distracted by those reflections, and the annoyance is sometimes sufficient to be the ultimate deal breaker. In other words, you simply say no and buy something else.

Now I won’t get into the issue of whether or not color calibration with professional equipment is more difficult to achieve with glossy. I’ve had no particular difficulties using Apple’s own tools in the Displays preference panel and the results are, to my aging eyes, quite acceptable.

Unfortunately, if a Mac is on your shopping list, you may find yourself having to avoid many of the most popular models because they have integrated displays, and glossy is your only choice. Until very recently, that meant every iMac, and every MacBook and MacBook Pro save for the 17-inch model. Even there, the “antiglare” option is $50 additional. Not a large number by any means, but you have to wonder if it really cost Apple more to go matte.

Well, evidently a single model wasn’t enough. This week, Apple quietly added the antiglare checkbox to the ordering box for the standard MacBook Pro, the version with the 15-inch screen. There was no press release, no self-serving statement from an Apple executive as to how the company was responding to the needs of its customers. Besides, did they actually do any focus group testing or other surveys before they abandoned matte?

Frankly, I can see their viewpoint. It may well be that only a small number of customers have problems with reflections and couldn’t tolerate the glossy alternative, so the bean counters at Apple opted to lock you into a choice of one. Besides, it costs less from a manufacturing standpoint to reduce your choices.

Apple’s quiet decision seems to almost speak of embarrassment that they misjudged their customers — you and me. Then again, by saying nothing, perhaps Apple could ultimately remove the choice again, saying there wasn’t sufficient demand for it.

Perhaps Apple doesn’t need to say anything. They can count on a large community of Mac users that seem to delight in checking every little thing at Apple’s site in search of something new or at least previously undiscovered. So even though Apple said nothing about a new antiglare checkbox, its existence was quickly discovered and the news spread far and wide around the world.

So what comes next?

Well, if you can opt for antiglare for the two largest MacBook Pros, what about the 13-inch model? Why not the vanilla MacBook as well? And for that matter, shouldn’t those checkboxes appear on the option list for the iMac too? Would it seriously disrupt Apple’s production lines and profit margins?

What about the next generation of Mac displays, which are a long time coming? The only recent model, the 24-inch inch LED display designed to complement the designs of current Mac note-books, comes in glossy only, and I suppose it would be a great idea to spread your choices. If a new 30-inch display arrives, I’ll take it either way.

Now maybe I’m making a big deal out of a small issue. But those of you who cannot tolerate glossy screens do not regard it as trivial. I know several who absolutely cannot forgive a single reflection falling within their field of vision. True, I can’t walk in their shoes, but I do feel their pain. They shouldn’t have to squint and shift their focus in order to see what’s on the screen. You should be comfortable working on your Mac, not chronically irritated.

In the end, I’m sure Apple will do the right thing, not because it is an issue steeped in morality, but because they are in business to make money. If they sell more products because of an antiglare version, you can bet it’ll show up more often on your favorite models.

The movie “Pirates of Silicon Valley” comes across as somewhat of a fanciful interpretation of the early friendship between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that became the ultimate industrial rivalry. Those who prefer folklore would find similar epic tales, involving historical figures who became acquainted, struck up fast friendships, but eventually became bitter enemies for one reason or another.

In the case of Jobs and Gates, it was supposedly all about the battle between the Mac OS and Windows to conquer the hearts, minds and especially wallets of PC owners everywhere. However, when Apple and Microsoft staged the burying of the hatchet event at a Macworld Expo, I suppose some felt it was notable that Gates had to be piped in to the auditorium courtesy of a satellite feed. Why was he not present physically? Was this sort charade beneath him, did they fear for his safety if he faced the unwashed Mac masses in person, was it a matter of convenience?

It doesn’t matter, as these two industry pioneers actually did present a decently personable pair when they appeared at a public event some years later and reminisced about the glory days during which their rivalry began.

Most of you probably feel that, when it came to Jobs, it was never just about the money, whereas the cash rewards and the attempt to dominate every industry his company entered meant everything to Gates. Well, at least he plans to give most of it away courtesy of his philanthropic work.

Now some members of the press want you to believe that two tech industry behemoths are poised to begin a new war, may the smartest company win. The players? None other than Steven P. Jobs, CEO of Apple, and Dr. Eric Schwartz, CEO of Google.

So how did anyone get the idea that Apple and Google were poised to become enemies?

Certainly it’s not search, search advertising or even Google Apps for that matter. To the best of my knowledge, Apple isn’t contemplating development of its own search engine or an online advertising division. Right now, it uses Google for Safari for personal computers, and that and Yahoo! when it comes to the iPhone version. The various components of Google Apps might duplicate Apple Mail and iWork in a certain basic functionality, but the real target is Microsoft.

All right, there’s the iPhone and Android. I suppose you could say the two companies compete in that area, but Google doesn’t sell phones. Indeed, Apple’s primarily market focus is to use software as a value-added feature in order to move tech gear. Yes, they do sell some software titles, but the vast majority of their earnings originate from hardware. Even iTunes and the App Store are designed to fuel hardware sales. When it comes to Android, most any mobile phone maker can apply.

Operating systems? Sure, there will be a Chrome OS based on Linux, said to be roughly a year away. There will not be a Chrome PC built by Google, however. How they plan to monetize Chrome OS, which will be given away, as with Android, free of charge, is not certain. I would expect it would all be about search-based advertising and use of Google’s own apps to provide much of the heavy lifting.

So without spending a whole lot of time examining the basic makeup and focus of Apple and Google, we can see where they are not, in fact, actual competitors to a large extent. That doesn’t mean that Dr. Schmidt made the wrong decision to step down from Apple’s board. After all, what is he to do when they were talking about operating systems and iPhones, other than to go outside and cool his heels?

Indeed, I wonder if the fact that the Obama administration’s antitrust enforcers are watching over the shoulders of all large companies was sufficient cause for firms with potentially overlapping products and boards to be concerned. In light of the current state of affairs, it made perfect sense for Google’s CEO to leave Apple. I rather suspect the entire decision was as businesslike as the announcement. These two companies know how to play the game.

But that doesn’t make for lurid headlines. There are lots of companies out there that rarely compete, but have corporate relationships in a similar state. No doubt they realized they had to make decisions about filling board positions appropriately.

But those companies aren’t Apple and Google, so the press doesn’t really care, unless they are shown to have engaged in some sort of wrongdoing. And that, my friends, surely isn’t true about Apple and Google. All right, perhaps you can make an argument about backdating stock options and whether the involvement of Steve Jobs was more direct that originally portrayed. But that was then, and this is now. There’s no new fight between tech giants brewing, or at least not the one that some misguided tech writers have been talking about.

If there’s any fight that deserves coverage, it clearly would be the one that involves those old-time adversaries, Apple and Microsoft.

In the days of the Apple II, magazines devoted to these pioneering personal computers would generally have the word “Apple” as an intrinsic part of the title. Well, it stands to reason, particularly since that was pretty much all Apple Computer was about in those days.

It’s also quite logical that, when the Mac appeared, a new generation of media resources with the Mac prefix came about. While many of the early entrants into this new information category are no longer with us, there is still Macworld, same name, although the print publication is a whole lot slimmer than it used to be. However, that’s the way of the print world these days; it’s not as if Macworld did anything wrong.

Certainly in keeping with that worthwhile tradition, we began roughly a decade ago as The Mac Night Owl. At the beginning, a hefty portion of our content was Mac specific. However, Apple, in its infinite wisdom, decided to move our focus into new directions.

Sure, Apple sold various and sundry Mac peripherals over the years, but the main topic of interest was their lineup of personal computers; that is, until the iPod came along. Suddenly there was a product without the telltale “Mac” in the title that actually sold more units. To the surprise of many, most of the customers were actually users of Windows PC.

What a strange development that was.

Story continued in this week’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter.