In recent years, some media commentators have claimed that certain news outlets are in the “hip pockets” of major news sources. So, for example, it’s believed that the MSNBC cable network favors liberals, whereas Fox News favors conservatives. When it comes to interviewing someone holding an opposing viewpoint, they tend to get hardball questions, but those who are favored receive are treated with kid gloves.

Now this is a gross generalization, but it’s meant to convey a specific point. The tech media, by and large, when given the opportunity to question a major figure in the industry, tends to clam up when it comes to asking proper follow-up queries or even posing an inquiry that might challenge the subject of the interview.

How does this apply to Microsoft? Well, not so long ago, yet another stupid statement from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was widely quoted, that Apple’s recent sales success is nothing more than a “rounding error.” On the surface and below the surface, this claim is utter nonsense. But is Ballmer being given proper questions to explain why he spews such tripe? Maybe, but you don’t read about it very often.

Of course, the oh-so-gentle handling of Microsoft has been part and parcel of the way the media has treated the company for decades. Back in the days when Bill Gates would tout some alleged innovation they were planning, the claims would be taken at face value, seldom questioned. Indeed, one of the big reasons for Microsoft’s stellar growth and industry dominance for so many years is their penchant for deception and bait and switch.

Is Gates truly the former boy genius computer programmer as portrayed by the media, or a brilliant salesman whose company engaged in a number of questionable tactics over the years to push aside all comers on its way to the top? What is his singular brilliant software invention for that matter? Altair BASIC? While some think that MS-DOS was a Microsoft invention, they actually bought the code from another company for one sum and them licensed it to IBM for a lot more money. Gates and his people came up with the brilliant idea to make the deal non-exclusive, and thus there were IBM clones.

Gates also hoodwinked former software drink salesman John Scully, then CEO of Apple, to license some Mac OS code to Microsoft. That gave them the ammunition to graft essential elements of its look and feel onto MS-DOS, and thus beget Windows. The rest is history.

As Microsoft’s sales prospects dim, particularly in the wake of the failure of Windows Vista to catch on in the enterprise, and the dismal performance of the Zune music player, it does appear that the company is taken less seriously. But the buffoon-like rantings of Steve Ballmer are still quoted without much effort to get contrary — meaning factual — points of view.

The growing skepticism about Microsoft, and that includes their search and advertising deal with Yahoo!, does indicate, though, that the glory days may at last be over. If this misguided transaction actually receives government approval, it’s hard to see where two companies with failing strategies will somehow manage a marriage made in haven. So far as Ya-Bing is concerned, I regard it as a gift to Google, one that’ll allow them to compete unchallenged as their two largest competitors struggle to sort things out and find those cherished if elusive technological synergies.

Oh, and before you ask, yes, I’d like to see Apple subject to the same hard questions. The closest they come, alas, is the quarterly conference with financial analysts. However, most of those questions concern arcane money-related issues. Apple deflects any question that doesn’t conform to their marketing strategy, and there are too many voices on the connection to allow for any reasonable number of follow-up queries.

Sure, there have been times when the likes of Steve Jobs, Tim Cook and Phil Schiller have had limited press availabilities. But asking any of them a loaded question is near impossible. The ever-irascible Jobs has been known to shout down reporters when they say something that requires an off-message response.

I remember, for example, the heyday of the famous Apple Cube. Rumors had arisen that it was going to be phased out. When a reporter asked that very question of Jobs, he responded angrily, “you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

A few weeks later, the Cube entered personal computer history.

Yes, it is highly unfortunate that Apple Inc. doesn’t want to provide any information unless it’s strictly on their own limited terms. They are far worse than almost any other multinational corporation when it comes to providing information that takes you beyond the press releases and product fact sheets.

That doesn’t mean that reporters shouldn’t try to ask meaningful questions when they approach Apple executives. They can’t hide forever, and when it comes to Microsoft, so long as Ballmer wants to open his big mouth, he deserves — indeed demands — being treated with skepticism when he spews forth more of his silly nonsense.

As much as you want to think that Apple and Microsoft are involved in a fight to the death over operating system market share, the fact of the matter is that these two companies have very different business plans. Apple is selling hardware, be it Macs, iPods or iPhones. The operating system is an intrinsic part of the package, and thus bundled with their gear.

Sure, Apple sells OS upgrades for Macs, but largely as an accommodation to allow existing customers to take advantage of the same features. That certainly helps in putting Mac users in similar environments for more efficient quality control, and to give developers an opportunity to build products that reach more potential customers.

As to Apple’s own software, they are mostly value extras for Mac users, and are thus priced inexpensively. iLife ships free on new Macs, and the upgrades are a mere $79, putting the suite in the shareware price range. The same pricing applies to iWork.

Even their professional content creation app suites have becoming amazingly affordable for what they offer. The new Logic Studio remains at $499 for an incredible variety of recording software and utilities, and the upgrade is a mere $199. The Final Cut Studio suite for film and movie editing is now $999, and $299 for the upgrade. A few years ago, Apple’s pro apps would cost thousands of dollars. These days, the price for both is almost a drop in the bucket for anyone employed in various multimedia professions.

Apple’s upgrade strategy for Snow Leopard is well executed. It may be that accounting regulations don’t allow them to make it a free download, but a $29 purchase price is low enough to make it a casual purchase for any Mac user with an Intel-based model. Indeed, it may well be that Apple will quickly push 10.6 to a hefty majority of eligible customers within the space of a few months, meaning a much larger user base for developers to reach with updated products that take advantage of the powerful new features.

In contrast, Microsoft sells software, and leaves the hardware to its OEM partners, except for entertainment and input ddevices.

Yes, Microsoft has cut the price of Windows 7 as compared to Vista, but it’s still a purchase that involves a larger investment in time and money. Maybe the installation process will be smoother, with fewer user interventions beyond the initial entry of the serial number, and perhaps the outcomes will be more successful. But it’s doubtful the process will be as well executed as the one Apple is prepping for Snow Leopard.

Consider what Apple says on the subject, although there’s some hype in their message: “Upgrading your Mac has never been easier. For Snow Leopard, the entire process has been simplified, streamlined, and is up to 45 percent faster, yet more comprehensive and reliable. For example, Snow Leopard checks your applications to make sure they’re compatible and sets aside any programs known to be incompatible. In case a power outage interrupts your installation, it can start again without losing any data.”

Would a Windows 7 installation resume after a power outage, or would you be left with a total mess that you have to sort out before you can attempt a reinstallation? Sure, maybe everyone needs a backup battery at hand in case of such emergencies, particularly in storm-prone locales, but Microsoft surely has the resources to do as well or better than Apple in making their OS upgrades safe. But it hasn’t happened, and there’s little indication that it’s a high priority on Microsoft’s bullet point list of new features.

This isn’t to say that you necessarily have to be gouged by Microsoft to buy Windows 7. You’ll be able to get it free with a new PC this fall, and if you can place yourself within the narrow confines of OEM customer, perhaps by saying you are assembling your PC by yourself, you’ll pay a lot less money. What a complicated state of affairs, and it’s why Microsoft is encountering more and more difficulties getting people to upgrade nowadays.

Worse, Microsoft appears to be betting the farm on the success of Windows 7. Steve Ballmer, who believes Apple’s success is nothing more than a “rounding error,” wants you to think that millions of customers have been holding off buying new PCs until the Windows upgrade is available. Then an avalanche of customers will hit the stores or place their owners online to be first on the block for something that offers little demonstrable advantage over Vista. Sure, maybe it’ll be a little faster, and perhaps a tad more reliable. But is that going to be the magic bullet?

Indeed, do people buy PCs because of the operating system or because the hardware specs and pricing appear to fit their requirements? It’s not as if most of them actually make decisions based on the bundled operating system.

Of course, a lot of that is also true for the Mac. They buy them because they are pretty and powerful and are sufficiently well equipped to meet their needs. Yes, the Mac OS is a major factor, but I wonder how many people consider that distinction.

My gut feeling, for now at least, is that their may be an uptick in PC sales when Windows 7 comes along, but it would be insufficient to rescue Microsoft from the sales doldrums.

If you can believe some of the reviews out there, Windows 7 is all that Vista should have been. It’s fast, reliable and has a solid interface. However, when CNET’s own tests of the RTM (release to manufacturing) version failed to provide evidence of any significant speed improvement, other than the shut down process, you have to wonder what some of these people are smoking — or drinking — before they write their stories.

Or are they hoping to earn enough affiliate commissions and free gifts from Microsoft to compensate for shedding all vestiges of journalistic integrity? I don’t pretend to know.

Now I’m not saying Windows 7 is necessarily a bad operating system. When Vista came out, the hardware hadn’t quite caught up, so it was sluggish where XP was snappy. That was then and this is now. So Windows 7 need only be slightly faster than Vista in terms of impartial benchmarks to be perceived as a better performing product. The other initial Vista irritants, such as driver conflicts, have largely been resolved anyway.

As to the interface, it seems as if Microsoft is once again making changes for the sake of change, not efficiency or ease of use. The latter concept remains alien to them. Having a taskbar that resembles Mac OS X’s Dock might seem cool to them, but since the original was released back in 2001, it’s hardly a new idea.

The larger question is whether Windows 7 offers anything that would attract Microsoft’s huge roster of business customers to abandon XP and upgrade. I suppose security is probably better, although most enterprise users have already configured their networks to provide reasonably safe environments for XP. Perhaps they could keep things the same, other than requisite security software updates. You can bet they are already testing Windows 7, but the jury is still out how quickly they plan to embrace the new system. Certainly if large-scale purchases of new PCs are pending, they might be more amenable to staying with the new rather than retrofitting the old this time.

That would, of course, auger well for Microsoft, at least as far as the business world is concerned.

When it comes to home users, I suppose most people who buy new PCs will simply stick with the system that was preloaded. Only power users would care about reverting to XP, Linux, or an unofficial installation of Mac OS X. But it’s not as if PC sales are on hold pending the release of Windows 7. Microsoft doesn’t get that sort of buzz. This is not 1995, when people lined up around computer and electronic stores to have copies of Windows 95 placed in their greasy hands.

More to the point, despite the pathetic efforts at spin control from Microsoft’s lunatic CEO Steve Ballmer, Apple’s current success with Macs is not a “rounding error.” Just a few years ago, Apple managed to sell less than 800,000 units a quarter. Now it’s more than three times that high. Perhaps Ballmer has embraced some sort of new math where growth rates of 300% or more aren’t significant. But after Microsoft’s recent difficulties in sustaining decent sales, particularly in the consumer space, I hardly think they have a right to complain.

But the larger problem confronting Microsoft is that they have never been able to compete fairly. Using tricks, bait and switch and outright deceit, they carved for themselves a huge majority share of the PC operating system market. Of course, some stupid moves from Apple early on helped cement Microsoft’s dominant position.

These days, however, Apple is regarded as a significant competitor. Don’t forget that they have 91% of the U.S. retail market in sales of personal computers selling for over $1,000. Except for workstations and special purpose gaming PCs, the other makers are fighting desperately for market share with cheap boxes.

Even though music players aren’t as hot as they used to be, the iPod has essentially retained its extremely high share of the market. The iconic product gained ascendency in a relatively fair competitive environment, and Microsoft’s efforts fell flat. Ditto with smartphones, where the iPhone is competing with similarly priced and cheaper products, but has carved out a growing share far faster than the naysayers could ever have imagined.

This fall, Windows 7 will face competition with Apple’s Snow Leopard. Although Apple, as of the time this is written, had not yet begun to officially accept preorders, you can reserve a copy at Amazon (the link uses our affiliate code, so we can get a few cents commission if you place an order). What’s more, Snow Leopard quickly supplanted Windows 7 preorders in the sales charts, and you can hardly call Amazon a devout Mac supporter.

Of course, I may be dead wrong. I reserve that right. Perhaps Windows 7 will be Microsoft’s hoped for magic bullet, which will ignite PC sales all over again, as Windows 95 did 14 years ago. But I find that possibility very, very hard to accept.

I suppose it didn’t come as much of a surprise when the news came down Monday morning that Google CEO Eric Schmidt had surrendered his position on Apple’s Board of Directors. After all, Google has been encroaching more and more on Apple territory in terms of mobile phones, operating systems and, of course browsers. So Schmidt had to sit out more and more sessions because of potential conflicts of interest.

In the official announcement, Steve Jobs is quoted as saying: “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”

All right, so no big deal. Situations of this sort do happen from time to time in the world of big business, but the real question is whether the areas in which Apple and Google partner will be impacted negatively. Consider that a Google Voice app has already been rejected by the App Store, and the decision is subject to ongoing investigation by the FCC.

However, that doesn’t mean that Apple is suddenly going to stop providing Google search or their maps and other features on their various products. I am not so confident about Yahoo! search on the iPhone if that deal between them and Microsoft is approved by the U.S. government and the EU. But it would give Microsoft a chance to prove that Bing has traction in the mobile marketplace, but since they don’t have a viable mobile strategy, I suppose anything might happen.

More to the point, you have to consider Schmidt’s predicament. When Apple’s board talks about the iPhone, Schmidt has to stay away. When they discuss browsers, same deal. That’s true even though Google’s Chrome uses Apple’s WebKit as its rendering engine. And now that Google is going into the personal computer operating system business, again he must take a very long lunch.

This doesn’t, however, mean that suddenly Google and Apple are fated to go head to head to steal market share from Microsoft — or each other for that matter. You see, Google’s Chrome operating system will be heavily Web-based, and thus designed to extol the virtues of Google Apps. At first, it’ll likely be used on netbooks, and that will surely impact Microsoft’s efforts to extract their standard OEM operating system toll from those miniature portables.

Talk about causing nightmares for Microsoft. Right now, Steve Ballmer is hoping and praying that they’ll be able to raise the price on netbooks when Windows 7 arrives. But with the Chrome OS being free, how many customers are going to want to pay the Microsoft Tax (the real PC tax) for a bloated system that may actually deliver subpar performance. Based on Linux, you can expect a minimalist Google-borne system to be far less resource hungry and demonstrably snappier.

As to Google Apps: Well, they are surely suitable for the average consumer. You get a passable word processor and spreadsheet, for example, which are more or less compatible with Office. But do the people who buy netbooks really care about running a full-blown office suite on these gadgets?

When it comes to email, the Gmail Web interface is colorful, but not overdone. There are plenty of message organization features to allow you to keep tabs on the mail you and store the stuff that you expect to check out later on. Indeed, I suspect a fair amount of Gmail users on the Mac and PC platforms never touch their desktop email apps, but access their messages via the browser.

In any case, I don’t expect that Chrome OS is going to have a material effect on Apple’s market share. Indeed, if someone wants to run Google’s operating system on their Macs, they will have no trouble at all using their preferred virtual machine app, such as Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion.

More to the point, Chrome won’t be around until some time next year, and we’ll certainly know by then just how well Windows 7 will fare on entry-level desktops and whether it stands much of a chance of replacing XP in the enterprise anytime soon.

So, despite the fact that Schmidt’s departure from Apple’s board seems to put the two companies farther apart, most of their joint initiatives will probably remain in place. Whether or not Google Voice joins them may be something the FCC may have to decide, and it may be more a matter of the apps impact on AT&T’s wireless service than on anything Apple is doing.

Meantime, Google has now put up highway billboards touting Google Apps. You have to wonder how Steve Ballmer reacts when his limousine passes one. I’d surely love to be the fly on the wall and find out, though my insect ears might be deafened by his vulgar screams.