Depending on your point of view about a situation, you can either kick someone when they’re down, or support them and give them a reasonable amount of time to recover. Since Apple Inc. is at the top of the world these days, you can bet that any problems they encounter will be amplified. After all, whatever goes up must come down. Yes, that’s another old phrase, and I hope you’re not getting sick of them.

Well, a recent commentary from Farhad Manjoo at Slate’s site shows how you can take a few disparate facts and develop a thoroughly misleading theory that Apple is in serious trouble. The posture Manjoo takes is typical of slash and burn pieces, to be sure, but it’s definitely worth a few comments.

It all begins in paragraph number one, where the writer says, “In its ubiquitous TV ads, Apple claims that its new iPhone is twice as fast as the original version and just half the price. Neither is true.”

Well, the latter is partly true. You pay half the price upfront in the U.S., for example, but AT&T instituted a higher rate for its data plans, because of the speedier 3G network. But that’s typical of their pricing policy, and the core claim is hardly a fib. As to the first claim, about network speeds, my own tests — and a set of trials run around the world by readers of Wired — that the iPhone 3G does indeed deliver on Apple’s promise. However, as Apple says in its fine print, network conditions can conspire to create problems.

Indeed, AT&T’s 3G network is young and untested with the kind of demand lots of iPhone 3Gs place upon it. So in larger cities, where there are a lot of these smartphones around, clogged traffic has caused problems. But that’s not Apple’s fault. It’s up to AT&T to tune its network and, as they continue to promise, increase capacity and coverage. In short, Manjoo clearly believes that class action lawsuit filed against Apple by an iPhone owner, alleging that the claims of twice the speed are false, has merit. I think the lawsuit is bogus, but your mileage mary vary.

Another issue involves the supposed widespread inability of iPhone applications to launch, but the real problem involves frequent crashing. Both iPhone 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 helped some, and Steve Jobs himself promises a software fix in September. Once again, Manjoo gets it wrong.

Next…

When it comes to MobileMe, of course, Manjoo actually has a point. The rollout was a disaster, and Apple admits as much. However, the claim about “some users reporting losing years of saved e-mail” is questionable. Apple says that about 1% of MobileMe users lost about 10% of the mail received over a period of a few days, and it appears at least some of those messages have been recovered. I’ve seen no evidence that Apple is lying.

Manjoo does correctly report that MobileMe users got a service credit, but gets the numbers wrong. It’s three months, not two. What’s more, in a widely-published employee memo, Steve Jobs promised ongoing improvements, and, in fact, put iTunes executive Eddie Cue in charge of the whole enterprise, and he has a great track record of getting things done.

The third leg of this hatchet job implies that “Apple’s PCs aren’t doing so well either” because a single user reported having problems with four new Macs, one of which was actually traced to a defective keyboard. If that keyboard was the one that shipped with a desktop Mac, it’s trivial, since its is easily replaced with just about any recent third-party keyboard on the planet, and Apple would have no problem exchanging it quickly.

Now I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to believe that, just because one person gets a bad run of Macs, there is a general decline in the reliability of Apple’s hardware.

Once he gets past these questionable issues, he talks of the legendary Jobs “reality distortion field,” implying that Apple fans will overlook troublesome products because they just adore the company, or perhaps they are hypnotized en masse and have lost their capacity to separate fact from fancy.

Setting aside the concept of Steve Jobs as a religious figure for the moment, let’s make a solid reality check: Apple has a bad habit of not explaining problems with adequate detail, and sometimes early in the game, before the naysayers have ammunition to light the flames. In contrast, when Netflix recently had problems with their order processing and shipping systems, they admitted the difficulties up front, and automatically extended memberships to compensate.

Yes, Apple did right by its MobileMe customers, but you get the impression the credits were granted reluctantly after lots of members and the press in general complained loudly.

As of now, MobileMe’s performance has improved greatly, and the email service has become pretty efficient and reliable. The site itself is easy to navigate, and all of the features, at least for me, actually work.

The iPhone 3G’s issues seem, in large part, to be symptoms of network clutter or signal issues, and Apple can only do so much to fix things on their end. What’s more, many iPhone owners have no problems at all — I have just a few actually.

My Mac hardware remains as reliable as it’s ever been, and, aside from a few general defects that result in extended repair programs, I think most of you will agree.

As to hack writers such as Slate’s Farhad Manjoo, the article strikes me as little more than fodder for the supermarket tabloid.

Next…

A long time ago, someone said that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Despite the incredible market share gains Apple has made with Mac sales around the world, people still denigrate the platform is irrelevant, and doomed to failure.

Sure, we don’t hear the “Apple is dead” claims so much anymore. It’s hard to do that with a company whose market cap has, in recent days, equalled and exceeded that of just about every tech company, including Google. With Microsoft’s stock eternally stalled, it won’t take much for Apple to attain that lofty goal as well. Sure, Microsoft earns more money and has higher profits, but things change. Yes, someone once said that too.

In recent days, I’ve addressed the eternal myth that Macs are more expensive than comparably equipped name brand PCs. About the best my opponents can say is that they don’t want certain standard Mac features, so paying less for a PC without those features proves they are cheaper. They keep forgetting the two words “comparably equipped” unfortunately, and no gray areas are allowed in such comparisons.

Another frequent claim is that the ubiquity of Macs will surely make them one huge target for potential virus infections. They cite the occasional proofs of concept malware and Apple’s frequent security updates as evidence that the sky is falling, and you best get ready for the epidemic.

Well, on that front, no sane person, or half-sane one for that matter, will dispute the fact that all personal computers, regardless of operating system, are vulnerable to virus infections. In saying that, though, the experts (of whom I’m not) claim that it’s harder for malware to spread on Macs. My opinion is that, if you choose to install security software, the best approach to take is to get an application that guards against Windows viruses. That way, you don’t become the “Typhoid Mary” or “Typhoid Marvin” who accidentally passes along infected content to a WIndows user. And, no, it doesn’t serve them right for using a different computing platform.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that social engineering can’t succeed regardless. These exploits typically involve such things as fake emails from, say, financial institutions asking that you click a link and login to the site that’s presented to fix a security problem. Phishing schemes of that sort are common, and while such browsers as Firefox and Opera are designed to protect you against such matters, just being careful what you click on and where is the best ammunition to protect your personal information, and your money.

The other argument voiced over the years is that business users just don’t want Macs, because they are pretty, overpriced toys. Well, I’ve dealt with the price issue already, and when it comes to business apps, there are tens of thousands on the Mac. With the new generation of Intel-based Macs, and their seamless ability to run Windows at or near native speeds, you can still use most of the applications that haven’t migrated to the Mac with all the compatibility you need to get your work done.

Recent surveys demonstrate, in fact, that more and more Macs are moving into the enterprise. It’s not as if Apple has actually engaged in a new business-oriented marketing plan. Except for such sharply-focused segments as content creation, education and the scientific community, business owners seldom hear the Apple story.

Despite that, recent surveys show that Mac use in the enterprise jumped from 1.1 percent less than two years ago to 4.5 percent as of June of this year. That number may not seem so large, but a company that can boost market penetration in any category more than three times in roughly 20 months has clearly done something truly impressive.

And, remember, all this is happening despite the fact that Apple has historically stayed away from most enterprise segments.

What’s more, it seems that Microsoft’s efforts to get businesses to upgrade to Windows Vista haven’t done all that well. They optimistically targeted a 20 percent adoption rate as of the end of last year, but only reached 8.8 as of June. That clearly explains why they are investing $300 million in a new ad campaign, though it’s hard to see how the odd couple combo of Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld will somehow manifest some sort of incredible onscreen chemistry that will, in turn, inspire people to finally make the move to Vista.

I don’t believe it. Do you? It all sounds to me as if Microsoft is stuck in the 1990s, and hasn’t realized that times have changed. They are no longer guaranteed market dominance as they move away from their core office application and operating system markets.

As far as Apple is concerned, there’s no doubt they can do better with their customers. The lack of descriptive information in recent updates to the iPhone and other products only hurts their credibility. Yes, they do occasionally admit error and set things right, but sometimes the information is a too little and too late.

Apple is indeed on a roll today. But, in the whirlwind world of technology, things can change when you least expect it.

One thing is certain: When you build a multibillion dollar multinational company, you can bet the sharks will be after you. Indeed, Apple’s SEC filings routinely list a number of lawsuits in which they’re involved. Some they’ve filed, and others have been filed against them for various real or imagined offenses.

Some of these lawsuits aspire to class-action status, claiming that Apple has somehow done something to injure a specific group of customers, and they must be compelled by the courts to pay for their horrible misdeeds.

Recently, one Jessica Alena Smith of Alabama got in the act, filing a 10-page complaint alleging that the iPhone’s 3G network was not as fast as claimed. The action was very much inspired by Apple’s own ads for their hot-selling gadget, promising twice the performance of the original iPhone.

Actually, Apple’s own site claims a performance boost of 2.4 times, but they also have some very specific terms and conditions in the fine print that provide them with plenty of wiggle room: “Throughput depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, 3G/EDGE connectivity, feature configuration, usage, the Internet, and many other factors. Throughput tests are conducted using specific iPhone units; actual results may vary.”

What this means is that there’s no guarantee that you’ll get the same speed boost, and even if you do, it may vary as you travel from place to place. Even such issues as excessive network traffic and weather conditions may conspire to impair performance.

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

Imagine if you were the CEO of the world’s largest software company, and that some of your products had shares of upwards of 90% in certain market segments. You are sitting at the top of the mountain, reasonably secure in your knowledge that there were no credible competitors out there, and that your place in the sun was assured.

Then along comes an aging but still scrappy upstart, one whom you thought you’d defeated long ago, poised for battle all over again. Can you just use your marketing muscle and huge wad of cash to stomp out that tiny offender before they gain too much traction?

That, of course, becomes complicated when the companies in question are Microsoft and Apple. Because of ongoing antitrust issues, and the fact that they earn plenty of high-profit cash from Macs, Microsoft has been pulling its punches. Some believe they could easily vanquish Apple if they wanted, or at least so they say.

In the real world, Microsoft may have grown too fat and too confident, because they clearly believed that Windows Vista would conquer the operating system market as thoroughly as its predecessors. While they remain dominant, there are huge chinks in their considerably thick, overweight armor. Vista, alas, has proven to be one huge, bloated and expensive albatross.

Many companies that might have migrated to Vista in the normal course of events, which includes periodic PC replacements, have opted to stick with Windows XP, which is pretty fast, pretty reliable and has been tested and proven in businesses both large and small. They’d rather stick with the devil they know than take a chance on the uncertainties of testing, hardening and deploying a new operating system that would, alas, also require some degree of employee retraining.

Of course, Microsoft is trying to put forward its best spin on this holy disaster. They tell us about the huge number of sales recorded for Vista, ignoring the fact that these numbers are based on PCs that were licensed to include that operating system. They don’t really want to talk about the millions that were promptly downgraded to XP.

Oh, sure, in the consumer space, the average Windows user will stick with the operating system that came on the new PC, except for a small number of power users. Chalk up another sale for Microsoft, even if its a forced purchase, more or less.

After all this time, Microsoft is finally trying to reinvigorate Vista with a new advertising campaign. One particularly unfortunate scheme involves giving selected users a chance to work with the system, while giving them the false impression that it’s a brand new, unreleased version of Windows. It’s as if these people are so ignorant they can’t tell the difference, or maybe they are selected from a general consumer-oriented group that has only used XP.

Of course, a canned demonstration of that sort wouldn’t reveal Vista’s severe system requirements, or the rampant application and driver compatibilities. The hardware would be powerful enough to allow Vista to perform at a pretty good clip, and you can bet any added peripherals would be tested, so there were no unexpected surprises.

The latest Microsoft scheme involves a new set of ads featuring comedian Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates. Now I don’t begrudge Seinfeld’s choice to appear in those ads, since published reports indicate he’s getting a $10 million dpayday. For that amount of money, I’d probably prostitute myself and do a similar set of commercials if there was any demand for my services.

I suppose Microsoft is hoping name recognition and some cute patter would be sufficient to gain traction and perhaps humanize the ever-geeky Gates. Or could it be that Seinfeld will be the Mac, and Gates the PC?

In all, Microsoft plans to invest some $300 million into the various facets of this new campaign, and I wonder what good it might do. Certainly with Apple’s Mac versus PC ads, you don’t watch them because you recognize the participants. Although both John Hodgman (the PC) and Justin Long (the Mac) had generous show business backgrounds, they were not exactly household names. So it was possible to suspend your disbelief and accept them in their amusing takes on the infamous computer platform wars.

The fact that both Hodgman and Long have the acting chops to make these performances work is a tribute to the careful selection process for the right actors, and the excellent scripts.

However, the presence of Seinfeld, still quite famous despite the fact that his top-rated TV series went off the air some years back, and the most famous former CEO on the planet, may actually detract from the value of those new ads. Besides, since when has Gates been a credible on-air performer? He is not a reincarnation of Lee Iacocca, the former head of Chrysler, or any of the other famous CEO pitch men and women who have done believable ads for their own companies.

Now maybe I’m wrong about all this. Maybe the onscreen collaboration between Seinfeld and Gates will prove magic. Maybe they will have the perfect chemistry to pull off this stunt.

Or maybe, as I expect, we’ll forget about those new Microsoft ads seconds after they air, assuming most viewers don’t just fast forward their TiVOs and ignore them altogether.