Ernie Varitimos of AppleInvestor says the iPad will be delayed. Apple still says the iPad will ship as scheduled near the end of March. Ernie’s logic:

Apple did not say that there wouldn’t be a smaller supply, they only said that the late March introduction is on schedule. They did not rebuke the claim that they would have only far fewer units than first planned, nor did they comment on a limited introduction to the US. If that is in fact the case, then the iPad will be delayed for many, many people.

Apple had originally planned to deliver 1 million at launch but will only be able to deliver 300K. I would call that a delay for 700K people!

So, Apple is sharing product delivery information with Ernie Varitimos? I don’t think so.

Do you think Apple’s iPad could change the face of newspaper and magazine publishing? If so, will that put Apple in charge of the news? Brian X. Chen postulates that question in Wired.

Publishers should think twice before worshipping the iPad as the future platform for magazines and newspapers. That is, if they value their independence from an often-capricious corporate gatekeeper.

I love a well turned phrase, but it’s hard to imagine print media publishers worshipping anyone other than themselves. Apple has a commanding presence in digital music downloads but do record company executives worship Jobs and Company?

On the other hand, is Apple truly a ‘capricious corporate gatekeeper?’

capricious |kəˈpri sh əs;-ˈprē-|
adjective
given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior :
a capricious and often brutal administration | a capricious climate.

Is that Apple? Certainly. Do publishers need to be aware of Apple’s nature? Certainly. Will Apple’s iPad be the delivery mechanism for publishers in the 21st century. Certainly not.

The past week’s controversy swirling around Apple’s retroactive ban of sexy apps in the App Store seems trivial, but the implications of Apple’s arbitrariness should be disconcerting to members of the press and those who rely on the media for unbiased information.

Though Apple is being arbitrary, the controversy is trivial (except to the soft porn industry). And since when did the media provide unbiased information?

While it may initially appear publishers are more shielded from Apple’s ban hammer, the severity of the retroactive ban should be concerning for freedom-of-speech advocates.

Suddenly, Apple’s porn-purge-o-rama has become a freedom-of-speech issue. If I cook up honey coated turds and want Whole Foods to sell them, and they don’t, can I use the freedom-of-speech angle to get my way? It’s Apple’s store. They can sell what they want. And not sell what they don’t want. It’s not a freedom-of-speech issue.

Apple can do whatever it wants with the content in its App Store. Apple is not government, and thus it is not governed by the First Amendment. In light of the recent ban, many have correctly compared Apple’s App Store to Wal-Mart, which also doesn’t allow porn.

See? Brian agrees with me. So what’s the real issue?

It’s the fact that Apple has so much market power, combined with the fact that magazine and newspaper publishers are getting pumped to produce apps for Apple’s iPad, which will be served through Apple’s tightly regulated App Store. The iPad could very well play a major role in the future of publishing, with several of the biggest book publishers already on board to sell e-books through the iPad’s iBooks store, and major publications, including Wired, already working on iPad apps to launch in the App Store.

Market power? Think about that for a moment. Microsoft has market power over the vast majority of the world’s personal computers. While that may not bode well for users, it doesn’t endanger the endangered species of print publishing.

Likewise, Apple’s iTunes Store maintains a dominant position for digital media downloads. But Apple’s devices, and customers, make up but a small sliver of the world’s media-ingesting carbon-based creatures.

Assume for a moment that Apple’s iPad takes a 20-percent share of the sub-$1,000 computing devices market segment. Is that 20-percent dominant? Still, without a single iPad sold, Chen worries for his print media brethren.

What will happen when a journalist writes a controversial story about abortion or vaccines? Will displeased readers skip writing angry letters to the publisher and go straight to Apple to get the article pulled? And would Apple then comply?

Will that same controversial story show up on the general world wide web? Yes. Do angry readers or ambulance-chasing attorneys seek to shut down Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (the browser which displayed the offending story)? Of course not.

This whole argument is silly. But Chen persists:

I’m optimistic that Apple will eventually create a separate section in iTunes for digital newspapers and magazines, giving publishers a platform to distribute their digital content based on a strict, contractual agreement that prevents their content from being arbitrarily removed at Apple’s discretion.

Isn’t it likely that Apple wants no part of managing the content? They have a store. They stock the store with what they think will sell. They sell things. If some of what they sell impedes their ability to sell more, they’ll take it off the shelf. It’s business. Not free speech. Chen thinks not:

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said he understands Apple’s intention to keep its App Store immaculate, but its censorship — and the rise of more open alternatives such as Google Android — will drive loyal customers away.

It’s a store. If it doesn’t have what I want, I’ll buy what I want elsewhere. A pristine store without customers is not what Apple wants. That’s not what they have, either. Scheer:

What you’re limited to right now is Apple wants you to see in its little neighborhood, and it doesn’t want you to go into other neighborhoods. Eventually you embitter a lot of people who don’t understand why they’re being denied access to something they’d like to have on a device they have and they own.

That’s just silly. Does the lack of soft porn apps in the App Store prohibit iPhone or iPod touch or iPad customers from viewing soft porn on their respective devices? Hello? The last time I checked my iPhone it still had the Safari browser on it and it was still capable of viewing pretty much anything the internet provides.

So it will be with print media publishers extending their brands, their content and their customer base via the iPad—one of many distribution and display devices they need to conquer.

What’s not clearly understood by Chen or Scheer is that this whole process is a constantly evolving dynamic. Apple will adjust according to market requirements, not the unreasonable demands of freedom-of-speech and sky-is-falling fringe elements. Finally:

One thing’s for sure: With the iPad looming and the iPhone continuing to grow in popularity, Apple has to make some dramatic changes to the way it handles apps and runs the App Store. For now, the iPad and the App Store are hardly an ideal environment for newspapers and magazines to be reborn.

Dramatic changes? Or, mere adjustments to match the evolving landscape? Newspapers and magazines won’t be reborn on Apple’s iPad. The iPad is merely another corner newsstand, albeit a very cool one. If I can’t buy what I want there I’ll exercise my freedom of speech and tell the newsstand owner. If the owner doesn’t respond appropriately, I’ll go across the street.

Apple has nothing to worry about. The dinosaurs of print media need to worry about other issues. I hear there’s a chilling frost this weekend.

Palm warned Wall Street of lower than expected sales for Q3. Palm CEO Jon Rubenstein issued a company-wide email message to employees.

Our softer than expected performance is due to slower than expected customer adoption of our products, which in turn has prompted our U.S. carrier partners to put additional orders on hold for the time being.

Translation: ‘Sales really stink.’

On a positive note, we expect to exit the quarter with over $500 million in cash on our balance sheet.

By comparison, Apple, Inc. has over $40-billion in cash; 80 times that of Palm. Palm is not ‘Apple, Jr.’ as Dan Frommer says. At best, Palm is an Apple miniscule wannabe.

There are plenty of Apple followers who worry about what Apple life would be like without co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs. Dan Fommer, in Business Insider, equates Palm’s most recent disaster with Apple sans Steve Jobs:

Palm slashed its guidance today and shares are down 20%, as the company’s comeback attempt in the smartphone market hits a brick wall.

What’s the brick wall? Apple, of course. The iPhone continues to sell strongly despite a weakened worldwide economy.

In the short term, that’s good news for Apple, whose iPhone has been able to gain ground despite increased competition.

In the short term? Does that mean that Palm or Android or Microsoft of whomever will be the cause of Apple’s downfall without Steve Jobs?

But in the long term, it’s more evidence that Apple is screwed once visionary CEO Steve Jobs eventually leaves the company.

It’s difficult to say that a company with $40-billion in the bank and record sales and profits and market share would be screwed once the fabled leader is gone, but, I’m listening. Just how is Apple screwed?

Palm is basically Apple, Jr. And if a bunch of Apple geniuses can’t kick butt on their own at Palm, how are they going to kick butt without Steve at Apple?

WTF?

Dan, are you serious? That’s a nicely turned phrase on an interesting premise, but how in God’s name is Palm equated as Apple, Jr? A bunch of misguided former Apple employees at Palm do not an Apple Jr. make.

That’s ludicrous on its face.

Palm does not have, and has not had for many years, a single capable product that has an Apple counterpart. Not one. There are substantive differences between Palm and Apple, even with the former stealing executives and engineers from the latter. Palm is short on resources. Apple is not. Palm is short on talent. Apple is not. Palm is short on leverage (one product helping to launch another). Apple is not. In fact, everything Palm is, Apple is not (and the other way around).

Palm’s previous management completely screwed up everything as smartphones began to take off, requiring a complete reboot. That’s not Rubinstein’s fault, and you could argue that the deck was stacked against him from the beginning. But the big idea was that Palm was supposed to be able to make and sell something better than the iPhone. And it has failed to do that.

Duh.

But why? And how is the why of Palm’s disaster similar to an impending disaster at Apple when Steve Jobs leaves?

Steve Jobs is still the one calling the shots—making both big decisions and tiny ones. So far, he’s mostly made the right decisions, as far as which products to go after and which to avoid, user experience, acquisitions, strategy, features, pricing, etc. As a result, the Mac is growing, the iPhone has been huge, the iPod drove the company for years, and now the iPad could be a cool rival to netbook PCs.

Alright. I get it. Apple’s success rests completely upon Steve Jobs’ shoulders. And, when Steve Jobs leaves Apple, and someday he will, Apple immediately reverts to being like Palm—populated with bright engineers and executives who can’t design or engineer or market their way out of a paper bag.

I don’t buy it.

Steve’s successors might have the same string of luck. But given Apple’s experience with and without Steve Jobs, and the futility of companies like Palm that try to clone the Apple magic without Steve Jobs, this seems unlikely.

There’s a big-assed fly in the ointment of that analysis.

Apple tossed Steve Jobs out the door back in 1985, and the company continued to grow and prosper for half a dozen years; increased market share, revenue, and profits—well beyond what the co-founder left. For the first half dozen years after Steve Jobs returned to Apple the company was definitely not in kick-ass mode. Market share, revenue, and profit growth at Apple were, uh, to be kind, modest—definitely less than stellar.

Was that Steve Jobs’ fault?

Back in 1997 Apple bet the farm on OS X. It took many years for that bet to pay off. The iPod venture begat the iTunes Store which begat a growing halo effect on the Mac which begat the iPhone which begat the App Store—all of which combined to form huge growth in market share, revenue, and profits. Jobs’ fingerprints are all over the Apple of today, and we may worry about what will happen once dear leader is gone.

Palm is not the Apple of seasons past. And the Apple of today is not Palm. Saying that Apple is screwed without Steve Jobs because Palm is screwed without Steve Jobs is to forget history.

Quicken Essentials for Mac is the latest attempt by Intuit to win back the hearts and minds and money of Mac users. Ron in Mac360:

Quicken’s history with the Mac is long and spotted. It’s been ages since there was feature parity with the Windows version of Quicken. Quicken Essentials for Mac will continue that time-honored tradition.

Sigh.

Michael Wolf in Newser seems to think we should be afraid of Apple. Why?

Apple is a strange and dastardly company which, sooner rather than later, we’re going to regret pledging our allegiance to.

I’m probably like most of Apple’s customers. I have no allegiance to the company. I like their products, though I’m more of a techno voyeur. I like to watch the company’s antics.

The latest bit of no-good business is its arbitrary censoring of iPhone apps. This may be piddling, but it’s obviously part of the major control-freakishness that has always lurked below the surface in Cupertino, but which has now become broad-based corporate policy.

Except that by exercising such control Apple simply remains Apple. It’s what the company has done for many years. It’s not even news. It’s the way Apple does business. And it seems to be working rather well.

Just weeks ago there was the iPad rollout and its transparent designs on controlling the woe-begotten world of printed material.

If it was transparent then so much for Apple being a secretive company, right? Does anyone really think Apple would control print media with an iPad? What if the iPad gains a 20-percent market share of sub-$1,000 computing devices? Since when does 20-percent become control?

And need we forget, there’s the music business, fully occupied and colonized by Apple.

The iTunes Store has done well. It’s the biggest online retailer of music, TV shows, and movies. Yet, it does not dominate the market for media. If you don’t dominate how can you colonize? Wolff can turn a phrase. It would be nice if he could handle facts the same way.

Microsoft has come to seem eerily benign. Indeed, Apple becomes the poster child for a really sinister corporation. There may not be any corporation as militantly determined to have its way as Apple.

Wolf seems to be talking mind share vs. market share. Microsoft’s Windows remains on nearly 90-percent of the world’s PCs. Apple’s highly touted iPhone owns a tiny sliver of the cell phone market; a larger chunk of the smart phone segment. But control? Are there any facts and figures to back up the assertions, Michael?

Most companies can only dream of building a brand as strong as Apple’s, whereas Apple’s brand has reached a level where nothing it might do seems to hurt it. Apple has become the opposite of what it once was and somehow we don’t know it.

I’ll take that as a no.

Here’s where typical technology journalists—particularly the hit-whoring type—fall on their collective faces. Or, is it feces? That assertion would have been a good opportunity to describe in some detail what Apple was, and compare and contrast it what what Apple is. Somehow Wolff skipped over the opportunity. Why?

It’s all about sex.

After all, why would Apple purge these adult-themed apps? What sense is there to that? And, apparently, it isn’t all sexy stuff. It’s just some sexy stuff, arbitrarily. It’s not even consistent, it’s just weird, unnecessarily, and mean-minded.

Without saying so, Wolff gets to the heart of the matter. For him. Apple has purged the iPhone’s App Store of sexually suggestive apps; clearly some of which Wolff spent his lunch money to purchase. Now, he can’t get his groove on with his phone and a fist, so he’s going to blame the mercurial Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs may be the oddest fellow able to hold a full-time job in America and hardly anybody even makes fun of him. In fact, everybody’s afraid of him, not least of all because he is so strange and mercurial.

Steve Jobs and the Apple story are precisely what makes following Apple so much fun. It’s a better story line than soaps, or Lost, or politics, plus we get to play with all these cool toys and apps. And talk about Apple. But to accuse Apple of being a hard-nosed business, or to accuse them of being secretive or controlling, is to accuse the Pope of being Catholic, or to accuse the sun of being warm.

The iPhone itself is a beautiful tool, locked up tight and full of draconian protocols—with a little AT&T sado-masochistic abuse thrown in for good measure.

Great. Now let’s bash AT&T. I’m game.

It was just a matter of time. From the OhNo!Doom Collective:

What else can you say?

The premise, from Preston Gralla in Computerworld:

Apple, Google and Microsoft are locked in a three-way struggle for industry dominance, competing to varying degrees on hardware, computer and cell phone operating systems, applications, entertainment, Internet search and more. Today, Google owns Internet search, Microsoft owns operating systems and applications, and Apple owns high-end hardware and entertainment and media devices.

Which will thrive? All are prospering, yes, but which company will thrive in the future? The difference is that Google is a one-trick pony. Advertising (via Google’s search engine). Microsoft prospers on past spoils, Windows and Office. What of Apple?

Apple, far more than Microsoft or Google, has a business model somewhat akin to that of a Hollywood studio: It requires blockbuster hits in order to bring in big profits. When Jobs leaves, those hits will stop coming.

So, let me get this straight. If Apple’s string of hits stop, it’s because Steve Jobs is gone? Forget about the resurgent and highly profitable Mac. Forget about the iPod or the iTunes Store. Forget about the iPhone. Apple will be brain dead when Steve Jobs leaves the company?

The Hollywood analogy is interesting, but not apt. Blockbuster movies make big money quickly—in theaters first, then DVD sales and rentals. A hit movie’s initial revenue gains are lost over time, usually less than a year. Apple’s products continue to grow both revenue and profits and market share over time. How is that like a Hollywood studio? It’s not.

Who will thrive?

Of the three companies, Google is best positioned to thrive in the future. It has a near monopoly on Internet search, the core of the world economy’s greatest growth engine. That gives it both an excellent base to expand upon, as well as a massive war chest it can depend on to fund new ventures.

So, let me get this straight. Google will thrive because it has a monopoly on search advertising, and a massive war chest. Didn’t Microsoft have a monopoly with Windows and Office? And a massive war chest? How’s that working out?

Since when did “the core of the world economy’s greatest growth engine” become search advertising?

Apple is the most diversified of the three companies, and has an even more massive war chest than Google or Microsoft, but will go into a long, slow decline (sounds like Microsoft) after CEO Steve Jobs leaves? What about Microsoft’s fortunes?

Unlike Apple, it doesn’t need big hits in order to grow. With a stranglehold on operating systems and productivity applications, and with solid enterprise tools, it will grow steadily. Google won’t be able to break its near monopoly.

Yet, both Windows and Office are in decline already, Windows Mobile is in rapid decline, and Microsoft’s other ventures have only lost money through the years, and continue to lose money. By the way, Google is an advertising company that runs a search engine. How would they break Microsoft’s so-called monopoly in a market segment where they don’t even complete against each other? The only way to do that would be to give away competing software for free. How’s that working out?

Microsoft won’t unseat Google as the Internet search leader, Bing shows that it can make plenty of money in that business.

Since Microsoft has never made any money in search, when and how will it show that it can?

Gralla’s conclusions are totally lame.

I can only conclude that authoring nearly three dozen books has depleted Gralla’s ability to think and write clearly. What’s fortunate is that he is doing so at a time when Computerworld’s editors don’t need insightful analysis, but are content with occasional hit-whoring articles to drive up page views and advertising impressions.

It’s the 21st century and the Double Standard is alive and well at Apple. Jenna Wortham of The New York Times:

Apple has started banning many applications for its iPhone that feature sexually suggestive material, including photos of women in bikinis and lingerie, a move that came as an abrupt surprise to developers who had been profiting from such programs.

What about the popular Sport Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, and the Playboy app? Apple VP Phil Schiller:

The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format.

What a crock. Apple’s screw ups over iPhone apps are becoming the norm. It’s OK for big media to sell soft porn, but not OK for independent media to sell soft porn. Make up your mind, Apple.

What should Apple do to improve the iPhone, and add to the iPad? Dan Frommer pushes his top 15 list in Silicon Alley Insider:

The most common request was for background processing so that third-party apps could run in the background, while other apps are running in the foreground. The idea is that this will make apps more useful, ranging from Internet radio apps that can keep streaming, to messaging apps that can keep receiving messages while you’re doing other stuff.

A common request, yes, but mostly from geeks and pundits, not average users. My favorites: a unified Mail inbox, and push notifications on the lock screen.

Kirk McElhearn in Macworld:

Google knows more about you than the NSA, and has recently shown that it doesn’t give a hoot about your privacy. The company has gotten too big, and has turned into just another corporation trying to maximize its assets—and those assets are you. Who’s to say Google won’t progressively loosen its privacy controls and monetize more and more personal information?

I’m ditching Google as much as I can, and when a competitor develops a search engine as good as Google, I’ll stop searching with Google, too. The trend that Google has been following has been looking darker and darker as the company nibbles away at the limits of privacy. This is no longer a company I trust.

Well said.

One of the five reasons why Mac users need to buy the latest version of Office. Jeffrey Mincey in Mac360:

Microsoft once helped Apple by injecting $150-million in the company back when our favorite Mac maker was losing money faster than customers leaving a Toyota showroom. Now that Apple has more money than Microsoft, and a string of new hit products which only embarrass the Windows maker’s feeble attempts at marketing a portable media player or a simple cell phone, let’s do our part to help by standing in line to buy Microsoft Office for Mac 2011.

A little satire is good for the soul.

In another sign of the dynamics of online life, Facebook tops Yahoo! From the L.A. Times:

Facebook attracted nearly 134 million unique visitors in January alone. Yahoo’s traffic declined in January to 132 million unique visitors. Google had over 147 million unique visitors in January.

The social networking site tops all sites except Google.

I love cars—especially when they’re slick, sassy, full of gadgets, run like hell, and don’t break. So, whose cars are the most innovative since 1978? American? Russian? Japanese or German? A little auto history from i am bored: