Whether it is by strategic intent or just a consequence of an evolution in product advancement and marketing, what has happened with Apple is a synthesis where the hardware products that Apple sells end up drawing more users to the Apple camp. This is nowhere more clear than with the iPod and the iPhone/iPod Touch.

Purchasers of an iPod or iPhone are introduced to the Apple way of doing things, albeit somewhat under-handedly, by requiring the use of iTunes for those products. Praise has to be given to Apple for keeping the interface of iTunes (relatively) consistent between the Mac and Windows versions of the application; it is that consistency that delivers the “taste” of the Apple way software integrates with hardware in a simple, understandable way that leads to the “switchers” moving from the Windows PC camp to the Apple side. I have seen this happen many times – someone I know will get an iPod or iPhone and it will open the door for them to consider switching to a Mac as their next computer purchase. Case in point is one of my vendor reps who just got an iPhone: he loves the device and the interface, the simplicity of use. Now he wants to get a Mac, and I can’t blame him.

There is, however, a justifiable concern that Apple needs to pay attention to how this surge in product popularity and market growth doesn’t overwhelm or blind them to maintaining their focus on delivering quality hardware and, particularly, software.

I have no doubt that there will be a minimal amount of new features in Snow Leopard, even if they are just “eye candy” – that will be required as an additional selling point for Snow Leopard to the general population of Intel-based Mac users beyond the optimization to 64-bit and integral support for Exchange. It would be disappointing, though, to see nothing addressed in regards to tightening up the security of the MacOS since it appears at face value that Apple has turned a deaf ear to the fact that security holes do exist, whether it be through Web exploits or in the underpinnings of Core Services. Granted, this is an ongoing evolution between those seeking to find holes in the security of the OS and applications and those charged with plugging them, but we have to admit that Apple has taken a rather stand-offish, arrogant stance in the matter. Being more up-front and responsive to these facts would go a long way to improve Apple’s image to the community at-large.

Any company is going to make mistakes, and Apple is no exception. (The recent debacle of the MobileMe roll-out is a prime example.) What is important is that Apple not forget the mistakes that it has made in the past and to also examine the mistakes of others, and to chart a path that keeps them aimed at making the Macintosh and the MacOS the best products it can that users will appreciate for maintaining the level of user-experience that Apple has the reputation for.

Where did you find a misleading mention of multitasking or an implied UI for notification services?

“There is a fourth application of push: Apple’s new Push Notification Service, which allows iPhone and iPod touch users to set up server side notification alerts that don’t require any mobile applications to stay running in the background.”

PNS actually does have a UI, but it is managed by the system rather than by applications: badges that increment the number of notifications on an app’s icon or SMS-style popups.

If you find something not worded right outside of that, point it out and I can clarify or correct it.

One of those services, Push Notification, will not have a UI as implied above. It’s only intended for developers to manage connections while their apps are not running (persisting connections). Apps will be updated when they are resumed.

The Pundits on the other hand think we know everything already. PC’s and smartphones are like apples and oranges: two entirely different things. So when you start bothering about Smart-phones you are probably neglecting PC’s. In their mindset thats a logical consequence.
Sure it is a provocation to say PC’s and smartphones are like apples and apples that both can be sold under the Apple brand.

You’re thinking of compact vans. While in many ways similar to minivans, the term was coined in the US to differentiate them as a new class.