It’s almost becoming a weekly event. Rupert Murdoch says something about the future of media, paywalls and electronic newspapers, and the Guardian has a go. Today, it’s the turn of Jemima Kiss, who in an article entitled Murdoch: Tablets are the future for News Corp reports that “Rupert Murdoch was cosying up to Apple again today as he spoke at a media debate,” (of course, the Guardian wouldn’t be seen dead releasing an iPad article approximately once every three seconds) and argues that “in the long term, the thing that will be harder to calculate is the cost of losing much of [the Times’s] voice in the international, online news market. That’s the bottom line we’d really like to see.”

It’s far better, presumably, to obliterate the cash reserves the Guardian has built up over decades by relying too much on ‘free’; the Guardian may have a bigger voice now in international news, but that will only last as long as its pile of cash does.

I’m no fan of Rupert Murdoch. I think his attitude towards the likes of the BBC is abhorrent, and with the exception of a few talented columnists, the Times isn’t a publication I’m interested in reading. However, my gut tells me that Murdoch’s gamble might well work; he’s taking a risk in saying to people that news and related content is worth paying for if the format is good enough. This will add value to his brand rather than diminish it. And when in the future rivals realise he was right, they’ll be fighting to enter a market Murdoch’s already leading in.

Gary Marshall links to a surprisingly candid and lengthy piece by Nigel Whitfield on the state of reviews for the tech press. If you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes and don’t know a freelance journo you can get drunk enough to reveal all (and, let’s face it, that means you just don’t know a freelance journo, because most would sell their souls for half a stout and a packet of peanuts), it provides plenty of insight.

Particular gems include the rather brutal fact of reviewers having a lack of time. Whitfield notes that half-page reviews may pay as low as £80, and if you spend a day screwing around with a product to get it to work, before spending a day testing it, you’re rapidly heading below minimum wage. The reality is actually worse: £80 isn’t a bad rate at all these days, and many freelancers earn less than half of that for a half page, and so get £30 to £50 to fully review a piece of software or hardware (including sourcing imagery, writing the review and editing/marking up said review). Online, things are even worse, with some websites offering as little as £10 for a 500-word review, images and HTML mark-up of edited content.

These days, the only way reviews can be financially viable is if the reviewer already has enough knowledge to get through testing reasonably efficiently. That’s why you tend to see the same people review the same products quite a lot, and it’s also why you sometimes find an obvious flaw isn’t flagged in a review: the reviewer likely had to knock testing on the head after spending twice as long on it as they’d initially wanted to, in order to make enough money to do trivial things such as paying the rent, buying food, and the like.

Still, there are times when I get teeth-gnashingly angry about errors in review copy. John Gruber found an absolute gem over at Information Week; Eric Zeman pitches the iPhone 4 against the Droid X, and rather oddly says that “The iPhone 4 won’t support applications built in-house by businesses,” which therefore “gives the Droid X a slight advantage when it comes to apps”. Given that every single Apple keynote on the iPhone has rattled on about its enterprise app capability, and also that Apple has a section on its website about this functionality, this is one of those times where I feel zero sympathy for the writer.

It’s one thing missing an obscure fact, or incorrectly stating how a feature works, but to in a business magazine incorrectly state a device you’re reviewing lacks business-oriented functionality when an explanation of said business functionality is accessible by typing “iphone enterprise apps” into Google is unprofessional, incompetent and totally unfair on the article’s audience.

The iPad’s a confirmed success. Apple can’t make the things fast enough, and they’re vanishing from shelves worldwide. Another thing that’s vanished is the ‘pad’ jokes, comparing Apple’s device to sanitary products. This sort of thing tends to be the case when a device is successful—the same thing happened to the Wii.

What’s more interesting is how ‘pad’ now might become a generic term over ‘tablet’ for similar devices. Engadget reports that HP’s filed for the PalmPad trademark and Pocket-lint notes that RIM’s grabbed Blackpad.com.

These might be defensive moves, but perhaps these companies are bright enough to take advantage of Apple’s branding success, using names that would immediately get consumers thinking of the iPad, but selling devices that are more ‘open’ or more geared towards enterprise. That said, don’t expect Microsoft to reveal the Windows PhonePad 7 any time soon.

Sometimes I read about the US legal system and despair. Quite often, in fact. Ars Technica reports that three iPad users are now suing Apple over the iPad, and have filed a class-action lawsuit to “redress and end [Apple’s] pattern of unlawful conduct” regarding promises Apple made.

The problem, apparently, is that the iPad, like all electronic goods, has the sheer audacity to shut down when a critical operating temperature is reached—typically around 35°C. This is common among similar products—Kindle does the same, although you might get another couple of degrees out of it.

The idiot claimants argue that because Apple said “reading on the iPad is just like reading a book,” the company is a big, fat liar, because a real book can be used in “the sunlight or other normal environmental conditions” without shutting off.

I wonder if there’s the possibility in law for Apple to sue these people for being cretins? As Ars asks, do Apple’s claims really make the company “guilty of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive advertising, unfair business practices, breach of express or implied warranty, intentional misrepresentation, or unjust enrichment?”

Maybe these opportunistic dimwits should have gone the whole hog:

• “I made a note in biro in the margin of a book on my iPad, and when I turned the page, it was still there! APPLE LIED TO ME!”
• “I tried folding the page to keep my place in a book on my iPad, but the page wouldn’t fold. In the end, I had to put the iPad in a vice and bend it, but then the entire thing shattered! THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN WITH REAL BOOKS!”
• “When I decided I’d had enough of reading, I opened Safari and surfed the internet and also downloaded my email, while listening to my favourite album, and then it dawned on me: this isn’t like a book at all! I DEMAND APPLE GIVES ME MONEY!”

My advice to Apple: make a ‘special’ iPad for these ‘special’ people—nip into the local stationary shop, scrawl ‘iPad’ on a couple of paper pads and mail them to the claimants. It won’t be quite as magical as the real thing, but at least these idiots won’t be able to complain about it being unusable in the hot sun; nor will they be able to say it doesn’t work exactly like a paper-based object.

Engadget’s report Toshiba shows off Smart Pad tablet prototype, promises launch before October highlights succinctly everything that’s wrong with pretty much every PC manufacturer bar Apple. It talks about Toshiba’s exciting response to the iPad, the so-called ‘Smart Pad’; it looks nice enough (in fact, it looks pretty much identical to an iPad), but there the ‘smart’ ends. This is because the tablet’s due to launch “before October” and run either Android or Windows 7.

That’s right: Toshiba is a few months away from releasing its iPad rival and hasn’t decided which operating system it will run. Clearly, it’s sure to beat the tightly integrated, user-friendly experience of the iPad. That said, you can put money on loads of tech hacks citing it as an ‘iPad killer’, due to some random specs that most users won’t care about.

Depressingly, Engadget also reports that HP’s Slate is no longer a consumer product, and will instead be deployed for enterprise. HP’s acquisition of Palm made me think it was the one company that was about to play the game right, taking on Apple in an Apple-like fashion, by being able to develop a fully integrated computing solution. There is speculation that HP will appease Microsoft by still releasing Slate with Windows 7 but then offer the consumer version with PalmOS, but that makes little strategic sense. That would keep Microsoft somewhat happy, but also fragment the platform and irk geek consumers who somehow think that having Windows 7 on a tablet is a good idea—as opposed to an operating system that was actually designed to have on a tablet.