MacRumors reports that HP execs are to soon meet for discussion regarding pricing and features on the company’s upcoming iPadalike. If the Wall Street Journal is to be believed, HP’s cunning plan is to provide something “similar to the iPad in size and features” but to undercut the Apple device’s price.

Well done, HP—you’ve learned nothing. After all, hardware-oriented willy waving and low price-points worked out so well for you in the PC industry, didn’t they?

Update: John Nack of Adobe posts on his blog, strongly refuting the claim.

Since Steve Jobs demoed the iPad, showing quite blatantly that it didn’t support Flash, the backlash has been severe. Lots of (frankly stupid) journos have blathered on about how no Flash spells doom for Apple’s device, forgetting that people don’t care about technology—they just care about what you can do with it. In other words, Flash isn’t important, but the things you can do with it are. Flash is mostly used for games, ads, video and overblown interactive websites. Right now, popular Flash-originated games already exist on the App Store (often for free), everyone hates ads, video services are transitioning to open standards and overblown interfaces can go die in a fire.

But despite what some claim, Apple’s rather brutal stance as far as the web goes isn’t to block competition, but to push open standards, rather than proprietary ones. People forget that Flash isn’t open—it’s just very popular. Somehow, even many geeks are OK with this, despite the fact they rallied against Microsoft’s Internet Explorer for being in much the same position fairly recently.

Perhaps the difference in reaction to Microsoft and Adobe was down to the former’s appalling business practices, using its ‘unfair’ advantage to bully the competition into submission. Sadly, it appears Adobe’s now overstepped this mark. Various sources reported yesterday that Adobe has blocked the latest publication of HTML5 (AppleInsider), the standard that could knock Flash down a peg or 20.

This revelation comes off the back of months of regular comments from Adobe about the importance of supporting open standards. Nonetheless, if there’s any truth to the linked article (and similar ones doing the rounds) it appears Adobe’s narked about the ‘canvas’ element in HTML5, which is a direct threat to Flash. What Adobe should do is start work on some amazing authoring tools to create content for HTML5, rather than trying to slow its ascent and keep Flash in the spotlight for longer. As Microsoft will tell you, a company can only hold back the tide for so long, and the tech community holds grudges for many years.

Answer: unrealistic expectations followed by inevitable disappointment.

In the meantime, feel free to re-read How to update your online store, the Apple way.

It’s getting to be that a day doesn’t go by without an incredibly stupid article regarding Apple’s iPad. Today’s piece of stunning ineptitude comes from a publication that should know better: FT.com. Jonathan Zittrain writes in A fight over freedom at Apple’s core (did you see what he did there?) the following doozy:

Users no longer own or control the apps they run – they merely rent them minute by minute.

This is, of course, entirely accurate, unless you’re some kind of anal control freak who demands that accuracy be equated with ‘the truth’ and ‘facts’.

Zittrain also sets off the blah-blah-blah alarm regarding Apple being evil and closed, citing the wonderful ‘open’ nature of Android. Anybody can do anything with Google, apparently, because it’s not remotely evil and its devices are open, smell of roses and are made of unicorn tears. Really. And if you believe that, or that in the long run Google’s supposedly ‘open’ stance will be any better for developers and end users than Apple’s ‘closed’ one, I have a bridge to sell you.

What is it about Apple that attracts dumb analysts, like a moth to a stupid lamp? In his article Is Apple’s iPad Worth the Money? for CBS MoneyWatch, Andrew J. Nusca, using some creative (read: batshit-mental) maths, arrives at the conclusion that Apple’s $499 iPad ‘could’ in fact cost you $2441 (or $1600—see below). His reasoning seems to stem from the fact that:

• You could opt to buy the more expensive 32GB version (an extra $100);
• You could opt to add 3G functionality (an extra $130);
• You could splash out $29.99 every month for data;
• You could spend $68 per year (Andrew’s very specific) on TV shows and movies.

Usefully, Andrew’s strange article then helpfully points out some benefits of owning an iPad—savings on moving to digital for magazine and book purchases ($656 for people who buy the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time and Economist), and not having to buy a Kindle and a netbook ($609—and, no, I’m not making this up). Unfortunately, I got lost at the point where he started arguing with himself regarding whether it was a cost benefit or not to have a Kindle over an iPad.

Towards the end, he bumbles to the conclusion that an iPad’s ‘bottom line’ is $1600, and that “as an investment for your productivity, it’s clear that it’s one on which you may never see a concrete return”. I’m just hoping I never get repeatedly smacked around the head with the stupid lamp, otherwise Revert to Saved will turn into a blog about OUTRAGE regarding the fact a £50 DVD player ‘could’ cost you thousands, since:

• You could opt to buy every DVD you see in the shops (an extra £lots);
• You could decide you want a bigger TV to watch your DVDs on (an extra £even more);
• You could decide that Blu-Ray floats your boat, causing you to start again with your entire collection (an extra £oh my word).