At the iPad 2 launch this week, Steve Jobs unveiled his new and slightly annoying favourite catchphrase: post-PC. I say slightly annoying, because it’s clearly tech buzzword bingo fodder; but, unlike the astonishingly irritating ‘magical’ (Does the iPad do tricks, joining Penn and Teller in Vegas? No it bloody well doesn’t.), post-PC makes sense: we’re entering a world where the typical PC is no longer the star of the show.

Microsoft is currently almost dead in the water in this area of computing, thrashing around, clinging to a half-deflated lifeboat with ‘Nokia’ spray-painted on the side, and lunging half-heartedly for a favourite possession: a book entitled We Will Love Windows Forever.

Bloomberg reports Microsoft’s cunning plan to rescue itself from sinking to the bottom of the ocean and being eaten by iSharks and myriad Android fishes with pointy teeth is as follows:

[Microsoft] won’t release a competitor to Apple Inc. and Google Inc.’s tablet operating systems until the 2012 back-to- school season, people with knowledge of the plans said.

Public testing of a new version of Windows will begin at the end of this year with partners and customers, said the people, who declined to be identified because the plans haven’t been disclosed publicly.

As Bloomberg notes, this will likely pitch whatever Microsoft comes up with against the iPad 3; frankly, its tablet plans had better be nothing short of spectacular or the post-PC world will also be post-Microsoft.

Apple wants the old iPads gone. If you don’t care about thinner/faster/cameras in the new iPad 2, Apple’s currently knocked £100 off of the price of every existing tablet on the UK Apple Store. This means prices range from £329 for the 16GB Wi-Fi model through to £579 for the 64GB Wi-Fi + 3G version.

Refurbs are also affected, meaning you can—at the time of writing—grab a 16GB Wi-Fi iPad for £289. Quite a bargain.

Or you could pre-order a Xoom for £599 from Carphone Warehouse, obv.

The BBC is generally well regarded outside of the UK, and some of its shows—including Doctor Who and Top Gear—are torrented like crazy. When Apple TV rentals yomped on in, it appeared the BBC was one of the very few non-stupid corporations in the field, since it joined Fox and Disney in offering content for Apple’s device, rather than whining about how Apple was somehow ‘devaluing’ their content. (Hello, Warner Bros.! I’d still love to know how 99 cents per episode is worse than eight bucks per month for everything through Netflix!)

Now, director general Mark Thompson says things are going to be taken a step further. An international version of iPlayer will “definitely” launch in 2011 and will cost “a small number of dollars a month—less than 10” (source: Journalism.co.uk and others).

It remains to be seen how many holes end up in the schedule, but it’s likely the BBC’s own content at least will be made available through the player. It’ll be interesting to see whether the organisation making it affordable and readily available will encourage non-Brits to fund the service, or whether they’ll still consider “less than 10” dollars too much outlay and continue to torrent.

Articulate argument from Tim Anderson on why 24-bit will not fix computer audio and why 16-bit is fine:

[What] are the limitations of 16/44 audio? We can be precise about this. Nyquist’s Theorem says that the 44,100 Hz sampling rate is enough to perfectly recapture a band-limited audio signal where the highest frequency is 22,500 Hz. Human hearing may extends [sic] to 20,000 Hz in ideal conditions, but few can hear much above 18,000 Hz and this diminishes with age.

In fact, despite the claims of audiophiles, most people cannot tell the difference between studio-quality output and an MP3 file, especially given that output is usually sub-optimal (car stereos, crappy headphones, TV speakers, and so on). And given that music is distorted beyond belief in all commercial recordings these days (to make everything sound ‘loud’, audio is compressed and peaks are clipped, wrecking dynamic range), upping the audio from 16- to 24-bits won’t make the slightest bit of difference in the vast majority of cases, even if you have high-end kit.

To my mind, as long as sources are offering ‘high enough’ quality lossy files (256–320 kbps AAC or MP3), that’s enough. Any move to 24-bit will just be corporate PR wankery—a pissing match that aims to snare users who think higher numbers are better. And I bet you’d get charged more for the privilege.

Nigel Whitfield on eBooks that ‘wear out’:

[New] Harper Collins eBooks sold to libraries will have a licence (enforced by the Digital Rights system embedded in the files) that allows a book to be loaned only twenty-six times, before it expires.

After that, if the library wants to carry on lending the book, it will have to buy a new copy.

I think—especially in harsh economic times—the publishers would do well to support anything that helps people to carry on reading, and learn to love books, rather than to put obstacles in the way, and make it more expensive for readers and libraries alike.