John Gruber on the HP TouchPad ‘summer’ release:

Summer feels like a long time away. If my theory is right, they’re not only going to be months behind the iPad 2, but if they slip until late summer, they might bump up against the release of the iPad 3.

I’m unsure what Gruber means here, but TechRadar’s assuming he’s talking about the iPad 3 showing up in September. There’s some logic in this from a technology standpoint, in that Retina displays might be ready for the device by that point, but I don’t think Apple’s going to start offering iPad upgrades every six months. Doing so would wreck a chunk of sales, massively upping hold-outs. Also, given that international releases of Apple iOS kit are often delayed for three or more months, it’d be crazy to have the US gearing up for iPad X when some countries only just got iPad X-1.

I suspect Apple will stick to its annual refresh for this and its other major hardware products. The reliability and regularity is beneficial from a sales, marketing and manufacturing standpoint. To that end, I’m thinking the iPad 2 will show up in the USA a year after the iPad (i.e. April) and then elsewhere over the summer, and the iPad 3 to show up in April 2012. (Alternatively, perhaps the upcoming iPad might not be considered a ‘major’ revision and won’t be branded iPad 2, but even if the only big change is a FaceTime camera, that’ll cause enough of a splash in the press.)

UPDATE: Gruber follows up by saying the transition would make sense, with an iPad announcement replacing the iTunes/iPod one, which he says is “old news”.

OK, so the title of this one’s not quite true, but HP’s new tablet looks like an iPad, and John Gruber makes a brilliant point:

TouchPad — a name that, not coincidentally, is drawn from those of two best-selling iOS devices

Not very subtle, HP. Also, the announcement seemed lacking in important details, such as price, availability and battery life. Still, I’m sure those will all ensure it’s an iPad killer, right, tech press?

Jeremy Keith on the BBC’s plans to—for no reason whatsoever—delete a whole bunch of websites:

Just to be clear, these sites aren’t going to be archived. They are going to be deleted from the web. Server space is the new magnetic tape.

This callous attitude appears to be based entirely on the fact that these sites occupy URLs in top-level directories—repeatedly referred to incorrectly as top level domains on the BBC internet blog—a space that the decision-makers at the BBC are obsessed with.

The BBC, of course, famously spent plenty of effort in the 1960s and 1970s trashing or deleting tapes, which of course hasn’t at all returned to haunt the corporation. Tapes cost money, and so the argument back then was stronger, but the BBC just nuking a load of websites that are just sitting there being informative, like the bastard knowledge-givers and memories-storage containers that they are, is bonkers. (Bye, 47000 unique World War Two memories that the public contributed—the BBC wants to delete you to appease the Tories and senior-level BBC management somehow!)

Keith adds:

I’m very saddened to see the BBC join the ranks of online services that don’t give a damn for posterity.

I agree wholeheartedly.

TouchArcade has some nice quotes from Nintendo’s el-presidenté (of North America) regarding cheapo mobile games (reacting to Nintendo 3DS games likely costing 30-to-45 dollars):

I actually think that one of the biggest risks today in our industry are these inexpensive games that are candidly disposable from a consumer standpoint.

Mm. Far better to continue ripping off consumers*. Because that isn’t a risk at all. Also, it really is terrible that plenty of iOS gamers are out there buying games every single day, due to their low cost, rather than one game a month.

Angry Birds is a great piece of experience but that is one compared to thousands of other pieces of content that, for one or two dollars, I think actually create a mentality for the consumer that a piece of gaming content should only be two dollars.

And why exactly shouldn’t a great piece of gaming content only be two dollars? Or, more precisely, why should a great piece of gaming content cost 30 dollars, or 45, or more? (Infinity Blade is six bucks, so is that OK, or is that still too cheap?)

I actually think some of those games are overpriced at one or two dollars but that’s a whole different story.

Oh gawsh! Chuckle! AHO! And so on. You go, el pres, dismissing iOS and its kin with a quip. But here’s the thing: your problem today isn’t myriad games that aren’t worth two bucks—it’s the thousands available that are.

* Incidentally, my all-time favourite Nintendo WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING? moment came with Pac-Man (NES Classics) for the GBA. Currently ambitiously priced at 30 quid on Amazon, the game was originally priced at ‘only’ 15 when first released in the UK—for a dodgy port of the NES version of Pac-Man. BARGAIN! Kind of puts iOS gaming into perspective. Hell, it even makes Namco’s crazy iOS Pac-Man pricing almost look sane. (Almost.)

Absolutely fucking nothing.

And any publication that says anything different is lying out of its arse.