Peter Bright writes for Ars Technica: In bringing Office to iOS, Microsoft is playing a dangerous game. He mostly makes the argument against Microsoft releasing Office for mobile platforms other than Windows RT, for reasons that sort of make sense, but that are just as risky for Microsoft in its current position. That position, of course, is that it’s merrily spent the past few years teaching people they don’t really need Microsoft Office.

There are exceptions. Some people rely on very specific functionality within the likes of Excel and Word, and they simply cannot transition to other software. But many others are happy using Google’s online suite and free Office alternatives; and on iOS, Apple worked up touch-optimised apps for word processing, presentations and spreadsheets, while Microsoft did precisely nothing (publicly, at least) for the rapidly growing platform that was eating into PC market-share. Even in the more traditional space of the desktop, Office remains notably absent from the Mac App Store.

On Office for iOS, Bright thinks Microsoft

stands a good chance of cementing the role of the iPad as a business tool, eroding the advantages of Windows Phone 8 and undermining the entire value proposition of Windows RT.

This is true to some extent, but there’s also a good chance that horse has bolted anyway. It’s hugely optimistic to hope all those businesses that already have iPads deployed will ditch them because of Office on Windows RT. Those that haven’t yet might stick with Microsoft, but they’re also—unless they’re absolutely wedded to Office—just as likely to go with the iPad, which is the tried-and-tested technology in this space, with a massive underlying ecosystem of apps and supporting technology.

It will also hole Microsoft’s argument that the iPad is “just” for content consumption below the waterline. The upside of Office on iOS? That’s harder to fathom.

I don’t think it is. Office for iOS, if it was good and affordable, becomes a no-brainer purchase for occasional users, and also a means to keep people in Microsoft’s camp who’d otherwise leave it entirely. It keeps Microsoft’s cross-platform game in play (remember Office in itself is a huge revenue generator) rather than having the company retreat only to its own platform. By staying away from iOS—and also Android—Microsoft risks continuing to teach people they don’t need its software and, by extension, Microsoft as a whole.

Bright also argues that in creating an app for iOS or Android, it will have to make the assumption of touch first (no guaranteed physical keyboard), which it hasn’t done on Windows RT, where it

offers (almost) full fidelity reproduction and editing of Office documents

achieved by Microsoft being

forced to make enormous compromises: the Office apps in Windows RT offer only minimal concessions to touch-based usability.

I don’t think Microsoft was really forced in this direction. It’s a lack of ambition and I suspect what the company itself considered a minimisation of risk. Given enough time, money, vision and talent, Microsoft could have created a fully touch-based Office for a new generation of devices. Clearly, the company lacked one or more of those things.

Google Maps is out for iPhone and iPod touch. This has, apparently, surprised a bunch of people, including those in the tech press. I’m not sure why. Yes, ‘sources’ had said Google Maps might struggle for approval, but then ‘sources’ say a whole bunch of crap. In fact, ‘sources’ often don’t exist, and are instead ‘journo making shit up and pretending otherwise’.

Of course, Eric Schmidt also fanned the flames a little in an interview, stating of Apple:

They haven’t approved all of our apps in the past.

But that lacked any context whatsoever, not mentioning why some Google apps didn’t make the cut. (Some were due to Google not adhering to Apple rules, and some were due to Apple rules being stupid, some of which have since been relaxed.) Instead, it would have made more sense for people to have looked at Tim Cook’s apology on Apple Maps, where he said:

While we’re improving Maps, you can try alternatives by downloading map apps from the App Store like Bing, MapQuest and Waze, or use Google or Nokia maps by going to their websites and creating an icon on your home screen to their web app.

That didn’t sound like a company about to reject a Google Maps app, and YouTube’s arrival on the App Store should have further removed people’s doubts, in terms of Apple not spiking apps built by its biggest rival. But then ‘Google Maps will show up on iOS when it’s ready’ isn’t as link-baity as ‘EVIL APPLE MIGHT NOT APPROVE GOOGLE MAPS BECAUSE TIM COOK HATES YOUR FACE AND WANTS YOU TO DIE IN THE DESERT’.

As for the app itself, I’ve been playing around with it today, and it’s quite nice. It’s fast and efficient, has far superior UK road colouring to Apple’s solution, and it actually knows where the most important Luton is. That said, some of the UI decisions are baffling, with Street View being weirdly ‘hidden’. (You must tap-hold a location to load it, then pull that up from the bottom of the screen. It’s a lot like discoverability in many touch apps for Windows 8—i.e. almost entirely missing.)

Oh, Reuters, with this rubbish, you are spoiling us! Chris Taylor’s Your Money: The “Apple Tax” – America’s costly obsession once again showcases how many writers shouldn’t be let near an Apple article unless wired up to a BLAZING KLAXON that near deafens them when they write something stupid.

For example:

With the “fiscal cliff” looming, taxpayers are wringing their hands about all sorts of things. Income taxes might rise, dividends might get walloped, lifetime gift-tax exemptions might get slashed. But when it comes to immediate impact on their wallets, maybe they should be thinking about something else entirely: The Apple tax.

BLAZING KLAXON!

You see how this could work? It would be great. At that point, Taylor would be rolling around on the floor, suitably chastised, and the article would be mercifully short. People would mention how strange it was that Reuters had put out such a succinct article, but perhaps they’d consider it an amusing joke of some sort—an ironic nod to the many articles online that don’t know what they’re talking about and so bang on about inaccuracies when it comes to Apple.

Unfortunately, this article subsequently becomes one that doesn’t know what it’s talking about and so bangs on about inaccuracies when it comes to Apple.

Americans are shelling out big bucks annually to outfit the entire household with Apple products. And they are spending hundreds—if not thousands of dollars—more each year for the unexpected Apple “taxes”—add-ons that lock them into the Apple system: iTunes downloads for music, movies and games, along with subscriptions and accessories.

BLAZING KLAXON!

In what way are these things taxes? Last I knew, Apple didn’t demand you pay for anything extra. Music can be grabbed from anywhere. Movies can be digitised from your collection and loaded into various apps, and many such apps and games are free.

Then there are the replacement costs for lost or broken equipment.

BLAZING KLAXON!

How is this an Apple thing? Does Samsung give you free stuff if your kit breaks? For that matter, does the company that made your TV, your fridge or your car? If you lose your bike, would you get another for free from the shop you bought it from? Of course bloody not.

 For a family with multiple children, each with their own technological needs, the total annual bill can get downright ugly—like going over a familial “fiscal cliff.”

BLAZING KLAXON!

Inappropriate analogy with massive economic problems that aren’t actually remotely similar to buying Apple kit at all!

The article then abruptly shifts to a human interest angle. Sam Martorana is a human-resources specialist for the airline WestJet, and he likes Apple products! He gets all upset when asked to tot up what his family has spent on Apple goods, thereby showcasing how terribly expensive it all is! Naturally, there’s no context. We don’t know if his family can easily afford such goods, nor what they spend on anything else, nor the benefits these products bring to the family’s life. Perhaps, for example, the kids happily play free or cheap iOS games, versus the family having to splash out 40 bucks on cartridges for other consoles. Perhaps the family uses the devices for education or as replacements for other goods that might have cost money. We just don’t know.

Taylor notes that the technology figure has been rising. He states the average household in the US now spends $444 per year on Apple products, up from $295 in 2010, and $150 in 2007, ignoring inflation, market changes, and so on. Still, luckily, he doesn’t then go nuts and embrace the rumour mill, in order to make the upcoming Apple spending figure (and thereby the trend) look even worse. Oh, my mistake—he does precisely that.

And we might only be seeing the beginning. If Apple rolls out its own HDTV, as expected, Huberty sees annual Apple spending by households doubling, to $888 by 2015.

BLAZING KLAXON!

That one was for including an Apple TV rumour.

And then it gets even worse:

The analogy of an Apple tax might sound facetious, but think about it. Median U.S. household income was $50,054 in 2011, according to the Census Bureau. That means a sizable chunk of that is getting diverted to Apple headquarters in Cupertino.

BLAZING KLAXON!

Remember, this is not something that consumers are being forced to pay. They are dipping willingly into their own pockets, because they’re essentially slaves to the devices.

BLAZING KLAXON!

People buy things because they need them and/or because they like them and/or because they think the items will benefit their lives in some way. That Apple is selling far more kit these days appears to be a combination of factors, but to argue people are slaves to their devices or that there’s some kind of ‘tax’ in play is idiotic. (Frankly, I’m surprised the Reuters pieces managed to steer clear of the ‘cult’ or ‘religion’ themes most end up going on about when it comes to Apple.)

What’s true is that technology is clearly becoming far more prevalent, and that’s in part down to Apple. Families are spending more on certain goods, and this is a trend that’s worthy of investigation. But for such things, we need context. We need more than just yet another link-baity hook, trying to blame Apple for something, rolling out some pointless quotes, using charged phrases like “I’m definitely an addict”. That kind of thing helps no-one and simply plays into shoring up certain stereotypes that were tiresome a decade ago, let alone today.

Amazon has thrilled the tech industry with the story Biggest Sales Day Ever for Kindle Family on Black Friday: Kindle Sales Triple the Previous Record. As you can tell from the press release’s title, Amazon sold a whopping three times more Kindles than on any other day. The total sales of Kindle Family devices were [figure redacted by Amazon], which looks hugely impressive when compared to the previous figure, which was [figure redacted by Amazon].

Naturally, this compares favourably to the sales of Apple’s iPads, mostly in the minds of tech hacks who totally ignore the thorny issue of Amazon never actually providing any figures whatsoever, and who don’t realise that, for all we know, Amazon’s previous record might have been seven Kindles.

Amazon continues:

Customers can learn more about the Kindle family at www.amazon.co.uk/kindlefamily.

Although not, you know, how many Kindles it’s actually sold.

Tech pundits are strange creatures. I’m fairly certain some of them don’t bother with trifling matters such as listening to what they’re saying or reading what they are writing. Take, for example, Andrew Keen’s piece on TechCrunch. He trots out yet another piece about Steve Wozniak, Apple’s co-founder that’s had bugger-all to do with anything Apple’s done in a very long time, and who while being a brilliant engineer had about as much marketing savvy as a squirrel.

In case you’re wondering, his latest nugget of info is that he’s concerned Microsoft has become a more innovative company than Apple. (Microsoft’s current innovation, in case you’ve forgotten, is to desperately try to make tablets into laptops, while desperately trying to make its tablet OS run Windows-style Office apps, while desperately trying to remain relevant.) Well, fair enough. This is what Woz does these days—he talks about tech stuff, and because of his place in the history of computing, people listen. They ignore his overtly engineer focus, and the fact his hit rate in terms of what will come to pass is no better than anyone else’s, but they listen. And then they report. And then they suggest what he says has bearing on the current market, when it mostly doesn’t.

To be fair, Woz also seems like a really nice guy. I’m sure I’d get swept up in what he’s saying should I ever get the chance to meet him, but not quite to the same level as Andrew Keen.

Much has been said about his unworldliness, but Woz is now so savvy, smooth and smart that I wonder whether, if Tim Cook should stumble, Apple might consider bringing him back as their CEO.

THERE ARE NO WORDS.