No, I’m not dead in a ditch, nor have I succumbed to the joys of Windows and Android, thereby skulking away from this blog in an embarrassed fashion. Instead, I for the first time in years went somewhere with naff-all Wi-Fi (south-eastern Spain, where you get odd looks in phone shops for asking if someone will sell you a SIM card without a phone already wrapped around it), and spent a happy couple of weeks oblivious to news, technology and Tim Langdell continuing to be a total dick. (More on Langdell later.)

Still, I also got a number of messages from people who I’ve never met but who were nonetheless concerned for my well-being, asking through the silence if I was OK. So, occasionally, the internet is indeed full of lovely. Also, clearly, I am a noisy bugger (to the point that two weeks away makes people think I’m being held hostage by giant rabid weasels (or perhaps something less exciting) or come across so stressed sometimes that perhaps people thought my head had exploded due to my disbelief at someone doing something so unbelievably stupid that it all got a BIT TOO MUCH.

Anyway, Revert to Saved is open for business/bile again, but may have a mildly cheery edge for a short period of time, right up until the first of the many deadlines lurking menacingly in the distance whizz past my ears while making DAGGADAGGADAGGADAGGA noises. The bastards.

I’m not generally a fan of The Telegraph and especially its tech section, but Shane Richmond absolutely nails it with his great piece on Twitter. His thoughts are largely summed up by the following quote:

Writing on his Telegraph blog last month, Brendan O’Neill argued that “far from being a bastion of freedom of speech, Twitter can be a remarkably conformist, elitist and intolerant arena”. It is a statement that is both self-evidently true and entirely meaningless. Twitter is a communication tool. It makes no more sense to describe it as “conformist” or “elitist” than it does to say that the telephone is conformist or elitist.

But if you’re at all into social networking and/or want to understand how and why Twitter is often misrepresented by the mainstream press, Richmond’s piece is a must-read.

This is one of my least-favourite Apple adverts, for the iPhone 4:

I dislike it to some extent merely because of the intro, which, rarely for Apple, is about a technical component, the lithium polymer battery. And yet in 30 seconds, it nonetheless shows:

• Use of the email client, with an embedded chart (“work”);
• An ice-hockey videogame (“play”);
• A movie being played (“laugh”);
• Album navigation in the iPod app (“listen”);
• Video being taken in the Camera app (“shoot”);
• Basic video-editing being worked on (“edit”);
• The SMS app sending the video (“share”);
• A Facebook feed (“update”);
• A game being installed (“download”);
• iBooks in use (“read”);
• A tweet being composed (“write”);
• A FaceTime conversation.

In other words, the advert is primarily about what you can do with the device, showing a dozen things consumers might be interested in.

Compare it with the Samsung’s Galaxy SII ad below, which says to ‘unleash your fingers’ by spending more than three times the length of Apple’s ad showing “JayFunk, the internet Finger Tutting phenomenon” titting about with his fingers in front of the camera. It’s 1:39 in before the product is even shown, and at no point is it ever shown in action.

It’d certainly be interesting to see how consumers react to these different approaches. I suspect the latter might have people amused by the finger tutter but immediately forgetting the brand, while Apple’s had is more likely to have people realising the iPhone does more than they thought, and therefore consider actually buying one.

David Pogue and John Gruber have gone head-to-head, highlighting an increasing problem in IT journalism. Pogue reporting on the Samsung Chromebook:

How well does Google’s newfangled concept hold up in the real world? Unfortunately, not very well. […] With very few exceptions, when the Chromebook isn’t online, it’s a 3.3-pound paperweight. Truth is, considering how stripped-down the Samsung is, you have to wonder why it’s as big, heavy and expensive as it is. You can find plenty of full-blown Windows laptops with the same price, weight and size. Maybe the Chromebook concept would fly if it cost $180 instead of $500.

Wow, that sounds pretty poor. But Pogue concludes:

For now, though, you should praise Google for its noble experiment. You should thrill to the possibilities of the online future. You should exult that somebody’s trying to shake up the operating system wars. But unless you’re an early-adopter masochist with money to burn, you probably shouldn’t buy a Chromebook.

Pogue’s conclusion is weak, and the qualifier if anything makes things worse. He’s written about something with a lot of problems, but argued we should praise Google, for creating something that would have been exciting a couple of years back or if the iPad (or the MacBook Air, for that matter) didn’t exist. Gruber:

Would everyone have praised Apple for its “noble experiment” if the $500 iPad had been too big and heavy, felt like it was worth only $180, and was “a 3.3-pound paperweight” when offline? Fuck that. This is the big leagues. There is no credit for trying.

Only there is, all over the tech pundit world. Apple gets slammed for the slightest perceived drawback or very real fuck-up; by comparison, other companies are too often congratulated for churning out garbage, because, hey, you shouldn’t be expected to be Apple, right? That’s utter bollocks, and the sooner everyone is held to the same standards, the better the entire tech industry will be. This also goes in ‘reverse’, for Apple pundits, by the way, who argue everything at Cupertino is spiffy when it isn’t.

So, pundits, if something is utter crap, have the balls to say so. If something is at best a botched, half-arsed attempt to compete with another product, tell it like it is. And if a massive company spends years and millions of bucks working on a product that turns out to have some potential but in reality is a waste of time and space, don’t praise them and don’t call them noble—bury them.

Harry Marks, writing for his Curious Rat website on Apple’s true legacy:

Apple is getting ready to finish the first volume of its 10 year long opus on the true definition of “ecosystem”. With your iTunes ID, you can make sure any music, apps and books you purchase on your Mac, iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad are automatically downloaded and synced on all your devices at once. If you start a document in Pages on Lion, it automaticaly saves each change and uploads it to iCloud, then syncs it back down to your iPad where you can work on it later at a coffee shop, or waiting for your train. No buttons are pressed to initiate the sync, no wire is required to transfer the files. Everything is done in the background without the user’s knowledge. Apple’s iCloud is one step closer to making “user error” a thing of the past and that’s the brush being used to paint the bigger picture.

That’s a thing a lot of people are missing about Apple’s plans and also the iterative nature of its OS evolution. Apple very rarely these days pushes massive new features, resulting in people screaming that everything past the original Mac OS X release has been a service pack. But things like Quick Look (instant, browsable previews of items in Finder) and upgrades to Preview (which has gone from Acrobat Reader Very Lite Indeed to a really good app for PDF edits, scanning and basic image manipulation) are attempts to make computing easier, a little at a time.

With iCloud, iOS 5 and Lion, though, Apple’s digital hub dream finally comes to fruition, but in a manner even Apple couldn’t have foreseen a decade ago. Assuming it works, you’ll get seamless computing across devices, a massive reduction in user error for tasks we take for granted but shouldn’t have to deal with (document sync, saving work on a regular basis), and that’s why people like Paul Thurrott look like dolts for dismissing what Apple’s doing as ‘more of the same’ or nothing different to the competition. It’s not about any one feature—it’s about everything. And until Microsoft, Sony and others get this, the playing field won’t be remotely even.