So you’ve got new iPad killer coming out, and it, for reasons known only to slightly crazy people, dual-boots into Windows 7 and Android 1.6 (two operating systems clearly leagues ahead of iOS when it comes to optimal tablet experiences—again, if you’re stark staring mad). What better way to advertise it than using a badly cropped grab of a Microsoft Office app running in Mac OS X?

In case of deletion, here’s a bit of it:

Nice. The close-up of exciting touch-based workflow in action is also, I’m sure you’ll agree, brilliant and doesn’t look at all like it was faked by a bored unpaid intern:

Hat tip: Daring Fireball.

This afternoon’s slice of MAKE CRAIG ANGRY comes courtesy of Wired, whose article In depth: How Rovio made Angry Birds a winner (and what’s next) should probably have been called Fap Fap Fap Rovioooooohhhh.

There’s something of a cult that’s built up around the Finnish developer’s massive iOS hit (since ported to practically every other platform in existence—I hear there’s a VIC-20 version on the way), and more than a little bullshit.

Before a million Angry Birds fans descend, I’m not suggesting the game is rubbish, nor am I saying Rovio doesn’t deserve some of its success. Angry Birds is a fairly good iOS game, and it’s immediate, usable, polished and cute. The perfect game? Not in a million years—it’s too random (requiring quickfire grind play rather than strategising) and has an irksome linear level structure (which was ‘fixed’ via a 59p in-app purchase rather than enabling users to skip levels they couldn’t solve). But it’s not bad.

What is bad is the reporting that continually goes on about Rovio’s magic formula. Ultimately, Rovio got lucky. They put out a game that users could feel they were good at very quickly (even if they weren’t) and with little effort, and built it around a level and reward structure that worked nicely with the quickfire nature of mobile gaming. Rovio then did some cunning marketing, driving word-of-mouth in smaller territories, before partnering with publisher Chillingo in larger countries. But there’s little innovation in the game (it’s a variant on Crush the Castle, a genre that can be traced all the way back to Artillery on the Apple II) and Rovio ‘Mighty Eagle’ Peter Vesterbacka’s saying the company’s “building an integrated entertainment franchise where merchandising, games, movies, TV, cartoons and comics all come together, like Disney 2.0.” is a pretty bold and odd comparison, for one key reason: Rovio is currently a one-hit wonder, with Angry Birds as its sole hit.

There’s no doubting Angry Birds is phenomenally popular. There’s no doubting many people like the game. But right now Rovio is doing little more than milking the brand until it screams: a tie-in with Rio, a self-published ‘seasons’ version to double-up iOS sales and avoid cutting in Chillingo as much as possible, soft toys, possible board games and animations… The list is growing by the month. What’s not on the list though is Rovio’s Next Big Game and The One After That, the products that would prove it has a magic formula for success. At least Wired recognises this in its article:

Rovio needs to evolve from a studio with strong intellectual property (IP), to being a publisher that isn’t over-reliant on a single hit game. There’s the rub: it took Rovio 52 games to get its first hit. To create a fully fledged entertainment empire, it will need more.

Show me another half-dozen megahits and I’ll file Rovio alongside early-1980s Atari and admit that, yes, these guys do have some kind of formula. For now, though, there are dozens of iOS devs out there offering superior and more varied gaming experiences, and that have to balls to do something different every six months or so. Here’s hoping iOS consumers start seeking them out, rather than assuming gaming ends once they’ve three-starred the latest set of levels in Rovio’s game.

Today is International Women’s Day. But the first news article sent my way this morning was Woman Carries Non-Viable Pregnancy Due To Law (expanded on The Republic). It’s practically the opposite of any kind of celebration, instead recounting how a “Nebraska woman said she was denied the ability to end her non-viable pregnancy because of state law”. Instead, she was forced to go into labour naturally, and her baby died 15 minutes after birth, significantly increasing grief and trauma for both parties.

I find it hard to understand how any modern Western nation can still have such laws in 2011 (abortion law is always a thorny issue, but not even having exceptions is draconian), and attempting in this case to justify them on the basis of the ‘sacred nature of life’ is hypocritical, given that Nebraska also has capital punishment. Either life is sacred or it isn’t. Make up your minds.

Also, in a country that’s supposed to be democratic and a shining example of modernity, it’s depressing how much of the USA (albeit at state level) still considers it acceptable to trample all over a woman’s rights, on the basis of religious beliefs.

Gary Marshall on the iPad 2:

What Apple gets—and what I think a lot of firms don’t—is that most people, the kind of people who are currently buying iOS devices and apps in extraordinary quantities, don’t care about specifications any more than they want to think about how their lunchtime sausages are made.

Geeks forget this. Many in the tech press also forget this. People care about the experience, not the innards of a device.

I wrote along similar lines on TechRadar:

For example, instead of boasting about the cameras in the iPad 2, Apple concentrated on demoing FaceTime and Photo Booth. The company then showcased practical applications of footage taken by the new rear camera by revealing the revised iMovie – an update to the $4.99/£2.99 app.

iMovie is now universal and on the iPad has an interface resembling the desktop release. And as if to drive the point home regarding what Apple really cares about (clue: it’s not gigahertz and gigabytes – it’s enabling creativity), GarageBand for iPad was unleashed, boasting an interface in many ways superior to that of the Mac version.

The point is that technology and specs are all fine, but they only really mean something if you can employ them. It’s no good having a quad-core tablet with 8GB of RAM if the only software available is a slightly knackered version of Solitaire.

This is what every other company in the tech space needs to understand. The killer feature of the iPad 2 launch wasn’t its RAM or its chip-speed; it wasn’t the megapixels in the camera sensor, nor even the tablet’s form; the killer feature of the iPad 2 is that you can do a ton of fun stuff with it.

A while back, Samsung VP Lee Young-hee was reportedly misquoted when talking about the sales of its wee iPad wannabe, the 7-inch Galaxy Tab. He was stated to have said:

As you heard, our sell-in [for the Galaxy Tab] was quite aggressive… around two million. In terms of sell-out, we believe it was quite small.

Samsung then argued that ‘quite small’ was in fact ‘quite smooth’, which sort of makes sense if you get a bit drunk. On March 4, Yonhap News quoted Lee Don-joo, executive vice president of Samsung’s mobile division, talking about the soon-to-be-unveiled Galaxy Tab 10.1:

We will have to improve the parts that are inadequate. Apple made [the iPad 2] very thin.

Again, Samsung has presumably been misquoted. Clearly, he meant to say ‘inedible’, because Samsung’s going to go one better than Apple in making its tablet totally safe should your child get really frustrated with Angry Birds and take a chunk out of the device with its teeth.

And on the Galaxy Tab being close to $900, compared to the iPad 2’s $499–$829 range:

The 10-inch (tablet) was to be priced higher than the 7-inch (tablet) but we will have to think that over.

By ‘higher’, Samsung presumably meant ‘lower’. After all, there’s no way an iPad competitor would today launch its product at a higher price-point than Apple’s latest device, because that would just be stupid.