But since his tenure as Apple’s chief executive, Cook has done little to be like his predecessor. Cook doesn’t like to gloat about the current state of affairs at Apple, and design is not necessarily something that he thinks constantly about. When he holds keynote addresses or events for the press, Cook is content to offer up only some information, and then leave the big product announcements to his executives.

Even in his calls with investors or interviews with the media, Cook plays a downplayed rule, deciding to allow his company’s strong performance to do the talking. It’s a significant departure from his predecessor’s tack, and something that has taken some getting used to for the millions of Apple fans around the globe.

But given Apple’s recent troubles and the fact that Samsung and Google are increasingly causing trouble for Cook, might it be a good time for some change? Apple might still be the most important technology company in the world, but it’s in no way the dominating presence that it once was. And much of that seems to be due to Cook’s leadership.

Now, that’s not to say that Tim Cook is not a good leader. As we’ve seen in recent quarters, Apple’s sales and profit figures are hitting new heights, and his shareholders appear to be happy with his performance. But since Cook took over, Apple has lost something. The things that made the company so compelling in the first place are now a shadow of their former selves. And it might have everything to do with who is sitting in the CEO’s chair.

The problem is, Tim Cook doesn’t have the charisma or the attitude that Steve Jobs had. Part of Apple’s success was due to Jobs willingly telling anyone that would listen that his company was best. And when given the chance to show off the latest and greatest product, it was Jobs who captivated audiences, not his executives.

Tim Cook’s more subdued role might prove to be a mistake in the grand scheme of things. Apple seems to be a company that needs to have a chip on its shoulder. And Cook is lacking that certain chip.

The truth is, Apple is slipping. The company that was once the only dominant force in several markets is looking like one of a few competitors. Apple doesn’t appear to have the same air about it that it once did. And that might be due to Tim Cook’s desire to be, well, less Steve Jobs-like. But if you ask me, he needs to be more like Steve Jobs.

As I write this, I’m working on a Mac Pro that I bought several years ago. At the time, the computer was state-of-the-art and capable of handling all kinds of tasks. For me, it was a perfect solution: it offered me the flexibility to run three monitors, had the power to handle some video editing, and was running OS X – an operating system, I believe, is superior to Windows.

But now years later, I’m lamenting my purchase of the Mac Pro. Although it’s still chugging along, it’s not working as well as it once did. And despite my best attempts to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of this supposedly high-end computer, it’s falling short on several fronts.

While all this has been going on, Apple has been launching new Macs at a torrid pace. Since my Mac Pro purchase, the company has launched two new Mac designs – the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro with Retina Display – and continued to update the iMac with outstanding design ideas. But it’s the Mac Pro that, save for a slight upgrade, has been ignored by Apple.

Now, I know that I’m not alone in wondering what is happening in Cupertino. Over the last few years, we’ve all been watching with baited breath as Apple hits the stage to unveil new Macs, hoping that a Mac Pro will be one of them. But each time, we’ve been disappointed. Apple’s customers have even e-mailed CEO Tim Cook to ask what in the world is going on. His response? Be patient.

Still, it’s hard for us to be patient. We’re watching our friends running Windows doing far more than we can with the Mac Pro. And it’s making us think twice about making the leap to a custom-built Windows desktop that, while not ideal, could actually deliver the enhanced power we need.

I’ve been holding off taking that plunge because I believe Apple has something up its sleeve for the Mac Pro. The trouble is, I just don’t know how much longer I can hang on. Yes, my Mac Pro is still doing its job, but it’s getting harder and harder to complete tasks. And I’m becoming more frustrated by the computer by the day.

So, I need to ask, Apple: where in the world is my new Mac Pro? If you’re not going to launch a new one, just put us out of our misery and tell us. If you are, make it quick; we’re losing faith that you’re actually going to launch a replacement. And the sooner we lose faith, the sooner you lose us to a Windows PC.

I never thought I’d say it, but it’s possible that I might just have to ditch my Mac Pro for a custom-built PC. Don’t make me do it, Apple. Don’t. Make. Me. Do. It.

Wearables are new to quite a few folks. Although they’ve seen (and perhaps used) pedometers or those wristbands that track their movements, the average customer has never really thought about wearing glasses that would allow for communication and all of the other features Glass boasts. And thanks to some smart marketing on Google’s part, quite a few people are now saying that they’d jump at the chance to buy Google Glass when it hits store shelves.

But I’d ask all of those people to truly consider what they’re saying. Yes, Google Glass appears to be a nice-looking device for those who don’t mind wearing an oddly shaped lens on one eye, but for the rest of us walking around town, doing so doesn’t exactly tell the world that we’re the most fashionable people.

Aside from that, I just don’t see the value in all that Google is promoting with Glass. Sure, it’d be nice to look at directions through one lens, and having the ability to snap a photo or record video is great and all, but I can do that with my smartphone. And when I don’t want to do any of that, I can just slip my smartphone into my pocket and not worry all that much about it getting damaged.

Google Glass, on the other hand, looks like an expensive, broken piece of tech waiting to happen. As those of us who wear glasses know, it’s not that hard for them to get all kinds of screwed up in our pockets or when they fall off the coffee table. When it’s a $100 pair of glasses, that’s not such a bad thing. But if we’re talking about Google Glass, which could be exceedingly expensive, it’s a much, much different story. And I just don’t see how Google is going to sidestep that issue.

Beyond that, I guess I’m not sold on the whole wearable technology craze. Yes, I know analysts are saying that the marketplace will grow in leaps and bounds in the coming years and billions of dollars will be spent, but I’m not convinced. Save for a few products, wearable technology is still very much a niche product category. And I don’t think that even Google can change that.

To me, Google Glass is more a novelty device than something that can truly be groundbreaking in the technology world. It’s a neat idea and it’s something that I can see people getting excited about, but does it really deliver value in practice? Theoretically, it’s cool, but I just don’t see it actually appealing to people who want the latest and greatest execution of wearable technology. On that front, I think Google Glass will fall short.

So, I’m not really sure Google Glass is worth it. I suppose I’ll be able to make a final decision when I know exactly how much Google Glass costs. But until then, I’m not expecting too much value.

Soon, things changed, and homes had more telephones, providing a bit more leeway in the way communication was handled. It wasn’t until the introduction of the mobile phone that dramatically changed how we would communicate with others, and it caused a radical change in our lives.

Now, though, everywhere I turn, I find people with smartphones. From elders who grew up in a time when phone lines were shared to priests, just about everyone around us has a smartphone on their hip, in their pocket, or hiding in their purse. A smartphone isn’t just an accessory to many people, it’s an extension of their lives. And without it, there would be no way to live.

For me, such a scenario would be impossible to even fathom. Each morning, the first thing I do after saying good morning to my wife is check my smartphone to see if I’ve missed any important e-mails. I might also check the news to see what’s happening around the world. During the day, my smartphone is with me wherever I go, so I can send off a quick text, check e-mail when away from a computer, and surf the Web when I need to. Oh, and I might also place a call from time to time.

So, earlier this week as I was on my smartphone, I questioned whether I could stay away from it for just one week. What would my week be like, I thought. How would my life be different? Would things be better or worse?

I decided after thinking that that it was time I explored the possibility of living without my smartphone for a week. So, for the rest of the day and a bit into the next day, I was smartphone-free. It wasn’t long, though, that I was desiring holding my smartphone in my hand and checking things. It also wasn’t long before I had what might only be called “technology withdrawals” — a seemingly chemical response in the brain to not having something I rely on to such a huge degree.

So, before long, I gave in and got my smartphone. I’m weak, perhaps, or just not very good at controlling myself. In either case, I realized that, for me, living without a smartphone isn’t even an option.

The next question, though, is, such an addiction good or bad? I can be more productive with my smartphone, but that I actually have it in-hand at all times and can’t let it go might liken it to something much worse.

So, I pose the question to you: can you (or, perhaps, would you) want to live without a smartphone for a week? Is it easier said than done? Don’t scoff so quickly and think it’ll be an easy task; it won’t. Be ready for a challenge. And be ready for the withdrawals.

But there’s more to it than that. A Kickstarter-funded company is selling a device known as Ouya that promises to combine the benefits of mobile and console gaming into one device that connects to the television. Steam is working on a console that will bring PC titles to the living room. There have even been rumors that Apple is planning a gaming push.

The Apple rumors are arguably the most interesting. They seem to indicate that Apple is going to bring iOS gaming to the console market and all of its developers will come along with it. And since the iPhone maker has become such a force in the gaming space in such a short amount of time with iOS, there’s no reason to suggest it wouldn’t make a similar splash in the console space.

Although I’d agree with that sentiment, I think we might all be missing the obvious here: Google might just sweep into the console space and win the war.

Now, I know that we’ve heard no indication that Google actually has plans to get into the console market, but is it such a stretch to say that it could? First off, the company has tried to make inroads into the console space with Google TV. And although that hasn’t been the most successful launch, it’s proven that Google is at least thinking about branching out into the living room.

At the same time, we mustn’t forget that Google has been taking some changes lately in the hardware market. The company now has smartphones and tablets that it’s selling and its acquisition of Motorola was a not-so-subtle attempt by the search giant to break into the hardware side.

And then there’s Android. The operating system that has worked so well on smartphones, tablets, and other devices, seems perfectly suited for the console market. And with mobile processors getting more powerful by the day, it’s not such a leap for a game company to bring their top titles on Android to a device running that operating system from Google.

Oh, and one more thing: don’t you think that more than anything, Google would love to take Microsoft down in the console market? If there’s anything we know about Google, it’s that the company can’t stand Microsoft. And beating the software giant out on something is its favorite feat. By bringing Android to the console market and delivering its own device, Google might just have a shot at it.

Call me crazy, but I think Google could actually perform quite well in the console market.

Such demand already might surprise some folks. After all, it took a long time for the PlayStation 3 to truly get off the ground and although it’ll likely end this generation with more worldwide sales than the Xbox 360, in the U.S., especially, it’s no match for Microsoft’s console.

To make matters worse, it appears that gamers aren’t all that excited about the next generation of consoles across the board. The Wii U, after all, has been watching its sales slow to crawl and even GameStop said publicly that it’s been disappointed by the Wii U. What in the world would make the PlayStation 4 different?

Well, I think there are a host of reasons. I’m a firm believer that Sony is still a household name in the U.S. and in Japan – its two key markets – and people buy products from the company solely because they trust the name. And despite the PlayStation 3’s initial troubles, the console turned out to be quite a success, allowing its predecessor to deliver solid results next time around.

It’s also unfair to compare the PlayStation 4 with the Wii U. Nintendo’s console is one that’s a barely updated alternative to the predecessor. As I’ve said here before, I believe the Wii U is a catch-up device. And historically, catch-up devices don’t really perform all that well on store shelves.

The PlayStation 4, however, is a high-end product with all kinds of graphical firepower; it’s the kind of device that true gamers really want. And chances are, Sony will once again have the full support of the developer community to ensure it doesn’t fall short from a library perspective.

Most importantly, though, I think the strong demand for the PlayStation 4 tells us that, despite conventional wisdom suggesting that mobile and casual gaming is the future, console gamers are still extremely engrossed in their favored way of playing games. And that’s not going to change anytime soon.

The fact is that console gaming has a long way to go to ultimately match the promise gamers have been hoping for all this time. And companies like Sony and Microsoft are willing to push the envelope and put themselves in a position where they can capitalize on customers that want a true next-generation device, and not something that’s simply labeled as one.

So yes, I understand the excitement surrounding the PlayStation 4, and I can say without any hesitation that I’m one of those folks that’s excited to see what’s coming next from Sony. The future is now. And Sony is one of the few companies in the gaming industry that’s willing to embrace it.

Then again, I thought the same with my former iPhone, which came with a smaller 3.5-inch display. I thought for sure that I wouldn’t need a larger screen. But when I got my hands on the bigger display, I decided otherwise.

Now, though, I’m looking at new devices from companies like LG and Samsung, like the Galaxy S 4, that come with screen sizes that hit 5 inches, and I can’t help but wonder why anyone would need a device featuring a screen size that large. Let’s face it – there comes a point when screen sizes become too big and unwieldy. And I wonder if a 5-inch display from Samsung is one such device.

Of course, those who love Android will have a much different opinion on the matter. They believe that Apple is delivering products that only come with 4-inch screens is absolutely ridiculous. It’s too small a screen, the critics say, and it’s the kind of limitation that Apple places on products that make them want an Android handset.

I can understand both points. Apple ostensibly believes that a 4-inch tablet makes sense for customers. Samsung and others, however, see that as one of the issues with Apple’s products, and believe that customers want the biggest display they can get. While I agree that there are literally millions of people around the globe that do want the larger screens, at what point do they become too big?

The way I see it, we’ve pushed the envelope to a point where there might not be much more room for larger screens. Most people today put their devices into their pockets or in small places in their purses. They don’t have the room, necessarily, to keep putting larger and larger products into those places. It comes to a point when a device has such a large screen that using it becomes ridiculous. And there comes a point when companies have to realize that and find other ways to attract us. It’s not easy, for sure, but it’s absolutely necessary.

So, I think we should examine whether smartphone screen sizes are getting too big. As I said earlier, I’ll be the first to admit that I like a nice, big screen. But after 5 inches, I don’t think it makes sense for companies to deliver products that deliver anything bigger. And I’m not so sure that consumers will respond favorably to such a move.

So, before you buy that 5-inch-screen-equipped screen, think twice. Will it be too big? Will it be just right? Everyone is different. But not acknowledging the possibility of screen sizes being too big for their own good is a mistake.

Now, I’m sure that Apple fans won’t want to hear such a thing. After all, for years, they’ve been supporting Apple’s iOS platform and to hear that Android could possibly come with features that surpass those of iOS is anathema to them. But perhaps it’s time that we all agree that, at the very least, Android and iOS are in a neck-and-neck battle for mobile operating system dominance.

But how did Android get here? The fact is, Android wasn’t even close to iOS in terms of featureset when it launched. But over the last several years, as more vendors brought the operating system to their devices, it gained on Apple. And now, it’s far and away the most dominant operating system in the land.

Although many reasons for Android’s dominance can be drawn, and many of those are valid, I just don’t think any of them are as important or as noteworthy as Google’s shepherding of the platform. Without Google, Android wouldn’t be what it is today.

If we’ve learned anything of the technology industry over the last few years, it’s that big companies determine the fate of most products. Save for a few cool Kickstarter ideas, the vast majority of successful products today come from major companies. It’s unfortunate that an industry created by startups is now so dominated by major companies, but it’s the reality. And we must begrudgingly accept that.

If an unknown company trying to deliver a new operating system to mobile vendors had delivered Android to the marketplace, it’s unlikely that it would have succeeded. At its launch, few tech media outlets would have picked up the news because of the company’s lack of notoriety, and vendors would have been suspect of such a small firm. A perfect storm would have developed that would have scuttled Android from the outset.

But with Google behind the operating system, everything is different. When a company of that size and importance in the industry delivers an operating system, people listen. And because of its clout, the company has the unique ability to sign deals with other major firms and get its operating system out to the wild in no time. Success was practically guaranteed when Google, not a small, unknown company, delivered Android.

Now, I’ll freely admit that there have been other major companies that have brought up mobile operating systems, including the company formerly known as Palm and Samsung. And those two companies watched their operating systems fall short. But that’s more about time and a desire to control the hardware-software complex than about winning the OS market. The same might be said for BlackBerry. But Google is different. And its success has proven that.

But, I want to pose this question to you: would Android be Android if not for Google? I’d agree that other major companies could have made it work, but do you think smaller firms would have, as well?

Let us know in the comments below.

Well, Nintendo, we don’t believe it.

After a sub-par launch, we’ve watched the Wii U collected dust on store shelves across the U.S. Developers, while trying to stay nice about it, are obviously starting to become concerned that the console won’t hack it. And all Nintendo president Satoru Iwata can do is apologize for not delivering better results in the fourth quarter.

Huh?

Now, I’ll freely admit that I’ve never run a major company and I’m sure there will be an awful lot of Nintendo fans lined up to tell me that I don’t know anything about running a game business, but it’s about time the company and all of its supporters hear the truth: without some major changes, the Wii U is doomed.

What Nintendo needs to do first is cut the price of the Wii U. Yes, I know that the company will likely post lower-than-expected financial results over the next year or so because of the reduced price, but at least some customers will jump at the chance to buy the cheaper device. And as history has shown, the more hardware that makes its way into consumer homes, the stronger the software library. And when a stronger software library comes along, a more successful platform results.

Nintendo is looking down the barrel of a major, major threat. Sony is planning to launch a PlayStation 4 later this year that will come with far more firepower than its device. The Xbox 360’s successor, unofficially known as the Xbox 720, will take advantage of the momentum its predecessor has passed on. By all measure, the Wii U’s competition is looking to have a better chance of succeeding than Nintendo’s console.

Of course, don’t tell Nintendo fans that; they’re still clinging to the Wii’s success. Nintendo fans say that the Wii was doubted by nearly everyone, and after it had some time to attract customers, it was an outright success.

However, I think those people tend to be suffering from revisionist history. The Wii was doubted by many, but after it was actually shown off to consumers before its launch, demand skyrocketed. And the console wasn’t readily available to customers for years. In other words, the Wii is an entirely different beast. And it’s one that cannot – and should not – be compared to the Wii U.

Aside from a price cut, I’m not sure there’s much else Nintendo can do but hope that things turn around. The Wii U is being ignored, casual gamers couldn’t care less, and parents – the true Wii U buyers – are looking at the price tag and laughing at Nintendo for even thinking it would pay that much for what is essentially an HD Wii.

It’s unfortunate, but I’m starting to wonder if this is the beginning of the end for Nintendo’s console business.

But now, with the Samsung Galaxy S4’s unveiling almost upon us, we’re here wondering if there will ever be a day when Samsung and Apple aren’t going for each other’s necks. The companies literally can’t stand each other. And although they’re both generating all of the profits in the mobile space, they’d like nothing more than to take each other down.

The issue is, neither company is succeeding at even putting a dent in the other’s business. And although the iPhone and Apple now have true competitors in the Galaxy S and Samsung, each year brings new devices and new opportunities for one of them to pull ahead.

Which brings us to the Galaxy S4.

Samsung’s upcoming device looks – at least according to the rumor mill – to be the kind of device that we might all want. The handset, the reports claim, will come with a 5-inch screen, a beefed-up processor, and all of the Samsung bells and whistles that we’ve come to expect. The device, in other words, could be even better than the already popular Samsung Galaxy S3.

But what does that mean for Apple? The iPhone maker has for years now been the leader in the smartphone market, but Samsung is coming on strong, and in some quarters, actually beating out Apple’s smartphones. What’s worse for Apple, an increasing number of consumers who years ago would only consider the iPhone are now saying that the Samsung Galaxy S3 (and soon, the S4) are the kinds of devices they would want to buy.

So, is it time for Apple to fear Samsung and its upcoming smartphone? The folks out in Cupertino, always ready to prove their confidence, would scoff at such a claim. But let’s not let that go to our heads. If Samsung wasn’t such a big threat, Apple wouldn’t be suing its pants off everywhere in the world. And if Samsung’s products weren’t selling so well, Apple might not find so much trouble with the company. In other words, Samsung is a threat.

But being a threat and being enough for Apple to fear Samsung are two entirely different things. And it’s important that we point that out. Apple and Samsung are certainly at odds and there’s a chance that the companies’ battle will only get worse over time. But it’s also important to note that Apple is extremely strong. And its products, despite the challenges Samsung presents, are no slouches in their own right.

It’s hard to say what the future holds for the mobile market. On one hand, Apple could very well become the dominant force and prove that Samsung is nothing to worry about. On the other, Apple might quickly find that yes, it should fear the Galaxy S4, and there is something very, very serious to worry about.

I guess we’ll find out soon when Samsung unveils its new smartphone and Apple has a chance to respond with one of its own.

See, Nintendo was to me, like so, so many others, the company that made us realize how much we loved gaming. We played the first Super Mario and were mesmerized. When The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past was released, I must have completed it ten times in the first couple weeks. Nintendo and its hardware and its game library all hold a special place in my heart.

That’s why I’m worried. I think there are millions of people across the globe – including many in Japan – that have long-viewed Nintendo as the face of the gaming industry. When Nintendo succeeded, those folks believed that the game industry was doing just fine. And when Nintendo wasn’t doing so well, they questioned the value of status quo in the industry.

When the Wii was flying high, there was a palpable sense that the games industry, despite some softening during the economic downturn, would be just fine. But now that the Wii U is turning out to be a bit of a loser, the beating drum of doubt over the traditional industry’s ability to hang tough against Microsoft and Sony is growing louder. The world is changing, they say, and traditional game companies are in trouble.

So, I need to pose a question: if Nintendo fails, will the traditional game industry go with it?

I can appreciate that Sony and Microsoft are trying to appeal to a different market segment with their products, which lends them to not worry so much that Nintendo is in trouble, but there’s something to be said for determining how the Mario maker’s decline is impacting the industry.

Unfortunately, I can see a scenario play out in which Nintendo starts to go into decline and the next thing you know, all hell breaks loose. A major game console maker has gone into a death spiral, the headlines would read, and now, like a domino effect, Microsoft, Sony, and major game developers are going down the tubes with it.

But perhaps I’m placing too much importance on Nintendo. Sure, the game company is huge and was always important, but perhaps it’s not what it used to be. Nintendo might be the world’s biggest console maker right now, but it might soon give way to Microsoft and Sony. More importantly, it could give way to companies like Valve and Apple.

The traditional game industry could very well be in a state of flux. Nintendo, its spiritual leader, seems to be falling to its knees. And unless it can be brought back up and returned to its former place of glory, I can’t help but wonder if new companies or mobile gaming in general might just put the final nail in its coffin.

I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

At the same time, issues are arising at Apple. The company’s $700+ stock price is now in the $400s. And although the iPhone was able to outpace Samsung’s Galaxy S III in the fourth quarter, it appears to be fighting a battle against Android that it can’t win.

So, I pose this question: is it getting easier or harder to not buy Apple products?

Those who say it’s getting harder might be making a good point. Apple is delivering some of the best products out there, and it’s doing so in the industries that excite us most. For instance, Apple is delivering the most popular smartphone on the market as smartphones increasingly gain traction among consumers and enterprise users. And although several Android tablet vendors are trying to take down the iPad, so far, they’ve been incapable.

Even on the computing side, Apple is making it harder to buy competing products. The MacBook Air is still the best thin and lightweight computer on the market, and its software is top-notch. When compared to Windows 8, it’s getting harder and harder to buy a PC over a Mac. Apple has a secret weapon in its battle with Microsoft – Windows 8.

Others, however, disagree. They say that the logic that Apple is still making the best products in the mobile space and thus is the only worthwhile choice is outdated. They point to devices like the Samsung Galaxy S III, Google’s Nexus 10, the Amazon Kindle Fire HD, and others to prove their point. And although Android didn’t necessarily top iOS when it first launched years ago, it’s now delivering more (and perhaps better) features than its chief competitor.

On the PC side, Apple detractors point to the increasing popularity of Ultrabooks to question the desire to buy a Mac. Ultrabooks, after all, are well-designed and lightweight and later this year, will deliver tablet-like functionality, giving them an advantage over devices like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro with Retina Display.

In the end, though, I still think Apple wins out. The company’s sales seem to indicate that people are still finding a lot of value in its products. And try as competitors might, they’ve yet to find a way to beat Apple in terms of design. And in today’s technology industry, that truly matters.

So, perhaps it really is getting hard to not buy Apple products. And Apple is laughing all the way to the bank because of it.

Soon, DVRs entered the marketplace and everything changed. My cable company provided me with a DVR, allowing me to record a show at a given time. Best of all, it was recorded on a hard drive, so I didn’t need to worry about using my tapes. The transition was incredible, and it was something that I thought could never get better.

[Image credit: Steve Garfield]

But then things got better. Each year, it seemed better software kept coming to my cable company’s DVR, and with a few upgrades here and there, the device seemed to work better. I even bought a TiVo and realized just how well that product worked.

But now things are different. Perhaps it’s because I’m spoiled or because I’m asking too much, but my DVR today sucks. And what’s worse, just about every DVR I’ve used is downright awful.

For a few days last week, my Motorola DVR has not recorded a single show, despite the fact that I have set it to record several series. Then suddenly, just yesterday, it started recording my shows as if nothing happened. It was a hiccup, my cable company said, and something that was worked out.

As happy as I am to see the fix, I know I’ve been in this position before. The DVR works well for a while and then suddenly, stops. In some cases, that means my hard drive gets filled up extremely quickly, despite the fact that I have only five shows saved. And when that happens, it doesn’t take long before shows I recorded have been deleted.

When my hard drive is functioning properly, I find that my series recordings get screwed up. And if I want to record too many shows at once, the DVR software doesn’t seem to follow the rules I’ve placed for hierarchy of importance.

I’ll freely admit that my TiVo, which is in another room, works much better than my cable company’s DVR. But even that product has its issues. Sometimes, for no apparent reason, the tuning adapter I need to have connected to the device stops working and my TiVo doesn’t record anything. I’ve also had TiVo delete shows I haven’t watched for, well, some reason.

I’ve come to the unhappy conclusion that DVRs, in far too many cases, are simply disappointing. And over the last few years, I haven’t seen the kind of improvements that would make me believe that the companies are trying to improve things.

Worst of all, I know I’m not alone. Just Google “DVR problems” and you’ll find millions of people suffering from the same woes as me. And each one of them has discovered that, as many complaint calls as they make, nothing changes.

So, I think it’s time for something new. The DVR is far from perfect and perhaps moving away from even satisfactory. DVRs suck. And unfortunately, I’m forced to live with them. That sucks, too.

But all of that debate and all of the talk about the success or failure of devices like the Wii U make me question what the future looks like. We’re expected to see more game consoles hit the marketplace in the next year or so, and Steam is also planning to enter the fray. Add that to OUYA and the possibility of Apple gaming, and it becomes clear that the console market will only grow in the coming years.

All of that growth in the number of consoles might sound nice to gamers. But what if I told you that the future – the ideal future – would not rest on more game consoles, but on less?

The way I see it, a single, universal console should dominate the future.

I know I’m not the only person to ask for a universal game console, but I think it’s for the best. In order to get the most out of our gaming experiences, we’re forced to buy several devices costing hundreds of dollars. From there, we need to buy extra controllers and sign up for Web-based services. And that’s all before we even buy different games for the consoles.

In a world I’d like to see, all of that would be stripped away. We’d have just one new console to buy every few years and the top game publishers in the world would deliver titles for that device. We’d only have to buy one set of controllers and sign up for one online-gaming experience.

Industry observers might reason that such a scenario would actually hurt the gaming industry. After all, we’d be spending a lot less cash in that scenario than the current one, they say.

But is that really true? By saving all of the cash on hardware and online services, we might be able to dedicate the same amount of money to the games themselves. All of the savings would increase spending across the software market. The result? The possibility of an even stronger game industry.

Of course, which company would actually deliver the console is up for debate. Some might say that Nintendo is the best option, since it’s been building consoles for years. Others might suspect that Microsoft or Sony could get the job done. Even Apple might be a candidate.

The nice thing about a universal console is that it really doesn’t matter which company builds the hardware. In my dream world, gaming goes back to, well, gaming, and does away with the obsession with hardware.

The game industry needs to change. And it needs to realize that the console wars need to go. If they do, we all win.

As with other Apple rumors, the iWatch is exciting the company’s fans. Surely Apple has something great up its sleeve with the watch, those fans might say. Others are already predicting that they’ll buy one and wear it each day, and before long, just about everyone else will, too. The iWatch has somehow joined the pantheon of Apple greats, like the iPod and iPhone, before it’s even launched.

[Image concept by ADR Studio]

But perhaps we need to come back down to reality. Apple’s iWatch idea is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time. And I, for one, wouldn’t be caught in public wearing the company’s watch.

Now, I’m sure there are many people who will respond to this column by saying that many industry observers believe that wearable technology is the future. And I can’t disagree with that. But is a watch really the product to deliver the next giant leap in technology?

The beauty of Apple products is that they can be used anywhere a person goes. The iPhone is a work and home device. The same can be said for the iPod and iPad. Macs have even found a way to bridge the gap between consumers and enterprise users.

But a watch is a different story altogether. I’ve yet to find a tech-lover’s watch that actually looks good on the wrist. More importantly, it fails to deliver the kind of end-to-end solution that Apple’s many other products might.

For example, would you really wear the iWatch to work? Sure, it’ll help you keep the time and maybe check your e-mails, but you already have an iPhone and iPad for that. And if you’re in a client-facing business, would a big, bulky Apple watch really send the right message? Perhaps. But it depends on the industry. I don’t necessarily see financial-industry bigshots putting down their Rolex for an Apple iWatch.

To me, the iWatch sounds like a gimmick. It’s something that I could see someone wear while on a run or perhaps working around the house. But to wear it as the central part of an outfit each day doesn’t quite add up.

Of course, the technology industry is littered with people like me who have doubted Apple’s ability to score big and succeed. But I think the iWatch is an attempt by Apple to bite off more than it can chew. I get the smartphone, the tablet, the music player, and the television idea. But I don’t get the company’s reported desire to make a push for timepieces.

I’m impressed by Apple’s ability to make smart decisions year in, year out. But if the iWatch launches sometime this year, I couldn’t help but wonder if the best ideas have already been revealed.

Admittedly, I’m quite pleased with both my iPad and Kindle Fire. And although it’s easy to simply pick the iPad and be done with it, Apple’s latest announcement of a 128GB iPad has gotten me thinking.

When I first learned that Apple was planning to sell a 128GB iPad, I was excited. For years now, I’ve been waiting for a company to deliver ample storage for all of my videos and movies, and now, Apple is doing it. Although 64GB was nice, it wasn’t enough for someone like me who has all kinds of video. With 128GB, I should be good for at least the next couple of years.

But then I saw the price. For the Wi-Fi-only version of the 128GB iPad, I’d need to drop $799. For the Wi-Fi-and-cellular model, I’d be set back $929.

Needless to say, those prices gave me more than just a little sticker shock. Yes, I realize that I’m getting double the storage for only $100 more than the 64GB option, but I can’t help but think that paying nearly $1,000 for a tablet is ridiculous. I’m all for paying a fair price for a high-quality product, but dropping that much cash makes me wonder why I just don’t buy a notebook and be done with it.

Apple’s high pricing, however, brings up an important consideration: at what point do tablets become too expensive?

Like it or not, tablets are not full replacements for high-end notebooks. And yet, Apple would want us to pay a price that, in some cases, is much higher than the cost of a notebook.

Tablets are still mobile products that don’t quite deliver all of the features (or convenience) of a full-featured notebook. That’s precisely why I was just find paying around $500 or $600 for an iPad, but take pause when the company tries to get me to pay nearly $1,000 for a device with more storage. There is a ceiling in the land of tablet pricing, and I’m not quite sure Apple understands that.

Of course, I might just be cheap. Perhaps I’m too old school and don’t understand that as tablets become more sophisticated, their prices will rise. But I see tablets as complements to the computers I’m using at home. To price them at levels that make tablets more expensive than notebooks makes me think twice about buying a slate.

I’d like to think I’m not alone. I realize that we’re talking about Apple here and no matter what the company does, many people believe it’s the right thing. But isn’t $929 too expensive for a tablet?

Let me know in the comments below.

And yet, the rumor persists that Apple – either later this year or sometime in 2014 – will launch the long-speculated set. That device, its supporters say, will be the product that television buyers have been waiting for, complete with access to apps and high-quality specs. Apple will find a way, the company’s supporters insist, to revolutionize the television industry.

But perhaps those supporters are wrong.

If Apple is indeed working on a television, the company finds itself in No Man’s Land. In the television market right now, plasmas, while still delivering great picture quality, are seeing their sales dwindle. LCDs and LED-backlit screens are performing relatively well, but also seem to be waning. If CES 2013 taught us anything, it’s that vendors believe the future of television relies in OLED and 4K (Ultra HD).

The problem with OLED and 4K is that televisions featuring those technologies are wildly expensive. Currently, some Ultra HD sets are on sale for tens of thousands of dollars. And although OLED delivers an incredible visual experience, models using that technology are similarly cost-prohibitive to the average consumers.

However, most of the folks in the television industry believe that there’s a good chance that by the end of 2014, those prices will be down to levels that some consumers would find acceptable. Interestingly, it’s possible that the Ultra HD sets will be cheaper than OLEDs at first, simply because of the issues vendors are having producing OLED panels.

Still, it identifies a potential issue for Apple: if the company launches a standard 1080p, LED-backlit screen this year or next, it might get some traction in the marketplace for a time, but it’ll quickly become obsolete. If Apple waits until 2015 to launch an OLED or 4K television to capitalize on that new trend, all of the hype the company has been taking advantage of over the last few years will be lost.

Realizing that, I can’t help but wonder if Apple’s television efforts are in trouble. Granted, the company will deliver a software experience in the television that will likely top anything in the marketplace, and Apple has the ability to succeed in spots where others might not, but the television industry is highly competitive and notorious for its low margins. If Apple can’t find a way to deliver the right product at the right price for the right value to consumers, it’ll lose.

Tim Cook and his executive team must know that. They must also realize that the ideal time to launch an Apple television was not 2013 or 2014, but 2012, when the new technologies were still years off.

Like it or not, Apple might have missed its best opportunity to succeed in the television market.

As I’ve said here before, I’ve been playing games as long as I can remember. And as an owner of the Nintendo Entertainment System, SNES, Nintendo 64, GameCube, Wii, and Wii U, I’ve played just about every first-party game Nintendo has ever launched. For years, Nintendo games have been entertaining me.

[Image credit: Andrew Becraft]

Still, I can’t help but shrug whenever the company announces a new Mario game or, as it did today, updates to its Legend of Zelda line. And yet, as I looked around the Web for the reactions to the news of an updated Wind Waker and a new Legend of Zelda title designed specifically for the Wii U, I was shocked by what I found.

Nearly everywhere I looked, people were expressing their excitement for the new title, and that Wind Waker was to be updated with HD graphics. Around the world, people seemed to be anxious to see the titles at E3, and couldn’t wait to finally get their hands on them. It wasn’t the standard, run-of-the-mill excitement, either; it was as if the greatest news in the history of gaming had just been passed down.

Of course, I expect such a reaction from the Nintendo faithful. For decades now, Nintendo’s fans have remained loyal to their favorite company, and anything short of outright excitement wouldn’t be enough for those folks.

But I’m not quite sure the Legend of Zelda and the Super Mario franchise truly deserve all the hype. I can’t help but wonder if all of the excitement has more to do with the past and nostalgia than the actual quality of the titles.

Those who make the quality argument certainly have the numbers on their side. According to data from Metacritic, there hasn’t been a single Legend of Zelda console game launched in over the last decade that hasn’t scored in the 90s (out of 100). And although New Super Mario Bros. U could only muster an 84 on Metacritic, its predecessors scored well into the 90s.

Nintendo supporters would say that such scores prove that the excitement surrounding new titles is justified. After all, if the franchises are delivering such great experiences, why wouldn’t we be excited for the future?

But perhaps those numbers tell a different story. For the most part, reviewers are of the age that grew up playing Nintendo games. And I, like so many others of my generation, tend to give Nintendo’s first-party titles some passes because, well, we remember the good ol’ days. There’s something special about Link and Mario, and saving the world with those characters. We have a deep-seated love for them that will not – and cannot – go away.

Perhaps that’s why we tend to forgive the fact that we’re playing basically the same game every few years. Although Nintendo has done a good job of bringing some new mechanics to the titles, for the most part, a Mario game is a Mario game, regardless of whether you played it 15 years ago or today. The same is true with Zelda.

If the titles weren’t Mario and Zelda, would we have viewed them as favorably? Some might say no. Others, of course, wouldn’t believe that a Nintendo game would get any special treatment.

But perhaps it’s something to consider. Nintendo’s flagship franchises have affected an entire generation unlike any other game to other generations. And that could – could – be playing a role in our feelings towards the Zelda news.

What do you think?

[Image courtesy VintageComputing]

But over the last decade or so, I’ve seen a shift in the technology industry that makes me worry about the future. The technology industry was once a haven for folks like me (and perhaps you) that wanted to immerse themselves in electronics and use them as much as possible to get work done. For us, technology wasn’t an interest; it was a way of life.

Back then, those of us who loved technology had formed a special bond. We were speaking another language that many folks didn’t quite understand, and we were able to solve problems that others couldn’t. It was a special thing. And it was ours.

But over the last decade, I’ve watched my beloved technology industry become awfully commercial. Products are no longer judged solely on their usability or component power. Instead, products are judged based on their looks and how “intuitive” they are for the average technology user. Value has won out over power. And those of us who remember the old days are left scratching our heads.

See, the technology industry is now a key component of pop culture. There’s not a day that goes by that someone on the news or a late night show or on MTV won’t mention an iPhone, iPad, or Android-based device. Computers were once purely functional pieces of equipment that helped us get work done. Now, they’re extensions of our personality, and have branding and design features to reflect that.

It’s now cool to go to school with the latest gadget in hand and show it off to friends. While discussing “gigabytes” and “Flash” and other topics were once reserved for the so-called “geeks,” they’re now commonplace in discussions with supposedly ordinary people.

Of course, some in the industry believe this is a good thing. As technology has become more accepted, major companies have generated more cash. Small companies built out of the success of larger firms are thriving. And more and more people are being employed by the industry.

It’s hard to argue with that. The technology industry really has become the cornerstone of the world economy. And companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Samsung are employing thousands of people that, 20 years ago, wouldn’t have had a job.

But excuse me for believing that maybe – just maybe – there was something special about the old days. The technology industry might not have been “cool,” but it was fun and exciting. And it was unique.

Maybe the old days are gone. But there’s something to be said about remembering – and honoring – your history.

Lately, though, some things have changed. Apple, once the most Teflon of companies in the technology world, is starting to create some doubt in the minds of supporters. While the company might still be generating billions of dollars and its sales are still strong, there’s some concern that the future might not be as bright as the past.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in the finance world, where Apple’s shares have dropped significantly over the last year. The company’s stock price was over $700 at one point in the last 12 months, but is now below $500. Even as Apple generates billions of dollars each quarter, investors worry that the company might not be as solid an investment as it once was.

Apple’s iOS is also starting to be criticized in some circles. Those who evaluate the operating system realize that it lacks many of the features found in Android. And with Google’s operating system downright dominating iOS in terms of quarterly shipments, some are wondering if the mobile space might become the computing market, and Apple will be only able to muster a small slice of the space.

The iPhone isn’t even getting the kind of love that it once did. Consumer Reports has ranked it lower than some of its chief competitors, and there’s speculation that companies like Samsung could actually be putting pressure on Apple.

So, what has happened? Apple is supposed to be the company that its supporters can always count on. Apple isn’t the kind of firm that can make major mistakes or see its businesses decline; Apple is a company that knows how to grow like gangbusters. And no matter what the company touches, it turns to gold.

Admittedly, Apple hasn’t really done much to disappoint its core supporters. The company’s products are still top-notch, and despite investor concerns, it’s generating billions of dollars each quarter and beating its internal estimates. By all measure, Apple is still a wildly successful force in the technology world.

And yet, some doubt is creeping in. Apple doesn’t necessarily look like the company that can never be beaten any longer. And companies like Samsung and Google have been able to at least get a few blows in on the iPhone maker. Whether it will continue remains to be seen. But for the first time in a long time, Apple might just be capable of feeling the sting from competitors.

The Xbox 360’s staying power in the U.S. is nothing short of astounding. In December, alone, Microsoft sold 1.4 million consoles in the U.S., indicating gamers see no reason to hold off on buying the device until the Xbox 720 launches later this year. Better yet for Microsoft, many of those folks sign up for Xbox Live, providing the software giant with a steady stream of revenue over the course of its lifecycle.

All of that success, however, has me thinking: why is the Xbox 360 – a console that, at launch, some thought would be trounced by the PlayStation 3 – so popular in the U.S.?

Perhaps the first reason is its core market. Microsoft isn’t trying to take on Nintendo’s more casual gamers. Instead, Microsoft has found a loyal following in the hardcore segment, where gamers like to play online, pick up shooters, and play for hours. To those gamers, the Xbox 360 is a device worthy of its success.

According to NPD, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 was the most popular game in the industry last year. And for the fourth year in a row, the Xbox 360 version was the most popular option among U.S.-based consumers. That’s perhaps as much a testament to the console as it is its robust online-gaming service that delivers the features today’s customers want far more effectively than on competing consoles.

Speaking of competing consoles, is it possible that they’re causing the Xbox 360 to be so popular? Granted, the PlayStation 3 has sold more units worldwide than the Xbox 360, but let’s not forget that that is due mainly to Sony’s international success. In the U.S., the Xbox 360 is still the dominant force.

Perhaps that’s due to Sony’s sluggish online services. Although they’ve been around for years, Sony’s online services haven’t really caught on until recently. Plus, with the hacking scandal that rocked the platform, gamers became a bit more wary of the PlayStation Network.

The Wii and Wii U might also be pushing gamers to Microsoft. As mentioned, those consoles cater to a casual sector of the market – one that Microsoft doesn’t really care about. At the same time, hardcore gamers who have played the Wii and Wii U and try to stick with it have trouble. Like it or not, the consoles just aren’t capable of keeping their attention as much as the Xbox.

Finally, I think we should point to the Xbox 360’s strong library. For years now, it has offered just about every major franchise, and exclusives like Halo have kept customers coming back. Hardware might get all of the attention in the marketplace, but it’s software that drives customers to buy the consoles. And on that front, Microsoft is winning handily.

Of course, the Xbox 360’s success might be due to several other factors. Why do you think Microsoft’s console is so popular today?

And yet, CES is a necessary evil. Like it or not, the show is what the industry needs to ensure that the average non-Apple company can actually get some attention in a world dominated by the iPhone maker.

In some ways, the technology industry has become a sad place. Apple’s success has tossed all other companies in its growing shadow, and those firms can only hope to come out when the iPhone maker isn’t looking. Each year around this year, such an event happens.

CES is the opportunity that small vendors and even large companies like LG, Dish, and so many others, need to finally communicate their products to customers. For once, those companies can sit in front of a packed audience and show off their plans for the years. Better yet, they can get in touch with journalists, hold one-to-one meetings, and (hopefully) excite them into thinking that their latest inventions are the next big things in technology.

All of the rest of the year, things are much different for those companies. They’ll send out a press release here and there and typically receive a story or two. If they’re lucky, the average consumer will pay attention long enough to find out when the product will launch and how much it costs. If they’re really lucky, those companies might even be able to get the consumer out of their home and into the store to try the product out. And if they’re really, really lucky, those folks might just buy the respective device.

That’s the world that Apple, Microsoft, and Google has created. The big three are garnering all of the attention in the technology industry, and just about anything they have to say is newsworthy. All other companies are hoping to fill in the ever-smaller gaps that line up around them.

CES, though, levels the playing field. Apple is nowhere to be seen at the show, and Google and Microsoft hardly have a presence. CES, therefore, is open to smaller or less important companies that want to share off their wares while the giants are off working on products that will steal the world’s attention all the other days of the year.

That’s precisely why CES should not – and cannot – be shuttered. As big and annoying as it is, the show serves a very important purpose in the technology industry. And without CES, it’s hard to see how companies will be able to get their products out there and into our increasingly busy lives.

So, perhaps we should have a little patience with CES. Sure, it’s not what it used to be and there are increasingly boring aspects to it, but it’s an important event, nonetheless. And we can’t discount that.

Find all of our CES 2013 news at our CES Hub!

But I’m here to tell Sony something. I can appreciate that the company wants to jump on the motion bandwagon made popular by the Wii and arguably better by the Kinect, but bundling such a feature into the PlayStation 4 makes absolutely no sense.

[Image credit: Tai Chiem]

Sony is to gaming what a Mercedes-Benz is to cars. The company has for years been delivering the most expensive consoles and its customer base has come to expect a certain level of technical achievement not available elsewhere. Whereas Nintendo appeals to the casual gamer looking for simpler experiences, Sony is trying to woo the hardcore segment that won’t be caught tossing around a Wii Remote.

That’s precisely why the Move controller was such a bad idea. Yes, I know that Sony was trying to catch up to its competitors and it thought that the Move would work, but it’s proven to be a bad idea. The Move is largely ignored by gamers and developers, and there isn’t a single person I know that feels the PlayStation 3 would be better with the Move than without it.

So, why should Sony deliver a console that aims at delivering everything but the kitchen sink? Sony can be successful by delivering a good-looking product with high-end specs that customers actually want. And as long as it plays nice with developers – something Nintendo hasn’t historically been so great at – the company should have a respectable level of success in the next generation.

Motion gaming is a gimmick. It’s something that, after a few fun plays, becomes old and annoying. It’s also something that really only makes sense for kids or those who like to throw parties and make fun of drunken fools jumping around the living room with a wand in their hands. Motion gaming like what we find in the Wii and PlayStation 3 has done nothing to improve the overall playability of a game. After a few plays, the neat idea a developer has come up with is tossed aside for traditional play.

The time has come for Sony to acknowledge what its brand and its hardware are really all about. The future resides not in all of the features Sony can add to a console, but in the quality of those features. And motion gaming delivers no added quality that the average PlayStation 4 owner will care about.

So, don’t even think about bringing motion gaming to the PlayStation 4, Sony. Believe me – it’s one hugely bad idea.

The reality is, used games aren’t really all that bad. In fact, there’s a good chance that the continued growth of used games is helping the industry in an immense way.

Unfortunately, being a gamer is an expensive proposition. In order to even start having the chance to play games, consumers must purchase a console that will set them back several hundred dollars, and then buy games that cost $60. If they want to play handheld titles, buying a device like the PlayStation Vita or Nintendo 3DS XL will once again cost them hundreds.

In a world where economies are slow to turn around and the future is decidedly in doubt, spending that kind of money on video games isn’t always a top priority. And as much as folks might want to enjoy the entertainment value provided by games, dropping $60 for a new title just doesn’t fit into budgets every month.

With used games, though, that changes. Used titles are notably cheaper than their new counterparts, making it more possible for gamers to get titles. And as those folks get titles, they become more invested in certain hardware, developers, and franchises. The result? A more engaged and entertained gaming community.

A more engaged and entertained gaming community means more customers that will sign up for online services, like Xbox Live. It also means that there will be a broader base of customers to whom developers can sell add-on packs and other goodies.

Now, I understand that the main issue with used games is that developers, who spend years of their lives creating games, aren’t actually getting anything in secondary sales. And I would fully agree that that’s wrong. But that’s not enough of a reason for me to believe that used games should be stricken from the industry.

Like it or not, I do believe that retailers have a responsibility to developers and publishers to share some of the revenue generated from used games. Yes, I know that such a move bucks a longstanding trend and GameStop and Amazon hate the thought of it, but there’s something to be said for being fair. And fairness would dictate paying developers for used sales.

How will such an agreement be made? I don’t know. How will the revenue split work? No idea. But it’s about time both sides – developers and retailers – come together and come to an agreement. The fact is, both parties benefit from used games. And it’s about time we all acknowledge that.

There was a time in the technology industry that it didn’t matter how much a company had in its marketing budget. If a company’s products were really great, they would be discovered by the tech addicts out there, and then eventually shared with the rest of the world. It was our job as tech lovers to find the good stuff and tell the “average consumer” why they needed something special.

Over the last several years, though, we’ve let our guard down. We’ve allowed companies like Apple and Samsung to get us too excited, and forgotten about the smaller companies that deserve attention. While we’re telling everyone to get an Apple TV, we forget about recommending a Slingbox. Such scenarios play out across the industry.

So, in 2013, I can’t help but hope that small companies find some more success. The real innovation in the marketplace is not coming from Apple or Microsoft, but from companies run by energetic entrepreneurs that have a really great idea. And each year at the Consumer Electronics Show, those people are packed into corners of the showroom floor hoping that just one or two of us will actually pay attention.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve fallen into the trap. I’ve spent too much time focusing on my iPhone and iPad, and not enough time trying to hear about the really great products from companies I’ve never heard about. Once upon a time, those companies were Apple, Google, Samsung, and Sony. And it’s important that I don’t forget that.

Unfortunately, the technology industry has grown in such size that money matters more than ever. Companies that spend billions of dollars in advertising every year are far more likely to increase sales than those who only have a few hundred thousand. And although innovation was once the key element that determined success, nowadays, it’s a forgotten art.

There’s also the issue of acquisitions. The big companies keep getting bigger. And as they do, they’re finding it much simpler to acquire a small upstart before it gets too big rather than try to compete. The result? That really great product idea is incorporated into something else, and we never see it again.

I know what I’m hoping for is something that will likely not happen. But why shouldn’t we try? Chances are, the people reading this column are as tech-obsessed as I am. And when they come across a really great product, they can’t help but tell the world.

So, rather than looking in the obvious places, why don’t we spend 2013 checking out the unique, unknown products out there. We might just reveal to the world the next great company.

Once those devices launch, it will be time to handicap the marketplace. Which console will succeed? Which console will fail? And perhaps most importantly, which console will win the next-generation battle?

[Image credit: Andreas Levers]

I’m sure there are those in each company’s camp armed with reasons their particular favorite will win.

Those who support Nintendo will say that the company’s commitment to innovation and fun, coupled with its high-quality first-party library, will be enough for the Wii U to dominate the gaming market.

Sony fans disagree. They point to the PlayStation 3’s late surge in the gaming space to make their case. Sony fans believe that the PlayStation 4 will come with high-quality specs and a large game library that will give it the edge. To think otherwise, they might say, would be nonsense.

Microsoft, however, has a different take. The Xbox 360 has proven steady over the last six years, and it’s likely that in the U.S. and Western Europe, it will have a strong showing. And Microsoft’s fans say that the software giant’s online experience and Kinect functionality will impress gamers and get enough people to join up to take over the console market.

I honestly believe that all three companies have a chance at dominating the next-generation console market. After all, coming off the GameCube, no one thought that Nintendo would win the space, but it did so with the Wii. And although the PlayStation 3 got off to a slow start, it’s starting to show now why it had so much promise in the beginning.

At this point, though, I don’t quite know how Nintendo expects to hang tough over the long-term. The Wii U, while nice for its fans, will be trumped very quickly by whatever Microsoft and Sony offer. And if Nintendo doesn’t find a way to respond with some sort of update or new addition to the console’s featureset, it will be impossible for the game maker to keep pace.

Sony’s issue might have something to do with cost. The company has historically tried to deliver a high-end product, but in the gaming market lately, value has been the name of the game. And I’m not sure Sony realizes that.

Microsoft, meanwhile, might be popular in the U.S. and Europe, but the company has yet to establish itself in Asia. And until it capitalizes on that extremely important continent, the Xbox 720 will have some trouble.

So, while all three consoles might have some features that could push it over the top, they all also have some troubles. And the winner of the next console generation will be determined not by how much “stuff” they all have, but by how well they can get over the issues and capitalize on their virtues.

It should be a fun fight to watch.

I decided to conduct an informal poll with other people I know who also own a Wii U. I asked them if they’ve been playing with the console much since its launch. Nearly every person said that they played it somewhat heavily in the first week after launch, but little after that.

Granted, my study is by no means scientific and it doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the average Wii U player. But it does underscore an issue: the Wii U might not have as broad an appeal as its predecessor did. Furthermore, the console’s novelty might be wearing off much sooner than the Wii’s did.

Realizing that current owners might not be the best way to figure that out, I decided to look around and see if Wii U consoles were readily available for those looking to buy. I found that Amazon is selling the Basic set, but the Deluxe set is on backorder. Those looking to buy the console elsewhere, like on BestBuy.com or other online retailers, will find that they can buy one today and have it in time for Christmas.

I then decided to call around to my local game and retail stores. And nearly all of them have ample supply for those who want to walk in and buy the new console.

Maybe it’s me, but I’m shocked by that. When the Wii launched, it was hard to come by for months. And during the holiday season, especially, it was impossible to even find it on store shelves. Each weekend, folks would stand in line for hours just to get their hands on a handful of consoles that were available. It was shocking.

But the Wii U appears to be different. After just a month of availability, the console can still be purchased quite easily.

So, what does that mean? It’s tough to say. On one hand, it’s possible that the Wii U’s sales are slightly disappointing. After all, Nintendo sold only 425,000 Wii U units in the U.S. in November, and has been surprisingly tight-lipped about its progress. And since it’s readily available, there appears to be somewhat sluggish demand for the console.

Then again, it could have something to do with supply. Maybe Nintendo did a better job of anticipating demand and was able to produce enough consoles to satisfy its early adopters. Now, the company has ample supply to take advantage of holiday shoppers.

Still, I can’t help but go with my gut here. And in keeping with that, I believe the Wii U’s popularity is waning. And Nintendo, much to its chagrin, is scrambling to address this issue.

Believe it or not, the Wii U just might not be as popular as Nintendo and its legion of fans would have us believe.

I can see reasonably appealing implementations of dual-screen experiences. For instance, if I’m watching a football game, it would be great to turn over to my GamePad to see what the score is on another game or see the stats for the one I’m watching. And as Nintendo has pointed out, its GamePad can deliver cast details when watching a movie – another possibly valuable implementation.

But the more I think about the idea of having two screens in my entertainment experience, the more I’m turned off. When I’m watching television, it’s an opportunity for me to relax and get away from the annoying parts of my day. The last thing I want to do is switch between a small display and a big screen for the benefit of having a marginally better entertainment experience.

I’ll be the first to admit that there are times when I’m watching a television show that I’ll want to see what an actor’s real name is or find out something about the show. But I have an iPhone and an iPad sitting right next to my chair if I really want to know. And in the vast majority of cases, I lose interest in the amount of time it takes to turn my iPhone on and check something out.

In an odd way, I think the dual-screen experience is designed for me – a so-called “tech power user” that wants to get his hands on the latest and greatest products companies have to offer. But for some reason, the idea of switching between displays while watching a television show or movie just doesn’t appeal to me.

Nintendo, of course, will argue that I need to play with TVii for a while before I can make that judgment. The company will claim that its dual-screen implementation is better than anything I’ve tried yet, and it goes a long way in ensuring that people are more productive while they’re sitting on their couches just trying to watch a show or two that they enjoy.

I’m not here to say that the TVii experience will be bad. In fact, there’s a good chance that it might actually be a really neat feature for Wii U users. Still, it’s just not for me. Call me old-fashioned, but I like the idea of sitting back and doing nothing when I’m in my living room. And it might sound lazy of me, but having to tap around on a GamePad while watching a show just doesn’t seem worth it.

Now that I’ve said all that, let me say one more thing about TVii: its integration with Hulu Plus and Amazon Instant Video, as well as its ability to provide a single place for users to find programming is a great idea. It’s when the show starts that I lose interest in the dual-screen experience.

Over the years, numerous books and articles have been written on the late Jobs’ God-like status among his legion of followers. Apple fans have historically rejoiced at the very mention of his name, and whenever he took the stage to show off a new product, those folks viewed it favorably simply because their leader said it was the best product around.

To say that Jobs owned a special place in the hearts of millions might be an understatement.

But since Tim Cook took over Apple, things have been different. Apple is still cherished by its many fans, but the new CEO hasn’t quite hit the same level of iconic status as his predecessor. Whereas Jobs inspired all kinds of laudatory discussions and talk of his genius, Cook is just there. And for the most part, today’s consumers have ignored him, deciding instead to focus on Apple’s products.

Admittedly, Cook might have brought that on himself. When big products had to be announced over the years, Jobs was the person standing on stage showing it off to cameras. Nowadays, Cook is content to kick off an Apple event and close the curtain on it. Whenever products need to be shown off, he leaves that to his executives. Call it shy or a willingness to share the spotlight, but whatever the reason Cook has for not taking center stage at big announcements is hurting his notoriety.

I do believe that Apple fans like Tim Cook. After all, he’s been with the company for a long time, and he was hand-picked by Steve Jobs to lead the firm after his death. Tim Cook is also arguably the only person at Apple right now that would have been able to keep the company going in a post-Steve Jobs world. As an executive, Tim Cook is really one of the best in the industry.

But as much as Apple fans like Tim Cook, I don’t think they love Tim Cook. To many Apple fans, Cook is simply the person that is able to rein in Apple’s executives and handle the company’s many moving parts. Cook isn’t a visionary to many Apple fans; he’s the typical chief executive.

Even so, I’m not sure it really matters that Cook isn’t loved. Apple doesn’t need another Steve Jobs; it needs someone who can keep the company moving on the same path. And without a doubt, Cook has been able to do that.

So, perhaps love is oversold in the Apple world. Yes, Steve Jobs was successful in part because he could count on customers that would buy his products no matter what, but there was obviously more to his performance than that. And Tim Cook, despite not achieving the same level of admiration, is actually besting Jobs in terms of Apple’s financial performance.

Your customers might not love you, Tim, but guess what: that’s just fine.

The most talk surrounding the television cropped up last year when Walter Isaacson published his Steve Jobs biography. In that, Jobs noted that he believed that he had finally “cracked” the code for a television that would best all others in the marketplace. Analysts, ready to predict Apple’s plans, performed a host of supply chain checks to find out if Apple was in fact working on a television. Nearly universally, they said that it indeed was.

Over the last several months, however, we’ve heard precious little about an Apple television. Either the set never existed in the first place, or Apple has closed ranks and is keeping its plans extremely secretive. It’s as if the television, which was once so much a part of our lives in the technology world, is now a ghostly product that might or might not exist.

That is, of course, unless you read through the lines on what Tim Cook recently said in an interview with Brian Williams of NBC. He stopped short of actually saying that Apple was working on a television, but his admission that the industry is one that’s awfully intriguing to the company makes me believe that there is in fact a set on the way. Exactly when it will launch, however, remains to be seen.

That launch date could be extremely important to Apple’s television’s success rate.

At the Consumer Electronics Show in January, a host of television vendors are expected to show off Ultra HD televisions – sets that are running the technology formerly known as 4K. Although those televisions won’t be ready for the average consumer in 2013, it’s a sign that they’re going to be hitting more consumer-friendly price points sooner than later.

Realizing that, Apple, a company that prides itself on being ahead of the curve, will need to decide if it wants to stick with 1080p HD or go with Ultra HD. The smart move, of course, is to go with 1080p until Ultra HD pricing comes down. However, the clock is ticking. Ultra HD might be several years away from hitting consumer-friendly prices, but the later Apple launches its television, the sooner it might become obsolete.

Meanwhile, we can’t forget the growing importance of apps in the mobile space. At CES, companies like Samsung and LG are likely going to deliver televisions with boatloads of bundled applications. If one of them includes access to a broader application store than what’s already available, it could once again make Apple look late to the game.

I guess what I’m trying to say is time is of the essence if Apple finally launches its own television. It’s nice to be Apple and have everyone interested in your products, but if you wait too long to launch a supposed “groundbreaking” device, you might actually be stepped over.

And Apple cannot forget that.

The so-called “next generation” is starting now. Nintendo has launched its Wii U, and that device delivers HD graphics and a vastly improved experience compared to the company’s previous console, the Wii. For now, the console is sold out and likely will remain so for the next few months.

Although the Wii U will continue to dominate the console market for the next several months, there’s trouble on the horizon. Microsoft is expected to launch its next console, the Xbox 720, next holiday season. The PlayStation 4 from Sony will likely follow close behind. Both of those consoles are expected to come with better graphics than the Wii U and have more features. In other words, they’ll probably be better all-around consoles than Nintendo’s option.

Realizing that, I don’t think Nintendo has any choice but to launch a new console in 2014. Call it the Wii U 2 or something else, but whatever Nintendo does, the company must deliver a new device in 2014 that’s capable of competing against the actual “next generation” of consoles.

It’s almost laughable that Nintendo would say that the Wii U is a next-generation device. In my own time with the console, I find it to be a nominal upgrade over the Wii. And although HD graphics is a nice addition, we’ve had those for years now from Microsoft and Sony.

Oddly, Nintendo doesn’t appear willing to launch a new console in 2014 that can actually compete against the PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720. The company is hiding behind the Wii’s success to prove that it doesn’t need all of the bells and whistles to be successful. After all, Nintendo says, the Wii had fewer features and lacked HD graphics, and dominated the console market.

But let’s not pretend that past success can inform our understanding of future market dynamics. After all, if we assume a console will be successful because its predecessor was, shouldn’t we also assume that a failure like the GameCube would spawn another loser? Obviously that didn’t happen.

Nintendo needs to consider the changing market. Today’s consumers want more-capable products in the living room, and like the idea of having consoles that are meaningfully better than those that came before them. The Wii U isn’t that device. And I’m still not convinced that third-parties will embrace the GamePad the way Nintendo hopes. Add that to the Wii U’s lofty price tag and the impending obsolescence at the hands of the PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720, and I think there’s a recipe for disaster being cooked up as we speak.

With a new console in 2014, however, Nintendo can change all that and put itself back in a position to control the hardware market. The Wii U should be an iterative step to whatever major upgrade might come in 2014. Without that launch schedule, Nintendo might be in serious trouble.

To put that into perspective, Apple’s iPhone 5 ships for a starting price of $199 for those customers that are willing to be caught in the grips of a major carrier, like AT&T or Verizon. The top-of-the-line 64GB model goes for $399 when it’s locked down.

For years now, I’ve been hearing my tech-obsessed friends that unlocked phones are awesome. They tell me as often as I’ll listen that buying an unlocked handset means freedom and in some cases, could save you some cash on an otherwise expensive phone.

Plus, they say, “do you really want to be forced into a relationship with AT&T or Verizon? I mean, come on!”

I can say with utmost honesty that I really don’t care about being locked into a carrier relationship. Every two years, I dutifully recycle my iPhone for a new one. And when I do so, I don’t wait for the unlocked handset so I can proclaim my desire to be free; I go to a carrier store and buy a locked-down device.

Call me crazy, but I find far more value in saving $500 on a smartphone than feeling the freedom of unlocking a smartphone. And as troublesome as I know carriers can be, I don’t think they’re so bad that I would need to go to the extreme decision of buying an unlocked iPhone to show them just how mad I am. Do you think carriers, with tens of millions of customers, really care?

Now, for those who travel abroad and spend a lot of time overseas, I can definitely see the reasoning behind buying an unlocked iPhone. I’ll also acknowledge that there are some cases in which an unlocked handset is a lot cheaper for customers. However, we should point out that in many cases, the steep savings are few and far between.

From what I’ve found, getting locked into a carrier relationship, while not ideal, really isn’t the end of the world. Sure, I pay a significant sum every month just to have smartphones running in my home, but at the end of the day, all I really want is a nice phone that will let me place calls, play with apps, use the Web, and make some video calls from time to time. Having an unlocked phone that lets me pick a carrier just seems like an extra headache I don’t need.

After all, do we really need that extra wrinkle in our relationship with smartphones? It’s bad enough buying a smartphone, linking it up to our numbers, and ensuring all of our services have been turned on. Who would want to do that on a regular basis?

And maybe I’m cheap or something, but $699 for a freaking cell phone is expensive.

Of course, Nintendo has said that the Wii Mini is the perfect value. The console is cheaper than the Wii and is smaller. Plus, it’s the perfect entry point for new gamers who don’t care about the old days and simply want to get their motion gaming on.

But perhaps Nintendo’s view on that is short sighted. One of the best aspects of the Wii is that it supports the company’s Virtual Console, a nostalgic repository filled with titles from its many popular devices. Old school gamers can get everything from the first Super Mario to the finest Legend of Zelda games downloaded directly to their consoles. It’s a wonderful thing.

Wii Mini owners, however, won’t have that option. Instead, they’ll be forced to sift through Wii games in the hopes of finding some gems that can match the classics available in the Virtual Console. Admittedly, there are some Wii titles that will appeal greatly to gamers. But before long, it becomes clear that save for first-party games, there isn’t a whole lot to like in the Wii game library.

The more I look at the Wii Mini, the more I see it as a cheap way for Nintendo to generate some extra cash. After all, it’s undoubtedly cheaper to produce and the lack of Internet connectivity forces would-be Wii customers to the more expensive model. Once again, Nintendo has, under the guise of the “nice” game company that hides under Mario’s hat, looked like a big company looking to drain every last profit out of its customers.

Thankfully, the Wii Mini is only coming to one market for now, so Nintendo shouldn’t be viewed as unfavorably as some might think. However, what if the Wii Mini actually sells relatively well in Canada? Don’t expect it to take too long for Nintendo to bring the underpowered and unnecessary console to the U.S. and U.K. After all, if Nintendo thinks it can make some extra cash, why wouldn’t it?

For seasoned gamers, the Wii Mini looks like yet another example of Nintendo failing to understand the changing market dynamics. Gamers want more Internet functionality, not less. And despite the GameCube’s sub-par performance in the console market, backward compatibility still matters.

Nintendo is simply playing by the wrong rules. When gamers ask for more, Nintendo has been giving them less. And when gamers had hoped for better features, Nintendo has almost always told them that it knows better.

With the Wii, Nintendo seemingly knew better, since the console sold extremely well. But the Wii Mini is a different beast altogether. And despite Nintendo’s best attempts at showing why the Wii Mini is really necessary for customers, the company has failed.

Sorry, but the Wii Mini is one big, bad idea.

Because of those differing opinions, it’s been tough for Apple to get an objective evaluation. Those in the company’s quarters cannot possibly believe that Apple would do wrong or hurt any other firm. Those against the iPhone maker can’t possibly see a world where Apple isn’t hurting others.

But perhaps it’s time to peel back all of that and examine, once and for all, if Apple truly is good for the industry. After all, for every product Apple has killed, there have been several others that have cropped up because of the market the company created through its own devices.

So, I pose this question: does Apple actually inspire greatness in other companies?

Those who think so would say that the company’s track record proves their point. When Apple launched its Macintosh computers with a mouse, it became the standard that we all still use today. And when design became Apple’s core product concept, just about everyone else jumped on the bandwagon.

In the music market, Apple might have killed off other media players, but it propped up new business models across the digital-music arena. And if not for the iPhone, there would not have been a Samsung Galaxy S III. The iPad was an inspiration for just about every other tablet we have today.

Oddly, Apple might have found a way through its dominance to inspire other companies. Those firms might not think of an idea first, but they look at what Apple is doing and try their hardest to match it. Sometimes, they succeed and sometimes, they fail. But if not for Apple, they would have never tried.

Then again, there are those who see it another way. Apple’s products are great and all, they might say, but who’s to believe that another company couldn’t have come up with that concept? After all, touchscreens were on their way to the marketplace before Apple delivered it to the mainstream. And although the iPod was most popular, there were several MP3 players that could have filled that void.

For those folks, Apple isn’t necessarily as visionary as the company would have us believe. Instead, the company has found a way to communicate the right message to the marketplace at the right time. Call it luck or call it fate. Either way, Apple’s greatest strength, some say, is its ability to put what’s already been developed into a pretty package.

I guess it’s hard to say which argument is best. The fact is, Apple’s products are wildly popular and there is no debating that. And trying to make the case that something would have happened anyway isn’t always easy. But both points are valid. And they both shed some light on a company that is at once too beloved and too scrutinized.

So, let’s open the floor up to you: does Apple inspire greatness in other companies?

As expected, Activision claims that the game’s success is due to its unique gameplay and new takes on a popular gaming genre. And as expected, the millions around the globe that have flocked to game stores have helped the game publisher celebrate.

But those who have actually played the game, as I have, know that something needs to change. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is more of the same. It’s as if Activision has found a way to repackage the same old game, and make customers think each year that the latest offering is so much greater. In reality, it’s a stale franchise operating in an increasingly stale genre.

After breaking Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 out of the box, you quickly realize just how stale the franchise is. We’re presented with familiar characters and tossed into a major battle to get things going. After playing through that level, you’re then thrown into a jungle. The first setpiece battle looks huge and daunting and includes nonstop firing. The jungle level leaves you breathless as you run through the jungle to get away from an advancing force.

Although the setting is different and the name on the game disc is changed, doesn’t that sound like much of what you’ve already done in a Call of Duty game? It’s as if Activision has a big board at headquarters and on that, says that each title must have a few huge battles, a couple sniper levels, and nonstop action. After all, it’s a model that, judging by sales, continues to work exceedingly well.

But I’ve had enough. The Call of Duty franchise has become one big, repurposed offering that gets customers to pay too much for what is essentially a bunch of new maps launched annually in November. Sure, there’s a bit of a storyline and the updates to online gaming are nice enough, but are they enough to justify calling the game an entirely new entry into the franchise? As far as I’m concerned, it’s just more of the same.

Where is the innovation? There was a time when the Call of Duty franchise represented all that was great about first-person shooters. Now, it has become what’s wrong with the genre. Each year, we see barely updated games packaged as new titles. And each year, customers flock to stores thinking the new games will deliver as much fun as those before it. In some cases, they might. In others, they might not. But if anything is certain, it’s that customers hoping to get something new and fresh won’t find it.

So, forget about the sales. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is the same old take on the same old formula in a $60 package.

It’s just too bad that we’ll continue to get such games as long as so many people buy each new title. After all, why should Activision try to fix something that, judging by sales, isn’t broken?

You remember it, right? Apple for years was trying to bring certain record labels into the iTunes fold, but they continued to fight it. And when The Beatles finally (finally!) came to iTunes, it was as if the prior several years spent waiting for the band’s catalog wasn’t necessary.

[Image credit: Freimut]

Now, we’re dealing with a similar issue. Musicians and record labels are teaming up to battle music-streaming providers, like Pandora and Spotify, that want to see their royalty rates cut to match those offered to radio stations. Sounds fair, right? Both industries are playing the same music, and yet, the companies that are online are paying more for the right to offer the tracks to customers. Pandora, among others, wants to level the playing field.

Of course, musicians and the record labels disagree. Rather than cut Pandora’s pricing, they say, all prices should be brought up to those charged to music-streaming companies. That way, the music industry makes out and those of us who want to consumer content are forced to deal with whining music providers that will in some way try to past that cost on to us.

At what point will the music industry realize that battling the digital world won’t work? For years, we heard that digital downloads through peer-to-peer networks would amount to nothing. Napster proved the labels wrong. And when so-called “legitimate” services like iTunes arose, the labels thought they were getting too little for their product and decided to stick with discs. Do me a favor and try to find a CD worth buying today. Hard, huh?

Now, we’re dealing with streaming. And once again, the music industry has decided to choose the wrong side of history for the hope – the dumb hope – that it will help it raise more cash.

The fact is, fairness is what makes record labels and musicians more money. The more fair the companies are to streaming providers or digital-services companies, the greater their chances of being successful. That’s why betting on iTunes has turned out to be a good idea. That’s also why betting on Pandora should top their lists.

Consumers respond well to companies that actually want to be nice to those service providers they support. Believe it or not, a relationship between record labels and consumers works both ways. And the sooner the music industry tries to give as much as it wants to take, the sooner it can unleash the real value of the entertainment it provides.

So, can we put aside our differences and be fair? Radio stations shouldn’t be charged less than companies like Pandora, and that streaming provider’s rates should be cut. That will result in more usage, more consumers, and yes, more cash for the music industry.

Simple logic and math goes a long way.

If you haven’t been following the drama, you should know that Carl Icahn recently invested enough cash to take a nearly 10 percent stake in Netflix. Worried that Icahn might have something up his sleeve – you know, like acquiring enough Netflix shares to take control over the company – the streaming provider initiated a poison pill.

That poison pill forces would-be investors to pay an inordinate amount of cash to acquire any more than 10 percent of the company. That results in less desire to investors to buy up shares and thus safeguard Netflix from the possibility of being taken over by an Icahn-like buyer.

Of course, there are always two sides to the story. On one hand, Icahn looks like a mean investor that wants to take control over Netflix without any concern for its future vision and shareholders. To critics, Icahn looks like he’s ready to score a big profit without thinking seriously about Netflix or the service it provides.

However, those in the Icahn camp don’t agree. Icahn believes that Netflix is suffering through some serious issues and to believe that it can continue on this same path without some help is nonsense. Icahn doesn’t want to hurt Netflix; he wants to find ways to help the company. And by doing so, he might make a few bucks.

So, who is right? On one hand, we have a company that is scared to death of Icahn and the power he wields. On the other, we have a man in Carl Icahn that has made a living out of acquiring companies and trying in some way to fix them. Surely they can’t both be right.

And they aren’t. The fact is, there is only one party here that is right. And that party is Netflix.

Looking back at Icahn’s history, it’s hard to see why Netflix would truly trust him. Remember back in 2010 when Icahn decided that Take-Two Interactive, creators of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, needed his help? He caused major issues among investors and the board and saw to it that three directors were unseated. He replaced them with his own cronies, including his son.

Icahn has also been a massive thorn in the side at Yahoo. For years, he called on Jerry Yang to be ousted, and thought that the company was being run ineffectively. Under the guise of trying to do what was right, Icahn made Yahoo look worse. And it’s entirely possible that many shareholders sold off Yahoo stock because of it.

Like it or not, Icahn hasn’t become a billionaire by finding really healthy companies and finding ways help them. Over the last several years, especially, Icahn has preyed on companies that need help. And before long, he’s in some way involved in a spat with management.

Does that mean that Icahn is bad guy? Not a chance. Does it mean that he doesn’t know what he’s doing? No. But it does mean that Icahn might be more trouble for Netflix than he’s worth. And to not acknowledge that would be a mistake.

After Microsoft ousted Bungie to take over the Halo franchise, there was rampant speculation over what the future might look like for the world-renowned games. Would they deliver a new experience? Would they follow in Bungie’s footsteps? Would they try to tread new ground?

With Halo 4, we have an answer. Microsoft’s 343 Industries game studio has decided that it wants to take the Halo franchise to new heights with a trilogy that will follow the first one developed by Bungie. A lot was riding on 343 to deliver a worthwhile Halo experience. And so far, it appears the company delivered.

Don’t believe me? According to Metacritic, a site that compiles all game reviews in one spot, Halo 4 has received a Metascore of 87 from critics. Gamers have nearly universally celebrated the game’s graphics and fun. Sales are believed to be strong and could have won the month if not for Call of Duty: Black Ops II. By all measure, Halo 4 is a success.

That success requires us to give credit where it’s due. Bungie should be credited with creating a franchise that so many people across the world enjoy. Microsoft should be credited with understanding how important it is to deliver a high-quality experience. 343 Industries should be credited with carrying the torch bravely and effectively.

But perhaps this saga goes beyond just one good game. The outpouring of love for Halo 4 can’t help but make me think that Bungie is negatively affected here. For a long time, gaming fans believed only Bungie could deliver a gaming experience that players would want. Now, it’s clear that’s not the case. And since Microsoft owns the Halo franchise, with each new launch, Bungie’s inspiration on the game will only be diminished.

Therefore, I have to pose a question I thought I never would: does Halo 4’s success make Bungie irrelevant?

Bungie fans who are displeased with the way Microsoft has treated the company will of course say I’m losing it. But think about it. Gamers responded extremely favorably to the game, despite protests over Bungie’s treatment. In fact, Halo 4 is one of the most popular games on store shelves right now.

So, maybe gamers really don’t care about Bungie or fairness. Perhaps today’s gamer cares most about entertainment value and they couldn’t care less which company is behind a title.

A similar scenario played out with the Call of Duty franchise. After Infinity Ward was left in shambles with the ouster of Jason West and Vince Zampella, the studio’s leaders, some believed that Call of Duty would die. Gamers, those folks said, would never buy a game from a company that, in their minds, treated the brains behind Call of Duty so poorly.

However, since Zampella and West have been gone, Call of Duty has hit new heights. It turns out that West and Zampella mattered little. And now, gamers who play Call of Duty each day rarely think about them.

For the sake of all gamers, I hope Bungie comes back with bigger and better things in the coming years. But for now, I can’t help but wonder if Bungie has been relegated to an afterthought now that Microsoft has staked claim to Halo.

Those people view Apple as a monolithic bad guy that looks out only for its own interests and couldn’t care less about the average consumer. What’s worse, they say, Apple does whatever it can to hurt competitors to the detriment not only of those companies and their employees, but also consumers.

That argument has always fascinated me. In fact, I’ve always been shocked by the blanket statement that seems to indicate that as soon as Apple enters a market, it kills off any and all competitors. And on the off chance it leaves some scraps for other companies to pick up, they’re forced to beg Apple for whatever is there.

But perhaps those critics give Apple too much credit. Sure, Apple is the world’s largest technology company and generates billions of dollars each quarter, but I’d be interested to see folks pluck out too many markets where it has outright killed competitors. From where I sit, the only market that Apple has ever actually dominated to the degree with which its critics say it has is the music-player space. Apple’s iPod was pretty much the product to own.

But elsewhere, I just don’t see what the critics claim is happening. Apple’s iPhone is wildly popular in the smartphone market, but Samsung is now shipping more smartphones than Apple. And together, the companies combine to score over 100 percent of the mobile market’s profits.

Before Apple joined the smartphone market, Samsung had no such luck in that space. Companies like Nokia and Research In Motion dominated the smartphone market in 2007. Today, while those companies have gone by the wayside, others, like Samsung, have taken their spot.

In the tablet space, Apple’s iPad owns about 50 percent of the market, according to IDC, but its market share is on the decline. Meanwhile, companies like Samsung and Google continue to see their shares rise. If Apple is really a competitor killer, how can that happen?

Even in the computer space where Macs are now among the most popular products customers buy, we see the overall market continue to expand. Apple’s success, in other words, has not necessarily hurt the overall state of the industry.

So, is all of the Apple hatred really overblown? Perhaps Apple isn’t the mean, brooding company that everyone thinks. Perhaps Apple is actually helping competitors. After all, Apple brings more customers into markets and in some way that helps every single company competing in that space.

Say what you will about Apple’s other corporate practices, but to say that it’s actually hurting competitors might be a bit of a longshot. In reality, Apple might just be helping them.

A key component in my video game love over the years has been consoles. From the Nintendo Entertainment System through the Sega Genesis and countless devices that came after, consoles have been the cornerstone of my gaming experience.

[Image credit: jammagames]

For a long time, I believed that consoles were important, necessary elements in gaming. Without them, I reasoned, the gaming business just wouldn’t be the same.

But now I feel differently. Consoles might still be delivering some of the best gaming experiences out there, but I’m just fine with the prospect of them dying off. It’s a grand new world, and I’m not so sure that consoles are as important to capitalizing on that as they were in the past.

I first came to that realization recently, after a report surfaced claiming cable companies are considering launching a digital-delivery video game distribution model that will allow us to play titles without any additional hardware. The controller would either come from the cable companies.

That story made me realize just how unnecessary consoles have become. Sure, they facilitate gaming, but over time, they’re going to become less and less important. After all, with Web speeds increasing and cloud-based delivery gaining a footing, there appears to be a growing chance of consoles losing their importance in the gaming industry.

Of course, we should couch that by saying that the chances of consoles dying anytime soon are slim. For now, we still need hardware to produce outstanding visuals, and with major companies like Microsoft and Sony dominating that space, it seems difficult to fathom the possibility of either company allowing the console market to slip away.

However, I do think it’s time we start accepting the reality that eventually, consoles will die. The technology industry is slowly but surely moving towards a model in which we don’t have unnecessary hardware connected to our televisions. The Web is our new platform, and over time, we’ll expect more streaming and cloud-based delivery than we do right now.

Already we’re seeing consumers opt for services that reduce their reliance upon hardware for movies and music. And if history is to be our guide, the video game industry typically follows close behind.

The big question now, though, is when the gaming industry might finally reach a place where consoles are no longer necessary. Current Web speeds are nowhere near where they must be in order to accommodate a Web-only solution. And there is still the issue of storage and the costs associated with that.

But the time is coming. It must. Consoles are great when they launch, but keep us locked in the past after several years. With consoles pushed out of the way, developers won’t be held back by hardware requirements and could enhance the state of gameplay far more rapidly than they are right now.

It might take a decade or more, but I, for one, can’t wait to see consoles go the way of the Dodo.