It's widely rumored that Apple's new iOS 7, to be unveiled at WWDC next month, will ditch the company's ill-fated love affair with "heavy textures," also known as skeuomorphic design, for a more flattened take on the user interface. A new report from 9to5mac on Friday suggests that this new flat design will also incorporate lots of black and white, though it's unclear just how far this simplified color scheme will permeate the new OS.

(See also: iOS Users Beg Apple: Set Our iPhones & iPads Free!)

Other updates will reportedly include changes to the longstanding lock screen, new widgets in the notification center and an overall uniformity in design and color among all native Apple apps. 

SimplyZesty, a digital agency specializing in design as well as mobile and social strategy, made headlines earlier this month with its mock-up of what iOS 7 might look like. Many point out that the mock-up looks a bit like Windows Phone, and that its unlikely Apple would ever take its UI in this direction. But it sure gives us a good start when thinking about flat design.

Image courtesy of SimplyZesty's mock-up. 

Despite Google Android's long market-share rise against Apple iOS, developers continued to stick with iOS as their first deployment target. While Android offered superior volume, that volume was fragmented between different versions of the OS and disparate hardware. Meanwhile, Apple offered better development tools plus clearer, more profitable revenue options. Even open-source developers tended to congregate on highly proprietary iOS.

Something changed in 2012, however, and Android-related open-source development exploded.

This makes sense, given the target audience for mobile applications: consumers. Even though open source now permeates server-side computing, and drives industry trends like cloud computing and Big Data, it has had a negligible impact on the desktop, where mainstream users don't want access to source code and simply want polished products that work. Hence, despite the impressive efforts to clone Microsoft Office with OpenOffice and now LibreOffice, the world still happily gives Microsoft billions of dollars of Office profit each quarter. 

It's easier to stay on that beaten path.

Hence, while I don't expect open-source developer affinity for Android to squash iOS anytime soon, it's still a troubling sign for Apple. Even on the desktop, many mainstream applications are open source, including Adium (IM client for the Mac), VLC Media Player, Handbrake, and more. And if Android is the place open-source developers target for their innovations, we're likely to see the next Big Data-like trend emerge on Android, not on iOS, just as Linux is the home of cloud computing and Big Data on the server.

Open-source developers matter. And, apparently, they matter most to Android. 

An 18-month congressional investigation turned up evidence that Apple is a major-league tax avoider, the New York Times reports — one that allegedly sheltered billions of dollars from taxation by moving the money through a web of subsidiaries, some of which had no employees and claimed to be exempt from taxes. Apple CEO Tim Cook will testify before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations tomorrow; Apple has released an advance copy of his testimony.

Guest author Derek Brown is a technology executive and analyst who blogs at One Blind Squirrel.

Android, it seems, is the worm that eats away at Apple's core.

According to Gartner, Android-based handsets outsold iOS-based handsets 4-to-1 on a worldwide basis in the first quarter of 2013, up from a ratio of about 2.5-to-1 in the same period of 2012. As such, Android accounted for 74% of global smartphone sales last quarter, up from 57% in the first quarter of 2012, while iOS accounted for just 18%, down from approximately 23% last year.

Apple's Strengths Irrelevant Going Forward

Apple bulls/fans (and even some critics) will likely race to highlight such defenses as:

• Apple didn't have a major new release last quarter.
• Tablet sales should be weighed in this discussion.
• The installed base of iOS devices should be taken into account.
• Developers still generate more revenue through iOS than Android.
• Apple continues to generate the majority of the industry's profit.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Those points are all very true. Unfortunately for Apple, though, they're also largely irrelevant going forward, given the alarming rate at which consumers worldwide are speaking with their wallets and selecting Android handsets over iOS handsets. With just a few more quarters like this, coupled with the cumulative effect of similar sales data over the past 2-3 years and the likely coming wave of Android-based tablets, it is a given (to me, anyway) that Android will be soon be effectively ubiquitous around the globe.

In the world of technology platforms, ubiquity matters (a lot) when developers, manufacturers, etc., are considering future products/solutions.

The Mobile Battle Is Over - And Google Won

And, so, I will reiterate the view I've held for some time now: The mobile battle that Apple started, first with the launch of iPod in 2001 and then moved into hyperdrive with the introduction of iPhone and iPad in 2007 and 2010, respectively, is over (or, will be over shortly), and Google/Android is the victor.

Make no mistake, Apple will clearly continue to play a prominent role in the industry and maintain leadership in some respects. It will also continue to boast a large installed base and a substantial number of loyalists and devotees. But the company's days of dominance, let alone an effective monopolist, are behind it.

Apple's Success Was A Once-In-A-Generation Event

Pundits, analysts and investors need to wrap their heads around one simple notion: Apple's product cycle and performance between 2001-2012 was a once-in-a-generation event. In my view, no company in history has had (or, likely, will soon have agin) so many successive "grand slams" as did Apple with iPod, iTunes, Mac, iOS, iPhone and, finally, iPad. The company's hardware, software and "it-just-works" approach to integration absolutely annihilated existing competition and ignited massive new markets in which Apple had a multiyear near-monopoly and from which Apple was able to generate once-in-a-generation revenue growth and profitability.

As unfair as it may be, the inevitable comparisons to those days will not look good for Apple for some time. The hard reality is that the company's future — even under the best of circumstances — will likely reflect diminished influence and declining revenue (perhaps substantially so), with the prospect of shrinking margins to boot.

Apple Stuck At Square One In The Cloud

To make matters worse for Apple, I think the company is poorly positioned for the battleground of tomorrow: Web (or cloud) services that function like utilities — seamlessly, across all devices, across all operating systems, all the time — at low or no incremental cost.

As I discussed in a previous post, Welcome to Google’s Playground, Apple, the increasing importance of Web services substantially diminishes the value of Apple’s closed-loop hardware/software core, while simultaneously highlighting the strengths of Google’s business. Web services are Google's lifeblood, and the company prints money, either directly or indirectly, from use of many of these cloud-based services, even if those services are accessed via an Apple device (e.g., Maps or Gmail for iOS).

Apple, on the other hand, is almost at square one and, as a result, may be forced to spend big to acquire services that have proven themselves in the hands of consumers at scale.

Fun days for Apple, I know. But, hey, at least it’s not Dell!

We're still weeks away from Apple's World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) on June 10-14, but one thing's for sure: Plenty of iPhone and iPad users are hoping for a fresh design and a more open, customizable experience. 

Last week, ReadWrite asked our esteemed readers what you're hoping to see in iOS 7. The two biggest take-aways:

1. ReadWrite readers want iOS to be more customizable.
2. ReadWrite readers would really like Android-style widgets on their iPhone and iPads.

(Before we go any further, though, let's be totally clear: These results are not statistically representative of iOS users generally, but they do illuminate what many ReadWrite readers would like to see in iOS7.)

Make iOS More Customizable

When asked if iOS should open up and become more customizable, almost two thirds (64%) of respondents said Yes. Just 28% - less than a third - thought Apple should retain its strict, top-down control because this is how the company ensures a bulletproof user experience. 

That justification might be historically true, but it's becoming harder for Apple to ignore just how effectively Google is managing to catch up in terms of Android's UX design, while not sacrificing the flexibility Android has traditionally granted its users. For years, Apple fans could laugh off Android as a rusty, imperfect copycat with a lot of growing to do. And they were mostly right.

But grown it has, and now Android is a more potent competitor to iOS than ever. With its chief competitor offering a far more customizable experience, Apple faces growing pressure to loosen its grip on iOS and give more control to its users. There's no guarantee that Apple will do that (and even if it does, the changes will no doubt be gradual), but the user demand seems clear. 

No Wonder Jailbreaking iOS Is So Popular 

This desire for greater control is exhibited in the growing popularity of jailbreaking - the unauthorized removal of Apple's limits on how people can use iOS. Even though there is no jailbreak available for the latest version of iOS, there are at least 30 million jailbroken iOS devices, according to Cydia creator Jay Freeman's website (Cydia is the "alternative to Apple's app store for 'jailbroken devices' "). Granted, that's a small percentage of the more than 500 million iOS devices Apple has sold to date, but the demand appears to be growing. When the evasi0n jailbreak tool for iOS 6 launched earlier this year, it was so popular that not only did people trying to access crash the site hosting it, but they crashed the Cydia app store and caused performance issues that lasted for days. With 7 million devices cracked in four days, evasi0n was the most popular iOS jailbreaking tool yet. 

Typically, when we write about the jailbreaking phenomenon here on ReadWrite, the chorus from Android-loving commenters is consistent: Google's mobile OS has been able to do XYZ for years, you doofus. Get a clue. Switch to Android. Snark aside, these folks have a point. Many of reasons people jailbreak their iPhones and iPads are indeed features that come natively on Android, or are at least a Google Play app download away.  

In our survey, ReadWrite asked readers to list the features they'd most like to see in iOS 7. The second most-used word in the responses was "customization." Other popular requests included improvements to iOS's multitasking, quicker access to settings, multiple user profiles and improvements to the Notification Center. 

Give Us Widgets Or Give Us Death!

Overall, the most commonly requested feature was the inclusion of widgets on the home screen. The use of icons displaying live data has long been familiar to users of other operating systems and has even found its way into at least one iOS 7 preview mockup. Apparently, lots of iOS users are sick of looking at the Weather app icon and seeing the same sun that's been shining since the iPhone first launched in 2007. 

In total, 734 people responded to our survey. Are these just a bunch of Android fans flooding our Poll Daddy widget with pro-Google sentiment? Hardly. Not only did we give Android die-hards a chance to reveal themselves in the first question, but 61% of responses were made from iOS devices. Another 13% came from Mac computers. 

Anything else you're dying to see in iOS 7 when it's announced next month? Let us know in the comments. 

Related Reading: 

• Why Jailbreaking iOS 6 Is Popular Enough To Break Cydia
• Why Apple Really Needs To Kill It With iOS 7
• Apple's iOS Design Changes Threaten To Delay The Next iPhone
• Will Apple's New Design Changes Kill The Luster Steve Jobs Loved? 

Bill Gates was the subject of last night's 60 Minutes and he and host Charlie Rose touched on a wide array of topics, primarily the billionaire's humanitarian efforts under the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 

While the focus may have been on life after Microsoft, the interview also included emotional recollections from Gates as he recalled the last time he saw longtime rival Steve Jobs alive in May of 2011. He recalls Jobs being very forward-looking, focusing both on heavy subjects like where technology had failed education as well as personal ones, like finishing his 260-foot yacht Venus despite the somber realization from both he and Gates that it was unlikely he would ever set foot on the finished vessel. 

When asked, as he often is, what he think Jobs was better at, Gates immediately responds, "His sense of design, that everything had to fit an aesthetic...it shows that design can lead you in a good direction and phenomenal products came out it."

Watch the unaired footage from the interview below: 

With the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) mere weeks away, anticipation for the next version of Apple's mobile operating system is about to reach a fevered pitch. As the rumor mill revs up in preparation, we thought we'd ask you, dear readers, what features you'd most like to see in iOS 7? (Take our survey below.)

The pressure on Apple to push out a substantial iOS upgrade hasn't been this intense in some time. After all, this will be first major release since the Great Maps Debacle of 2012 and, more important, since Jony Ive took over as the head of Apple's Human Interface Design team. 

(See also: Why Apple Really, Really Needs To Kill It WIth iOS 7)

Indeed, most of the chatter about iOS 7 so far has been about what it will look like. Flatter. Fewer skeuomorphic design elements. A total overhaul, some have suggested. iOS could certainly use a visual refresh, but there's a far more important question: What will it do? 

Screw The Skeuo-Whatever. What Will iOS 7 Do?

Common requests include multi-user login, more robust security options, an overhaul of the dull Mail app and enhanced enterprise and BYOD features. Inevitably, we'll see Siri learn a few more tricks. Apple Maps will continue to improve.

As always, there's a lesson or two to be learned from the jailbreaking community. Expect to see a few features lifted from Cydia when iOS 7 is unveiled in June. Plenty of us would love to have the ability to choose new default apps for things like email, maps and Web browsing, but such a move would probably play too much to Google's benefit for Apple to stomach. 

More generally, there's a certain pressure on Apple to remain competitive with Android. In the early days, Android was rusty and small enough for Apple to largely ignore in its product development. Now the competition is very real, with Android-based phones and tablets getting sleeker and more functional all the time. If nothing else, this might mean that Apple will need to consider making iOS more customizable and less restrictive. 

Be heard! Take our survey, below, and be sure to elaborate further in comments if you'd like.

Guest author Derek Brown is a technology executive and analyst who blogs at One Blind Squirrel.

Yesterday at the playground, Google threw a handful of sand in Apple’s eye.

With a subtle, yet powerful update to its Gmail for iOS app, links to YouTube, Google Maps and Chrome now go directly to those relevant apps (if installed), instead of the mobile web.

In my view, this is an absolutely brilliant backdoor play through which Google can not only neutralize Apple, but also leverage Apple’s tremendous success to its own benefit, by enhancing the experience of Google’s dedicated users, deepening loyalty to Google’s own products, and driving incremental revenue for Google.

Perhaps more important, yesterday’s Gmail for iOS update is a textbook example of why Google will emerge victorious (at Apple’s expense) in the battleground of tomorrow, Web services.

As discussed in "Welcome to Google’s Playground, Apple," mobile hardware and core OS functionality have largely reached a near-term point of peak innovation; as a result, the product itself will become effectively transparent to the end user, with attention, instead, shifting to the Web (or, cloud) services/content that those devices allow easy access to on an anywhere, anytime basis.

Unfortunately for Apple, this shift substantially diminishes the value of its closed-loop hardware/software core, while simultaneously highlighting the strengths of Google’s business. To this end, almost everything Google has done since inception has focused on anywhere, anytime cloud services that function like utilities - seamlessly, across all devices, across all operating systems, all the time - at low or no incremental cost, in the face of stiff competition.

Moreover, Google absolutely prints money, either directly or indirectly, from use of many of these cloud-based services, even if those services are accessed via an Apple device (e.g., Gmail for iOS). Apple, on the other hand, is almost at ground zero.

For Apple to compete broadly on the battleground of tomorrow, it must quickly introduce a broad spectrum of high-impact, high-value, mass-consumption Web services that function seamlessly across all vendors, all OSs, and all devices. And, the only way I see it doing so expeditiously and successfully is through acquisition - buying services that have already proven themselves in the hands of consumers at scale.

If Apple doesn’t, it risks seeing its precious hardware turned into little more than access devices for Google’s services, even as it continues losing marketshare to Google’s own Android-based hardware devices, which do an even better job of accessing Google’s services.

Seems like a slightly less painful lose-lose to me.

Lead image courtesy of Northfoto/Shutterstock

Last September, when Apple debuted its new Lightning connector to replace the company's venerable 30-pin connector, I predicted that the move might cause surprising problems. My post attracted a lot of attention and garnered a whopping 135 comments. Many of those commenters agreed that Apple's move - while perhaps necessary, would have significant complications for the company. But many others said I was crazy to doubt Apple in any way, shape or form.

(See also iPhone 5's New Lightning Connector Is A Bigger Problem Than Apple Thinks.)

Well, according to an article by Nick Wingfield and Brian X. Chen in Sunday's New York Times, the move has indeed given Apple's rivals an edge in the push toward wireless accessories (Accessories No Longer Tethered To Apple).

In my original post, I warned that the peripheral market's commitment to the iPhone's 30-pin connector was a big competitive advantage for Apple, because being the one device that could attach directly to external speakers, clocks, stands and chargers added an extra helping of utility for its devices. I said that the new Lightning connector threatened to eliminate that advantage, and that could hurt Apple:

"The availability of all those peripherals, in turn, has helped make the iPhone even more popular. iPhone buyers know that no other phone comes close to enjoying the choices and support that the iPhone has - in cars, in hotel rooms, at airports and everywhere else. By carrying an iPhone instead of a competing phone, they have a much better chance of being able to buy and use supporting infrastructure - which can make a big difference in the overall experience. The iPhone 5’s new Lightning connector threatens all that, and not just for iPhone 5 users."

Sunday's Times' article seems to confirm that prediction:

"Apple’s iron grip on the digital accessories in hotel rooms, store shelves and living rooms is starting to slip - potentially risking the royalties it earns from accessory makers and, more significant, giving Apple customers more freedom to switch to rival products."

and

"Jeremy Horwitz, editor in chief of iLounge, a Web site devoted to Apple accessories, said Apple’s aggressive control over accessories for its products drove many makers to more open means of connecting devices, which helped feed the success of mobile devices made by other companies."

and 

"Fewer people who buy sound systems that work only with Apple devices, in theory, could mean fewer obstacles for those interested in switching to competing phones and tablets in the future."

To be fair, though, there has been an industry-wide movement toward wireless connections to peripherals, and Apple devices are fully capable of supporting this trend. It's just that the wireless world is pretty much a level playing field, while Apple used to utterly dominate hard-wired connections. You can't blame all of that on the Lightning connector, but as the Times pointed out:

"'Even before Apple shifted from the 30-pin connector to Lightning, the market had started shifting,' said Rory Dooley, senior vice president for music at Logitech. 'Lightning came in and accelerated some of the change.'"

As for me, I couldn't get my speaker docks to work with my iPhone 5, so I ended up using a "spare" Apple TV device to let me control the speakers using Airplay. Works for me, but probably not a cost-effective solution for most people.

Apple's profits slid 18% last quarter. Gross margins dropped from 38.44% in 2012 to 37.5% in 2013. While there are a number of reasons for this, the biggest seems to be consumer preference for lower-priced products like the iPad Mini.

While Apple investors have spanked the stock in response, in reality they should be cheering. 

After all, we're still in the early stages of the global mobile revolution, not the end, and Apple's high-price, high-margin business model was never going to win outside North America and Western Europe. Indeed, could not win. While Apple is Apple and will never truly go down-market to make sales, it needs to be more price competitive in price-sensitive markets. Getting bullied on price by Android, thereby pushing Apple to introduce lower-priced (and lower-margin) products, is good for Apple, however much it may spook investors in the short term.

In other words, Apple needs to be a bit more like Google with Android.

Learning From Android

And what's the Android strategy? Make smartphones affordable for everyone, as Google chairman Eric Schmidt declared at a recent mobile conference:

Our goal with Android is to reach everyone. We’ll cross one billion Android devices in six to nine months. In a year or two, we’ll hit two billion. And the way that’s going to happen is with the debut of low-end devices from manufacturers, primarily in Asia. If low-end smartphones are inexpensive now, imagine just how inexpensive they’ll be a few years from now... A relatively inexpensive smartphone with a browser is all you need to get the world’s information. And that’s how we’re going to hit the next billion devices.

Apple seems to be learning this lesson. While it claims a whopping 80% tablet market share in China, this is always how the company begins in a market. Remember when Apple could claim 90% of the smartphone market and then 90% of the tablet market in the US? At its premium prices, those statistics have a very short shelf life.

Selling To Both Rich And Poor

Plus, it's very possible that Apple hit the high-end Chinese consumers first, but will struggle to claim the mass market. As Tom Christian Gotschalksen suggests, emerging markets are always comprised of both mature and emerging income brackets. Apple has done well with these mature demographics. It needs help on the emerging side.

In China, Apple seems to be holding off Samsung and the other Android vendors much better than it has before, even as it keeps slipping in smartphones. Why? Credit the lower-priced iPad Mini, as Haydn Shaughnessy argues. Apple did well with more affluent Chinese consumers in smartphones but then lost its lead as the mass-market adopted Android. With tablets, Apple is able to serve both markets.

That's smart.

Pyramid Research has modeled the effects of Apple knocking down prices in China through carrier subsidies (especially China Mobile) and lower-priced offerings like the iPad Mini. The difference between the status quo and a lower-price market strategy is stark. This is something Apple must do.

And it is. Again, investors may not like it, but Apple is playing for long-term success in emerging markets. Finally. 

Image courtesy of feiyuezhangjie/Shutterstock.

The next time you're thinking about buying a new smartphone, there's one more spec you might want to consider. If the FBI or the IRS wants to read your texts, will Apple hand them over? Would it require the feds to get a warrant first? And would it even bother to let you know that federal agents made the request in the first place?

If you're looking at a shiny new iPhone, the answers are not comforting. 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's latest digital privacy report, Who's Got Your Back?, awards Apple its secondthe Electronic Frontier Foundation gives Apple a paltry one out of six stars. While Apple got credit for supporting efforts to defend users by modernizing electronic privacy laws, its apparent willingness to hand over your personal information to the government without a warrant and its failure to tell its users how it handles such requests put it in the dock.

Worse Than Comcast: Apple's Privacy Black Box

Apple came off much, much worse than most of its peers — here defined as major non-ISP mobile-computing players. Apple fared worse than Amazon (two stars), Facebook (three), Microsoft (four) and Google (five). Even Comcast, the cable conglomerate consumers love to hate, scored one star higher than Apple. 

The EFF chides Apple for not publishing a transparency report as companies like Google and Twitter do. Without that, users have no idea what kinds of information the government asks for, because Apple won't tell them, nor does it let them know what its guidelines are for dealing with law enforcement data requests. 

(See also: EFF: Twitter Scores, Verizon Fails At Protecting User Privacy)

Apple certainly wasn't the worst-ranked company overall. The major telcos and ISPs almost always get raked over coals on privacy. In this report, Verizon got no stars, while AT&T racked up a grand total of one. MySpace also got no stars and Yahoo only got one. Amazon's showing is also pretty disappointing, especially considering its vast storehouse of consumer-purchase data and its rumored plans to enter the smartphone market. 

But Apple dominates mobile computing in a way few other companies do. And as the proprietor of a mobile operating system that runs on more than half a billion devices, Apple has its hands on a lot of data. Its approach to privacy matters to an awful lot of people — and its lousy performance is a big deal considering how deeply its devices are embedded into our lives.

That integration is only getting deeper as Apple prototypes wearable devices and dreams up more screens to dominate. 

Not Just A Computer Company Anymore 

It's not all together shocking that Apple has some catching up to do in the privacy realm. Until recently, it didn't deal with all that much information about its customers. For most of its history, the company was called Apple Computer, because that's what it sold: computers.

In the early days, the only way for the government to snoop through your MacIntosh was to get a warrant to search your apartment. Today's Apple's computers are smaller, constantly connected to the Internet and, increasingly reliant on iCloud to sync and share data across devices.

Whereas Google has been handling (and profiting from) user data since day one, Apple is only just getting started. If you use iCloud, its servers house your calendars, email, photos, notes and any other data you choose to feed it. If you're using iOS 5 or higher, you're also entrusting Apple with whatever percentage of your personal text messages go through its iMessage protocol.

To its credit, Apple built iMessage using end-to-end encryption that makes its harder for others to snoop on the contents of messages. Of course, if the FBI — or the local cops — really want to know what you're iMessaging back and forth, they can go directly to Apple, with or without a warrant. 

Of course, if the texts in question aren't iMessages, the authorities could just do what they've always done: Ask the mobile data provider to see them. Such requests have seen a dramatic uptick in recent years, and the major ISPs don't approach them with the same level of transparency that a company like Twitter or Sonic.net would. 

Why Consumers Should Care

Apple has never been lauded for having a forward-thinking and open approach to user privacy issues. That hasn't stopped millions of people from trying to predict the company's next gadget and then eagerly standing in line to purchase it. 

Part of that may have to do with awareness. Digital privacy reports excite a certain breed of data nerd (OK, guilty as charged), but they don't approach the media attention lavished on Apple product announcements. Nor is the EFF's chart plastered all over billboards, bus stops and television sets. 

Even for those of you who already knew that Apple doesn't treat your privacy with kid gloves, the risk of the government peeking into law-abiding texts and calendars is too remote to worry about. To some, this is just a side effect of the hyper-connected, digitally-immersed society we're becoming. Even if they don't particularly like it, it's just not their battle to fight. 

Trouble is, that sort of complacency puts no pressure on Apple to get more proactive about keeping your digital life safe from prying eyes.

If you fall in this category, you might still luck out, of course. Even if there's some major privacy gaffe down the line, it might not affect you. And if you're fortunate, IRS agents aren't currently reading your Apple email or iMessages, looking for possible evidence of tax evasion.

But given Apple's current practices in this regard, if they are, you'd never know. Maybe ignorance really is bliss.

The apps that users have come to love (or hate) since the iPhone and its mobile operating system – iOS – first hit the market could be about to look very different: No more 3D cartoonish caricatures of bookshelves or billiard tables, Apple apps are reportedly going “flat.” Perhaps just as important, the new design could dictate when the next iPhone actually hits stores.

According to a report from Bloomberg, Apple’s lead designer, Sir Jonathan Ive, is completely revamping the look and feel of iOS. Ive had previously been the long-time head of hardware design at Apple (responsible for the physical look and feel of iMacs, iPods, iPads and the iPhone) but was elevated in 2012 when CEO Tim Cook let go Scott Forstall, the previous lead designer of iOS. Ive now controls the look and feel of just about every aspect of the iPhone.

With that change comes the end of skeuomorphism, the designconcept where developers make apps look like the physical object they represent. In iOS, this can be seen in the bookshelves of the Newsstand app or the paper notebook look of the Notes app.

Apple moving away from skeuomorphism is not news. The New York Times reported the move in November of last year, and the topic has been at the top of designers' minds for months. On Wednesday, Bloomberg confirmed that Ive and his cohorts are moving toward a flat design that does not digitally recreate physical objects with 3D renderings.

What is news is that Ive’s team have apparently fallen behind in finalizing the new designs that are supposed to be ready for iOS when Apple unveils it at its World Wide Developers Conference, slated for June 10-14 in San Francisco. According to the Bloomberg report, the design concepts were due in February but are running a month late. The Apple team is working under intense pressure to get the new look down before the next iPhone ships, likely in September or October of this year. 

See Also:

• Why Apple Really, Really Needs To Kill It With iOS 7
• Forget Skeuomorphism: The (Digital) World Is Getting Flatter
• Will Apple's New Design Approach Kill The Luster Steve Jobs Loved?
• Tim Cook Cleans House At Apple - Scott Forstall Is Out

Motivations For Flat Design

The flat design concept is in vogue with mobile designers because it provides a cleaner, crisper way to present information and easy interactive elements. Flat design works better on mobile screens, where inset text and spacing, among other issues, are concerns for developers. Microsoft’s Windows 8 and Windows Phone are prime examples of flat design.

A couple factors no doubt motivate Ive’s decision to transition iOS design:

• Apple is in desperate need of dramatic changes to make iOS 7 fresh and new for consumers. The basic digital design of iOS hasn't changed since the first iPhone was launched in 2007.
• Flat design is more conducive to high-resolution screens. The original iPhone had a resolution of 163 pixels per inch (ppi) on its 3.5-inch screen. The iPhone 5 has 326 ppi on a 4-inch screen. Competitive models like the Samsung Galaxy S4 (441 ppi) and HTC One (469 ppi) boast even higher resolutions that Apple will likely try to match or best with its newest iPhone. 

According to reports, the disagreement that led to Forstall's exit from Apple centered around skeumorphism vs. flat design. Now that Ive is in control of both hardware and software, he is going to bring everything into alignment with his own vision. 

Are you looking forward to a different design for your iPhone apps? Or are you happy with how your iPhone currently looks? Let us know in the comments. 

At some point, Apple is widely expected to release a miniature computer for your wrist. Assuming the rumors pan out, you, dear geek, are going to hate whatever is released — because it's not going to do many of the things that you think such a device should do.

Your favorite tech blogs will reaffirm your skepticism by releasing scathing reports about how underwhelming Apple's newest gadget is, at least when compared against the hype they created about what Apple's newest gadget should have been. Apple will be doomed, yet again. Tim Cook's got to go! Cue the sad trombone.

Ignore all of that. An Apple watch, if it is released, is going to be a big deal. Here's why.

Fear Our Vapor!

In basketball, the mere presence of a strong defender is often enough to alter a shot and create a miss. In tech, the mere presence of a rumored Apple product is enough to alter a category and create a flurry of press releases.

No one knows what an Apple-branded watch will look like. No one knows what it'll do. We don't even know for sure that Apple is ever going to release a watch. At best, we're in "where there's smoke" territory based on ever-popular "industry sources" and a single leaked patent application.

Leading up to the release of the iPhone, similar rumors surfaced and, as usual, pundits and competitors scoffed. Here, for instance, is Palm CEO Ed Colligan scoffing his company into obsolescence:

We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.

Six years later, Apple's competitors rarely scoff, at least not as openly. Instead, they scurry to make reactionary (and premature) product announcements that exist primarily to counter a rumor mill that Apple largely ignores.

Here's Samsung, reacting:

"We’ve been preparing the watch product for so long,” Samsung Mobile executive vice president Lee Young Hee told Bloomberg. “We are preparing products for the future, and the watch is definitely one of them.”

For so long!

Samsung has to react, though. It's been stung by accusations (not to mention legal judgments) that its R&D department is based in Cupertino. Thus the rush to claim that a smartwatch is in the pipeline prior to any official Apple announcement: "We couldn't have copied Apple, we told you about our product over a year ago!"

Here's Microsoft, reacting:

Microsoft Corp. is working on designs for a touch-enabled watch device, executives at suppliers said, potentially joining rivals like Apple Inc. in working on a new class of computing products.

Microsoft also has to react. "Not reacting" is the only way to explain how they could have fallen so far behind in the mobile space and they can't afford to get left behind yet again. Steve Ballmer's got to go! Wah-waaaah.

Google's got a smart-watch patent, too:

A smart-watch can include a wristband, a base, and a flip up portion. The base can be coupled to the wristband and include a housing, a processor, a wireless transceiver, and a tactile user interface. The wireless transceiver can be configured to connect to a wireless network. The tactile user interface can be configured to provide interaction between a user and the smart-watch. The flip up portion can be displaceable between an open position exposing the base and a closed position concealing the base. Further, the flip up portion can include: a top display exposed when the flip up portion is in the closed position, and an inside display opposite the top display. The inside display can be concealed when the flip up portion is in the closed position and be exposed when the flip up portion is in the open position.

Google's clearly in a better position than Samsung and Microsoft (and Apple, for that matter) in that it's already demoing wearable computing. But Google Glass is far from a guaranteed winner — we may all be cross-eyed this time next year — and prepping a watch, even as a backup, seems like a smart way for the company to hedge its bets.

What A Coincidence

Now, raise your hand if you think it's a coincidence that we're just now learning about all these smartwatches just as rumors of an "iWatch" started to heat up. No takers?

The mere specter of an Apple watch — summoned by the ritualistic voodoo of rumors and speculation — spooked Apple's competitors into action. Clearly, they're not quite as cocky as they used to be. (Or, as in the case of Palm, as in business as they used to be.)

There's a lot of talk these days about Apple having died with Steve Jobs, but I sure don't see Google Glass spurring similarly reactionary competitive product announcements. By that standard, at least, Apple's in pretty good shape.

That said, Apple remains Apple. It'll release the watch it'll release, when it releases it. If, uh, it releases one at all. Which brings us back to why I think Apple is, in fact, going to launch a smartwatch.

First and foremost, a watch isn't much of a stretch for Apple from a product standpoint, especially if you're expecting a wrist-borne iPod rather than an offshoot of the iPhone or iPad.

IPod sales are declining, yes, but the brand remains iconic. It won't surprise me at all if Apple simply calls this thing an iPod Watch. (Consider that Apple used to sell a square iPod Nano that everyone treated like a watch.) Similar to the Apple TV, an iPod Watch could run an offshoot of iOS, but not full-fledged iPhone apps.

The Watch Built for Homer

Neither Apple nor Google seems likely to release a watch that looks anything like what we've seen in the paperwork they've filed. That doesn't mean there aren't clues in their patents to what they might one day ship.

Google's watch description sounds an awful lot like what it's now demoing as Google Glass. It's futuristic, it's full of gee-whiz wonderments and augmented reality, and it'll probably do your dishes for you — or maybe advertise local maid services as soon as it Big Brothers that you're washing your own dishes.

That pretty much sums up Google and, let's face it, most of Apple's competitors: "If nothing else, a device can always do more."

Would-be iPod killers had FM radios and Bluetooth music sharing and gigantic cup holders and anything else some consumer once said he'd like to have in a survey or on a web forum, once, somewhere. Would-be iPhone killers had hardware keyboards and 3D screens and styluses and a bunch of other junk no one wanted until, eventually, they just gave in and became "essentially iPhones" with an "all sizes and prices fits all" mentality.

But what about Apple?

The current landscape for smartwatches is, thus far, fairly niche-based: Athletes and, well, athletes wear them. Sometimes.

But look at us. We aren't athletes. We don't spend a lot of our time counting our steps and monitoring our heartbeats, so we're not going to buy a device that exists to do those things.

Pebble has seen some success with its Kickstarter campaign for a multi-purpose, e-paper smartwatch, but who knows if the company is equipped to compete over the longer term. More likely, its offering will serve as a proof-of-concept for the big guys.

That leaves a lot of wrist real-estate for Apple, especially given that most of us aren't even wearing dumb watches anymore. Who needs something that only tells the time, especially when our smartphones do that so well?

Glance and Go

Think about iOS notifications for a moment. (Yes, they suck hard. But that's a discussion for another day.) If the entire point of a notification is to increase efficiency by providing an opportunity to ignore the things that we'd rather ignore, why should we have to get our phone out to make that decision?

Wouldn't it be better to glance down at our wrist? To leave the phone in our pocket until we really need it?

More importantly, wouldn't Apple want us to glance at a device made by Apple, running software sold via Apple's App Store, and linked to services controlled by Apple?

This is the part where the geeks get indignant and demand that Apple release something that is more than just an accessory, but I don't see any reason to believe that Apple will (or needs to) introduce something more than that.

Tied to an iPhone, an iPad, and your Apple TV, a smartwatch adds value to Apple's existing hardware ecosystem and, most importantly, it won't exist as an "either/or" proposition for consumers.

We'll simply buy all of the above if we want the full Apple experience.

Apple's Extended Family

Consider that iPhone accessories alone are a multi-billion-dollar industry.

Even with the understanding that most of that money goes to the accessory makers, it's clear that Apple plays the accessory game better than just about any other company. Anyway, the mind-share that such exposure buys makes up for any lack of revenue.

When Apple introduced the second generation iPad, it also developed a magnet-based mechanism that paved the way for the Smart Cover and countless knock-offs that line store shelves today. With a watch, the strap is the case: Expect Apple to design (and patent) an easily removable "Smart Strap" that clicks on and off. Now imagine countless booths at next year's CES, lined with iPod Watch straps and accessories.

Software developers won't be left out: An SDK will be released and they'll rush to create added value widgets that extend the functionality of their iPhone and iPad apps.

Apple's watch may not transform us into latter-day Dick Tracys, but developers and accessory makers will stick with Apple and extend the brand in spite of all the crap they'll have to put up with along the way. Because they're going to follow the money.

Billions of dollars a year is a pretty easy trail to follow.

Apple Wins Again

In the end, Apple will release a product that looks great and works like it's supposed to, even if it's not exactly what we expect, or think we want, out of a smartwatch. And we'll buy it.

The peripheral market for accessories will quickly materialize, at which point the competition, left dumbfounded, will be forced to go back to the drawing board in an effort to mimic Apple's vision of wrist-based computing. In a few years, you'll either be wearing Apple's smart watch, or something remarkably similar to Apple's smart watch.

Not long after that, some anonymous commenter sporting a Samsung Galaxy W will feel clever and point out that Apple didn't really do anything all that revolutionary.

Just you watch.

Top image via a 2010 iWatch concept video by ADR Studio

Its full title is Super Monster Bros By Adventure Time Pocket Free Games, and it just may be the worst iPhone app ever. Dug up by an excellent IGN series '"iPhone Garbage," the free app is a side-scrolling game that not only blatantly rips off Nintendo with slightly altered Pokémon character designs, but it also employs an aggressive in-app purchase system that spams users constantly with offers at prices up to $100! It's a iPhone rip-off tactic only marginally less offensiver than the ever-popular screenshot scam.

For instance, if you want to use a character other than the default, which is basically a duplicate of Charmander from the original Pokémon games, you need to cough up anywhere from $4.99 for the caveman to a whopping $99.99 for the Charizard look-alike. Then when you're actually playing the game, you're bombarded with offers for other purchases, like $1 to buy more firepower for your character or 20 extra lives for $10. Then there are the full-screen ads for other apps that randomly pop up on-screen in the middle of the game. 

Not surprisingly, the gameplay is beyond terrible. There doesn't seem to be any point outside of scamming people into paying for ridiculous add-ons. The biggest mystery is how this travesty got through Apple's App Store approval process despite apparently infringing on copyrighted Nintendo material and an all-around exploitive design. The games are also available on Google's less-restrictive Google Play market for Android. 

What To Watch Out For

Reviews are certainly a great way to keep others from downloading a terrible app; the first three reviews that show up are titled, respectively, "This should be criminal..," "This app is offensive," and "This should be illegal."  So you may wonder who gets fooled by this nonsense, but how about those unlucky parents with kids who know their Apple ID passwords. All it takes is clicking the Buy button and entering your password, and this game could end up costing some family hundreds of dollars.

In fact, the Top 10 in-app purchases list in the App Store indicates that the number-one item purchased by players is the "Role NO.1 and Unlock All" feature - for an absurd $99.99. 

So who is the mastermind behind this ingenious money-making machine? That would be a developer by the name of Mario Casas, designer of such other gems as Adventure Games Super Monster Bros Plus and Super Squirrel Bros by Mario Casas Games. They all share similar designs and the same in-app purchasing system.  

How To Report Bad Apps to Apple

The App Store has long wrestled with a proliferation of scam apps. IGN's iPhone Garbage series exposes a dark corner of the App Store where games like Krazy Kong (a Donkey Kong rip-off) and Legend of Zenda (a Zelda rip-off) somehow found a home. Apple seems to take an after-the-fact approach to rooting them out, as outlined here by iMore's Rene Ritchie:

Apple's approach seems to be that of YouTube - approve any app that meets technical criteria and then respond to publicity or legal takedown demands from copyright holders when and if they come in. It's one of the smartest, safest approaches, legally, for Apple. They certainly don't want to take on the responsibility of pre-emptively moderating intellectual property, and then have their necks on the lawsuit line when something slips through and the rights holders sue both the offending party and Apple.

So how do you report a bad app like Super Monster Bros By Adventure Time Pocket Free Games?  If you dropped a bundle on this game's purchases, Apple devotes a Web page to reporting issues with purchases. If you managed to hold on to your cash but still want to report the app, the best way is to go through iTunes Support. Be warned, though, Apple hasn't shown much inclination to substantially overhaul its review process to catch these specific types of tricks. So as long as these kinds of exploitive apps can make their creators easy money, they'll keep showing up.  

Update: The game, as well as all other titles from the same developer, are no longer available in the U.S. App Store. It's not clear whether or not they are still available in other countries, but we will update with that information as soon as we can. 

Apple's annual World Wide Developer's Conference (WWDC), an event where the Cupertino company typically showcases both new products and software overhauls to OS X and iOS, has sold out in less than two minutes. That obliterates the 2012 record of two hours, which beat the 2011 sell-out time of 12 hours, which... you get the idea. (The big difference is that this year, Apple announced when tickets would go on sale in advance, so the entire Apple developer community was scrambling to grab tickets at 10am PDT Thursday morning.)

Wall Street may be souring on Apple, but developer interest in the company's next moves continues to hit new highs. The conference, to be held on June 10-14 in San Francisco, also happened to crush Google's I/O conference sell-out time of a plodding 49 minutes. Tickets to the conference were limited to one per person and five per organization, contributing to the rush. 

The growth of WWDC and the increasing frenzy around scoring the coveted tickets causes some vexing problems for Apple and its developers. 

On the one hand, Apple made some $8 million off the $1,599 tickets, pricey for many independent developers but clearly not a big money maker for the company. But the bigger problem is that hordes of interested developers simply can't get in to the event. (Unlike competing events, Apple doesn't invite the press, either.)

Calls have come to expand the event but that might dilute the value of meeting with key Apple experts for those who do manage to attend. Holding satellite events at other locations around the world might allow more developers to attend, but could prove a time-suck for top Apple personnel - or would have to make do with lesser experts - again diluting the value of the events.

The company is promising "exciting announcements on videos and more" for those who couldn't get a ticket, but it's hard to see how that will satisfy Apple developers looking to get one-on-one time with company experts.  

The world of search is about to be flipped completely on its head. As part of that sea change, today's reactive Web-based searches are about to give way to proactive, geo-fenced answers that will pop up before you even frame the question.

In many cases, you won't be searching for content - content will be searching for you.

Putting The New Search In Context

Search, to date, has mostly worked something like this: You type a word or phrase into a search bar in a browser or mobile app and a search engine with a funny name returns a list of Web pages it deems related to your query.

In recent years, search has gotten a lot better in a number of ways. One key improvement takes location into account. If I type "Notre Dame" while I'm in my hometown, then it's very likely I will get results about the University. If I were located near Cleveland, though, I might get results about Notre Dame College. And if I were in France, surely my results would focus on this beautiful edifice. 

Location is part of what experts call "contextual search," which becomes even more important with the rise of mobile computing. Where we are and who we are makes a big difference in the search results we want, and contextually aware search engines are working to use that information to decide what results to return to us.

According to J Schwan, CEO of Solstice Mobile, there are four aspects of contextual searching that all have to work together:

• Where
• Relevance
• Push
• Security and privacy

First, there's the where - what Schwan refers to as geo-fencing. Where you are, as noted above, makes a difference in what search results are most appropriate.

Then there's relevance, which dictates results through explicit preferences that you have set, the results delivered to other users in a similar context and what is going on around you at that particular time (traffic, weather, business hours, etc.).

The third aspect Schwan highlighted is relatively new, but fast-becoming more important to contextual search: push. Rather than waiting for users to search and then reacting to that query, data providers and search engines are working on how to push data to users based on their context. Google Now does this now on Android and its Chrome browser extension: cards based on your search results, location and even email messages will appear that give you the traffic report to get home or inform you of the latest sports score.

The final aspect is the wrapper of security and privacy that has to work with all of this to ensure a user's data doesn't go where it's not supposed to.

Squinting For SEO

Contextual searching is perfect for mobile, because, well, mobile users are by definition moving around. But the mobile form factor also makes contextual search more important.

Many people may have honking big 27-inch monitors on their home PCs, but relatively tiny smartphone screens inherently limit the amount of information we can access. In that context, it's even more important for mobile users to get the right results near the top of the results screen.

This is even more true when adding natural interfaces to search, such as voice-activated searching using systems like Apple's Siri. Forget search strings, Siri has to process natural-language queries and either speak or display usable results on a small screen. 

For search-engine optimization (SEO), this is a huge challenge: With contextual search, it's no longer enough to get your business or product listed on the first Web page of results. On a mobile device, as well as in push situations, SEO is really effective only if you can push your results into the top position, or at least into the first few lines.

Wearable devices like Google Glass and the rumored iWatch could put even more pressure on search results. We don't yet know what their interfaces will look like, but it seems safe to assume that there may be even less real estate available to display search results. 

This is one reason why the search engines are working so hard to deliver knowledge rather than just Web page links in their results. Google and Bing both now feature "knowledge boxes" that try to encapsulate the pertinent information about a topic in one glance. This "knowledgization" of search results is conducive to mobile search because it parses data into easily displayed and digestible chunks - essential for the smaller screen.

We may already be seeing the early effects of this trend. Last Fall, Google reported its first-ever drop in search volume. Some of this decline is no doubt attributable to competition - such as Bing, Yahoo or even local searches through services like Yelp. But how much of it is due to pushed content and knowledge replacing what might have otherwise been searched for? If the information being received is of better quality, then perhaps we won't have to search as much in the future.

By incorporating context and working towards knowledge - useful information instead of just plain data - the next evolution of search will take advantage of new opportunities and cope with new demands and challenges.

Will that help us make better decisions? We can hope.

Lead image and Notre Dame images courtesy of Shutterstock.

In my day, boys and girls, we downloaded songs onto our desktop computer. For free. Often illegally. Then we burned them onto CDs late into the night.

iTunes changed all that. iTunes required that we actually pay for our music. It corralled us into accepting copyright-restricted digital content, while doing its best to force us onto pricey Apple hardware. It foolishly mashed together audio library management tools with a music download service with online payments and computer/mobile device synching - only to somehow grow even more bloated as the years went by. Yet here it is, ten years later, and iTunes towers above all its competitors.

No surprise, then, that Apple is formally celebrating "A Decade of iTunes" with an interactive timeline that is equal parts sales promotion and rare look back.

With the possible exception of Windows Vista, probably no software application from a large company has incurred such vigorous and ongoing public scorn as iTunes. Unlike Vista, however, iTunes continues to grow, evolve and continue its semi-secret though highly successful mission of transforming Apple from anemic, also-ran PC maker to its current position as the world's largest technology and media company.

It was (technically) on April 28, 2003, when Apple launched the iTunes Music Store. The store contained 200,000 songs, all priced at $.99 each. On that same day, Apple announced its third-generation iPod, weighing less than "two CDs" and able to hold 7,500 songs. From those meager beginnings, content delivery, the music, film and software industries - and Apple's fortunes - were all soon to be profoundly changed.

Ten years ago, Apple's share price was $6.66. Today it hovers around $400 (down from more than $700, but still). Recall, if you can, the many Borders and Blockbuster Video stores that dotted the American landscape. iTunes essentially enabled us to buy easily digital content for the first time, and taught us that digital content could be worth paying for.

iTunes Begat iPhone

iTunes helped make Apple relevant once again. It enabled the expansion of Steve Jobs' "digital hub" strategy, guiding Apple from failing computer maker to consumer electronics behemoth. That much is generally accepted. Just as importantly, however, iTunes enabled the iPhone. 

The single biggest reason for Apple's meteoric rise over the last decade is the iPhone. Realizing that the rise of "cell phones" could harm Apple's portable iTunes media players (the iPod), Apple teamed with Motorola to create the much derided Rokr E1 phone in 2005. The hardware was disappointing  and users complained that the device could hold just 100 iTunes songs.

Two years later, however, Apple introduced its own device. The iPhone was the shocking evolution of iTunes and iPod, and Apple's work with Motorola. The point is, no iTunes, likely no iPhone and no iPad - the products that currently contribute more than 60% of Apple's valuation.

Yet even the much-improved iTunes 11 still collects scorn, even from the Apple faithful.

This represents a misunderstanding of the platform's roles. At the initial launch of the iPhone, Steve Jobs noted the importance of  iTunes to the "revolutionary" new device:

The (iPhone) automatically syncs to your PC or Mac right through iTunes.
 And iTunes is gonna sync all of your media onto your iPhone: Your music, your audio books, podcasts, movies, TV shows, music videos. 
But it also syncs a ton of data: Your contacts, your calendars and your photos, which you can get on your iPod today, your notes, your bookmarks from your Web browser, your email accounts, your whole email set-up. All that stuff can be moved over to your iPhone completely automatically. 
It’s really nice.
 And we do it through iTunes. Again, you go to iTunes and you set it up. Just like you’d set up an iPod or an Apple TV. And you set up what you want synced to your iPhone. And it’s just like an iPod. Charge and sync. So sync with iTunes.

Apple Loves iTunes - Even If You Don't

iTunes simultaneously serves as Apple's payments platform, media library app, and digital media storefront - for music, books, apps, podcasts and video. It powers the popular App Store. It is an app for purchasing content on the iPhone and iPad - though not for playing that content. On the Mac, iTunes is (still) both music and video library management layer, music player - though not video player - payments provider and media storefront.

No wonder even long-time Apple users complain of feature bloat and a confusing user interface.

Apple's interactive iTunes timeline, meanwhile, focuses almost exclusively on music. Maybe Apple isn't ready to accept that iTunes has transformed the company from computer hardware maker to a global digital media concern. But consider these numbers:

• 40 billion apps downloaded
• 25 billion songs sold 
• More than 15,000 songs downloaded every minute
• 1 billion courses downloaded on iTunes U
• More than 100 million books on the connected iBookstore
• Available in more than 115 countries
• 45% of the video on demand market in the U.S.

iTunes has also delivered tremendous value to content owners, publishers and app developers. According to Apple analyst Horace Dediu, iTunes generated more than $24 billion in revenues for content owners (media and app developers) in the past five years.

No matter what you may think of it personally, iTunes has been essential to Apple's success. Expect it to continue to pushing the company forward, in all its messy, bloated glory.

Images courtesy of Apple.

Apple reported its first profit decline in over a decade and bluntly admitted that its growth is slowing. It was, indeed, a strange but not wholly unexpected change of pace for the wildly successful Cupertino company.

Despite that bad news, the stock market barely hiccupped. As of writing, Apple shares were virtually unchanged in after-hours trading from their close of $406.13 — a level roughly 42% below their peak just seven months ago. Which means that these diminished expectations are, for now, Apple's new normal.

The Humbling Of Apple

In the January-March quarter, Apple generated $43.6 billion in revenue with a profit of $9.5 billion, compared to $39.2 billion and $11.6 billion a year ago. Profits might be down by a not-insignificant 18%, but the numbers still beat out quarterly estimates of between $41 and $43 billion in revenue. For next quarter, Apple set the bar low, with an expected $33.5 to $35.5 billion in revenue.

Apple also set new records for March quarter sales of the iPhone and iPad, for what it's worth.

While Apple quarterly calls — like Apple launch events, Apple ads and the Apple ethos — tend to err on the side of smug, today's tone was muted. As Apple's boomtown empire of the last decade begins to look like a gilded age, CEO Tim Cook and CFO Peter Oppenheimer maintained a cautious optimism. Cook expressed frustration over Apple's ongoing stock swoon and noted that 2012's "exceptional success" makes year-to-year comparisons "difficult." 

Other notable numbers from this quarter:

• 37.4 million iPhones sold, up from 35.1 million during Q2 2012
• 19.5 million iPads sold, up from 11.8 million a year ago
• iPad sales more than doubled in China and Japan
• Mac sales contracted, with just under 4 million sold - a slight dip from a year ago
• 5.6 million iPods sold (down from 2012's numbers), but Apple commands 70% of the MP3 player market
• Apple made $5.2 billion from retail stores and expects to open 30 new stores this year
• The company holds $144.7 billion in cash (up from $137 billion in December 2012)

Still, Apple Is Apple

Of course, even at its humblest, Apple couldn't resist an opportunity to tout iOS as a more secure ecosystem than Android, which has fallen victim to some high profile malware incidents in the last year.

As for what's next — and how the company will continue to grow — Cook cited the strength of Apple's ecosystem and "exciting new product categories" for the company's bright outlook. Cook also turned an eye to untapped overseas markets, which could play a major role if the company plans for another growth spurt: "China has an unusual number of potential firsttime smartphone owners," Cook said. "That's not lost on us."

Similarly, Cook touted the possibility of "an exciting new product category," although of course without even hinting at details or a timeframe. So feel free to believe that he meant the iWatch, or an iTV, or, well, iAnything.

Apple also boosted its dividend by 15% and announced a new stock buyback program that aims to return $100 billion to shareholders by 2015, in part by taking some existing Apple shares out of circulation to boost stockholders' holdings.

It ain't easy being Apple - for once, anyway.

Today, Apple will report its fiscal Q2 2013 earnings today at 2 p.m. PDT. Analysts widely expect the Cupertino company to post its first year-over-year decline in earnings in the last decade. But has Apple really begun its fall from grace, or is the house that Jobs built just falling short of its own impossible standards?

Here's why Apple has been missing the mark in 2013.

Growing Pains

Apple has fallen victim to its own success, plain and simple. The company's been on top for so long, we just don't remember things being any other way. Apple's market and mind share are the stuff of legend, but they may show signs of waning for the first time in… well, ever in Internet years. While any other company in the universe would be perfectly content being the world's former most valuable corporate entity, for Apple and its stockholders, that won't cut it. 

Last quarter, in spite of a $13.1 billion profit, an unhappy market punished the company for failing to meet revenue expectations with a 10% share price plummet - AAPL's biggest nosedive in years. As Q2 wraps, Apple investors and acolytes alike are still itching to hit the panic button. Arguably it's not because Apple's near-future profitability poses any real cause for alarm - perhaps we just don't remember how this whole thing goes for companies that aren't Apple?

No New Tricks Up Its Sleeve?

Really, what could the company that brought little white earbuds into ubiquity wow us with next? The iPad Mini, Apple's latest mobile device, is an exercise in practicality, a version of a revolutionary device with its ambition, processing power and pixel density scaled back (and its price slashed). 

At this juncture in consumer tech, consumers are pleased to see their gadgets polished and iterated, but they still love to have their minds blown. Look at Google tinkering away just over the Silicon fence. Between its hefty price tag and its unparalleled geek factor, Google Glass is the quintessential early adopter device, yet Google's flashy cyborg eyewear has captured the imagination of the mainstream. That used to be Apple's job. 

Unfortunately, reinventing the wheel isn't easy - even for Apple, a company with a track record of doing exactly that.

The Competition Gains Ground

Competitors like Samsung are gaining increasing traction with a decidedly un-Apple approach and a heterogenous army of Android devices like the hotly anticipated Samsung Galaxy S4, the follow-up to last year's homerun Galaxy S3.  Meanwhile, Apple is wasting more time than ever looking over its shoulder, building the fortifications of the Mac and iOS walled gardens higher than ever.

In the U.S. last quarter, Apple remained top dog with 38% of smartphone market share versus Samsung's 21%, but globally the story is quite different, with Apple trailing by most metrics. With Apple shares trading at 40% less than September 2012's booming highs, the company is at low tide for the moment.

On today's call, Jobs successor Tim Cook might have to pull a literal rabbit out of his proverbial hat to exceed expectations. From its products to its profits, Apple likes to think of itself as an exception to every industry rule - and usually it is. Unfortunately for Cook and company, Apple just might be exceptional to a fault.

Stay tuned tomorrow for Apple's Q2 2013 earnings report, which we'll be reporting here at ReadWrite as it unfolds.