The most disturbing part is that everyone talks about a 7-inch iPad as if it were a good idea. It’s not.

To date, I’ve heard few complaints from users that the iPad is too big, or that the iPod Touch is too small. So why would this product need to exist?

The main reason given for why Apple would create such a product is price. A smaller screen, they figure, would cost less. But how much less? To Apple it’s probably a very small difference in component cost. $10, $20, maybe? Yet, people assume, Apple would charge $200 or $300 for this thing, which would mean they’d make far less money on each device sold. Lowering margins is not Apple’s usual M.O.

It’s amazing to me how quickly people forget how cheap the iPad already is. Remember, less than a year ago, everyone assumed the iPad would be $1000. The fact that they are selling it for $500 has literally caused the entire industry to go back to the drawing board, and to date not a single competitor to the iPad has emerged because of its extremely aggressive price. If it were possible to make money on a $200 or $300 tablet device, in other words, someone else would be doing it by now.

I expect the next iPad in January, with a front-facing camera likely, more RAM, maybe a slightly different processor, but with the same basic form factor.

Remember, for Apple, it’s about incremental changes, and it’s about maintaining a healthy software ecosystem. Adding new form factors would require a lot of UI rejiggering, add more complexities to the development community in making apps, and require yet another variant of iOS to constantly maintain. None of which would bring any real benefit to users. Apple already has a small tablet device—the iPod Touch—and a larger tablet—the iPad. Making something in between this early in the game makes little sense.

Not surprising that taxis are less likely to kill you. Taxi drivers are professionals, and driving around New York is a skill that gets honed over many years of practice.

Also not surprising that more men are killing people than women. We do tend to be overly aggressive behind the wheel. Especially when we get impatient with all the pedestrians getting in our way. And we also tend to have a higher opinion of our driving skills than is realistic.

Lastly, note that inattention caused far more accidents than intoxication. Oh, and jaywalking causes far fewer accidents (though the ones that do happen as a result tend to be more deadly) than crossing legally at an intersection. I’ve been trying to get Californians to understand that one for years.

Looking at arbitrary factors like income might be interesting, but I doubt it would lead to anything very conclusive on this subject.

The most interesting part of this study, as far as I’m concerned, is the relatively low number of people who cheated in general out of the sample. Either the sample is skewed, or cheating is one of those many things that the media and literature make seem more commonplace than it is.

Having said that, I do believe that there are a small group of people, male and female, for whom monogamy is not the ideal state of being. Those people should admit that to themselves, and society should accept them, rather than pressure everyone on earth into believing that being in a lifelong committed relationship is the only way to lead a satisfying life. I think a lot more people would be happy if they stopped trying to be someone they are not, or trying to make their partner into someone he or she is not.

As always, a little more transparency and honesty would go a long way to avoiding pain.

The headline for this piece should have been “Apple takes advertisers to school on how to make effective ads.” But that wouldn’t have generated as many clicks.

This is the classic Apple agenda at work. Rather than dumping hundreds of crappy ads on users and failing to make any real impact, Apple is shaking up the whole industry. If they anger some clients in the process, so be it. If they fail to gain enough support for their new platform, so be it. They do it right, or they don’t do it. That’s how Apple rolls.

My guess is that Apple isn’t interested in entering this market just to add a bullet point to a marketing presentation. They literally want to change ads on mobile devices for the better—something that Google hasn’t managed to do, by the way, despite the fact that Google’s entire future rides on mobile advertising.

And I really fail to see the advantage for Sony. If this is their reaction to the popularity of the iPod Touch as a gaming device, they’re pretty much doomed. At least Nintendo tried to differentiate themselves with some interesting, if not cliché, 3D screen technology. This offers no advantage whatsoever over the current PSP or the iPod Touch.

This seems like something a PSP enthusiast dreamed up as his personal Utopia machine. But will it appeal in the general market? I seriously don’t think so.

If this rumor is real, which I’m still not certain it is, my guess is that it was cobbled together without any real thought or investment, which means the entire experience of using it will be as schizophrenic as you might imagine.

For instance. I want to buy a new game for my new device. Where do I go? Do I go to the Android Marketplace, or a special Sony Store? Well, depends on the game, I guess.

Hey, a new software update came out today. Okay. Where do I download it? From Sony or from Google? Or from the carrier? Will Verizon be in charge of whether or not the game portion of my machine gets updated? How is Sony going to feel about that?

Put this one on my “I doubt if it even exists, but even if it does, it’ll be DOA” list. Unless I’m missing something.