An Android 2.2 update to the Nook Color has been made available last month by Barnes & Noble. The upgrade includes Flash support as well as a native e-mail application, an improved browser and an application store. All these helped the device to become a real, functional tablet.

The download rate for Barnes & Noble is relatively modest in comparison with other famous tablets. For instance, Apple reached the ten-billionth application download from the iTunes store in January. Users of Apple’s tablets have now more than 250 million application downloads per week.

The number of subscriptions for the iPad version of Popular Science is still lower than print numbers, which hits 1.2 million. Bonnier has equally sold about 2,500 individual copies of the iPad issue for March. Gregg Hano, VP-group publisher said that the magazine has been selling an average of 10,000 to 12,000 iPad copies per month, a level finally passed in March. Popular Science had about 1.3 million subscriptions overall in the second half of last year.

Hano recognizes that Apple policies prevented Bonnier from knowing details about iPad subscribers. He admitted that the group had no information on the locations subscribers were coming from or whether they were or were not print subscribers. The number of people willing to share data with Bonnier is also unknown.

Publishers usually have been reluctant to adopt in-application subscriptions. Apple allows publishers to claim the whole revenue from application subscriptions that were processed outside of a title, but also asks for equivalent in-application options and it takes 30 percent revenue cut. In-application prices have to be equal to that web portals offer, or even smaller.

Time Warner said to have broad rights to distribute television programming. It also mentioned the existence o some agreements allowing television outside the home and promised to ad others, although it would take some time to do it. The declared goal would be to allow watching any content, on any device, any time and anywhere in a simple and easy way for the customers.

The posture of a TV liberator has appeared somehow unusual, as Time Warner had been typically hostile to Internet video sources out of its control. Like most cable operators, it has tried to close its existing cable business to independent online sources, but has been among the most aggressive in offering bonuses consisting of online video.

Cablevision and Comcast also said they would provide live TV streaming to the iPad soon, but none of the two has received warnings from any content provider. Fox and fellow objector Scripps waited until TWCable TV was in position to go live to raise objections. Cablevision has a precedent that would prevent challenges but, as a consequence of getting the approval for its Network DVRs, it could explicitly be let to host cable programming on IP-based sources.

Microsoft’s Watson said that his company appreciated the importance of having good applications on its platform and not increasing artificially the number of applications available to customers by adding categories like wallpapers or allowing applications of its competitors to run on the platform in order to maximize their number, like RIM’s co-chief Jim Balsillie referring to Android applications. According to Watson, Microsoft does not believe that counting ‘lite’ applications as unique quality content would be beneficial. He said that such applications only exist because their developers cannot have a Trial API and therefore have to do more work. And finally, Microsoft would not count applications submitted in multiple languages as separate items.

Watson had to admit that avoiding a certain flooding from individual e-book applications would be very difficult, but was adamant in saying that Microsoft had an obvious ability to get mostly high-quality applications. He said that, despite considerably fewer handsets shipping, developers were receiving more revenue from Windows Phone 7 than for rival platforms. He added that it really mattered to be in a store where there was a better chance to get noticed. He criticized both iOS and Android for their struggle to let users find out what the sheer number of new applications was, although he admitted that both might have been more profitable for developers.

Microsoft’s representative also noted, referring to a criticism of Apple, that most applications on Windows Phone Marketplace had been approved in an average timeframe of 1.8 days. Apple had usually said the vast majority of applications had been approved within two weeks, while it took months for others, without any explanation, especially for those coming from Google that was considered competition. Microsoft had a much easier task thanks to a considerably lower number of approvals needed, while Apple has to approve thousands of applications each day.

Watson mentioned the upcoming developer event MIX11, expected on the 12th of April, and hinted at a primary focus on Mango, which is the major update in late 2011. It is expected to bring multitasking and the Internet Explorer 9 web rendering engine, as well as basic integration with the Kinect controller of the Xbox 360.

The above mentioned claims, although carrying some weight, are also defensive. It is true that Microsoft’s concentration of applications includes by far more complex titles, while iOS claims more than 350,000 applications and Android has more than 120,000. The size ensures, at least virtually, more quality applications along with others that the company dismissed as being insignificant.

Among the first titles there are the ones that have been first promised at Google’s Android event which took place in the beginning of February. Many of these are iOS ports that already had in-app purchasing (for example Comics (Market), Tap Tap Revenge 4 (Market) and Dungeon Defenders (Market)).

Developers, as well as users have to have at least Android 1.6 for getting at In-app Billing, even if some applications will require a newer version of Android to run. The release comes early as Google had already set itself a Google I/O conference deadline in order to get the system in place.

Among the fully native titles, there are a few ports of their iPad versions, like Pulse, CNN or USA Today.

The situation reflects an ongoing problem with application support on Android 3.0 and confirms a hastened launch schedule. Google released the beta SDK only a month before the Xoom was shipped, while the final version was released only two days before the date of the launch. Excepting certain developers with special access rights, most have only had less than two months to start and make ready their first applications for the Android tablet.

The lack of devices itself has reduced the accessibility to the hardware. A second wave would not ship until the LG Optimus Pad arrives in Japan at the end of March, while the decision of Samsung to rework its Galaxy Tab 10.1 following the iPad 2’s release would push it not earlier than June.

Apple was more careful with its tablet plan and allowed developers to have two months lead time. The App Store started with 1,000 iPad-native applications and has about 65,000 s of the first-year anniversary of the design. A more flexible development has been the key factor for inroads into enterprise and catering to niches such as music production.

Starting at the end of March, readers are supposed to pay a $15 fee every four weeks in order to get access to the full content of the NYT website together with access granted through a smartphone application. This means a total fee of $195 for a whole year. Customers owning an iPad will be charged a $20 fee every four weeks for getting web and iPad access, as the NYT iPad application is said to incorporate supplementary features versus the smartphone version. This makes a total of $260 per year. Customers who want to access the NYT on all their devices will be charged $455 per year.

Costs for the subscribers of the paper edition, with “all devices” access included for the digital edition, are considerably more expensive. A seven-day home delivery is priced at $680 for the first year and $770 starting with the second one. What is peculiar is the difference between the lowest-cost paper subscription, which includes the “weekday only” version, but also the all-devices digital subscription, and the digital-only subscription. While the former is priced at $340 a year, the latter is by far more expensive.

The year-long digital subscription, offered to regular NYT website readers free of charge, is sponsored by car manufacturer Lincoln. It excludes access to the NYT on e-reader devices and also leaves out applications like the NYT Crossword or Premium Crossword. The NYT iPad and iPhone applications are free, but they currently offer only limited content and will also require subscriptions starting on March 28th.

However, Samsung Apps are currently available in 120 countries, with most of the applications arriving from France. Spain and Germany are third and second, respectively. These three countries put together account for an important 40 percent of all application downloads from Samsung’s store. The first device to support Samsung Apps was Samsung’s Wave, which was released last summer.

The new application will allow as well two Augmented Reality objects at the same time, with the screen being one and the physical card being another. However, early feedback from people who use the application claims that the application is most likely to crash, but the developer has promised to find a solution to this issue.

The application is already available on the Android Market and can be downloaded for free.

The court case, filed on March 18, 2011, was made public a day before the official release of Amazon’s store and came even as the trademark was also under dispute. Even if it has been approved by the USPTO, the “App Store” trademark has also been challenged by Microsoft for being too general as a reference to any application store. However, Apple claims that the concept of an app store has already become somewhat synonymous with the company; the name seems to have been intended to recall Apple’s name.

Many people have observed the evident resemblance in the naming scheme to Apple’s, even if the concept of an app store has been used broadly by many. Most operating system and phone manufacturers have evidently avoided any direct likeness even before the trademark was accepted, in order to avoid legal reaction or confusion.