I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of television lately as changes are charging ahead faster than we can keep up – or are they?

Three events have triggered this for me: 1, Every game of the NCAA Tournament will be broadcast this week (whether on CBS, TBS, TNT or, heavens to betsy, TruTV), the announcement that Netflix will start original programming (a show developed by “The Social Network” director David Fincher and starring Kevin Spacey) and the introduction of a Time Warner Cable app in which you can watch TV on the iPad.

The old foggie in me thinks this is too much. The NCAA Tournament is becoming dangerously close to losing its cache because the scarcity is now gone (much like the NBA), for example.

But, in reality, it’s the right amount. The providers are catching up to viewers. For at least the last five years (and maybe longer), consumers have demanded having the control of choice instead of the providers making the choice. It used to be that you could only watch a TV program at a certain time. You could only watch a movie at a specific times and locations.

Now, it’s all controlled by the viewer. Apple, and its introduction of the iPod, changed everything. (Although, the introduction of the Internet also had something to do with it.) At that point, consumers could control their music – when and what, unlike listening to a radio station. I remember hearing a pitch for Sirius radio that was positioned against the iPod, saying you had so many choices on Sirius that you didn’t need an iPod.

Boy, was that stupid. The advantage of the iPod – other than its mobility – is that we choose the songs.

The same thing is happening in TV. The market is demanding that we must have access to all NCAA Tournament games. (Because we could view them on the Internet, anyway.) Netflix, the current leader in streaming video with 63% of the market, threatens every TV network (including HBO, FX, AMC and the rest) by offering original programming we can watch at any time and more easily. And the Time Warner app, while similar to other providers’ apps and limited in scope, demonstrates that we are not too far along from watching TV solely from a device sitting in our laps.

As a gadget nut, I welcome those days. I’m also interested that the providers are joining the fray, although the cable companies may be entering it too late. The Time Warner app is merely a dip in the pool. You have to be at home to watch and the number of channels are limited. That means the more aggressive providers, like Netflix, will pass them by.

The lesson: Listen to your audience, or they may just find a way around you. That is, of course, defined as market trends, but it also means you must be willing to adapt to change, including the changes that are existing within the customer, to survive. It’s the reason why so many companies and brands – Blockbuster? Kodak? – are becoming as extinct as the rabbit ears on the top of a TV set.

When I brought an iPad home, my expectations were limited. I initially felt like I bought something on a whim that was absolutly cool, but not particularly practical.

I had watched the Apple launch with Steve Jobs extolling how great the device was and how revolutionary it was. But, even as an Apple brand junkie, I thought Jobs had dipped a little too deeply in hyperbole.

Many years ago, I read about the epic Civil War naval battle off Hampton Rhodes, Virginia, between the Monitor and Merrimack. The world did not realize it at the time, but the two ironclads represented a sea change. Suddenly, every Navy in the world was obsolete.

Same with computing. With the purchase of an iPad, I have purchsed my last laptop.

There is little doubt that the iPad has its limitations. It is not yet a replacement for my MacBook Pro. But Apple will make one soon. Mark my word on that. The interface is so intuitive and the experience of using it so intimate that I actually hate opening my computer and having to work on a Mac. It does not change what you do, but it alters forever how you want to do it.

With the iPad, Apple has rewritten the book on laptops. For my money, it is more of a quantum leap than the iPhone.

Last week, I wanted an iPad but swore I did not need one. Today, I wonder how I can work without it.

Just yesterday, I was blogging about my concerns over the direction Apple is taking with its iPad (read it here).  I continue to worry about Apple, under the tight control of Steve Jobs who increasingly sees himself as indispensable to Apple’s success and future.

I just read an article (Apple’s Jobs Spurns Intel, Qualcomm With A4 Processor for IPad) that raised my worries to a new level and reinforced my gut feeling that Apple won’t be happy until they make everything proprietary and nothing compatible with anything else.

I had always believed that Apple, as a culture, believed in the convergence of technology. I still believe that they hold that belief, but their version of convergence is to have an Apple logo on everything. No matter the cost (and I am not talking about just dollars and Euros here).  The cost may well be pushing Apple back into its role as a niche player with a rabid fan base but no broad appeal.

When Apple decided to shun Intel and Qualcomm in developing its own chip for the iPad, they were giving us a glimpse of the internal desire to keep everything in-house. All it means is that I will be forced to choose “Everything Apple” or simply “everything else.”

There is an old adage that says if you give a man enough rope he will hang himself. Maybe for Apple, the greatest danger is its own success.  Get with it Cupertino. The world loves successes almost as much as it enjoys seeing a behemoth falling on its face.  Everything is not “amazingly great” and “just that simple.”  Some things require an understanding that I want to be able to choose and not be forced to be an Apple devotee.

The Apple brand promises simplicity and elegance.  I fear that Apple will begin to suffer from an underlying disease, one they recovered from in 2006 when they realized that by allowing consumers to compare apples to apples, Apple would win.

Back then, Apple switched from a non-compatible chip to the Intel processor, thus allowing Windows users to migrate to Apple with the promise that they could run the Windows environment natively. Since Apple decided to go with the flow, so to speak, they have been winning market share. In effect, Apple made it easier to choose as simplicity is their brand promise. (Although anyone who has used both Mac OS and Windows will tell you that, if you HAVE a choice between the two OS systems, Mac wins it hands down.)

It appears that Apple has fallen back to its old ways, and it frightens me. Instead of allowing me to compare apples to apples in electronic book readers, it seems that Apple wants to run on its own and force us to choose between oranges and apples.  Why not allow any format of electronic book to work on the iPad? By making me choose a non-compliant format, Apple is running contrary to its brand promise of simplicity and seems to be running backwards — back towards niche status.

Obviously, there is a price to pay for having the brilliance of Steve Jobs steer the ship (see our last blog on Apple).

You see, Steve, it is not enough to have brilliant design and cutting edge innovation.  You need to be true to your brand promise of simplicity and elegance. The iPad is a perfect example of a loss of focus.

A few weeks back, I bought a Kindle.  The only decision I had to make was which size I wanted.  I did not have to concern myself with book format or subscription fees.  One simple purchase gave me what I wanted – an e-book reader and a non-fee subscription to a 3G internet service to download my books.

With the iPad, I not only have to worry about a non-compatible e-book format, I have to decide upfront: Do I want Wi-Fi only or do I need Wi-Fi and 3G?  If I decide on 3G, I have to arrange for a 3G carrier and pay a monthly subscription fee. It is just enough uncertainty for me to stick with the familiar and turn my back on Apple.

Apple has not made my life easier. Apple has complicated it.  That over-complication is a lot to ask for what is an oversized iPod Touch.

When I bought my first generation iPhone (three upgrades ago), it simplified my life.  I no longer had to carry my phone and iPod when I traveled.  The iPhone did both better.

Tell me this, Apple: What do I leave behind this time to carry the iPad with me on business trips? My iPhone or my MacBook Pro? Nope, need both of those.  Apple would have me add 1.5 pounds to my brief case so that I can carry my e-book and pay another fee to AT&T for 3G connectivity.

Never mind. I just bought a Kindle and its connection is free.

Apple usually does everything right. We are not accustomed to seeing Apple stumble, because no does brand better then Apple. And it will be the brand that saves them from this latest innovation, the iPad.

The iPad, as it currently stands, is a guffaw. It is not the first or last one from Apple (remember Apple TV?) and the brand of Apple will mean the next stage, either of the iPad itself or what follows it, will be the game-changer.

This is simply the warning shot over the bow. This is simply a slow seller because it doesn’t do anything new and replaces nothing.

I don’t need a better way of browsing the Web. I already have a very reliable source of wasting my time doing that. I don’t need a better way of watching movies. My flat screen TV is much better for that. I don’t need a better way of reading books. My Kindle works just fine. My iPhone does just fine for running apps, listening to music and checking my email.

In fact, all the things the iPad does I already can do – more simply than using the iPad. I don’t have to make decisions about getting the Wi-Fi or the 3G version. My components are focused and simple, which is something the Apple brand has always promised. (Emotionally, the iPad feels complex.)

Basically, I don’t need anything the iPad does.

Do I want it? What a stupid question. Of course I want it.

The Apple brand promises its users that anyone who adopts it is cooler than anyone else, more connected than anyone else and more up to date then anyone else. The simple of idea of Apple – of belonging to that special species – surmounts any product issue as long as the brand keeps true to who I believe I am for using one. The brand also signals there are better things to come.

The technology is breathtaking. When Apple allows me to leave my MacBook Pro home and carry the tablet, then I will REALLY need it. In the meantime, I only want it. Not because it is great or that it has product benefits. But because it is from Apple.

Dell is trying to gain ground on Apple, no not the Mac laptops but, (and this is an odd thing to say), they hope to gain ground on Apple’s greatest competitive market — the iPod.

They would have better luck fighting in the PC market then against Apple’s juggernaut in the portable music business.

Dell has lost its way as a brand and this is another example of it. To the customer, Dell does not mean high style, reliability, cool, or desirable — Dell means inexpensive.

Unlike the PC business, (where the purchase is almost obligatory) portable music players are discretionary purchases, and as such, are more brand driven then other categories.

It won’t take long for Dell to rethink, regroup and then bumble its way into yet another disaster.

That is after the dust settles from this debacle.