Years ago, Stephen Jay Gould put forward a new twist on how species evolved over time. Called “punctuated equilibrium,” the essential notion is that changes in species characteristics most often occur in small increments spanning long periods of time. However, on rare occasions, typically due to some major upheaval in the environment, a period of (relatively) rapid change may occur. As a species “scrambles” to adapt to the radical changes in its environment, the most frequent result is either the emergence of a new species and/or extinction of the old one.

As I ponder the evolutionary path of Macworld Expo (now Macworld | iWorld), the concept of “punctuated equilibrium” strikes me as a perfect metaphor.

From the very first Expo back in 1985 until the ones held just a few years ago, Macworld was the epitome of evolutionary stasis. Certainly, there were ups and downs. The Expo expanded (occupying all of Moscone North and South at one point) and contracted, locations moved and were sometimes eliminated altogether (see: East Coast Expos). Still, if you attended an Expo in 2008, the overall format, the “look and feel” of the show, was quite similar to what it was decades earlier. The changes were overall small in comparison to what remained the same.

All of this ended in 2009, due to a convergence of two cataclysmic events.

The first event was one that had been brewing for more than a decade but finally exploded in the mid-2000’s: the rise of the web. With companies hawking their wares on websites, they no longer saw a need to fork over the bucks for a huge trade show booth. Additionally, companies no longer timed the release of their new products to coincide with a big trade show announcement. The result: smaller shows with almost nothing truly “new” on display. This led to a contraction, and ultimately an elimination, of many trade shows (CES remains an exception to this rule). For a time, Macworld held up against this tide, thanks to the re-ascendance of Steve Jobs as CEO and, a bit later, to the popularity of Apple’s iPod. But, by the latter half of the decade, even as Apple’s stature skyrocketed with the release of the iPhone, Macworld Expo was feeling the downward drag of this “web effect.”

The second event was Apple’s departure from the Expo in 2010 (Steve Jobs last appearance was actually in 2008). This put Macworld Expo in a perilous tailspin. Almost all major vendors deserted the show floor. Attendance dropped precipitously. Almost everyone was speculating how long it would be before the Expo went “extinct” altogether.

In other words, the Expo had gone from stasis to disruption. The equilibrium had clearly “punctuated.”

Today, after 4 years of scrambling to reinvent itself, a new Macworld has emerged. It was actually first seen last year. Almost entirely abandoning the idea of Macworld as an industry trade show, it became the “ultimate iFan event,” a consumer-oriented celebration of Apple’s products — and the peripherals, software and people that support them. Recognizing the overriding importance of Apple’s mobile “i” products, Macworld Expo also changed its named, rebranding itself as Macworld | iWorld.

And it worked. The new show is smaller, with a very different feel than the ones that came before. But it is successful.

Attendance this year remained healthy (even if my rough estimate suggests it was a bit less than last year). Vendors were generally giddy with excitement at how much traffic they saw at their booths. Several vendors that I asked were all or nearly all sold out of everything they had brought to sell at the show.

The Tech Talks were as strong as ever (disclaimer: I gave one of these Tech Talks). The events on the Main Stage and in the hallways struck me as even better than in years past.

Most noteworthy, the format of this year’s Expo was an almost identical match to that of last year.

In other words, the disruptive period of Macworld Expo evolution appears to be coming to end. Instead, we are now entering a new period of stasis which (if you enjoy Macworld as much as I do) will hopefully remain for the foreseeable future.

Trending topics…

For the past several years, hardware products have not dominated the show floor. That’s not exactly true. If you wanted to see iPhone/iPad cases or coverings of any sort, from the practical and useful (such as iPad cases with keyboards) to the silly and pretty useless (such as iPhone cases with can openers), they were there in abundance. The same was true for other i-accessories, from batteries to camera lenses. To me, the silly and nearly useless products too often outnumbered the practical and useful ones. Happily, the ratio was significantly more favorable this year. There was actually innovative hardware on the floor.

If you check out Macworld’s Best of Show awards, you’ll get a feel for what I mean. Seven out of the nine winners went to hardware products.

Among my personal favorites at the show were Kanex’s mySpot and meDrive, Seagate’s Wireless Plus drive, Hyper’s iUSBport, and Connected Data’s Transporter. All of these represent new wireless methods of storing and accessing data. This is definitely a growing trend. I’m certain this category will expand further by next year’s event. I was also glad to see the ScanSnap iX500 document scanner (a product I raved about in a review prior to the Expo).

As for software, the Appalooza section of the floor combined both iOS and Mac products. It was an eclectic collection, not really representative of the biggest and most popular products (most of whom did not have a booth). But it was still interesting and fun to browse through. I was most intrigued by several “new” entries — Cloak (a consumer-friendly VPN service), CleanMyMac 2 (an update to a cleaning app that looked good enough to actually risk using on my drive), JPEGmini (an app that appears to greatly reduce the file size of images without a loss of image quality) and two great magic apps for the iPhone from Rostami (iForce and iPredict+). I hope Appalooza is even bigger next year. Good inexpensive software is always a crowd-pleaser.

It’s that time of year again. A time to look back at the most significant Apple-related news stories of the year. As I did last year, I’ve selected my choice of the top 5 stories, “reflecting both the ups and downs of Apple’s year, with a bias towards the up.” I’ve also included two honorable mentions for noteworthy stories that didn’t quite qualify for a 2012 award. Let the countdown begin…

5. Mountain Lion: The iOS-ification of OS X continues

On July 25, Apple released Mountain Lion, the newest version of OS X for Macs. As Apple releases a new version of OS X every year, this isn’t big news by itself. What made Mountain Lion special was its emphasis on “iOS-ification.” This is a trend that began with Lion in 2011, but really took off with this year’s OS X update.

A look at Apple’s What’s New webpage for Mountain Lion reveals that almost every listed item is either an iOS feature imported to the Mac (Reminders, Notes, Messages, Notification Center, Game Center. Tweet from apps) or is designed to for improved interplay between iOS devices and Macs (iCloud, AirPlay). Given that iOS devices now represent the lion’s share of Apple’s revenue, this shift makes sense.

Overall, these new features are an improvement compared to how similar tasks were handled in Lion. Still, there is concern about the end game. Will OS X continue to evolve to a more iOS-like environment? Will this ultimately mean a simpler, more user-friendly Mac — one that has the bonus of effortlessly working with iPhones and iPads? Or will OS X emerge as a dumbed-down, sandboxed OS that leaves users frustrated with a host of iOS-derived restrictions and prohibitions? The answer should become clearer with the expected release of OS X 10.9 in 2013.

4. iPhone 5: Hello gorgeous!

The iPhone 5 is a knockout. Plain and simple. It improved on the previous generation of the iPhone in every aspect that matters: a larger 4″ screen, LTE support, a faster A6 processor, and an even better camera.

Plus, with its sleek thin design and metal back, it is the best looking iPhone ever. To top it off, it weighs no more than a feather (okay, two feathers).

While there has been grumbling about having to shift from the 30-pin Dock connector to the new Lightning connector, this was a necessary change. Once the period of transition is over, even Lightning will be viewed as an asset.

Competition from Android smartphones has been intense over the past year. Apple needed the new iPhone to be a big deal. It was. And it still is.

3. MacBook Pro with Retina Display: Seeing is believing

When Apple unveiled the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display last June, the consensus (as typified by John Gruber) was that it was the “best computer Apple has ever made.” Later in the year, Apple added an equally impressive 13-inch Retina display sibling.

Why are these laptops such a big deal? The answer can be summed up in two words, words that are part of the name of the devices: Retina display. Once you spend time with these displays, you will be hard-pressed to go back to anything else. To describe the display as gorgeous is an understatement. Text seems as if it were inked on by some calligraphic process; there is no hint of pixelation. Photos pop out with a startling brilliance.

That’s not all. Although not quite as thin as the MacBook Air, the Retina display notebooks are still thinner and lighter than any previous MacBook Pro. Like the Air, they feature super-fast and reliable SSD storage. And consistent with where Apple sees the future heading, these Pros no longer have an optical drive.

These MacBooks are the blueprint for Apple’s future laptops over the next couple of years. No other computer company has anything that can compete with them. And that’s why they are on the Top 5 list.

2. iPad mini: Smaller makes it bigger

Steve Jobs famously dismissed the idea of a 7-inch iPad as “too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.” The public disagreed. Conceding to the public’s appetite, Apple announced the iPad mini back in October. It was the right move. Since then, Apple has been unable to keep up with demand. It’s been a run-away hit, likely at the forefront of what will be a blockbuster holiday season for Apple.

The mini doesn’t break ground with new features. In fact, in some ways it is a step backward — especially as it lacks the Retina display of the larger iPad. But what it lacks in new features it makes up for with its primary reason for existence: a smaller size. With the growing popularity of super-large smartphones and 7-inch tablets, it was clear Apple needed a competitive entry in this market. The iPad mini is Apple’s answer.

Most reviewers admired the more compact size of the mini, with its ability to easily hold the device in one hand. In general, the smaller display size was not viewed as problematic for working with iPad-optimized apps. Many mini users expect to switch from the larger iPad to the mini as their main tablet. Indeed, pundits predict that the iPad mini will eclipse the larger iPad in market share by the end of 2013.

1. Maps: Apple’s sense of direction falters

At the start of 2012, I would never have guessed that an iOS app category would emerge as the top story of the year. But it did. Maps is not just any ol’ app category. It may be the single most critical app on an iOS device. Not only is it one of the most frequently used apps — but with its ability to locate nearby places of business and other points-of-interest, it is an important indirect source of revenue for many companies. Whoever controls the default maps app controls a key portion of iOS.

That’s essentially why Apple was increasingly uncomfortable with the fact that Google was the developer behind the Maps app for iOS. And that’s what led Apple to replace it with their own in-house version of Maps, introduced as part of iOS 6.

It was not a smooth introduction.

It turned out that Apple’s Maps app had accuracy issues, too often leading to a “wrong” destination. Complaints from users quickly became front page news. In a rare move, Apple was forced to issue a letter of apology, where it suggested alternative mapping apps while Apple worked to improve its own app. Complicating matters further, Scott Forstall (head of iOS software development) refused to sign the apology statement, which became a precipitating factor in his being fired from Apple.

Mapping again made news when an updated version of Google’s Maps app returned to iOS in December. The new version was better than ever — including Google offering turn-by-turn directions for the first time on an iOS device. Personally, assuming both Apple’s and Google’s apps were equally accurate, I prefer Apple’s Maps overall. For one thing, I find it easier to set up a route with it. However, Google’s app offers the plus of transit directions. In the end, the battle between the two apps a win-win situation for iOS users.

The fall-out from the Maps app controversy extends beyond the world of mapping. A few years from now, I believe it will be seen as a tipping point event that broke a long-standing magic spell surrounding Apple.

Almost immediately after the controversy erupted, Apple’s stock began a 200-point (and still counting) decline. The decline was partly attributed to the Maps business. However, other negative trends also contributed to analysts’ concerns. Most critical was increased competition in the mobile market, especially from Samsung’s Android devices. And for the first time in years, numerous articles appeared that questioned whether or not Apple had peaked.

Some analysts attributed the decline to a sell-off, prior to an expected capital gains increase in 2013. By this measure, you can expect Apple stock to go up again in January. And there is no doubt that Apple continues to rake in money on impressive sales of its devices. Still, at least on Wall Street and among many journalists, there has been a negative shift in the mindset towards Apple. The ultimate fate of Apple’s stock, and Apple’s overall market dominance, remains in flux.

Honorable mentions

AirPlay: Living in the future. AirPlay has been around for quite some time. Initially, called AirTunes, it was introduced in 2004; the shift to an expanded AirPlay version occurred in 2010. While this would seem to make it ineligible for a 2012 list, I include it here because of its recently expanded capabilities, primarily mirroring. You can now mirror almost anything on a Mac or an iOS device to an Apple TV. With third-party software such as Reflector, you can similarly mirror iOS displays to a Mac.

I continue to be blown away by what AirPlay easily allows you to do. Whenever my wife asks a technology question that ends in “Can we do this?,” my answer is increasingly “Yes.” And, more often than not, the reason for the affirmative reply is AirPlay. As an example, I received some photos as text messages the other day. My wife asked if she could see them on our TV. The answer was yes. On another occasion, she wanted to watch a TV show she had forgotten to record. I found the show on the network’s website, but it could only be viewed from the web. Again, she preferred to see it on our television. No problem with AirPlay.

AirPlay is just one element of a larger trend towards more sophisticated interactions among all of our increasingly powerful technology devices. It’s beginning to feel as if we are living in the future…when the things I saw in science-fiction movies years ago are now reality. And Apple technologies, such as AirPlay, are at the forefront of this trend.

iCloud: Moving on up. This was the year that Apple terminated MobileMe and went all in with iCloud. The new service is far from perfect. I still prefer Dropbox for many tasks. But with iTunes Match, PhotoStream, Documents in the Cloud (especially when used with iWork documents), and numerous other iCloud-dependent capabilities, we are finally seeing the practical benefits of Apple-integrated cloud storage. It’s all part of a evolutionary shift, clearly endorsed by Apple, towards the cloud as the key component for the storage and manipulation of all our data. Expect this shift to accelerate in 2013.

In a recent The Loop article, “OMG iOS is being OS X-ified,” Jim Dalrymple dismisses the idea that OS X is evolving to become more like iOS (as many others, including myself, have claimed). Nonsense, says Jim. He argues that one could just as easily claim that the iOS devices have evolved to become more like Macs. How so? Because iOS devices have web browsers and email clients and appointment calendars and so on — all of which were on the Mac first.

When I first read the article, it was hard for me to take Jim’s arguments seriously. In fact, it was a bit hard for me to believe Jim even intended the arguments to be taken seriously. As pointed out by a reader comment, his logic essentially amounts to a “strawman” argument. So I was glad to see Jim admit, in a comment reply, that the “article was meant to be sarcastic and nothing more.”

Still, I believe there is a serious intent behind the column or Jim would not have written it. In fact, in a previous Loop column, Jim un-sarcastically asserts: “These claims of Mountain Lion being more like iOS are just shit.” That’s a serious charge. So I’d like to offer a serious reply.

Yes, web surfing came to the Mac before it arrived on the iPhone. But that’s not an example of “Mac-ification” of the iPhone, at least not in the sense that Jim intends. The Mac existed for over twenty years before the iPhone was created. There is no doubt that the iPhone included many attributes of the Mac when it was first released in 2007 — such as a Safari web browser and a Mail app. How could it not? The entire iOS operating system was derived from Mac OS X.

But that’s not the point. The much more relevant question is, now that both iOS versions separately exist, each with their own distinct characteristics, do increasing similarities between the two OS versions derive more from changes going from iOS to OS X — or vice versa?

It is clear that the answer is iOS to OS X. Apple makes no secret of this. Steve Jobs stated back in October 2010, in regard to OS X Lion 10.7: “Lion brings many of the best ideas from iPad back to the Mac.” Except for not always agreeing with the “best” part, this is what I and many others mean when we refer to “iOS-ification.” I don’t see why Jim wants to argue with this.

Further, it is almost silly to equate the fact that Macs had an email client or a photo app before iPhones to the fact that OS X Mountain Lion is directly adopting iOS apps such as Reminders and Notes. Almost every computer platform on the planet has an email client and a photo app. These are generic requirements, much like tires on a car. This is quite different from a Notes app in Mountain Lion that is almost a 100% duplication of the look and feel of Notes in iOS. Notes on the Mac is more than a replication of function, it is a replication of design and (most likely) specific code from the iOS version.

Jim further claims: “If Apple were trying to make Mountain Lion more like iOS we would be touching the screen of our computers to interact with out apps instead of using the keyboard and mouse.” This too is a silly exaggeration. First, this is hardly the only criteria by which you can judge what Apple is trying to do here. Second, Apple is using the Trackpad, with its multitouch gestures, to mimic the effect of a touchscreen on a Mac.

Jim even manages to contradict himself in a single paragraph. He writes: “Mountain Lion added the Notes and Reminders apps — that doesn’t make Mac OS more like iOS, it means that…millions of iOS users can open their Mountain Lion computers and have a higher level of familiarity with the apps on their Mac.” Yes, but where does this “higher level of familiarity” come from? It comes from the fact that these Mac apps look and feel more like the matching ones in iOS!

The final question for me is: Why is Jim getting so worked up about this anyway? Why is he so eager to “prove” that this trend is not happening? When I read his columns on this subject, it almost seems as if Jim feels threatened by the idea that OS X might be becoming more like iOS. As if, by admitting this is happening, one would be admitting some essential flaw in OS X, one that Jim feels he must oppose. I’m not sure where all of this comes from.

It is true that some people have been critical of the trend, arguing that moving OS X in the direction of iOS is making the Mac simpler to the point of “dumbing down” the OS. Others (including myself) have argued that some of the changes don’t fit very well; what works on an iPhone is not always suited for a Mac environment. And finally, some have expressed concern that “iOS-ification” will eventually result in a “closed” OS X, where only apps that are purchased from the Mac App Store will run.

These are valid concerns, worth debating. It doesn’t make them automatically true. I see merit on both sides of the arguments. However, Jim doesn’t mention any of this in his columns. In fact, he mentions no basis for his opposition at all. Instead, he just spews venom and sarcasm. So there is no way to know whether or not any of these concerns represent the reasoning behind his position.

Dave Hamilton suggests that Jim and I are, in the end, “saying the same thing; chosen changes are appropriate for Desktop OS.” At some level, perhaps this is so. Maybe the problem is that Jim and I have different definitions as to what “iOS-ification” means. If we could agree on definitions, we might agree in general. Jim and I certainly appear to agree that (as I wrote in my Mac Observer column last week) “Apple has not begun a conversion of OS X to iOS.” Still, both of us would accept that there is an increasing similarity between OS X and iOS — and that such similarity can have the advantage of maximizing “the positive transfer between the two platforms.” Indeed, I find myself largely in agreement with another Loop article on this same subject, written by by Matt Alexander. I assume Jim agrees as well. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. And in the details, Jim’s own postings have taken off in a more extreme and unsupportable direction.

In my view, iOS-ification by itself is neither good or bad. It is good if it works well and improves the experience of using a Mac. I contended, in my just-cited Mac Observer column, that this is precisely what Mountain Lion’s iOS-like features do; the forthcoming OS X “gets ios-ification right.” The trend is obviously bad if and when it goes in the opposite direction. I prefer to focus on such considerations, rather than making specious and dismissive claims that an “iOS-ification” trend doesn’t even exist.

Update: In a Twitter exchange between Jim and myself, which followed the posting of this article, Jim wrote: “If you are saying I don’t get it, you are saying Apple doesn’t get it.” and “Do you honestly think I spent an hour and a half with them and didn’t talk about this stuff?”

Second, assuming Jim’s restatements are accurate, he seems unwilling to realize that Apple might “spin” what they tell him. Surely, it is legitimate to disagree with Apple’s public presentation of its actions. If that’s what I am doing (and it’s still not clear to me that this is the case), I would be far from the first person to do so.