Last year the sole change in the iPad lineup was the launch of a 9.7-inch “Pro” version. Apple’s tablet was more or less ignored after that, as sales continued to drop. While iOS 10 added a few tricks to advance iPad multitasking, being productive with multiple apps and documents is still not near as flexible as on a Mac or a PC.

It’s quite possible that the lack of attention to the hardware conveyed the message that Apple didn’t care so much about the iPad. It appeared to be languishing for the most part, and customers responded appropriately, so sales languished. This may also be a reason why sales of new Macs flagged until the last quarter, when the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar arrived.

Over recent weeks, the usual Apple supply chain leaks, and comments from industry analysts, are pointing to across-the-board refreshes and perhaps even an all-new iPad. So there will be an update for the 12.9-inch iPad Pro and perhaps a refresh for the 9.7-inch model that was introduced last year. The larger iPad could gain the display enhancements of its smaller counterpart, such as True Tone.

There’s also talk of an all-new form factor, with a 10.5-inch display fitted into a case little different from the 9.7-inch model. It’ll benefit from an edge-to-edge display.

Other improvements are said to include an A10x Fusion processor and perhaps better cameras. There may even be an update to the 7.9-inch iPad mini. Maybe. A report from a mobile marketing firm apparently reveals the online presence of new models, referred to as “iPad 7,1,”plus variations that include “7,2,” “7,3,” and “7.4.”

While it’s not certain which models they refer to, it would appear to include two, each with and without cellular capability. So maybe it’s just the 12.9-inch and 10.5-inch versions. Perhaps the original 9.7-inch iPad Pro will be left untouched and sold at a lower price.

Whatever Apple does, it could come within another week or two. When there’s an all-new model, however, one expects a media event of some sort, and that may happen, but it’s too late for next week. So perhaps it’ll come as early as March 27th or 28th, or the first part of April. Maybe.

There were earlier reports that such an event might include new Product Red versions of iPhones, plus a variation of the iPhone SE with 128GB storage, but no other changes in the internal workings. But I fail to see why such minor changes would require more than a press release or two.

Now I feel a little more optimistic about the iPad, because of Apple’s new promotional campaign. That may be designed to whet your appetite for the new models, or just move existing product, although there have been reports of constrained supplies that might herald product refreshes.

I just wonder whether a 10.5-inch iPad (Pro?), even if it comes in a case with a similar size and weight compared to the smaller iPad Pro, would be enough to fuel sales. Does it really make that much of a difference to anyone? Maybe for people with older iPads who might be tempted to upgrade, but if it doesn’t do anything different, why bother?

Maybe that’s just me, because I’m an iPad skeptic. While it does meet the needs of lots of people, it doesn’t suit me at all. I can get by with a regular iPhone plus a couple of Macs to do the heavy lifting. Little of that heavy lifting would work on an iPad, at least not until Apple makes major alterations in the kinds of software allowed on iOS. A more flexible multitasking and file management scheme would also help a lot, but I’m not suggesting that an iPad become more Mac-like. I’d like to think that Apple’s iOS developers are clever enough to figure out innovative ways to stretch the envelope.

To me, today’s iPad is little more than a grown up iPod touch. Apple continues to take poor advantage of the larger display beyond the logical expansions of screen real estate. Apple wants us to assume that the “iPad Pro isn’t even close to being a computer,” when it actually is. It’s just a different kind of PC, but why should I quibble with Apple’s marketing plans?

Meanwhile, if Apple is really and truly overhauling the iPad lineup, or at least refreshing it in the usual ways — plus that unconfirmed new model — what about the Mac? Isn’t it about time for a spring Mac refresh too? Last year, the first Mac update was a revised version of the MacBook. Is that all that’s meant to be, or will Apple deliver new iMacs and perhaps revisions to the Mac Pro and maybe the Mac mini?

Is it possible there will be a combined media event, in which both of Apple’s PC lines are refreshed? This would mean the iPad and the Mac, though the latter might come at the end of the event assuming product changes are relatively minor.

But while the online chatter speaks of new iPad models discovered in web metrics, nothing’s been said about new Macs in the pipeline. At least not yet.

In recent years, whenever a new gadget is expected from Apple, many so-called industry analysts will go on at length as to how the products will somehow be unsatisfactory. This despite the fact that Apple has, with a few exceptions, been able to grow revenue year-over-year.

So the iPhone 7 was supposed to be little more than a minor refresh of the iPhone 6s. The case was essentially the same, and where’d Apple get the temerity to ditch the headphone jack? At least that was the complaint that persisted for months before it was released.

That Apple was able to break a down cycle with the iPhone 7 isn’t lost on some skeptics. Besides, it’s water-resistant, so I’d be less fearful of its imminent destruction if it were dunked by accident. Well, not in deep water. Besides, it’s faster and has a better camera than its predecessor. If you have an iPhone 6 or earlier, it’s a huge deal.

Now that Apple is on a roll again, with higher stock prices, and an iPhone that is, even if only slightly, outselling its predecessor so far, the chatter is about the iPhone 8, the iPhone Edition, or whatever a rumored 10th anniversary model will be called.

To be sure, this would be a premium product with loads of extra stuff. The rumors talk of an edge-to-edge OLED display, facial recognition, a Home button with Touch ID embedded in the screen, and other joys, such as wireless charging. Well, I don’t care so much about wireless charging, at least in the ways it’s been implemented so far, but OLED has its charms. You have better blacks, richer colors, an unlimited viewing angle, and power savings. The latter means longer battery life.

But in the past, when people complained about iPhones, they were usually regarded as second best to the latest and greatest Samsung Galaxy smartphone. It’s very much because Samsung is notorious for loading up on fancy-sounding features even if they are of questionable value.

You might have expected a similar reaction, with complaints that some of the new features being touted in the latest rumors about the iPhone 8 duplicate what you can already get on a Samsung. That includes the edge-to-edge OLED display and wireless charging. There is also a Galaxy handset that claims water-resistance, although it failed a Consumer Reports dunk test.

In any case, despite those objections, there are renewed concerns that the forthcoming Samsung Galaxy S8, due to be launched by the end of March, is destined to sell fewer copies than the previous model. Predictions have it that Samsung will be lucky to ship 40 to 45 million units for fiscal-year 2017, compared to shipments of 52 million for the Galaxy S7.

Note that Samsung sales are reported as shipments, which doesn’t mean that many were actually sold. How many were returned unsold to Samsung, or discounted at a loss because of low demand, isn’t stated.

Now when you look at those numbers, even if you assume most ended up in the hands of real buyers, a comparison with Apple is inevitable. But Apple doesn’t break down sales by model. So while 211.88 million iPhones were sold in fiscal year 2016, how many represented the iPhone 6s, which was the flagship model that year? Half, two thirds? Apple clearly sells more premium smartphones than Samsung. The latter’s advantage is in cheaper gear, in market segments Apple won’t touch because there’s no profit in it.

But the reason analysts are looking towards an iPhone 8 as doing better than Samsung — even better than the usual breakdown among flagship models between the two companies — is because it’s not expected that the Galaxy S8 will offer much in the way of “sufficiently attractive selling points.”

When I checked the rumors about the next Samsung, the feature breakdown didn’t seem altogether different when compared to the most important features expected in the iPhone 8. A key difference is a curved OLED display, a feature that the rumors claim Apple has already abandoned. One other potentially interesting feature on the new Samsung is a PC Mode, which supposedly allows you to connect the unit to a computer display or TV to provide a more traditional desktop environment. It’s questionable how well the tiny Android layout will scale up. My suspicion is that it won’t, even though it may sound promising in writing. But this wouldn’t be the first time Samsung has introduced a feature that has little or no practical value.

To be fair, I suspect that the features being mentioned for the Galaxy S8 are closer to the mark, since the device will be released soon. The next iPhone’s capabilities are less certain since it won’t go into production until the summer. Besides, there are always a few things that Apple manages to conceal, or mostly conceal, until the actual launch date.

What is interesting is that the chatter from industry analysts has become more positive for Apple at the expense of Samsung. Maybe the Galaxy Note 7 debacle has soured some on Samsung, because it represented a serious quality control lapse. Not mentioned that often is the recent arrest of CEO Jay Y. Lee on bribery charges. Samsung has to really prove itself.

Regardless, Apple has started this year with the wind at its sails.

It’s getting closer. There’s more and more online chatter about the form and features of the next iPhone. The basic premise is that Apple will offer three models. Two will be minor refreshes of current gear, which means there will be an iPhone 7s and an iPhone 7s Plus. The new features are said to include the usual speedier processors, plus some extras, such as wireless charging support.

This is to expected, and it’s always possible Apple will add a few things that are, as yet, not predicted. But since the Asian supply chain leaks like a sieve, most of the basics will probably be known before Apple makes an official announcement in September, and I assume that date will hold. Apple would suffer if it’s delayed, although it’s always possible it’ll come earlier. But doing it after Labor Day means that the media event will come after the kids are back at school and vacation time is over for many.

But this year there may be something extra, one more thing, and that’s a specialty flagship model to honor the 10th anniversary of the iPhone. Has it been that long?

Continue Reading…

Over the years, Apple has been accused of monopolistic practices. It’s really hard to make an assumption of that sort of a company that is not really dominant in most markets it serves. So this has to be put in perspective.

So, consider the Mac. Over the years, even in the early days, global market share was in the low double-digits or single digits, and that, with its ups and downs, is pretty much how it stands today. Even though the PC industry is dying, for the most part, with a few down quarters, Mac sales have remained fairly constant.

True, Macs occupy higher shares of the middle and high-ends of the PC market, but such companies as Dell and HP will sell many times more units. When it comes to total sales, however, Apple’s revenue from the Mac is quite similar. When you add iPad revenue, Apple is way ahead. But that state of affairs doesn’t give Apple a monopoly, even though it uses its own operating system.

Windows still holds a 90% market share. There’s also little doubt that Microsoft has done things over the years that were designed to take Apple and other companies down. It goes beyond Apple’s original complaints against Microsoft about cribbing the Mac OS in creating Windows. Consider how Microsoft would release inferior versions of its flagship apps, such as Office for the Mac, with reduced features. The implicit message was, if you wanted the full Office experience, you had to get Windows.

These days, Microsoft sees plenty of growth in services and is delighted to deliver regular Office updates for macOS and iOS. Indeed, a mobile version of Office came to iOS — and later Android — before a mobile version for the Windows platform arrived. Microsoft went after the money regardless of platform.

It is true that Apple dominated the digital music player business with the iPod, but the iPhone/iOS market share is way behind Android.

This doesn’t mean that the iPhone doesn’t have a few advantages. Among premium smartphones, the iPhone earns a hefty share. When it comes to profits, Apple gets 79.2% of the global market. Apple also earns a high percentage of PC industry profits.

That appears to be enough for one analyst, from UBS, to suggest that Apple may have what he calls “an anti-fragile monopoly.” This particular analyst, one Steven Milunovich, attributes this to Apple’s pricing power, that it forces other companies to compete on price to get their own pieces of the pie.

By pricing power, consider the fact that the iPhone’s ASP neared $700 in the last quarter, largely due to the success of the iPhone 7 Plus, and has remained within a fairly narrow range since 2008. In contrast, Google’s main revenue creator, online advertising, is generating lower cost-per-clicks nowadays, which means more ads have to attract clicks to keep the cash flowing in.

But Google’s problems in maximizing revenue from clickable ads is not caused by the high price of an iPhone. Advertisers seek the highest possible return on their investments, and online ads do not have the impact they used to have. I suppose part of that is because such ads have become more intrusive, with many sites putting up ads that interrupt and overwhelm the display of content until dismissed, or autostart multimedia content without your permission. All that does is encourage people to use ad-blockers, which hurts anyone who depends on income from online ads.

Apple doesn’t do any of that. It sells retail products that you can choose to buy or not buy — your choice.

What Apple has is not monopoly power but discipline. While prices sometimes come down on Apple gear, overall profits remain consistently high. Apple rarely competes on price. While other tech companies do offer a selection of premium gear, they have opted to compete on volume rather than price for the most part.

So to cater to people who maybe cannot afford expensive gear, they race to the bottom with the cheapest stuff. Such devices do not generate much in the way of profits, although I suppose they keep the cash flow at a fairly decent clip. So maybe that satisfies many company accountants. Certainly the key players in the industry, such as Dell, HP, Lenovo and Samsung, all offer confusing arrays of products in different market segments. There’s tons of gear out there, and they dwarf Apple in market share.

Except for the failed foray into model profusion with such Macs as the Performa series of the mid-1990s, Apple has stayed away from flooding the market with junk. Again that’s discipline, not monopolistic behavior.

Some of Apple’s critics believe the company should license iOS and macOS to boost market share, but don’t forget the the company is selling hardware, not software. Licensing software that is given away free hardly makes sense. It will only serve to dilute sales of genuine Apple gear.

It has also been suggested that Apple might consider licensing macOS to one or two of the larger PC makers to build high-end gear in markets Apple doesn’t serve, such as gaming machines, workstations to replace the Mac Pro, and perhaps servers. But nothing prevents Apple from putting high-end graphics into the iMac and to develop a special Mac Pro for gamers. That way they’d earn all the profits. Why give anything away?

What’s more, if one wants to talk about potential monopolies, Google’s share of the search market now exceeds 80% according to Net Applications metrics. Nobody else comes close? Bing and Yahoo (which uses the Bing search engine) are way back in the single digits. Isn’t that real market dominance?