Last year, we were told that the iPhone 7 would be a subpar upgrade. It would offer a case design quite similar to the iPhone 6s, and that’s all she (or he) wrote. It didn’t matter that the new model was water-resistant, had a better camera (or cameras with the iPhone 7 Plus) and other goodies that made it a worthwhile upgrade.

It was all about the looks.

So with reports of a very different look for the rumored iPhone 8 this fall, you’d think the critics would be satisfied. After all, weren’t they telling everyone to wait?

Well, as many of you know, the iPhone 8 will also supposedly be a subpar upgrade mostly because its key features will be similar to capabilities already present on competing gear. Forgotten is the fact that Apple is not always first with a feature or product. More often than not, Apple’s approach is to deliver a better alternate with that special coolness factor.

Don’t forget that there were digital music players before the iPod arrived, there were smartphones before the debut of the iPhone, and there were tablets years before Apple got into that game.

Just saying.

In any case, more and more speculation is now appearing about this next iPhone, or possibly an extra flagship model that’ll have extra goodies to honor its 10th anniversary.

So what are we talking about? Well, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, of KGI Securities, who is more often right than wrong, has right off the bat scotched reports that Apple might ditch the Lightning port in favor of USB-C on one or more of the new iPhone configurations.

Not that I expected that to change, although some might wonder why USB-C isn’t going to spread across Apple’s entire product lineup. Well, maybe it will, in time, but the supply chain chatter would probably reveal such a move by now. Remember how the rumors about the iPhone 7 had it right about the lack of a headphone jack.

In any case, although there will reportedly be a Lightning port, Apple will allegedly add what is called “Type-C Power Delivery,” which means faster charging. Yes, that’s something similar to what other smartphones already have. There will also be wireless charging capability, and again that’s nothing new.

Indeed, I do recall playing with an experimental wireless charging scheme about a decade ago. The company no longer seems to be around, but it was all about providing custom cases for different mobile gear, which allowed them to charge on their powered plates.

I had the feeling at the time that it was an awkward solution. Yes, I realize today’s Apple Watch has its own wireless charging arrangement, but it’s also a convenient night stand for these devices. These other wireless charging methods involve plugging in a plate to a wall socket. Something has to be plugged in, and leaving sensors on the mobile gear to touch the top of the plate to receive current. So is was still a form of contact even though no device cable is used.

In any case, the special edition or flagship iPhone may have a case made of all curved glass, with an edge-to-edge OLED display. The other notable changes reportedly involve the removal of a physical Home button, and embedding Touch ID, the FaceTime camera, and the speakers in the screen. Apple will also include a 3D facial recognition capability that would allow for yet another secure login method. But the sort of elaborate face masks made famous in the “Mission Impossible” TV shows and movies probably won’t work.

I suppose those iPhone 8 features are original, and it may well be that Apple is doing all this to make it possible to fit a larger display — either 5.1-inch or 5.2-inch — in a case no larger than the 4.7-inch iPhone 7.

Again, this model will supposedly be marketed as a special model, therefore costing more than the iPhone 7s and iPhone 7s Plus. Rumors have it that it’ll be priced at over $1,000 US, even in a basic configuration, though that may still be for the one with 256GB of storage. If so, it would only make it slightly more expensive than the similarly configured “Plus.”

As to the rest of the lineup, it will be typical of an “s” upgrade, meaning the case might be mostly the same, except perhaps for wireless charging receptors. The inner workings will be given the appropriate enhancements befitting a product refresh, such as a faster processor (A11 Fusion?), a better camera, and maybe a few other goodies.

The speculation I’ve seen doesn’t mention whether the iPhone 8 will be fully water-proofed, or retain a water-resistant capability similar to today’s iPhone 7.

So the critics will not stop drilling into us about how last year’s iPhone and this year’s iPhone are all inferior to Samsung and other gear. Well, maybe some of them receive spiffs on the side from Samsung to state the outrageous, though that’s stretching it. The fact is that some people don’t like Apple, and don’t need any incentive to mouth off about them at any available opportunity. After all, some Apple customers don’t like Google, Samsung or Microsoft either, but maybe the opinions aren’t quite so extreme.

Walt Mossberg is a long-time tech journalist who used to hang his hat at the Wall Street Journal. His achievements include co-hosting those All Things D events some years back that featured such luminaries as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. These days he’s Executive Editor of The Verge and Editor at Large for Recode.

When he reviews a product, tech companies take notice. When he comes up with a theory about a possible new product, it will be taken seriously even if it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense.

So take his recent article for The Verge, entitled, “The PC is being redefined.”

He begins by saying the obvious, how smartphones and tablets have assumed many of the functions of the traditional PC. This is particularly true for the former, since tablets have suffered from flagging sales in the last few years. He blames that, to some degree, on the fact that tablets are often regarded as consumption devices, rather than being suitable for productivity and creativity. He also mentions the long replacement cycle, meaning people hang onto their devices for several years instead of trading them every couple of years, as is usually done with smartphones.

But Mossberg sees a trend, possible “signs of a tablet revival.” But is he even talking about tablets?

So he mentions laptops being outfitted with ARM processors, citing Google’s Chromebook Plus and Microsoft’s efforts to allow Windows apps to work on ARM gear. But he overlooks the failure of the Surface RT, which looked and felt like a Windows tablet, but couldn’t run traditional Windows apps built for the x86 platform. This time Microsoft is working to resolve that limitation with — get this — a version of Windows 10 with an emulator.

Now if that sounds familiar, it’s clear Microsoft’s copying machines are still running at full steam. In the 1990s, when Apple moved from the original Motorola 680×0 CPUs to PowerPC, they fitted Power Macs with an emulator that allowed you to run older software. For the 2006 switch from PowerPC to Intel, Apple provided Rosetta, yet another emulation scheme, and a pretty efficient one actually. In the early days of the PowerPC, the Motorola CPU emulator was dead slow until processors became fast enough to compensate.

But the fact that Microsoft is doing something does not, obviously, mean it will succeed. I wonder why this move wasn’t considered when the Surface RT came out. Did they not realize that people would expect a computer that ran a version of Windows should be able to run the same apps they could run on other PCs?

Live and learn.

Now it appears Mossberg expects Apple to provide a solution to building a more traditional computer using an ARM processor. But his vision is a curious amalgam of Mac and iPad, involving a traditional or Mac-style notebook running iOS. Please stifle your laughter!

So how does an Apple notebook running iOS differ from the one that runs macOS? Well, both would have keyboards and traditional input devices. Would there be a detachable touchscreen, shades of the refrigerator and toaster oven nightmare envisioned by Apple? Mossberg says, “I personally wouldn’t care.”

Don’t forget that iOS was designed and optimized for a small device with limited resources. Google used it as the blueprint for Android, perhaps reminiscent of how Microsoft used the Classic Mac OS as the blueprint for Windows.

Indeed, many complaints about the iPad are all about the fact that it appears to be little more than a larger iPod touch. Very little is being done to optimize the OS for the bigger displays, other than a few limited multitasking tricks, such as Split View. Yes, app designs are richer, to take advantage of the additional display real estate, but may otherwise not function altogether different from their iPhone counterparts.

If Apple truly wants the iPad to be a more flexible creative tool, iOS would probably have to be enhanced to offer better ways to manage multiple apps, documents, and files. This could all be done without having to stuff iOS into a Mac and expect it to work efficiently. It’s even possible to build better keyboards to help move the creative process along.

But why would Apple install ARM chips in regular notebook computers and restrict it to iOS? Where’s the logic in that?

Indeed, Mossberg admits Apple won’t comment on his questions about such an ungainly beast. They gave him the stock answer of not discussing future products, but I would expect perplexed looks on their faces in issuing those responses. Well, maybe it was done via email or phone, so Mossberg wouldn’t even notice.

This doesn’t mean ARM won’t be used in Apple existing personal computers — Macs.

In light of the decision by Apple to use an ARM processor to power the Touch Bar on the new MacBook Pro, it’s reasonable to see such chips control more and more Mac functions. That doesn’t mean that Apple will give Intel the heave-ho and replace the processors with ARM. But it’s also true that the iPhone 7 is as fast as many PC notebooks already, even though it’s scaled down for maximum power efficiency in a small mobile device. Unfettered, what would its potential be?

Building a processor emulator to run Mac apps is old hat for Apple. Since macOS and iOS apps are already developed with the same tool, Xcode, being able to build ARM versions of Mac apps will also present few obstacles.

How they’d handle Boot Camp and Windows virtual machines without a big performance hit is a huge question mark. Some tech pundits I’ve talked to suggest Apple may do nothing special, and still sell Intel-based Macs for those who need these capabilities. But that would hardly fit Apple’s marketing plan, which is to keep it simple.

Still, an ARM-based Mac, running macOS, makes sense. But the fact that more and more tech companies are experimenting with ARM-based computers may just be the pressure Intel needs to get its act together, get chips out on time, and meet the performance needs of Apple and other PC companies. So there may never be a Mac solely dependent on A-series silicon.

Mossberg’s suggestion of an ARM-based notebook running iOS ignores the design goals of Apple’s mobile OS. While one never knows what Apple might be working on, this suggestion doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.

Over the past year, there have been many concerns about the future of the Mac. Even though Apple earns loads of money from its personal computing platform, it’s a fraction of what the iPhone produces. So there is the theory that Apple doesn’t care about its “lesser” products, and thus is letting them die on the vine, or suffer from inattention. I suppose that should apply to an even greater degree to the iPad, with three years of falling sales.

Of course, when you look at products that, each, deliver over $20 billion in annual revenues, you can hardly call them insignificant. Indeed, two U.S. government entities that cater to housing, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, earned a combined $20 billion last year. It hardly makes sense for any company to want to give up that much business. So I don’t believe Apple is yet imagining a future without Macs and iPads.

I’ve already weighed in on the iPad and a possible future with more productive capabilities. It’s not so much the hardware as the software and the range of apps available for Apple’s tablets. Well, I would like to see better keyboards that are more Mac-like in typing feel.

But what about the Mac and Apple’s commitment to catering to professional users?

This has been a serious question in light of the apparent cutback in product updates during 2016. In the early part of the year, the MacBook received a minor refresh with faster parts. The MacBook Pro upgrade last fall was significant enough in the scheme of things, but highly controversial.

When Apple released an all-new Final Cut Pro X in 2011, pros who depended on previous versions of the video production app were upset. In rebuilding the code base, Apple ditched a lot of important features and also made it very difficult to transfer projects from previous versions. A typical complaint had it that Apple built a simplified video app for consumers rather than people who earned their livings from the business.

So some users stuck with Final Cut Pro 7,  and others switched to Adobe Premiere, Avid and other video production systems. It didn’t help that Apple first pulled the older version of the app from sale (they later restored it for a while).

It would have been better for them to explain the roadmap for the upgrade, and perhaps provide special discounts on the older version to keep customers happy. Or at least calm them down.

Over nearly six years, Apple has pretty much restored what was lost, and added new features that strictly cater to professional users. Did it come too late to make a difference? Will people who gave up on Apple — or perhaps even the Mac — ever return if they feel they can’t depend on Apple to give them the apps they need?

When it comes to the Mac Pro, I think Apple blew it, although perhaps I’ll be proven wrong. The long-awaited 2013 upgrade was sexy, small and light, compared to its heavy cheesegrater predecessor. It also limited most expansion to external ports, meaning a well-equipped system would end up with a wiring nightmare. Worse, there was only one product release. Apple said nothing about its future. You can still buy the same Mac Pro, with three-year-old parts, for pretty much the same price. Well, it does seem that 1TB SSD upgrades are $200 less, but that’s the size of it.

Sure, Apple CEO Tim Cook has talked of a promising roadmap for desktops, which would appear to  indicate that more than a single model will receive an update. But that doesn’t seem to be quite enough to calm pro users.

Well, there may be hope. Speaking at Apple’s shareholder meeting in Cupertino on Tuesday morning, Cook is quoted as delivering some more detailed promises. He said: “You will see us do more in the pro area. The pro area is very important to us. The creative area is very important to us in particular. Don’t think that [because] something we’ve done or something we’re doing that isn’t visible yet is a signal that our priorities are elsewhere. It’s very, very important to us.”

That may be more than enough, actually. Cook used the words “pro” twice and “creative” once. That’s extremely promising. It doesn’t seem to me that he’s speaking just of the MacBook Pro, since the Mac Pro is the only computing workstation in Apple’s product lineup. More to the point, it caters strictly to high-end users, whereas Apple’s most expensive notebook reaches multiple audiences. Some even believe it’s not quite in the Pro category.

Obviously Cook isn’t going to be specific about anything in the pipeline right now. That’s seldom Apple’s way, unless it has a clear marketing advantage. So the 2013 Mac Pro upgrade was first announced months earlier at the WWDC, even though it didn’t ship until December. But I suppose this gave pro users a chance to buy up the current model, if the priorities for the new version didn’t suit them.

The other lingering question is just how Apple might treat a Mac Pro refresh. Will it be the same as the current model with newer parts, or will the form factor be enlarged to allow for some internal expansion?

But at least Apple has given what appears to be genuine hope for product-starved pro users at long last.

The question of whether the iPad is meant to be a productive tool may be a significant factor in its future. There are rumors that at least some versions of the tablet will receive an update, perhaps within a few weeks, and that there may be a brand new model.

But the issue here is not whether Apple will announce a 10.5-inch iPad, with an edge-to-edge screen, or even if there’s the need for a different form factor. It’s about what these tablets are used for, and whether Apple has fully considered what needs to be done. The iPad is, to me, still too much of an overgrown iPhone that doesn’t fully take advantage of its larger displays except in limited ways.

Now in a recent article on the future of the iPad, I felt that former Macworld editor Jason Snell had missed the boat in not suggesting interface improvements to make it more productive.

I’ve known Jason for a number of years. He is knowledgeable and a straight shooter, so I fully expected him to consider the possibilities, as he’s done in an expanded article on the subject.

In his new article, Jason points out again that, “iOS is the Apple operating system for the next 30 years.” He goes on to explain what is obvious to us all, that it was designed for the small displays of a smartphone, and is thus limiting, he says “barren,” on a larger display, such as the 12.9-inch iPad Pro.

He mentions the limited ways in which Apple has expanded productivity on the larger devices, such as Split View multitasking, which puts apps side-by-side. But Jason says he’d like to see a more efficient method of app switching, plus drag and drop capability.

But purists might disagree with Jason’s emphasis on carrying over macOS features to iOS, such as variations of Mission Control and app windows. You see, such moves appear to make iOS more Mac-like in its execution. Does that make sense for the operating system of the future?

On the other hand, how about a version of the Smart Keyboard with a decent typing feel, for once, and a trackball or trackpad to give the process more of a traditional notebook feel? Or does such a move threaten to bring reality to Apple’s horror show vision of merging the toaster oven with the refrigerator?

If Apple is serious about using an iPad for productivity, it seems essential that they devise new ways to manage multiple apps and documents. Jason’s suggestions for an efficient drag and drop method for a touchscreen-based gadget would seem to be a little difficult to accomplish. Your fingers do not have near the precision of the mouse and trackpad.

Such changes wouldn’t just be restricted to iOS, and accessory keyboards. App developers would have to take advantage of the new features, if they aren’t just inherited automatically, which is what I expect Apple is going to try to do.

Say we have the mythical iPad with iOS 11, offering more robust multitasking features, support for more useful input devices and a more flexible file management scheme. That will provide the fundamentals for app developers to create software that will allow you to be more productive.

The next step is to consider changes to the types of apps supported on iOS. Certainly the sandboxing limits make sense from a security standpoint, since hundreds of millions of users of iPhones and iPads continue to work in highly secure environments. When there are security threats, Apple is usually pretty good about delivering updates. Imagine if that happened on the Android platform.

But I’ll repeat myself: There are categories of apps that would work extremely well on an iPad, if Apple allowed them. I can imagine taking my USB mic and my wife’s iPad Air 2 on the road, and leaving my MacBook Pro at home. She can stick it in her purse, and I can toss the mic in my overnight bag. With the proper tools, I could record and edit my radio shows and write my daily blogs for this site.

Well, there’s always a proper accessory keyboard.

More to the point, Apple would have to permit apps similar to Rogue Amoeba’s Audio Hijack in the App Store. The Mac version of this app is one of the most valuable audio production tools on the planet. It allows you to capture audio from multiple sources, such as an external mic or mixer and Skype, and save them in a single file. That sort of inter-app communication is a no-brainer on a Mac. It’s not allowed on iOS, but if it were, it would create the climate for loads of new and creative ways for you to be productive.

It would also be nice to see how Apple will manage assets — audio and video files — and provide the ability to upload them to their intended destinations beyond iCloud via FTP or another method.

There are loads of possibilities for Apple to expand the iPad’s usefulness. It’s not just running an ad campaign via social networks. It’s about how the next iPads will be designed, and the changes Apple might provide to iOS 11 to support the needs of people who want to do more than just watch Netflix, play games and write messages.