I have a third-generation Apple TV. Released in 2012, it was mostly identical to the 2010 second-generation model, except for support for 1080p HD. As a practical matter, the difference between 720p and 1080p two is slight unless you look real close, especially if you don’t have a large screen TV. Besides, streaming video is heavily compressed, so quality is far removed from that of a Blu-ray.

So it went until the fourth-generation model arrived in the fall of 2015. At the time, it was rumored that Apple was working on its own TV subscription service, sort of in the mold of Sling TV, a streaming service that features channels culled from the regular Dish Network satellite system. The rumors sort of died off after it was reported that Apple and the TV networks just couldn’t get together on an agreement. Maybe Apple’s contract demands were too onerous, although that’s may just be a cliche.

In the end, though, do we need yet another TV subscription service? I’m not at all convinced that Sling TV and DirecTV NOW represent so much of an advantage over traditional cable and satellite fare. They do not, for example, offer you the ability to time shift your favorite shows. And what about local stations? They’re only available in limited areas on DirecTV NOW and Sling TV. Otherwise you have to reside in an area that qualifies for on-demand national service, or set up your own antenna. Awkward!

I’m sure Apple would have addressed such limitations, but I’m not at all convinced of the need for such services. If you want a cheap package, there are plenty offered by the existing cable and satellite systems in the U.S. Quite often you can get a big discount on a 12-month or 24-month discount deal. When the deal expires, you can split or try to cut a similar or better deal.

It’s not the same as cord-cutting, where you can subscribe to a few services to get a selection of shows that meet your tastes. In passing, I think traditional broadcast TV stations are fighting for their lives against cable and Netflix. The quality of broadcast scripted shows these days is far better too, and I have been able to survive for years on the cheap. Basic cable or satellite, Netflix and an occasional movie rental from iTunes.

In any case, the 4th-generation Apple TV seems out of sync with the rest of the market. The competition from Amazon, Google and Roku have already adopted 4K — and the higher resolution TV sets are starting to take over the market — so Apple’s solution seems old fashioned. Why didn’t the Apple TV offer 4K support? Did Apple hold off the new model pending the launch of the subscription TV service and, when it failed to gel, rushed out a new Apple TV as a fallback?

I thought it might be updated in 2016 to include 4K and HDR, but no. Is Apple waiting to upgrade iTunes to offer 4K content? Are we waiting for the December 2017 quarter for a product refresh? It’s not as if the media appears to be asking Apple about the lack of 4K. Clearly Apple supports it, since recent iPhones can record Ultra HD video, and don’t forget the 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display and the troubled LG UltraFine 5K display.

With Siri support and regular tvOS updates, it does seem that Apple is showing some level of commitment to Apple TV. But from what I’ve read and seen about the fourth-generation model, it appears to be an interim solution. It has potential, but Apple needs to do more. But adding 4K and HDR aren’t likely to be simple firmware updates with the existing model — or maybe I’m wrong on this — so it means a full product refresh is called for.

As for my old Apple TV: I haven’t felt any need to consider setting aside money for a new one. It works fine, and manages the two basic tasks I’ve applied to it with reasonable efficiency. To me, it’s all about Netflix, and that rare movie rental. I might consider subscribing to CBS All Access when “Star Trek: Discovery” debuts later this year. But I also suspect that, if customers aren’t flocking to the service once the new exclusives, which also include a spinoff to “The Good Wife,” debut, they may just end up on free TV. So I don’t plan to rush.

As it stands, Apple’s plans to conquer the living room aren’t really jelling. Apple TV isn’t quite ready. Apple is probably not going to do subscription TV now or ever. Even though there may be some original content, it won’t be near as extensive as Netflix. That doesn’t seem a direction the company wants to take. So we’re just going to see some level of baby steps for a while.

But I’m not altogether convinced cord cutting will succeed except at the edges. While it’s possible to save lots of money if you are careful about how many services you order, if you are at all interested in a wide range of content, a bunch of monthly fees adds up real fast. Maybe the cable and satellite companies need to find ways to keep prices down, improve services, and offer a wider range of low-cost packages to better meet the needs customers who don’t want to be stuck with 300 channels and nothing to watch.

I am usually on the same page as commentator Daniel Eran Dilger, who hangs his hat at AppleInsider these days. In an otherwise excellent article about why Apple ignores “pundit innovation advice,” Daniel extols the virtues of the iPad compared to other tablets. He correctly points out that tablets went nowhere until the iPad arrived, and how it continues to dominate the market.

In response to several years of falling sales, he partly blames the fact that people don’t upgrade tablets as often as smartphones. He also mentions the fact that the larger-screened iPhones are doubtless taking sales away from the iPad. I would agree with that, too, since there are parts of the world where an iPhone Plus phablet is someone’s only computing device. I expect it mainly ripped sales from the iPad mini and other tablets with smaller displays.

So far so good.

Daniel also remarks how the use of a traditional windowing OS that originated decades ago is not the best way to manage the user interface on a device with smaller display. He extols the introduction of the full screen apps feature in macOS, based largely on a concept derived from iOS, as a better way to focus on the task at hand.

This overlooks a fundamental limitation of the iPad’s design, which makes it difficult to use as a productivity device in many circumstances. Daniel is not considering whether there are ways Apple can change the user interface, and iOS in general, to make it possible for iPads to do more things and thus become a more reliable notebook replacement for many users.

It doesn’t have to do things the same as a Mac, but the existing iPad interface doesn’t differ enough from the iPhone to exploit the advantages of a larger display. When one considers a 12.9-inch iPad Pro, don’t forget that its display is larger than the original all-in-one Macs and many generations of PowerBooks, not to mention the 11-inch MacBook Air. Although the original iMac had a 15-inch display, the larger iPad has more pixels and a much sharper image. All those Macs credibly handled various versions of macOS, and its multitasking capabilities, in a way that helped advance the platform.

Indeed, the 9.7-inch iPad Pro also has a larger display than many vintage Macs.

This doesn’t mean the larger iPads must run macOS or macOS apps or multitask in the same way. Apple has a chance to reinvent the wheel here, and it makes perfect sense to devise multitasking schemes in more flexible ways. If Apple’s tablets are meant to run productivity apps, there ought to be ways to better manage multiple apps and document windows. The split-screen feature supported on high-end iPads is part of a solution, but not a complete answer.

In addition, Apple ought to consider the limitations of iOS sandboxing, and whether more categories of apps ought to be allowed into the program. I am not suggesting that you should be able to sideload apps that are not allowed in the App Store, or come from developers who don’t want to participate. I understand Apple’s measures to ensure much higher levels of security than are allowed on Macs, and it makes sense to be careful about the sort of apps that are offered to iPad and iPhone users.

So apps can talk to one another, but maybe that can happen in a more flexible fashion, so long as the needs of a secure platform are observed. I’m not alone, but I’d love to be able to travel with an iPad, and continue to record my radio shows on the road. I can’t now, since my workflow requires that I grab and combine audio from both Skype and an outboard mic mixer. I use Audio Hijack on my iMac to make it happen. How can I do that on an iPad, since apps of that sort aren’t allowed in the iOS App Store?

Being able to manage and merge audio files more flexibly would help, not to mention being able to upload the completed shows to GCN and my web server via FTP. With the right capabilities in iOS, I should be able to record, edit and submit my shows without losing productivity.

I am not going to suggest what multitasking features Apple ought to consider — or invent. I’m confident their OS teams have the expertise to find methods that are more flexible than a split-screen or traditional windowing. Moreover, I do not expect an iPad to mirror the Mac, even though both iOS and macOS are kissing cousins.

If Apple wants us to consider a wider range of tasks for an iPad, things have to change.

I haven’t considered the curious way Apple has implemented the ability to add a keyboard in the “Pro” models, because the existing versions of the Smart Keyboard — aside from poor keyboard feel — weren’t designed with traditional input devices in mind. So you type on a document and you’re forced raise your hand to manipulate the touchscreen for functions that, in part, might be the province of a trackpad or a mouse.

Apple’s argument against 2-in-1 notebooks, which combine a traditional notebook with a touchscreen, is that it’s akin to merging a refrigerator and toaster oven. Doesn’t that also apply to using a keyboard with an iPad, since you also have to interact with the keyboard and touch interface in essentially the same ways? That’s a curious contradiction.

I have little doubt that Apple is very committed to the iPad and to advancing the platform. I’m sure Tim Cook and crew are not happy with falling sales, and want to find ways for the iPad spread its wings. Perhaps a normal upgrade cycle, with more users of older iPads buying new gear, will help, but making the iPad function in ways that make it more productive shouldn’t be overlooked.

And, no, I’m not giving Apple “innovation advice.” I’ll leave it to them to figure out how best to allow iOS apps to do more things, and how best to enhance multitasking and user productivity.

In the latter days of the PowerPC, development had clearly stalled. Although you could buy a Power Macintosh G5, a forerunner of the Mac Pro workstation, there was no similarly outfitted notebook. PowerBooks were still saddled with the G4 The reason? IBM and Motorola were not able to tame the beast to work within the constraints of a mobile device, or perhaps they didn’t care.

Indeed, some Power Mac G5 configurations required liquid cooling, and even with just fans, the system required several operating in an extremely sophisticated environment to keep the units from overheating. If the coolant leaked, your computer was toast.

At the time, Steve Jobs told interviewers that he was pleased with IBM’s PowerPC product roadmap, but that Apple was always considering its options. A key problem was the fact that other computer makers weren’t using PowerPC chips, which became more popular in the embedded market. So there wasn’t much incentive to deliver the parts Apple needed.

Continue Reading…

After several years of falling sales, it’s hard to believe that the iPad was once thought of as the future of personal computing. Sales continued to soar for the first few years until it stopped. The prevailing theory is that existing iPads are good enough, and that even satisfied customers aren’t being persuaded to upgrade, and Apple has provided few compelling reasons to do so.

Consider the changes Apple has made to the lineup in recent years. Product development of the iPad mini and the regular 9.7-inch iPad have stalled. The “Pro” models, available in 9.7-inch and 12.9-inch versions, are mostly about improved performance and a custom Smart Connector for an attachable Smart Keyboard. When connected, it turns the iPad Pro into a clumsy notebook that is not altogether different from the Microsoft Surface concept.

It’s hard to tell whether the Pro line has impacted sales all that much, except to give customers another model to select, and, of course, increase the average sales price across the lineup.

Despite questions about the future of the iPad, Apple expresses confidence. Customers like them, people are switching to them, and they are still selling more than twice as many iPads as Macs.

According to published reports, there may be yet another screen size, between 10 and 11 inches, with the next product refresh. But whether that makes a difference is anyone’s guess. Were people holding back buying iPads because Apple needed to deliver a model in a different size? What about an iPad larger than 12.9 inches?

In a column for Macworld, blogger Jason Snell, a former editor for the publication in the days when it had a print version, suggests that the computer for 2025 will be closer to an iPad than a Mac. But he isn’t saying Macs are going away, only that the iPad will become the mainstream PC.

I wouldn’t dispute the suggestion. Even now, many people are perfectly happy doing all or most computing chores on an iPad, supplemented with an iPhone on the road. To some, the “Plus” phablet may be preferred to an iPad, since the display may be large enough. In some parts of the world, a phablet is the only computer for many people. That may also account for the loss of some sales for Apple’s tablet. It’s about product cannibalization.

Unfortunately, Jason’s vision of our computing future is too general to consider why the iPad is losing sales, and what Apple needs to do to better embrace its potential. There’s talk of better file system access and improved multitasking. As it stands, the best you get is a Split View, allowing you to work with two apps at once, but that’s hardly sufficient for many of the tasks that you can do far more flexibly on a Mac.

This is where the article is deficient, because Jason doesn’t make an effort to provide case histories of how an iPad can perform key productivity tasks, areas where it does it poorly or not at all. If you can’t use the iPad to do what you want to do, why buy one? That is one of its key shortcomings.

Take my two radio shows. Editing audio waveforms and coordinating the recording process ought to be tailor made for an iPad. A 12.9-inch iPad Pro might be a suitable substitute for my iMac, particularly because it would allow me to hang out in the bedroom with a set of headphones and manage most of the post-production process. There are several audio apps available from the App Store that might just do the job, assuming there would be an easy way to handle a large number of assets with flexible file management. That’s where things get dicey.

Recording the show would be another matter entirely, and it’s just not possible right now. I record episodes in Rogue Amoeba’s Audio Hijack, which can capture audio from multiple sources and combine them in a single file. I use it to manage audio from Skype and an outboard mic mixer. But iOS doesn’t let you do that sort of thing, due to Apple’s sandboxing limits. So app developers are unable to devise solutions.

Of course, the Mac App Store won’t allow Audio Hijack either, but you can download a copy from the developer’s site. You cannot get apps from anywhere but the App Store for an iPhone or iPad unless you jailbreak the device and make it susceptible to security threats.

Even if Apple would allow for an iOS version of Audio Hijack, or a similar app, being limited to two app windows is a non-starter. At the very least, I need to access Audio Hijack and Skype and also jump to Safari, Mail and sometimes a word processing app (either Word or Pages) for research. That level of multitasking is simple for the macOS, and impossible on an iPad.

At the very least, iOS needs to be changed to allow for more classes of productivity apps and wider and more flexible multitasking. File system access also needs to be handled more flexibly. In other words, it has to become more Mac-like to perform a whole range of productivity tasks that it cannot handle now.

This is something that Jason hasn’t considered in his Macworld piece. Perhaps he’s right about the future potential of the iPad, but Apple will need to make a number of important changes for it to get there. Would that make the iPad take a midway path between the present models and the Mac? Is that the future of personal computing? For some, perhaps. But I agree with Jason that the Mac will still be here for quite a while yet.