Since people are in the habit of blaming Steve Jobs for everything, even though he’s no longer around, I suppose some might hold him responsible for harming the way in which you listen to music. How so?

Well, therein lies a tale.

So consider the fact that, when the first iPod arrived in 2001, you could place 1,000 songs in your pocket. So you could hear a music library up to that size without actually having to do anything beyond starting playback. The only interruptions were the natural ones between musical tracks on recordings that actually had a built-in separation of that sort.

Or maybe things turned in the wrong direction with the arrival of the first CD, when you could listen to both sides of an album in one step. Even when there was a natural break point for artistic purposes, made under the assumption that you’d be turning over the record, that condition no longer existed.

It was even normal to turn over a recorded tape cassette.

But let’s return to the days when vinyl dominated the market. I’ll get to the so-called vinyl resurgence later. When you wanted to listen to recorded music from your own collection, you would have to remove the sleeve from the album (assuming it wasn’t a 45 rpm or 78 rpm single which usually came only in a sleeve) and the record from the sleeve. Thus removed, you’d probably clean it before putting it on your turntable and placing the tone arm on the grooves. When one side was completed, you would have to get up, turn the record over and repeat the process.

If you had a record changer, you could listen to one side of up to several records. After one side of each record played, you turned them over to continue listening.

The process was obviously more involved if you only wanted to listen to one or more individual tracks.

In other words, there was a personal connection to the process of actually listening to something from your own collection. That investment probably resulted in paying far more attention to what you were listening to. Or at least that was a stronger possibility.

Now I grant people sometimes put things on the changer, and let it play on in the background, not paying a whole lot of attention to the music. But if you wanted to really listen, the process of selecting and preparing the recording should tend to focus your attention on what’s to come.

As a result, it doesn’t seem to turn to mush in the background, and therefore you care more about the performances of your favorite artists. If you’re just listening to endless quantities of music, it may not matter so much. It’s easier for other matters to occupy your attention.

Maybe that explains why modern music production techniques, and many popular artists, come across as homogenized and not as distinctive as they used to be. One song seems to blur into another and very little of it gathers your attention, in part because the act of preparing material for listening requires very few steps. The recording is designed to reflect our digital lifestyle.

This all may be a psychological impact, and I dare say many of you would disagree. Sure, it’s possible to stop playback of digital music, and pick the tunes you want. You can create custom playlists of your favorites, sort of a “best of” compilation. But I know that when I’m in the car and want to hear something from my iPhone on the vehicle’s infotainment system, it’s really better to pull off somewhere to make those selections. Otherwise your attention may be diverted to a flaky touchscreen that may not always detect the activity of your fingers.

It can also make for distracted or unsafe driving.

Of course, it’s not as if you can just turn on the turntable and put my ideas to the test. Most of you don’t own a turntable, or have it stuck away in a closet or basement. But vinyl still exists, and sales are increasing. In fact, it’s probably the only physical music sales category that has demonstrated solid growth.

The vinyl resurgence means that more and more records are being pressed, old plants are being revived, and new ones are being built. The highly specialized record mastering skills of old have to be relearned, although some of the old timers are still at it.

I am not one to suggest you should switch to vinyl. Even if you like the smoother sound and the soft — or not so soft — surface noise, there is the inevitable wear and tear on the record. Unless you have a fairly expensive piece of gear, you can hear audible degradation after a few plays. Even with the costly component, the sound quality after 10 or 20 plays will be audibly worse.

Of course, you can digitize the record on your Mac or PC. Some apps have special features to reduce or eliminate all or most surface noise. But then you’re back where you started with digital music that slowly blends into the background as you listen to it.

While misinformation and downright lies about Apple have been published for years, the act of making things up for a news report or commentary, and deliberately presenting those lies as true, has been labeled as “fake news.” Well, until this past weekend, when a key advisor for a certain political figure used the term “alternative facts.”

But shouldn’t we call such behavior lying?

Yes, there is room for different opinions, and different interpretations of facts. People also make mistakes, but when a statement isn’t true, there should be no equivocation. It’s a falsehood, pure and simple.

Continue Reading…

Back in 1995, Apple introduced a new PowerBook, for which I quickly placed an order. It was the 5300ce, one of the first to feature the PowerPC processor. With a “big” 10.4-inch display, it was a potential powerhouse for its time. It was also expensive, with a loaded version retailing for close to three times what a 15-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar would cost now.

But it was also buggy and was months late to market. Apple originally attempted to use lithium-ion batteries, but evidently encountered a problem with overheating during the test process. It sure sounds familiar. So Apple stuck with nickel-hydride batteries instead, resulting in considerably shorter battery life.

That was then, this is now.

Billions of devices — and that includes over a billion from Apple alone — are equipped with lithium-ion batteries. Cars are equipped with lithium-ion batteries. Every so often, you read about an overheating or worse problem, such as a smartphone catching fire. It happens everywhere among portable gear, and it may impact about one unit among every ten million according to one estimate I heard about. It’s not high unless a company is selling tens or hundreds of millions of units for any particular model.

One published report indicated that, “Research suggests that you’re more likely to get hurt by a kitchen grease fire or a drunk driver than the battery powering your iPhone, Kindle or laptop.”

Samsung’s problem with the Galaxy Note 7, however, was that the failure rate was many times higher, indicating some sort of defect. Published reports of the testing process indicated it was also flawed, and that appears to be true, since the fixed version of the handset had the same problem. All units were recalled for a second time, and the product was soon discontinued.

Supposedly Samsung has traced it to the battery design and not another component, and further details will come — eventually — maybe when the legal problems with their next CEO are resolved. At least they have an answer, but was it a matter of a rush design to meet a deadline — to get it to market ahead of the iPhone 7 — or the fact that this is an imperfect and sometimes risky technology?

I suppose it’s encouraging to be reassured that, except for a faulty design, a lithium-ion battery is quite safe, and we can continue to use them without much risk.

But there ought to be a better way. Right now, it appears companies are hitting the wall in eking extra time from existing battery technology. It’s usually more about a larger battery, and power efficiencies with other components. Indeed, the biggest changes to Intel’s mobile processors in recent years have been more about lasting longer on a single battery charge, and less about getting faster performance. That’s a huge reason why benchmarks don’t tend to reveal significant improvements year-over-year, which discourages the need to upgrade to newer gear.

Well, unless you’re hoping for more battery life. Of course Apple confounds that hope by reducing battery capacity when gear is made smaller. A singular exception in recent years is the iPhone 7, which came with the promise of up to two hours longer battery life on the regular model, and an hour extra on the iPhone 7 Plus.

According to published reports, Apple had planned to use a more efficient battery for the Late 2016 MacBook Pro, but they couldn’t complete development in time. Thus they stuck with existing technology, with the usual claim of up to 10 hours. Make of that what you will. Some users get far less. Consumer Reports, after its peculiar battery test scenario brought forth a bug in Safari for macOS Sierra, tested the fixed version and got far longer battery life than even Apple promises.

Scientists are working on better solutions. I’ve read several reports indicating that work is continuing on potentially superior technologies. According to an article in the Financial Times from last year, one promising invention involves solid-state batteries: “This technology replaces flammable liquid electrolytes used in most traditional lithium-ion batteries, making it safer in different environments. These batteries have greater energy density, so they last longer, are more compact and weigh less. They are easier to package in medical and consumer devices and vehicles.”

This technology has already been demonstrated, but it may take a few years longer to take it from test labs and small samples to mass production for use in your your favorite tech gear and electric cars. All right, one report from the Japan Times indicated that NGK Insulators hoped to “have a battery for practical use in play by 2017.”

Unfortunately, there’s usually a wide gulf between a demonstration of a proposed technological solution and the ability to apply that solution to affordable and functional finished products that realize the technology’s potential.

While I’m not overly concerned that any of my battery-driven gear will suddenly burst into flames tomorrow, I certainly try to be careful. But I would be more comfortable dealing with a battery that doesn’t present the danger — even a slight one — of catastrophic failure. I’m also sure that Apple, Samsung, Tesla and other companies would be just delighted to release products containing batteries that are not just safe, but last a whole long longer. I can’t wait!

If early estimates for the likes of Gartner and IDC are correct, Mac sales appear to have stabilized during the holiday quarter. This came after a decline for several quarters, possibly because of the overall erosion of PC sales, and no doubt partly because Apple has apparently been stingy about upgrading these machines.

Or maybe not.

Now it’s not as if Apple can do much to overcome overfall industry trends. More and more people rely on smartphones and tablets in place of traditional PCs. In some countries, larger smartphones — phablets — serve the dual purpose of mobile phone and tablet. It is the only computing device for many people.

In recent years, improvements to personal computers haven’t been that extensive. Intel introduced an UltraBook reference platform channeled by many PC makers. It was heavily based on the MacBook Air, but with the Windows PC penchant for using notebook displays as touchscreens. Thus the 2-in-1 notebook that appears to be the sole category where reasonable growth is being seen.

Overall, businesses and consumers are keeping their computers longer. Incremental improvements year to year are relatively modest. Intel’s processor roadmap is more about power efficiency than number crunching. So you may expect better battery life, but the benchmarks don’t show much of a change. So if there are no fancy new features to speak of, why upgrade?

I’ve seen this in the people I’m in touch with. They are more inclined to hang onto their Macs until they drop, more or less. Although some confront hardware issues, Macs traditionally rate among the most reliable computers on the planet, so you can probably expect many good years of service. It helps that macOS Sierra supports all Macs from 2010 and some from 2009. The latter includes the iMac and MacBooks. My 2010 17-inch MacBook Pro runs Sierra perfectly; the strange installation problem about requiring an update to the non-existent Server software was easily overcome.

Now if I bought a new MacBook Pro today, the closest equivalent would be the 15-inch model with the Retina display and Touch ID. My computer is an entry-level model that sold for $2,299 when it was released, which is just $100 less than the entry-level equivalent in the current lineup. When I’m ready to replace my Mac — and that’s a ways off for many reasons — I’ll have a very different replacement. In addition to the somewhat smaller display, 15.4-inches compared to 17-inches, the Late 2016 MacBook Pro has a Retina display, a stock SSD (I added one to my 2010 computer two years ago) and the controversial Touch Bar.

For this model, Apple offers a major revision, a mostly compelling upgrade for anyone who bought a MacBook Pro, or a different notebook, in recent years. Some might complain about the high price, but it’s not so high if you look at what Apple charged for its top-of-the-line notebooks in 2010, not to mention 2012, when the original MacBook Pro with Retina display was launched.

For iMac owners, the 27-inch model with 5K Retina display arrived in 2014, and it was enhanced with superior color rendition in 2015 and received a decent price cut. While I am not predicting what Apple might deliver in this year’s upgrade, other than Kaby Lake processors and USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 ports, it shouldn’t be a sea change. If you have a 2013 or older iMac, it might be a good time to consider a replacement. Otherwise no.

I’m not altogether sure what Apple may have in mind for the aging Mac Pro. I suspect anything they deliver will be a suitable upgrade from a 2013 or earlier model. Will it be a simple refresh, a redesign, or silence? Tim Cook’s optimistic claims about the Mac’s desktop roadmap imply more than one model, so there’s hope.

The Mac mini may not be a huge seller, but it’s such a sensible machine that it hardly makes sense for Apple to ignore it. Maybe it’s waiting for Kaby Lake too, to produce a somewhat more energetic upgrade. Maybe Apple wants to redesign the case again, although the current form factor is good enough aside from the questionable design to remove the ability to upgrade RAM. But if you have a Mac mini from 2013 or 2014, Apple would have to deliver a real compelling upgrade to make it tempting to buy anything new.

I suppose Apple could look to the HP Z2 workstation as a potential guidepost. It would come the option for higher-performing parts that could turn it into a low-end Mac Pro replacement. Maybe. But having endless upgrade choices might go against the grain for Apple, which would be more inclined to put that energy into the Mac Pro, if they even want the high-end market anymore.

One reason cited for lower Mac sales is the slow upgrade path. In large part, Apple is constrained by Intel’s processor roadmap. The MacBook (first introduced in 2015) and the new MacBook Pro represented huge changes for models that otherwise would have only sported slight changes.

Was it enough to spur Mac upgrades — or Mac switchers? If reports that sales increased somewhat in the December quarter are correct, maybe. Will the 2017 changes be near as compelling, or at least distinctive? That remains to be seen. Meantime, my MacBook Pro works just fine. When it is no longer compatible with the OS, I might want to consider my options. But the earliest that might happen is this fall. Right now, I have other priorities.