It’s perfectly fine to make a company know what you’d like them to do, the products they should make, the products they shouldn’t make, and the changes that should be made. Apple has attracted a particularly loyal user base, so it’s understandable they feel part of a family and free to make suggestions. Compare that to most tech companies that build commodity gear. Are Dell’s customers as concerned about the form and features of that company’s PCs, which largely resemble the PCs made by other companies?

To some, whatever Apple does is wrong. When a product doesn’t seem as successful as it might have been, the anger level increases.

So I recall when Apple released the Power Macintosh G4 Cube in 2000. It was an attractive box, and I wrote at the time, in one or more of my reviews and commentaries, that it struck me as a potential museum piece; I was echoing a piece of dialog from an Indiana Jones movie. It was also flawed, with occasional cracks showing up the plastics at the curves of the case, and it was probably too small, which made installing some internal PCI upgrade cards difficult or just not possible. In short, it struck some as an overpriced indulgence. Perhaps Steve Jobs wanted to duplicate the original NeXT Cube in modern form.

Continue Reading…

At one time a large portion of Apple’s production was based in the U.S., when the gear wasn’t being assembled in Ireland. Regardless, over time, as Apple built more and more mobile gear, it has become highly dependent on a very sophisticated Asian supply chain. As a result of the lower wages and heavy use of robotic construction techniques, the costs to Apple are much lower, so you pay less while still leaving them with a hefty profit margin.

Now the issue of building Apple gear — and gear from most tech manufacturers — overseas has become a hot political issue over the past year or so, particularly when it comes to President-elect Donald J. Trump. Should the U.S. government be taking draconian steps to return lost manufacturing to this country, or is it a lost cause? Well, I’m not about the delve into the political issues. I’d rather look at the practical issues.

So it is reported that some of Apple’s contract manufacturers, such as Foxconn, have been looking into the possibility of building such gear as iPhones in the U.S.

But it’s not as if Apple doesn’t use U.S.-based assembly already. As many of you know, the Mac Pro, the few that are built each quarter, is reportedly assembled in Austin, Texas. Apple’s A-series processors (at least some of them) and Corning’s Gorilla Glass are also reportedly built in the U.S., and the App Store — for Macs and mobile gear — gives developers around the world plenty of work to do, which means jobs are being created. It was reported to be approximately 500,000 in 2012, and it’s probably several times that now. These are people who wouldn’t be working on production lines, but work at Apple headquarters in some capacity or develop software sold by Apple.

So what about building iPhones in Austin or Reading, PA or somewhere closer to home? Major foreign auto makers have set up U.S. plants, although lower cost vehicles are moving to Mexico. Since Apple is based in California, why not?

Now one thing this country doesn’t have is the sophisticated integrated supply chain the Foxconn and other contract manufacturers have set up in the cities in which they are located. Many of the people who work for them actually live in dormitories on a company’s own facilities. I won’t mention the salaries they receive — which have grown larger over the years largely at Apple’s influence — but the pay scales in the U.S. would be a number of times higher.

Now Apple would obviously save on shipping costs, at least for gear sold in this country, so maybe they could consider manufacturing closer to where the product is actually purchased in other countries too. Still, when all is said and done, it would reportedly cost 35% more when you factor in labor, shipping and other expenses. Remember, too, these manufacturers would have to start from scratch to set up fabrication facilities, and other companies would have to set up close-by facilities to supply parts. Otherwise, shipping costs would be huge.

With a 35% increase in production costs, the net result would mean a commensurate increase in the cost to customers. So a basic iPhone 7, now listing for $649, would sell for an estimated $876. Is that what you want for the privilege of a “Made in the U.S.A.” label?

Remember, Apple isn’t going to eat those higher costs, nor would any other tech manufacturer. Somebody would have to pay and the end result would be lower sales, since fewer people can afford these products, and certainly higher inflation.

Still with a climate where the U.S. might threaten to impose hefty tariffs on products built overseas and perhaps start trade wars, the end result could be the reverse of what’s intended. With much higher prices, fewer people would buy this gear, and that would hurt the economy. With lower sales, people would lose their jobs, and that might be enough to more than compensate for the jobs potentially gained at those manufacturing plants.

It goes to show that just saying something for political effect may impact people on a visceral level. In the real world, things are far more complicated than they appear at first blush.

Now as salaries increase in Asia, production will likely move to less-developed countries. Eventually, with a growing middle class around the world, the time may come where it will not cost a whole lot more to move production to more of the countries in which the product is sold. But don’t forget that factories are using more robotic assembly techniques, so the presence of a plant may not always mean that many jobs are created. Don’t assume you’ll be seeing workers with their soldering guns delicately putting circuit boards together. That is so yesterday.

But it’s nonetheless true that Apple made a fairly big deal over the fact that the Mac Pro is assembled in the U.S., although parts may be sourced from different countries. Maybe more stuff will be made here in the years to come regardless of the political currents of the day. But forcing the issue will bring unintended consequences, even if it has an emotional appeal. And what about the populations in the UK and other countries where tech gear is imported? What about their needs?

At one time, tech pundits wondered what company should buy Apple, and it’s true that, in the 1990s before Steve Jobs returned, that was not beyond the realm of possibility. In early 1996, Apple evidently negotiated with Sun Microsystems — do you remember them? — to sell itself. This came in the wake of the news that Apple lost $69 million in the December 1995 quarter.

In previous years, such tech companies as Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Oracle were also named as potential suitors, but negotiations reportedly went nowhere. One press report that covered the alleged negotiations with Sun claimed that, “Apple’s options are clearly narrowing.”

But Apple CEO Michael Splindler couldn’t make such a deal happen. Shortly after the talks with Sun failed, he was replaced by Gil Amelio, who actually tried to rebuild the company. So Apple went operating system shopping, trying to acquire technology to replace the aging Mac OS. The company’s own efforts, which included the failed Copland project, couldn’t bring its crown jewels up to modern standards that included advanced multitasking and memory management.

At first, it appeared that Apple would acquire the fledgling BeOS, which held promise. The company was run by former Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée. But there was another, more intriguing possibility: Steve Jobs’ NeXT. As with Be, efforts to sell its own hardware didn’t gain traction. The Unix-based operating system garnered rave reviews, but not enough takers.

NeXTStep had the advantage of being processor neutral, meaning that it could be made to work not only on the PowerPC, but Intel too. That ultimately led to a decision that, when Apple went to Intel in 2006, really helped make Mac sales soar.

So Apple acquired NeXT in an approximately $400 million deal that brought Steve Jobs back to the company he co-founded as a sort of advisor. It didn’t take long for him to stage a palace coup and take over the company, first as “interim” or iCEO. The rest is history.

As Apple’s prospects improved, rather than seek a merger partner, Apple went shopping, buying other companies or products largely for technology. In 2000, Apple purchased SoundJam MP, an MP3 app, from Casady & Greene, an independent software developer. The creators of the app, which included Jeffrey Robin, came along for the ride. As most of you know, SoundJam morphed in iTunes. One of its lead developers, Jeffrey Robbin, is Apple’s Vice President, Consumer Applications, and has been the lead developer for both iTunes and the iPod.

Over the years, Apple has purchased lots of companies. The 2008 acquisition of PA Semi, for $278 million, helped deliver the technology to create cutting-edge chip designs. That purchase and other technology acquisitions, led to the launch of the A-series chips, based on ARM technology, which powers the iPhone, iPad and the iPod touch. In a surprising development, the Touch Bar in the new MacBook Pro uses a T1 chip and a mini-OS derived from the Apple Watch. So in a sense, these new notebooks have two different processors and two different operating systems.

The purchase of Beats Electronics didn’t just give Apple access to high-end, or at least high-cost headphones, but the streaming services Beats Music, which was the forerunner of Apple Music.

So it’s clear why Apple buys companies. It’s not to achieve imaginary “synergies” or put a competitor out of business, which is what most mergers are about. Apple’s purchases are meant to expand the company’s technology portfolio. The 2010 purchase of Siri, a mobile assistant app, led to the introduction of the legendary personal assistant that debuted on the iPhone 4s in 2011. The 2012 purchase of AuthenTec, a company specializing in fingerprint recognition technology, resulted in the introduction of Touch ID in the iPhone 5s the following year.

All right, you get the picture. Despite the claim that Apple takes a “not invented here” approach, the facts are otherwise. If Apple doesn’t invent a technology, it buys it.

But as Apple’s cash hoard has grown, demands have grown for Apple to buy another large company outright. Why? Well, because they can I suppose. So Apple has been asked to buy Tesla Motors, the cutting-edge electric car company. With Project Titan’s uncertain path and future, that move would get Apple into the auto business in a big way.

But why? As I write this, Tesla has a market cap of $27.93 billion dollars, meaning it would probably cost at least double that for Apple to acquire the company if it was even for sale. Tesla has a multibillion dollar investment in plants and technology, and why would it want to sell out to Apple anyway? Maybe if it were in danger of folding and needed an immediate sale to someone to survive, but why would Apple buy a potentially failing company? You’d expect other car makers would be after Tesla if it were available.

Just the other day, Samsung announced the $8 billion purchase of an old-time audio manufacturer, Harman International. It’s more than five years since the death of its founder, audio industry legend Sidney Harman. The company continues to build home audio equipment under such legendary brand names as AKG, Bowers & Wilkins, Harman/Kardon, Infinity, JBL, Lexicon, Mark Levinson and Revel. And some of those brand names were, themselves, acquired over the years.

Now the theory goes that Samsung is primarily interested in Harman’s car audio systems, which are found in vehicles from a variety of manufacturers that include BMW, Chrysler, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce, Toyota and Volkswagen. It already has a thriving business, but I’ve read more than one blog suggesting Apple was foolish in not buying the company.

But why?

Does Apple need to get in the business of building home audio systems? Remember that the purchase of Beats Electronics was mostly about the streaming music service. Creating infotainment systems for car makers? How does that serve Apple?

True, Apple might be developing an autonomous driving platform to license to car makers, but that’s hardly just another commodity product. That is, if it doesn’t just build cars outright. But remember, there are hundreds of manufacturers of audio gear. Where does Apple benefit to sell AKG headphones and Infinity loudspeakers or any other mass produced consumer product that it hasn’t introduced itself? Well, except for Beats headphones of course.

The problem with those critics is that they evidently failed to realize that Harman International was not primarily a car technology company. So should Apple buy Bose if it was put up for sale? Remember founder Amar Bose died three years ago, so wouldn’t that create the climate for an eventual sale? Well, obviously not, since he gifted a majority of the company’s shares to MIT in 2011. That’s where he worked as a professor for over 45 years and developed the loudspeaker technology that resulted in the creation of the company.

Do I have to go on?

When Walt Disney died at the “tender age” of 65 in 1966, the executives who took over his company were in a quandary. What to do next? What would Walt have done anyway? But the quest to look back also hurt the company’s direction for years. Critical decisions weren’t made, at least until they realized they had to let go and move on.

Apple’s succession plans evidently didn’t have that shortcoming. Steve Jobs reportedly told his chosen replacement, Tim Cook, never to fret over what he would do in any given circumstance. Jobs was evidently confident that those who came after him would do what they felt best going forward.

Assuming there are no secret ouija board sessions, or people meditating over what Jobs might have thought about a particular move, and I’m sure they aren’t doing such silly things, Apple’s path today may be very different. But that doesn’t mean that Jobs is tossing in his grave. Given the same circumstances, the same market conditions, he might have acted in similar ways. And if he didn’t, that wouldn’t make his approach more valid.

But that’s not the important thing.

To speculate on what could have, should have been, tech pundits are losing sight of reality. More to the point, they have little clue about what they are talking about. I dare say most of them never spent much or any time with Jobs. I met him very briefly twice, and cannot imagine knowing anything more about him other than observing that these encounters confirmed the feeling that he could be visibly and audibly rude when placed in an unplanned situation.

So certainly the executives he worked with for years would understand how he approached his work, and no doubt they understand how and why he made the decisions he made. So even if they are doing what they think best, they have assimilated some of Jobs’ creative DNA by working so closely with him. So even if there’s no conscious thought about what he’d do in a specific instance, there has to be a gut feeling of what moves to take, or not to take. Besides, it’s pretty clear that Jobs didn’t pack his executive offices with people who blindly said, “yes” to his every word or deed. As the story goes, he had to be persuaded to back the iPod and bring it to production; his first reaction was “no.”

That said, the critics have often said that Jobs would never have, for example, released a smaller iPad — the iPad mini. Why? Because he attacked small tablets, suggesting you needed to sandpaper your hands to use them. But as marketing VP Philip Schiller said at the time it was introduced, the 7.9-inch tablet had a lot more available screen real estate than 7-inch competitors, particularly since the latter had widescreen displays. So, yes, Schiller responded to the objection by explaining why it didn’t apply.

Or maybe the critics didn’t notice.

Apple made some compelling arguments about the 4-inch iPhone being more practical for one-handed use than larger smartphones. But it was also clear the market was moving in that direction, so Apple acted in a way that partly addressed such concerns, and moved on. Nowadays, it appears that a surprising number of customers are choosing the iPhone 7 Plus, although that might be very much about the nifty dual-camera system.

As for me, I have tried using the larger handsets, and I don’t like them, particularly when I attempt to put them in my pants pocket. A 4.7-inch smartphone is about as big as I can tolerate, though I suppose an end-to-end display might make the iPhone phablet more usable.

When it comes to Jobs, he was notorious for changing his opinions on a dime. He’d attack a product category — and consider the disparaging things he said once about mobile phones — and then Apple would release a product designed to answer those objections.

Do you remember when Apple said they’d never produce a cheap Mac because the company won’t build junk. One of those statements was made during a quarterly conference call with financial analysts not too many weeks before the Mac mini was launched. So Apple may not produce a cheap Mac, but that didn’t mean it wouldn’t produce a cheaper Mac with an elegant design. Ditto for smaller iPods with flash memory.

Sometimes you wonder whether Apple makes the most vociferous objections to a product right before they respond with their own solution.

In any case, those clamoring for Tim Cook’s head, suggesting that Steve Jobs, were he alive and serving as Apple CEO now, would have acted differently and made better decisions, haven’t a clue what they’re talking about. Sure, that’s very possible, but that doesn’t mean what Apple is doing is necessarily wrong. Although Apple sales are off the peak levels, to suggest the company is moving in the wrong direction is an unsupported claim.

Few, if any, of the journalists who think they know better than Apple would last five minutes in the company’s executive chair. If they are so smart, they should start their own tech company and show the industry the way.