In a way the news that AT&T plans to build out its media empire with the acquisition of Time Warner takes me back, way back. So let me explain why.

In the 1990s, I received a paycheck from AOL as a forum leader. It was roughly the equivalent of running a message board, but it was done under the aegis of what became, for a while, the world’s largest Internet service.  It gifted me a set of arcane online “board tools” that allowed me to operate the forums, moderate member posts, and, at times, to delete or edit the ones that violated a very tightly written Terms of Service.

That job ended in the late 1990s, as AOL sought a wider net that included giving up on many of the personal features that originated on the service in 1989, when it debuted as America Online. In those days, tens of millions of signup floppies were distributed, and it was primarily a Mac service. Windows support came later. But since the $4 hourly rate was a fraction of that of the market leader at the time, CompuServe, I dutifully signed up.

Continue Reading…

I’ve been involved in more than a few discussions about alleged expensive Macs over the years. Although that was no doubt true in the early years, my contention more recently is that a Mac and PC are in roughly the same price category with comparable specs and bundled software. Sometimes the PC is cheaper, sometimes the Mac.

Well, you can bet that pronouncement, uncontroversial as it seems to me, received plenty of blowback. I’ve seen loads of comparisons, but most of the hardware specified by the opposition actually wasn’t comparable at all. So the next argument was that Apple should offer Macs that do compete in the lower price ranges. That’s something you can actually argue, although Apple has picked its fights carefully. So the cheapest Mac is the $499 Mac mini, and the cheapest Mac notebook is the $899 MacBook Air.

It’s also true that it’s hard to make money from cheap gear, but most companies believe that they can somehow make up the difference in volume, which is rarely true. How many PC companies are even reporting profits anymore — other than Apple?

In any case, these price comparisons are limited. They only cover what it costs to buy one of these devices, not the cost of operation, and that’s where things really get interesting.

Now having worked on both Macs and PCs over the years, I’ve long maintained that it costs less to use a Mac. Some surveys show the same thing, and there’s now confirmation from a company that used to be Apple’s rival, and that’s IBM.

So back in 2015, IBM began to give employees the choice to pick a Mac or a PC. As of today, there are 90,000 Macs deployed throughout the company, but only five admins are needed to offer support.

According to a report published in Re/code, which quotes Fletcher Previn, IBM’s VP of Workplace as a Service, “Every Mac we buy is, in fact, continuing to make and save IBM money.” How much? Well, IBM’s survey lists the savings as ranging from $265 to $535 over a four-year period of ownership. That’s more than enough money to account for any theoretical PC price advantage. Indeed, IBM is reportedly Apple’s largest corporate customer now, and plans to have 100,000 Macs deployed by the end of 2016.

What’s more, 73% of IBM employees want a Mac when they request a new computer. This is the sort of argument that ought to convince many companies to make the same move, so long as the apps they need are available in macOS versions.

The timing of this announcement is curious, since Apple has been criticized lately for not upgrading Macs as often as it should. A media event is scheduled for Thursday, October 27th, ostensibly to introduce some new Macs — maybe upgrade all of them. At the very least, there will probably be a new MacBook Pro that’s thinner and lighter, and incorporates an OLED control strip to replace the function keypad. In addition to the usual speed improvements, Apple may move to USB-C and add support for Touch ID.

The improvements for other Macs are less certain in the rumor mills. Maybe faster graphics and the usual processor refreshes for the iMac. The MacBook Air? Hard to know. It’s not that Apple has lavished much attention on the cheapest Mac notebook for a few years, so enhancements have been relatively minor. A curious rumor specifies that the 13-inch MacBook Air is due for a refresh, but nothing is said about the 11-inch model, which is strange. That’s the entry-level notebook that not only attracts a lot of Mac users who want something small and light, but serves as a relatively inexpensive way to go Mac.

While the MacBook is thought of us a potential replacement for the MacBook Air, it’s entirely too expensive. Unless the price goes down by at least $300, which isn’t something I’m expecting, it should not be sold in place of the cheaper model. But isn’t it time for the MacBook Air to gain a Retina display? There are still two versions of the 21.5-inch iMac that sport standard definition displays, and I suspect that’s also due for a change.

It’s possible some of the MacBook Airs will stick with a regular display, but the move to Retina is inevitable and it may begin this year.

In the meantime, you can bet that lots of people will continue to attack Apple for selling overpriced luxury gear. The comparisons will continue to be made, and they will almost always be deceptive. Still, Apple has figured out how to build quality gear, charge a reasonable price, and make high profits. It’s a trick most tech companies haven’t quite mastered. Well, Samsung didn’t do so badly, but the failure of the Galaxy Note 7 phablet will take its toll to the tunes of billions of dollars of lost profits. It will also do damage to the company’s reputation that has yet to be estimated, unless Samsung’s management can do proper damage control, and it doesn’t appear they have a clue of what that is.

Even though I’m not really planning on buying a new Mac this year, I’ll eagerly await the announcements at the October 27th event.

In 1989, I bought a brand new Mac IIcx. It was a speedy beast for its time, featuring a 16MHz Motorola 68030 processor. The dealer installed 8MB of RAM and a 100MB hard drive. I added the original Apple 14-inch color display, which became a 13-inch after the measurement system was fixed.

At the time, I really thought I had a pretty high-end setup, short of a Macintosh IIx, but far more affordable. Equipped with software and an Apple LaserWriter II printer, it set me back $14,000 on a lease purchase deal. In those days, I was transitioning my writing and desktop publishing work from an office environment to my home, and the monthly price was quite affordable. To put that price in perspective, if you allow for inflation, it is the equivalent of $27,480.08 in 2016 dollars, very much what you’d pay for a mid-sized car.

By 1991, I had a IIci, with a 25MHz processor, and I kept expanding it with memory — it was the first 32-bit “clean” Mac — a cache card and a 68040 accelerator. The latter gave me the equivalent of a Quadra, the fastest Mac of its time. In 1993, I made an arrangement for a small investment in my business, and used some of that money to buy a Quadra 800, with a 33MHz 68040. It sure seemed fast for its time, but I learned moments after it arrived that installing RAM was very difficult. It required pulling the logic board after separating several delicate wiring harnesses.

But I didn’t wait long for its successor, the Power Macintosh 8100 in 1994. This was Apple’s first foray into using the PowerPC processor on Macs, and the 8100 was essentially a Quadra 800 with the new parts. So it had a PowerPC 601 rated at 80MHz. As with its predecessor, RAM upgrades were again extremely difficult. The main limitation of the early PowerPC Macs was the fact that very little software was compatible with the new processor in the early days. So you had to run those apps via a 680×0 emulator, which actually made them slower than a Quadra.

After Apple foolishly allowed Mac clones, I acquired a couple from Power Computing, but they were sent on extended loan by the manufacturer. As with a number of writers and editors, I soon learned that Power actually didn’t expect you to return the computer, but made no effort to insist on favorable press. They were only too happy to get these computers into the hands of as many people with a voice as they could — at least until Steve Jobs bought them out and shut them down in 1997.

Until 2008 I pretty much stayed on a two- or three-year upgrade cycle. I made it a point to sell my older Macs, and they commanded high prices. That year I bought my last oversized Mac, the Mac Pro. Since they could get expensive, I chose a model at the lower end of the lineup, and discovered, the following year, that the new 27-inch iMac was just about as powerful except for tasks that exploited all those extra Intel Xeon cores.

So I made a killer deal. I sold the Mac Pro along with a 30-inch Dell display, acquired a maxed-out iMac and received several hundred dollars change.

As performance upgrades for Macs slowed, I didn’t see the need to move beyond that iMac, especially after my financial situation began to sour. I was no longer the high-paid feature writer for major magazines, so I did my best to stay current without draining my bank account. In 2010, I made a trade-out deal with a Mac dealer, and got a 17-inch MacBook Pro in exchange for advertising on The Tech Night Owl LIVE. It would have been nicer to have the money, but I had enough unsold inventory to make it work.

These days, there’s little need to upgrade a Mac terribly often. Year-to-year performance upgrades are modest, and it takes several years for the differences to become significant. That Apple keeps a form factor going for several years also discourages upgrading, particularly since recent macOS releases provide wide support for vintage models.

Up till recently, Apple has still been able to grow the Mac market ahead of the PC market, which was flat or falling. Not so in recent quarters, and some suggest the slowdown in new model releases may be responsible. Possibly, and maybe that’ll be more apparent after the October 27th media event.

According to published reports, there will be a fairly major refresh for the MacBook Pro, and lesser upgrades for other models. As I reported yesterday, the future of the MacBook Air is uncertain, particularly the 11-inch entry-level model. While the iMac might receive a minor upgrade with new graphics, the Mac mini and the Mac Pro are huge question marks. It’s been three years since the latter was released, without a hint of change.

While Apple doesn’t seem as interested in the professional market anymore, with falling sales, killing any Mac would seem to be a bad move. So I’ll be watching the rumors ahead of the media event to see if there are hints of other product refreshes.

Will I buy any of the new models? Well, my MacBook Pro is one of the oldest models that can run macOS Sierra. It should have been replaced already, but I don’t travel often enough for it to make sense to consider investing in something new. But there is some unsold advertising inventory, so maybe I can cut a deal with someone to replace it.

There are certain media outlets that are well-connected when it comes to Apple. So when Re/code reported that Apple plans to hold a media event on Thursday, October 27th, presumably to launch new Macs, you can probably take it to the bank. Indeed, that’s as late as it can get to announce Mac upgrades and have them ship before the end of the month or early in November. This explains why the date for the release of Apple’s September quarter financials was moved to October 25th.

In any case, the official invitations went out to selected media outlets on Wednesday. Is the announcement, bearing the phrase, “hello again,” a reminder that Apple hasn’t given up Macs? Clearly it’s a smaller event, since it’ll occur at the Apple Campus.

Of course, the recent report that Mac sales were down approximately 13% in the last quarter is not confirmed by Apple. It is an estimate, and such numbers may be off. Regardless, I suppose the perception that Apple was giving up on Macs, or reducing emphasis on them, might impact some sales. But I still suspect the larger portion of people who buy Macs aren’t watching every little online rumor to see when new models will be out. But such speculation has to account for something, so no doubt some people are on the fence waiting for the news before diving in.

Now the key rumor is strictly about the MacBook Pro, which hasn’t been updated since early 2015. It is expected to include Intel Skylake processors, but it’s not the latest. There’s also a 7th generation Kaby Lake family, which was announced in August. But it’s no doubt not ready in sufficient quantities for Apple’s needs, which explains why Apple probably won’t use them until 2017.

Regardless, typical of how Intel has advanced on processor upgrades in recent years, Skylake is a little faster and a little more power efficient than its predecessor, Broadwell. So buying a new Mac every year won’t make a lot of sense, except for those reports that the 2016 MacBook Pros will have a few more additions that might convince people to upgrade anyway. So in addition to slightly faster performance, it’ll be lighter and thinner, with longer battery life. Supposedly Apple will settle on USB-C ports with support for Thunderbolt 3.

So far so good. But is there anything significantly new? Well, returning to the Mac rumor sites, there will supposedly be an OLED touchbar that’ll replace the function keypad. It’ll reportedly be context sensitive, meaning it can change depending on the app you’re using, but that would also require some sort of developer API to add such support. And, finally, Apple will offer a Touch ID-based power button. All I can say is that it’s about time, since fingerprint sensors have long been used on PC notebooks.

I’m assuming the new models will be priced similar to the old, although I suppose it’s possible Apple will make them slightly cheaper in keeping with recent Mac trends. Prices that are $100-200 less would undoubtedly tempt some PC users that have grown sick and tired of Windows 10, or any version of Windows.

The rumors also mention a 13-inch MacBook Air revision, but there’s little about the 11-inch model, the one available now for $899. I would be quite surprised to see that model discontinued since it’s a great entry-level alternative for Mac users. Well, unless Apple reduces the price of the 13-inch model to $899, and perhaps adds a Retina display version for $100 more. That might make sense, although having an 11-inch MacBook Air for $799 would be a great idea. It’s sure to help boost Mac market share.

But that’s still speculation. Most of the chatter is about the MacBook Pro and the larger MacBook Air. So what about the rest of the lineup?

Consider that the Mac mini hasn’t been touched since 2014. At the time, Apple took $100 off the price, but in other ways downgraded the refreshed model. There was no version with a four-core processor, and the ability to replace RAM was unaccountably removed. How much could that have saved in production costs anyway?

That, and a minor refresh for the iMac, wouldn’t not be so big a deal, but there is still one model that has been stillborn for quite a while. That’s the Mac Pro.

Now when Mac Pro updates stalled a few years ago, Apple promised something better, and it came, more or less, with the 2013 model. But was what resembled a circular trash can really an upgrade? If you depended on the old cheese-grater Mac Pro to store extra hard drives and peripheral cards, the answer was no. The new Mac Pro was designed for mostly external expansion. You couldn’t even put a second Xeon processor in there. Was that the price of small and light? All right, it’s assembled in the U.S., a change for Apple, which hasn’t built Macs in this country of years.

So what’s next for the Mac Pro? A simple refresh, a redesign with more internal expansion, or does it go away? How does Apple serve the professional user who does movie special effects and high-end scientific calculations on a Mac? Are they let loose, forced to switch to a Windows workstation, or does Apple expect them to all buy iMacs?

Lots of questions, and some or all of them are expected to be answered come October 27th.