As September winds down, no doubt some of you are wondering just how well the iPhone 7 is faring so far. What is known is that Apple claims sellouts, particularly with the iPhone 7 Plus, which appears to be more popular than some expected. Evidently that dual-camera system is a reason for spend $100 more to get one.

All this augers well for the average sale price of an iPhone, but it doesn’t tell us how many sales Apple will report. It’s still all about many units Apple has actually delivered to customers, as opposed to how many have been ordered. The two do not yet match, although Apple obviously hasn’t revealed how close they are or, as yet, when they expect demand to catch up with supplies.

Now some suggest the great conspiracy, in which Apple deliberately produces a little less at the beginning of a production cycle to inflate the popularity of a product. But too much of that can have unintended consequences, such as some people deciding they can wait. Or if they planned on switching from, say, a Samsung, that maybe they’ll do it on a future product cycle. So I assume that, for the most part, when Apple reports that supplies are constrained, it’s a consequence of higher demand and the normal delays in improving production, especially if a lot of new components are involved.

So the first customers of the new iPhones received them on September 16. Even then it was reported to be near impossible to get an iPhone 7 Plus. It may be that Apple hoped that a somewhat earlier shipping date would allow them to move more product in the final days of the September quarter. Perhaps that’s true, but if supplies are still severely constrained, it may not matter so much.

What’s more, there are still no hard numbers as to how well they did. Apple indicated it would no longer release launch weekend sales figures, claiming that tight supplies made it impossible to convey an accurate picture of the actual demand. But that’s probably true most years for iPhones. It’s the same story, that more could be sold if more units were ready to ship. But if the number of units produced this year were the same or less than last year, it would only look worse for Apple, which may be the real reason cynics like me believe the decision not to reveal those numbers was made.

Still, if you want the iPhone 7 of your choice today, prepare to wait. The iPhone 7 Plus is still hard to get, and Jet Black versions of both may be backordered for weeks. But don’t forget the shiny black means prone to scratches, so one is best advised to stick it in a case. That may hide its great looks, but there are tradeoffs I suppose. Still, when Apple releases its quarterly financials in late October, the iPhone sales figures will be checked carefully.

If they are down from last year, which is in keeping with Apple’s conservative guidance for the September quarter, it will probably mean that the new iPhone didn’t ship in enough quantities to make much a difference. If the numbers are higher, or reveal a sales increase, then the prospects for the iPhone 7 may be even better than many expect.

As it is, however, if you want one, the watchword is to just be patient and wait.

Meantime, it’s very possible Samsung’s current situation may help Apple earn even higher sales. The Galaxy Note 7 phablet was recalled on September 2nd due to many reports of overheating and fires as the result of a defective battery. I still believe that problem didn’t get all the publicity that it deserved, but it surely put a damper on sales prospects. Even though you can buy one now that’s supposedly free of the battery issues, I suspect potential customers might be gun shy. Would they take it on faith that Samsung resolved the problem? I’d assume they might based 0n the fact that Samsung usually makes reliable gear, and this was just one of those unfortunate production errors that probably won’t recur.

But why was it allowed to happen in the first place?

According to published reports, Samsung rushed the Galaxy Note 7 to production to arrive ahead of the iPhone 7 to get a leg up on sales. Or maybe they were lured in by speculation that the new iPhone would be, at best, a very modest upgrade that wouldn’t be so popular, and this was an ideal time to gain more sales at Apple’s expense.

That said, Samsung is a responsible company, and no doubt will try harder not to make such a foolish mistake in the future. On the other hand, the negative publicity may suppress sales for a while, giving Apple perhaps a further advantage. Well, if we’re talking of new customers or converts who finally decided to make the jump to iPhone.

In the meantime, with all the negative publicity about declining iPhone sales, it doesn’t hurt to see Apple fighting to build enough gear to meet demand.

So Apple has gotten mixed press for the decision to ditch the headphone jack on the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. What’s most interesting is that this development was revealed early on in the run up to rumors about the upgraded products. Sometimes I wonder if Apple deliberately leaked the news to the media to gauge public reaction, or just to build up expectations.

In any case, the die is cast. I expect most people are getting used to the change, particularly since Apple supplied a free headphone to Lightning adaptor, and sells extras for $9 each. If you want to listen and charge at the same time, there’s an adapter for that too, so the inconvenience for most will be relatively minor. I wonder how many people are so concerned that they are putting off buying the new gear, but I suspect it won’t be a terribly high number.

That said, Apple has long had a penchant for removing older ports. It’s very much about embracing new technologies., and ditching components that no longer make any sense. Or at least as far as Apple is concerned.

So the original 30-pin docking connector used on such gear as iPods, iPhones and iPads was replaced with the Lightning connector in 2012. To customers, the main advantage was being reversible. But it’s also smaller, and thus gives Apple more space to add stuff in iPhones and iPads. While there was a period during which you probably bought adapter cables for older accessories, that’s long ago and far away now. As with other ports or parts that Apple ditched over the years, including floppy drives and optical drives, we’ve all learned to live with it. And how many long-term Mac users miss the end of SCSI?

I’m not sure about the wisdom of losing optical drives, but I have an Apple USB SuperDrive that gets the job done, although I wish the cable were longer.

In any case, you should expect the headphone jack to also be removed from future iPads. But what else is on the chopping block? Well, the next generation Macs are expected to receive USB-C, since it’s easy to adapt from USB 3.0. Again, it’s also reversible, which is the biggest advantage of all, as anyone who has to twist a USB plug to connect it will admit.

But what about Lightning? Four years old, is it also on the chopping block? Has it somehow already outlived its usefulness and is destined for a quick replacement with something else? Well, I suppose eventually, but there’s a published report citing an Apple patent filing that indicates the Lightning port is not long for this world.

Now before I go on, don’t forget that, because Apple is experimenting with different technologies, that doesn’t necessarily mean a wholesale change is due soon. It may well be that the new technology will add features rather than remove them. This is why the source of this story is not receiving a link. The intent for such speculation is strictly fear-mongering.

So this patent, number 9,453,976, granted Wednesday, refers to a scheme that allows data transfer between two devices via an optical interface. Supposedly the connection is accomplished via openings on the unit’s external surface. I suspect that this might be something useful for a wireless charging setup, rather than to replace an existing port. Until or if Apple says something, it’s hard to know Apple’s priorities, but it doesn’t strike me as something into which you’d plug a headphone.

But after pushing Lighting as the ultimate replacement for headphone jacks, it would hardly make sense to force another connector migration a year or two later. That isn’t Apple’s way. Remember, that this new technology was probably invented last year. It usually takes that long for a patent to be granted.

To be realistic, I have little doubt Apple is already considering future connection schemes, and no doubt for products we know nothing about yet. It’s also true that Apple is granted patents for all sorts of technologies, but it’s not always certain how or when they will be used. So just to assume the Lightning port is on life support doesn’t reflect reality. I also wonder if Apple seeks patents sometimes just to have a lock on the technology even if it’s not going to find its way into a product for quite a while.

Why would Apple push people to an intermediate change, and then pull the rug out from under them so soon thereafter? No, it won’t happen with the next iPhone, which some continue to maintain is going to be the “real” upgrade compared to the iPhone 7.

If you look at Apple’s history about such things, you’ll find that you can comfortably switch to the new port without fretting it’ll be obsolete next year. Indeed, one of my backup drives is FireWire 800, and I continue to use it on my iMac via a FireWire to Thunderbolt adaptor. Nobody forced me to buy a new drive, so long as the current one continues to function. Besides, I don’t have the money for luxuries anymore, so I have to consider each and every purchase or just live without.

Long and short is that, if you already own an iPhone 7 or 7 Plus, or one is on your shopping list, you shouldn’t worry that the Lightning port is going away anytime soon, despite what an online blogger claims.

As you know, when you set up your iCloud account, you have a stingy 5GB of free storage. If you want more, you have to pay for it.

Now the prices are competitive. For 99 cents you can have 50GB. Higher tiers include $2.99 a month for 200GB, $9.99 a month for 1TB, and $19.99 a month for 2TB (a recent addition). Compared to Microsoft and Google, it’s nearly the same, proportionately speaking, even though quantities are different.

But Google offers 15GB free.

The real issue is how much is enough for most users, and how much you will require if you have large photo and music libraries to back up, or if you want to share your Desktop and Documents folder? The latter is a key feature of macOS Sierra. I suspect 15GB is quite enough for the first two for many of you, but obviously not for the two Mac folders. I realize that some of you have large photo and music collections that exceed 15GB.

Apple’s 99 cent deal for 50GB is actually an ideal configuration. But is Apple really making so much money from that storage option that they couldn’t offer it free of charge? Well, if 50 million customers buy it, that adds up to a gross revenue of $49,500,000 per month, and that’s not chump change even to a company as large as Apple.

In saying that, online storage will no doubt become cheaper over time, and Apple might very well increase the free storage as well. I don’t think it’s a matter of greed, even though Apple deals in stratospheric numbers. It’s just business and costs need to be covered.

However, Apple is starting to force the issue. More and more services are requiring larger iCloud Drive allocations. Up until recently, I managed with the free 5GB, but just barely. So I opted to go cheap and practical, and I pay 99 cents a month for 50GB. With my music and photo libraries, that’s just perfect. If I decided to include the Desktop and Documents folders, I would require more than 200GB, so I’d be forced to choose $9.99 a month for 1TB.

Besides, I already pay for an offsite backup via CrashPlan. I also use two external drives, one with Carbon Copy Cloner, and the other for Time Machine. So I’m quite comfortable that all my stuff will be available to restore regardless of what happens. Well, except for whatever files I created between backups.

What’s more, I mostly use just one Mac, and that’s my 27-inch iMac. I have a MacBook Pro, but I don’t use it often enough to care about sharing any large folders. It’s just as easy to drop a few files on its drive if the need arises.

But that’s just me. A number of Mac users may find this macOS Sierra feature a welcome improvement. But they will need the appropriate amount of storage to make it so, and even the basic 50GB package is probably not sufficient for most of them.

Other iCloud-based features include a Universal Clipboard, and Optimized Storage, which can send unused files to your iCloud Drive. All told, Apple is taking steps to make iCloud an essential addition to your Mac experience, which is no doubt going to push more Mac users to increase their storage.

Remember, that this extra-cost requirement is offered with an operating system that is otherwise free. It also seems clear that Apple will continue to make moves that encourage you to use more iCloud Drive storage. I considered Time Machine, but it appears the options to do that are not standard issue in the preferences pane, although I’ve read of some managing it.

But it does make a whole lot of sense that Apple would rather keep your business for online backups rather than have it go to Carbonite, CrashPlan, iDrive and other third-party offsite storage options. Now imagine if you could store all that stuff seamlessly in iCloud for the standard price of admission? You’d just have to select iCloud Drive as the target storage device.

I suspect that new Mac users who might be considering cloud-based  backup systems, would very seriously consider Apple if it were made simple, automatic, without the need to manually drag files or otherwise remember or remind yourself when it was time to backup your stuff.

Yes, I realize Apple would want to suggest Time Machine as the solution, but what if any third-party backup app could also access the iCloud Drive as the default backup location? It would require using an Apple API, but I’m quite sure developers would only be too happy to offer that option if it were offered.

In the meantime, I’m happy with the modest amount of iCloud storage I have. Despite glitches over the years, it has been quite a while since my iCloud email or the syncing process failed. So perhaps Apple is getting its act together, and laying plans to greatly expand what you can do with your iCloud Drive.

I do wonder what it will cost when all is said and done.

I read two articles before writing this column. One suggested Apple had scaled down Project Titan to focus on CarPlay on steroids, more or less. Another considered recent developments to suggest that an Apple Car was still on track. So what do Apple executives think when they read two articles from two relatively well-known publications drawing opposite conclusions? Does Tim Cook have a bemused smile on his face as he watches people fall over themselves attempting to figure out what’s really going on?

Understand all this is mostly happening in a vacuum, without official statements from Apple. But the report that former hardware executive Bob Mansfield took control of the project probably wasn’t made up of whole cloth. It’s very possible that story was quietly fed by Apple to keep up the chatter.

As to the rumors of a purchase of McLaren Automatic, who builds luxury sports cars, maybe it’s all about acquiring technology rather than the entire company.

In fact, I’ve long felt that Apple strategically drops hints and tips on background to specifically selected members of the media. They dutifully repeat the news without directly quoting Apple, usually without critical comment, and whatever Apple is doing continues to make the news.

So the very latest scuttlebutt explains alleged firings at Project Titan as due to the fact that Apple has sharpened the focus. The prospect of building a car and making a difference in a crowded, saturated market is not in the cards. Whatever Apple might do may have already been accomplished by other car makers. Certainly Tesla Motors’ efforts to sell direct addresses the often irritating process of negotiating with traditional car dealers in a tradionalliy Persian bazaar atmosphere. Indeed, while there may be exceptions, I have been buying cars for decades. Despite occasional promises that the process will be expedited, I seldom spend less than two hours at the dealership dealing with the salesperson, the general manager and the finance person. Each leg of the journey manages a profit center, and even if you say, “I just want the car without add-ons,” the process will be long and annoying.

Yes, I’m aware some dealers have a flat-price scheme, where you pay the sticker price. But you still have to cope with the other legs of the purchase.

But I suspect Apple may have reached the same conclusion they may have reached when considering a smart television set. Those markets are accounted for, so may as well deal with the add-ons or accessories. So there’s Apple TV. While it may take over an increasing amount of programming control, you’re still watching shows on a product from such companies as LG, Samsung and VIZIO.

With cars, there are dozens and dozens of companies, many of whom are working on electric cars. There’s enough know-how and dedication to deliver a vehicle that will be reasonably affordable, battery powered, and deliver enough range to avoid the anxiety of running out of power. Of course the situation won’t get a lot better until there’s a network of charging stations, and quick-charging features so you don’t have to wait long to top off the battery.

That’s true even for Volkswagen, which is paying off billions of dollars in penalties because it tried to cheat the system with its diesel engines. In the new automotive world, diesel will be largely relegated to large trucks. So VW is devoting an increasing amount of its resources to develop electric cars.

So what is Apple working on? Well, CarPlay simply takes elements of an iPhone’s interface and presents it on your vehicle’s infotainment system. Yes, Android Auto does basically the same thing from Google’s standpoint, and many car makers have opted to support both. That way they do not risk alienating customers.

But w What if Apple is also working on a system to take over the entire car’s electronics, to manage self-driving? Is that the possible solution, or is there some intermediate step where CarPlay will just take on more infotainment functions?

I do not doubt that Apple can develop a fully functional autonomous driving system of one sort or another, with a user friendly setup and interface for which Apple is famous. But there are lots of questions, one of which involves compatibility with different makes and models. If a company licenses AppleDrive, or whatever the system is called, would there be restrictions on how the engine, brake and steering management systems are designed? Or will this be something that is readily adapted to a vehicle with minimal customization?

In other words, would it require an Apple reference platform of some sort for auto makers?

While Google is also working on a self-driving system, how it would be implemented is, as usual, a question mark. Google often engages in projects that have little practical value. Sure a self-driving system would be useful, but it would all depend on how it’s marketed to the auto industry and what changes have to be made to allow it to work in a production vehicle. Or will Google just build their own cars — or try to?

But whether it’s an AppleDrive reference platform or something from Google, does the industry have any incentive at all to go with either company? After all most or all car makers are busy devising their own systems, which would, of course, be compatible with their own engineering priorities. Why would they consider a third party?

So if an AppleDrive system is under development, is Apple contacting car makers quietly to see what their priorities might be?

Of course, none of this has been confirmed. All bets are off, but I’ve long tended to favor a self-driving system rather than the whole widget.