Consider this scenario: You’re taking the family on a long trip, and the gas gauge is about to hit the empty zone, and you soon locate a sign about gas stations at the next exit. With fingers crossed that there’s enough gas left in the tank, you turn to the offramp and, within a few minutes, you pull up at the first source of fuel.

As you pull, you see a huge sign saying that the type of gas supplied only works in a Ford. But you’re driving a Jeep. What do you do?

So you drive to another gas station, only to discover that it only supports a Honda or a Toyota.

It’s the picture of absurdity. You buy fuel based on the octane rating. If you have a diesel vehicle, there are fewer sources of fuel, but one is essentially as good as another. How could it be otherwise?

But now imagine you are driving a motor vehicle that’s 100% electric. While you can plug it into a handy outlet at your home, what about on the road? Well, Tesla Motors has a reported 600 charging stations around the world for its cars. It’s not a lot by any means, which may argue against buying one in many cities, but at least you know where you stand. As the user base, so will the number of charging facilities.

In passing, I wonder how Tesla will cope with those 400,000 preorders for the Model 3 mid-sized sedan that’s supposed to start shipping by the end of next year. If they can somehow manage to increase production to respectable levels — and it’s clear they are trying — that will create a situation where many more charging stations will be required.

Now consistent with all those rumors that Apple is developing a car, perhaps one in direct competition to a Tesla, there’s a report from Reuters that Apple is engaged in talking to companies that build charging stations. The end result would be to roll out charging stations around the world, same as Tesla, for the Apple Car.

All fine and good.

But I have a question: Would an Apple Car be able to hook up to the connector at a Tesla station for rapid charging? Would a Tesla be able to hook up to Apple’s charging station? Assuming they all use standard power plugs, no doubt they’d work just fine. Having both companies providing charging facilities would only make it more convenient for customers who buy these vehicles.

But if there are fast-charging schemes and other technological differences that might reduce compatibility, that would have to be considered. Ideally, companies who build electric cars would want to get together to make sure that customers have the widest possible selection of charging facilities. In these early days of mass-produced electric cars, any non-compatibility question would be a disservice to drivers.

I suppose that Apple and Tesla might need to work together in other ways. In 2014, Tesla broke ground on a Gigafactory, a huge battery plant, in Sparks, Nevada. Production of battery cells is set for 2017, and it is supposed to reach full capacity by 2020. The latter is when Apple might be ready to begin building cars; that is, if all the rumors are correct. At the very least, Apple is spending lots of time and R&D money exploring the possibilities.

Assuming Tesla has the capacity, wouldn’t it make sense to sign up Apple as a customer? Indeed, if production capacity isn’t sufficient, it might provide reason to build a second or a third battery plant to handle the needs of both companies.

Sharing technology is nothing new in the car industry. Various industry players have long cooperated on various technologies for the sake of economy of scale, and to benefit all those involved. Indeed, it is reported that Volkswagen once attempted to make a deal with Mercedes-Benz for its BlueTEC diesel emission control technology. However, the engineers (and perhaps the bean counters) at VW decided that they could do better to control emissions all by themselves.

And that’s where the VW cheating scandal began. But that’s way beyond the scope of the article. What’s important to me is that electric car makers need to consider possible interoperability standards, so everyone is on the same page when it comes to charging stations and other facilities needed to keep your vehicle running. An Android smartphone and an iPhone can, assuming product support, work on the same wireless carrier or ISP.

If Tesla’s dream comes true, there will someday be thousands of charging stations. As technology improves, the cars will spend more time and more miles on the road before charging is needed, and it will take less time to bring the battery back to full capacity so you can continue on your trip.

This is obviously quite early in the game, but Apple will no doubt not get involved in building and selling cars until all the potential downsides are considered and solved. I would also expect that the Apple Car would differ from the Tesla in some way to make it a compelling alternative. Apple, remember, doesn’t just duplicate what other companies do, but expands the state of the art while resolving problems that improve the customer experience.

However, I doubt I’ll be buying one, ever, unless the price hits an affordable level, and I have the money to make that investment. I might just be too old to care, but it’s nice to dream, or visit an casino bonus to get off some steam.

You probably didn’t realize that Google has some big problems to solve. Very few people upgrade their mobile handsets to the newest versions of Android despite touting loads of new features at I/O events. Indeed, most customers can’t upgrade, because it’s not offered to them by the wireless carrier or the handset maker. But that’s just a start.

In 2015, Google earned $67.39 billon from ad sales. Total revenue was $74.54 billon, meaning that 90% of that cash came from ad sales. Not from the Android OS, not from Nest smart thermostats, not from Nexus smartphones, not from any other product. It was all about those targeted ads that were based on what they learned about you and your tastes. Anything that hurts the amount of money Google earns from each click or tap on an ad can have a huge impact over time.

But Google isn’t considered a one-product company, even though that’s what the earnings reveal.

In contrast, 64.99% of Apple’s revenue for 2Q 2016 came from the iPhone. More than a third of the total came from other products and services that include the Mac, iPad, Apple Watch, iTunes, Apple Music and so forth and so on. But Apple IS considered a one product company because a single product line has a huge impact on total sales. But without the iPhone, Apple would still be a pretty large company, with revenue that exceeds that of Google.

Do you see the disconnect here?

Even worse, whatever Apple does must be wrong, must be doomed to failure. How often you hear such talk about Google even though all its efforts to expand the revenue base much beyond ads has failed?

It all started with the Mac. In the early days, people would say that a proper personal computer must have a command line interface, and MS-DOS was the standard. A Mac’s pretty graphical user interface wasn’t taken seriously. Macs were toys; they weren’t meant for serious work. Well, until Microsoft Windows became good enough to actually become productive. Suddenly the complaints were forgotten, except for the people who suggested Apple adopt Windows or license the Mac OS.

And I haven’t begun that old “Macs are overpriced” argument. Macs aren’t cheap, but the reasons are far more nuanced than that.

When the iPod came out, promising 1,000 songs in your pocket for $399, it was regarded as an indulgence, a toy from Steve Jobs that would probably go nowhere. Instead, it quickly dominated the nascent digital music player market and remained there until its features were assumed by the iPhone. Yes, iPods are still being sold by the millions, although the product has been updated only rarely in recent years.

When the iPhone arrived in 2007, it also wasn’t taken seriously. It was too expensive, lacked features, and didn’t a proper smartphone require a physical keyboard? It’s hard to believe that, in those days, the BlackBerry was the standard bearer, and Android prototypes were similarly configured. In 2016, people hardly remember the BlackBerry, even though it’s still being made.

I could go on. The iPad was an overgrown iPod touch, the Apple Watch was just too expensive to compete with Android Wear and Pebbles, and don’t forget a Fitbit. To make the iPad seem less successful, it is often compared with $50 tablets, gear that hardly exits the toy category. An Apple Watch is compared to the Fitbit in industry tallies of what are considered “wearable” sales. Close but no cigar, since the Apple Watch is supposed to be a smartwatch. It would be similar to referring to an iPhone as a digital music player because that’s one of its features.

The Apple Store chain is 15 years old this year. I remember when the original stores were launched, and I attended the grand openings of the first stores in Arizona, beginning with the one in Chandler, AZ. It was a huge deal, but came at a time when tech companies hadn’t done so well in setting up their own retail facilities. Do you remember the Gateway Store?

Apple had some different ideas devised by Steve Jobs, Ron Johnson and crew. It came at a time when Apple wasn’t being treated all that well by third-party retailers. So Macs would often be tossed in out-of-the-way locations, and the sales staff would refer would-be customers to products from which they’d earn a nice spiff to supplement their paychecks.

The Apple Store was designed to set the standard for the sales experience, and, over time, other Apple resellers decided to emulate at least some of the good stuff.

This year, the Apple Store is undergoing some big changes. The Genius Bar, where you’d receive support — and sometimes authorized repairs — from an Apple person, is morphing into a Genius Grove. It will offer customers more space to just hang out. An article from Slate Magazine quotes Apple retail executive Angela Ahrendts about the new feature, “We didn’t want it to feel like a store. We wanted it to feel like a town square—very open, and everyone invited.”

I wonder about the Microsoft Store, which debuted in 2009. As of last summer, there were 66 outlets around the world. I’m not at all sure whether that’s a big deal or not, but, in contrast, there were 463 Apple Stores worldwide as of the end of 2015. Many are set to undergo an overhaul in the years ahead, and few will dispute the fact that the chain has been hugely successful.

Except in the clouded minds of those who imagine that Apple is desperate after a single down quarter and with the prospect of another. But even if sales are down, profit margins are high. Is that the mark of a failing company?

On Monday, I read an article from an author who seems astonished that Apple CEO Tim Cook treated his hosts in India with respect. The headline included the phrase, “from arrogance to servility,” as if to imply that acting as a respectful guest in a strange country is unusual for Apple. Regardless, it’s clear Apple wants to carve out a huge piece of the smartphone sales pie in the second largest country on planet Earth. But that should come as no surprise.

So the real story isn’t Cook’s attitude, or alleged servitude, but what Apple plans to do to accomplish the task. Clearly there are huge obstacles, and one is the fact that the iPhone is priced far above what most of India’s population can afford. At least for now. Indeed, one published report quoted Cook as admitting that the prices of Apple’s flagship “may be too high.”

Now it has already been reported that the Indian authorities evidently turned down a bid by Apple to sell reconditioned — and therefore cheaper — iPhones in India. If that can be revisited, and the decision supposedly isn’t final, I suppose that’s one way to resolve the high price of admission. Another would be emphasizing the low-end model, the iPhone SE, and perhaps cutting the price some on the more expensive handsets. That Apple can pack most of the guts of the iPhone 6s into the smallest iPhone for $50 cheaper than its predecessor demonstrates a commitment to finding ways to fight the price barrier.

It’s not that $50, or the equivalent in India Rupees, 3,371.52, is all that much. But it’s a start. In saying that, Apple isn’t about to lose money on any hardware. It’s well known that this company won’t play that game, even though most makers of tech gear haven’t gotten the memo. Obviously very little profit can be had from selling Chromebooks for less than $150, but to many PC companies, it’s all about volume.

Only Amazon seems credible in taking little or no profit after all these years.

Another problem is that Apple’s gear generally also costs more in equivalent money in other parts of the world, which hurts its ability to compete. It’s complicated. Sometimes it’s all or mostly about different tax rates, to which you add varying foreign exchange rates. So as the U.S. dollar rises, an American company’s ability to compete in foreign markets becomes more difficult.

I suppose one way to deal with this is to assemble the gear locally. Apple depends heavily on China for manufacturing, and I suppose factories could be established in India to reduce shipping costs and take advantage of any local tax incentives.

That’s why foreign car makers have established a number of assembly plants in the U.S. So millions of vehicles from Honda and other overseas companies are, based on the percentage of domestic content, actually American cars.

One thing is certain from the published reports, and that is that growing sales in India is going to be a slow climb. Apple’s share of the market there is reported as a mere 1.5%. iPhones are, on average,five time more expensive than the typical sale price of a smartphone in that country. Now the average sale price for smartphones around the world is $261.30. The average sale price for an iPhone was $642 in the March quarter. You can see the disparity, but it’s also true that Apple competes in a more rarified atmosphere where the competition’s retail price is not that much different.

In short, Apple is not going to consider desperate measures to be more competitive. The iPhone, as with Macs, iPads and the Apple Watch, are meant to be aspirational products. They will cost more than the average gadget from a competitor, but they are within the range of products that directly compete on specs and features.

So it would seem that iPhone sales may stay in the single digits for quite a while in India, but if double-digit growth can still be achieved, there is hope for the future. As India’s middle class grows, Apple will have plenty of gear that will appeal to them.

Still, some reports I checked claim that India’s refusal to allow Apple to sell refurbished iPhones in that country marked a big defeat. The reasoning is said to be political, partly influenced by lobbying from the entrenched competition. Apple’s move to launch Maps and iOS app development in India will no doubt help some, as will setting up Apple Stores. A commitment to manufacture iPhones would do more, although its sales volumes wouldn’t seem sufficient to warrant that sort of investment, at least for now.

But it’s also true that Apple doesn’t plan for the short term. Lower iPhone sales will be tolerated, as will lower iPad and Mac sales, so long as profits remain high. It’s very possible that growth will resume in China, that future iPhones will attract higher numbers of upgraders and switchers, and plans to grow the market big time in India and other developing countries will succeed going forward.

Unfortunately, Apple’s critics will continue to demand immediate solutions to long-term trends. Apple would be making a huge mistake to listen, but it’s clear they are taking steps to explore new market opportunities. Anyone who wants to consider the iPhone ultimately dead and buried should look at the proportion of smartphone sales as a part of Samsung’s total revenue for a reality check.

If you thought Apple was getting a little too much attention before, you haven’t seen anything yet (I avoid the famous ungrammatical version of that phrase). Now that the company’s solid growth has stalled, for at least one quarter and possibly two, there is hyper-attention on everything Tim Cook and crew devise.

This week, the coverage included Cook’s meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India. You’d think that the Apple CEO’s trip to India involved a visit by a President for the coverage it received. But the four-day visit included launching a development center and making plans to open retail stores in that country. Apple is looking towards India’s growing middle class as a huge potential source of new customers over the next few years.

Of course, as the world continues to develop, assuming there’s no planet-wide financial breakdown, Apple will soon be out of space in which to grow. But there are certainly hundreds of millions of additional potential customers to be found, and it does seem Apple will go after every last one of them, or at least the ones with enough money to actually buy something.

Continue Reading…