There are a number of online pundits who evidently believe they know what Apple is up to, and they also know whether it’ll be a success or failure. They are widely quoted, often without question or comment. Well, except for a few realists who actually do a little fact-checking or research the predictions to see if any actually came to pass. Unfortunately, far too many so-called reporters are just too lazy to actually report.

The end result is that there is a lot of misinformation about Apple or its policies and history. It may not materially hurt sales, but it materially hurts the public’s perception of what’s really going on.

Some of the misinformation consists of exaggeration, taking a known set of facts and inflating them out of proportion, or overlooking context. So consider when Apple released a flawed update for iOS 8 in 2014. The 8.0.1 update fixed bugs, of course, but it also bricked the iPhone 6 family. Apple realized it goofed and withdrew the update within an hour or so. The fixed version came out the very next day, but not before the media grabbed ahold of the story and implied that extremely large numbers of users were impacted (the actual estimate is about 40,000), or that it took a while to fix the problem.

Apple doesn’t always help. So an Apple executive blamed the flawed update over something called a “wrapper,” which basically means little or nothing to someone who isn’t a programer. Not explained is how this update was allowed to be posted without a final check to make sure the installer worked properly.

Some of the misinformation overlooks the company’s history. So there are occasional suggestions that Apple would really increase Mac market share by licensing the OS to PC makers. Yes, right. Well, Apple actually tried that in the mid-1990s. Existing companies and new companies came out with Mac OS clones in cheap PC cases that undercut Apple with lower prices. It might have killed the company, but Steve Jobs managed to disengage Apple from the agreement after he took control, in large part by changing the system version from Mac OS 7 to Mac OS 8. Evidently most of the contracts didn’t cover a major new version of the operating system.

Nowadays, Apple gives away the OS. It’s all about selling premium hardware, and Mac profit margins generally exceed that of PC makers. While PC companies are by and large suffering from reduced sales — which is why Intel us cutting 11% of its staff — Mac sales are pretty consistent, with a very slight decrease or increase. Apple will release March quarter sales on April 26th.

Now when it comes to Apple critics, one of the worst offenders is Rob Enderle, a so-called industry analyst whose clients include some of Apple’s competitors. Now this fact ought to be mentioned in any story in which he’s quoted, but that doesn’t happen all that often. It reveals a built-in bias, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that he’s generally wrong when it comes to Apple, and he’s rarely called out on his false or mistaken claims.

I caught a few examples that are worth mentioning, just to demonstrate where he’s at.

So in October 2003, he announced that, “the biggest long-term problem with moving to an Apple platform is that the company is in decline.”

Take a deep breath and we’ll go on.

Do you remember when Carly Fiorina had her failed stint at HP, where she made some unfortunate decisions that seriously hurt the company before the board gave her walking papers? Before you feel sorry for her, she had a lucrative golden parachute, so she made millions as the result of being fired for incompetence. Clearly I’ve made some really bad decisions over the years. Whenever an employer told me to leave, I was lucky just to get a final check.

In any case, while she was at HP, she made a deal with Steve Jobs to sell a rebranded version of the iPod. So Enderle predicted, “the expectation on the iPod is that HP’s version will probably outsell Apple’s version relatively quickly.”

I don’t know whose expectation, but it wasn’t one that had any factual support to it. What’s more it didn’t happen. HP didn’t even get to rebrand the latest version, and it was an abject failure. The public wanted the genuine iPod with the Apple label, even if it was the same product. Yes, Jobs really snookered Fiorina with that deal.

Over the years, Enderle has joined with other ill-informed so-called pundits in predicting that the iPhone would be a failure, that the Dell Streak would smoke both the iPhone and the iPad.

When it comes to Tim Cook, “when you make Jobs’ polar opposite the CEO, it’s probably not going to work out well.”

More recently Enderle suggested that one of Cook’s next moves will be to discontinue the Mac. That one’s hardly worth a response. Why is this guy taken seriously?

Now if Enderle had any integrity at all, he’d admit that he was wrong, and promise to do better. But it never changes for him and other Apple critics who value ignorance and fear-mongering over doing their homework and engaging in fair commentary.

Apple is far from perfect, and I have offered plenty of criticisms of them over the years. But I try to express my comments on a foundation of facts. I mess up from time to time, but I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong.

Apple is often criticized for having a closed ecosystem, a so-called “walled garden” that allegedly deprives customers of choice. But the concept can be misleading. You do have an expansive variety of software available for Mac and iOS. Software available for iOS and the Mac App Store is carefully curated for security and meeting the company’s standards, but there’s plenty to choose from. With a Mac, third party software vendors offer lots of variety for apps that Apple doesn’t accept.

But this isn’t a discussion about Apple’s policies, the plusses or minuses, but about that other platform that’s supposed to be “open” and thus offers customers more choices. While that may, in part, be true, there appear to be some complications and limits. Thus the European Commission, better known as the EC, is going after Google for violating European Union antitrust rules with the Android platform.

Specifically the EC has reached a “preliminary view” that Google has “abused its dominant position by imposing restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators.”

What sort of restrictions? Well, “based on our investigation thus far,” states EC Commissioner Margarethe Vestager, who heads the division that manages competition policy, “we believe that Google’s behavior denies consumers a wider choice of mobile apps and services and stands in the way of innovation by other players in breach of EU antitrust rules.”

Now on the surface, that appears to sound more like a complaint against Apple than Google. Obviously, the carriers cannot change the software you get on your iPhone. It comes the same wherever you buy it, and only Apple can push updates, other than special carrier-specific patches that are fed from time to time. And at least you can receive timely updates. With an Android handset, it’s hit or miss and mostly miss.

So what’s got the EC’s dander up? Well, it’s much about Google’s dominant share of the search market, but it’s also about Android and the Google Play app store. So Google is accused of requiring handset makers to include Google’s search, making it the default search engine, and installing the Chrome browser. Supposedly this is a requirement for being allowed to install other Google apps.

Another complaint is that manufacturers are prevented from installing operating systems based on the Android open source code, which seems doubly strange since it is, of course, open source. That should mean any manufacturer, or even an individual customer, ought to be able to install it if that’s what they want.

A third set of complaints are about paying financial incentives — essentially bribes — for manufactures and carriers so they preinstall Google Search on their devices.

So to be able to install Play, Google Search has to be set up as the default search engine, and Chrome the default browser. This practice supposedly makes it difficult for third parties to get in on the act and have their own search engines and browsers set up as defaults on an Android smartphone.

In response, Google claimed its agreements with its partners “are entirely voluntary” and that nobody is forced to use Android with Google’s apps and services. Google also asserts that manufactures can add apps from other manufacturers too, including Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and the proprietary apps developed by handset makers and carriers.

Now I’m no fan of Android. I think it’s too cumbersome for regular people to use, and I’m concerned about security problems due to the difficulty in getting OS updates. But there’s certainly no dearth of junkware on an Android smartphone. I saw a mess of it on two Samsung Galaxy smartphones that I put into service for a number of months. Indeed, I really just wanted to trim it all down to Google and a few of my favorite third-party apps, at least the ones available at Google Play.

If found guilty, Google could be fined somewhere in the billions of dollars, which even a company with the cash reserves of a Google would find somewhat daunting. They’d also have to allow more freedom — and, unfortunately — clutter on Android gear as a result. It would mean that someone buying a new Android handset couldn’t be sure they were getting a configuration that essentially matches the one on the Android handset they already own. With different amounts of manufacturer and carrier junkware, it’s already confusing.

Now I understand about search. That’s Google’s primary source of income. The revenue from Google Play is far less. So it’s understandable they wouldn’t want to make it easy for you to use a different search engine, although you can sideload apps from other sources. But that takes an extra step or two to accomplish, and there’s no guarantee that the apps you install will not be malware ridden. At least you have a decent chance of staying secure if you stick with Google Play, though security apps are plentiful if you want extra protection.

I wouldn’t guess how this will turn out. Clearly the authorities in Europe are asserting a stronger position than the U.S., where Microsoft escaped an antitrust ruling with a few wrist slaps that didn’t hurt the company. What hurt Microsoft had more to do with failing to recognize the mobile revolution, and relying much too much on the hopes and dreams for Windows everywhere.

Just making it easier to use other search engines, and making it possible to get needed OS and security updates, would be more than enough in my view. Making the Android ecosystem more complicated in the interests of allowing additional competition will only make a messy situation that much messier.

While reading over recent press releases from VIZIO about new versions of their Ultra HD HDR Home Theater Displays, I caught something, a significant fact that might be overlooked. For most of you it won’t matter, but it demonstrates just how the TV market has changed.

What I’m referring to is this, from the release on one of the new models: “As with all VIZIO SmartCast™ 4K Ultra HD displays, the M-Series Ultra HD HDR Home Theater Display is tuner-free. For those that use an external antenna to watch local broadcasts, a separate external TV tuner is required.”

That’s why it’s referred to as a “Display” rather than an HDTV.

What this means is that, if you receive TV shows via casting from an Apple TV or a similar device, a cable connection, a satellite hookup, a gaming console, or a DVD player, the set will work normally. But if you want traditional broadcast TV, using an external antenna, you’re stuck unless you buy that tuner.

I wondered about the reason for the decision, and got the answer from a VIZIO spokesperson: “Research shows that less than 10% of TV viewers receive over the air broadcast programs. As we continually evaluate and focus on designing products that deliver a beautifully simple experience, we felt that removing the tuner would simplify the overall setup and user experience for the vast majority of customers.”

More to the point, VIZIO is also able to reduce the price of the TV slightly, or keep the same price and add more content, such as enhanced hardware for a superior quality picture. If you look at recent reviews of VIZIO sets, you find they almost always deliver picture quality that’s far better than you might expect for the price. So saving production costs is not so bad an idea. Some time back VIZIO also removed 3D from their sets, with good reason. It’s a feature few used, and even though it worked well enough, I cannot imagine missing it. Although other TV makers still offer 3D, it’s a feature that appears to work best in a movie theater. Perhaps a proper technique to show a 3D picture without the need for glasses will change things, but it doesn’t seem the public is clamoring for such a feature.

But what about that missing digital TV tuner? How much would you need to pay to get one? Well, digital TV converters, the devices you use to allow you to receive the new-fangled TV broadcasts on old analog sets, can be had for $30-50 at Amazon. I found similarly low-cost tuners at eBay. Best Buy had one for around $60 or so. Regardless, this shouldn’t present a problem for that small segment of buyers who need them.

I do hope that VIZIO is being proactive to remind customers that the set doesn’t have a tuner. This is the sort of thing that might be overlooked when you check out one of these sets at a consumer electronics store. At the very least, there ought to be a big sign near the price stating that it requires a TV tuner to receive broadcast stations, or at least an information sheet in the shipping carton. That will avoid some complaints later on when customers attempt to hook it up to their antennas and discover, to their surprise, that it won’t work.

All right, perhaps I’m being alarmist. But VIZIO has sold over 15 million smart TVs through the years. In its IPO announcement last year, the company boasted of having a 35% share of the market for such gear. So this means that potentially hundreds of thousands of customers who need TV with tuners may suddenly discover they need to buy something extra unless they are well informed.

Now I like VIZIO. I’ve owned two of their sets over the years, and have had great experiences. They also offer respectable U.S.-based customer service, and that’s not a given these days with any manufacturer. It does make sense not to include a feature that 90% of the people who purchase their sets don’t need. But that still leaves a substantial number of customers who may be in for a shock.

Retailers can probably help by offering a tuner prominently displayed near sets that don’t include them. They might even be useful for customers who, confronted with an unexpected cable/satellite outage, can pull out an antenna, if they have one, and still get some live TV shows. Indeed, a mix of broadcast TV and a streaming service or two, such as Netflix or iTunes, is a terrific way to cut the cord and save money. The price of a TV tuner would be covered, and then some, the very first month.

My VIZIO set is an older model, with a digital tuner and 3D. I have considered different cord cutting schemes, but I am somewhat in the fringe area when it comes to broadcast stations from Phoenix. I did a test once with a Radio Shack digital antenna, and found that I could receive maybe two-thirds of the stations consistently, but it required constant fiddling with the rabbit ears. I would probably need to set up a rooftop antenna to get more consistent performance, and even if the landlord had no objection, I hardly want to plant roots in this place.

In any case, now that VIZIO has made broadcast TV more of an endangered species than ever, you’ll want to consider your options if you’re in the market for a new set.

Ever since rumors first arose about an Apple Car, speculation has been fairly consistent. Apple has established a Project Titan, and has leased property in Sunnyvale, CA, near its Cupertino headquarters, at which to develop and test possible prototype vehicles. Recently, a project lead left the company, and there were rumors that Apple’s head designer, Sir Jonathan Ive, wasn’t happy with the results.

Of course, none of this has been confirmed, other than, apparently, the fact that there is a facility of sufficient size to develop a car that may or may not belong to Apple. But Apple won’t say anything beyond, perhaps, interest in the car business. You shouldn’t expect anything official unless or until Apple is actually planning on selling such a beast.

Some rumors point to a possible Apple partnership with BMW, the luxury car maker, but that would merely indicate Apple didn’t plan on building something that most car buyers would regard as affordable. Sure, BMW makes the Mini Cooper, a subcompact that starts at a reasonable $20,700, but you can option it up sufficiently to bring it close to $40,000, which is definitely in luxury car territory.

Regardless, up to 1,000 people were supposedly hired for Project Titan, and most were veterans of the auto industry, including some employees that supposedly came from Tesla, which is expected to be a key competitor.

A new report, also unconfirmed, has it that Apple has set up a secret lab in Berlin, with some 15-20 people working at, one presumes, Project Titan. The report suggests that Apple plans to partner with Magna Steyr, a contract auto manufacturing facility in Austria that has worked with a number of auto companies. Their clients range from the cheap to the ultra-luxury and include Tesla Motors.

Now it may well be that Apple is indeed engaged in a Project Titan, and they are exploring the potential for building a vehicle. Or perhaps it’s all or mostly about building test beds for future versions of CarPlay. Or perhaps a combination of both.

Even if all these rumors are all or mostly true, that doesn’t mean you will someday be able to order your very own Apple Car at any price. Building an automobile is obviously very different and far more complicated than anything Apple has done before. Even though some suggested Apple was out of its element with the first iPhone, it was basically a mobile computer, and Apple knows computers.

A car will include various computerized systems to manage different functions, and Apple can no doubt master those features. Apple also knows a thing or two about batteries. But the rest, the shape, wind tunnel testing, bumpers, air bags, seats, engines, suspension, the wheels and brakes, not to mention meeting complicated government requirements around the world, well, that’s a huge leap. It doesn’t mean Apple can’t do it. Clearly Tesla Motors found a way, and if Apple is truly partnering with BMW or another seasoned auto maker, I’ve little doubt they can accomplish something great.

Even if Apple decides to green light a car, there will be lots of questions left to answer. Will it be an affordable mid-priced vehicle, in the range of a Honda, something closer to the Tesla Model 3, which is closer to the price of a compact luxury car, or will it be an expensive vehicle that competes with a Tesla Model S? Will Apple follow the Tesla playbook to focus on the high-end for the first models, then move to more affordable vehicles?

After a product roadmap is established, where does it get built? At an existing manufacturing facility where production capacity is leased, or would they start from scratch? Tesla builds its cars at a Fremont, CA facility that was acquired from GM and Toyota. But it hasn’t done the rest by itself. Tesla has manufacturing and technology partnerships with the likes of Daimler G, Toyota, Panasonic and Airbnb.

Even after the manufacturing facility or facilities are established, Apple would have to consider how to handle the dealer network. Tesla chooses to run their own stores, which is fine so far as it goes. But there are areas of the United States where state governments aren’t allowing them to set up company showrooms. A key reason is that existing auto dealers have strong lobbies that are designed to prevent manufacturers from encroaching on their lucrative franchises. So Apple could start with potential and time-consuming legal disputes even before the first vehicle ships.

I suppose Apple could work out a hybrid deal, putting company stores in areas where it’s allowed, and setting up third-party franchises where it’s not.

If Project Titan reaches fruition, it’ll be an electric car, with a completely rethought user interface. The buying experience may also be quite different from the current Persian bazaar schemes still being used in the auto industry, and that would be a refreshing change. Again, reminiscent of Tesla.

What may not happen at first is delivery of self-driving vehicles. That technology has yet to be perfected, and unless Apple has already invented something altogether unique — which is possible — you’ll drive the first Apple Car or its successor in the normal way. Consider also that Apple isn’t always first to market with a new technology; they wait until that technology is perfected. So perhaps they’ll give Google and Tesla plenty of time to build and wreck autonomous driving vehicles before diving in with a unique and more reliable solution.

But unless my financial situation improves considerably in the next few years, I do not expect to be a customer for an Apple Car, or a Tesla for that matter. But I can always dream.