I went back and forth about whether to request the smaller iPad Pro from Apple for review. I did evaluate it’s bigger brother last year, and went away somewhat unimpressed. Sure, the Apple Pencil is the best stylus I’ve ever used, but I’m not a graphic artist or illustrator, and I certainly don’t play one in the movies. I use keyboards, and the Smart Keyboard Apple provided didn’t rate so well. The stiff spacebar was particularly irksome.

Not that I’m against iPads, per se. I can see their value as consumption devices and perhaps a limited purpose notebook computer. With a proper keyboard that provides a feel similar to a that of a notebook, I might actually embrace one for writing, at least for some of my work.

With that in mind, I was still curious how the 9.7-inch iPod Pro would rate compared to an iPad Air 2, and whether it was truly worth a $100 price increase over the former’s original price. All right, the standard storage is increased from 16GB to 32GB, but that doesn’t $100 make. Maybe $5, but I realize Apple is pumping plenty of resources to make the iPad something more than just a gadget to play some games and watch Netflix.

Continue Reading…

The conventional wisdom has it that Apple will continue to follow a tick-tock refresh scheme with the iPhone. What this means is that, one year, there will be a fairly significant case redesign, plus the usual run of internal hardware enhancements. The following year, it’s essentially the same case with revised innards. But even if the internal expansion of the odd-year model is more significant than the one featuring external changes, the former is assumed to be a minor update.

So the iPhone 4s, considered a trivial update, had antenna changes that reduced the so-called “AntennaGate” effect of holding the handset in a certain way, and Siri was introduced. Both were significant, except, of course, to the critics.

If Apple keeps the rhythm, the next iPhone refresh will present the iPhone 7 and the iPhone 7 Plus with a fairly extensive case redesign. Predictably there will be a better camera, with some predicting that the larger model will get a dual lens but the smaller version won’t. Either way, there will no longer be a bump at the rear for the camera lens. In that respect, it should be more durable, if that’s what’s going to happen.

Other changes would include an A10 processor and other hardware enhancements. There may even be some variation of the Smart Connector that debuted on the iPad Pro, according to one rumor, though it seems a curious choice. It’s not that you are going to add a tiny keyboard in a case. More likely, Apple might introduce a version of True Tone, which would amount to Night Shift on steroids in the way it would manage color. I’d just like to see a brighter image in sunlight.

One rumored change is the alleged plan to remove the earphone jack. It’s been a given in any mobile Apple gadget from the days of the first iPod. Instead, the Lightning port would handle the earphones, unless you’re using Bluetooth. The logic behind this decision is murky, that Apple could install a larger battery in the same space, or possibly make the unit thinner.

While Apple is not averse to dropping connection ports — and the 2015 MacBook and the original 1998 iMac are notable examples — this choice doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense. Why the need for a change? Perhaps Apple will include standard Bluetooth ear buds, but dumping that port would mean that anyone using their own wired earphones would have to buy an special adaptor. And what happens when the unit is being charged? Do you buy a dongle that handles the earphone and charging? Does Apply supply one? I’m not sure about this.

Supply chain leaks on the new iPhone are inevitable. There have already been unofficial mockups that might be bogus. That’s nothing new, but as we get closer to the launch of the next iPhone, the rumors will become more focused and will surely be more accurate. In recent years, the basics of a new Apple product are often fairly well known ahead of the media event. I suspect Apple feeds some of it with background briefings for one or more selected journalists, but it’s hard to control supply chain links when so many people are privy to the plans for a new Apple product.

The real question, however, is all about the new features. Aside from a better camera, the iPhone 6s family featured 3D Touch, a souped up version of Force Touch and some other stuff. None of it would be considered a must-have, and that might be a reason that, after the initial sales flurry, it slowed down somewhat. Or maybe it doesn’t matter. Most of the major features are already accounted for, and the enhancements are less significant. The same is true for the operating systems, but it doesn’t mean Apple isn’t innovating, or that the new features are easy to do.

But if your existing iPhone, or whatever smartphone you have, is working well for you, the incentive to buy something new is less compelling. I cannot imagine buying a new iPhone because of somewhat faster performance, a better camera and 3D Touch. When the iPhone 7, or whatever it’s called, comes out, if I can acquire one without changing my monthly payment with AT&T, I’d probably upgrade. Otherwise, I’d have to consider the state of my finances and my needs and expectations at the time, not to mention the condition of my current iPhone. Since I keep it in a protective case, though, I’m not too concerned.

That may be the dilemma confronted by existing iPhone users, and potential switchers from other platforms. What will the new models do that the current handsets cannot do? Are those new capabilities worth getting? Remember, too, that the usual two-year wireless contracts are fading rapidly. So once you pay off your current mobile handset, you will see your monthly payment drop. That might be a more compelling alternative than keeping the same monthly price, or paying a bit more for the latest and greatest.

Decisions. Decisions. But it’s also true that Apple’s competition isn’t exactly reinventing the wheel either. If upgraders are reluctant, Apple would have to continue to look towards attracting new customers. Certainly the arrival of the iPhone SE was a good incentive for folks who prefer smaller smartphones. That might generate a decent number of sales. But what else can Apple do to move more product other than replacing the smartphone with something altogether new? And when will that happen?

When it comes to reports about the government having problems recovering data from a smartphone as part of a criminal investigation, it was all about the iPhone. You know the story: The Department of Justice was granted a court order demanding that Apple build software to bypass brute force protections on an encrypted iPhone 5c used by a terrorist in the San Bernardino attacks.

The day before a court hearing intended to deal with Apple’s protests, claiming they were being ordered to build an insecure operating system they referred to as “govOS,” the DOJ called it off. They asserted that they had been approached with a third-party solution. The following week, that solution supposedly succeeded, with the iPhone being unlocked within 26 minutes.

While there was early speculation that an Israeli mobile forensics company, Cellebrite, was given the task, it turns out that this was not so. The FBI was approached by a team of hackers that used a zero-day exploit that apparently only worked on an iPhone 5c.

Thus ensued fear-mongering that iPhones were no longer safe; well at least the iPhone 5c. But it’s not known what sort of exploit is involved, nor about the conditions required for it to work. It no doubt requires direct access to the iPhone. So unless your iPhone is stolen, or you deliberately hand it off to a hacker, there’s nothing to worry about. But the FBI isn’t explaining exactly which flaw is involved, though I’m sure Apple’s security team is busy trying to make a good guess.

Meantime, there is an elephant in the room that is not being discussed: the Android platform. Since it is highly doubtful that the iPhone is the sole choice of criminals everywhere, it would seem that many are using Android smartphones. So just how does the Department of Justice and local law enforcement authorities treat those devices? Do they need to send court orders to Google, or one of the smartphone makers, such as Samsung or HTC? If they do obtain those court orders, is there a legal scuffle over the methods used to unlock those devices, or does Google or one of its manufacturing partners simply agree to the request?

More to the point, is there any problem at all retrieving data from an Android smartphone? Yes, some are encrypted, using a software-based scheme. From a user standpoint, it means slower performance as you might expect. Apple’s encryption is hardware based. To imagine the difference, consider how poor OS X’s graphics performance was before Apple was able to add support for hardware acceleration some years back.

Since most Android smartphones aren’t encrypted, there should be little trouble getting at the data. Well, assuming the app doesn’t encrypt its own data. The popular messaging app, WhatsApp, recently advanced the platform to provide end-to-end encryption on all supported platforms. What this means is that, even if a suspect’s smartphone is unlocked, if the criminals are using WhatsApp to send messages to fellow criminals, the authorities have to get in touch with that company to work things out. But since there hasn’t been a public case involving WhatsApp, it’s hard to know how it might turn it. Would they provide a backdoor, or take Apple’s approach and just say no?

I wonder if the question is even being asked.

Now I do not pretend to be a security expert, but there are known security faults on the Android platform. Unfortunately, getting updates on an Android handset may be near impossible. Yes, Google can update the Google Play app store as needed. But Google hasn’t been able to make much progress in getting handset makers to offer critical OS updates. That’s why the percentage of upgrades to the latest and greatest version of Android may be in the single digits for months after it’s released.

So years later, hundreds of millions of Android users are running an OS that’s up to several years old, with known security holes, with no way to have them fixed.

If you have a Nexus gadget, it will run the unvarnished version of Android, without handset maker or carrier mods. In other words, no junkware. And it will receive first priority for updates. For other gear, the manufacturer needs to decide whether to issue a update and how it will be deployed. For tablets it may not be as much of an issue, but for smartphones, it’s up to the carrier to push such updates. They haven’t been historically inclined to do so for most users.

Apple achieved one key advantage when they set up their contracts with the carriers. They do not allow any tampering with your iPhone by the carrier, where they might install their own proprietary and usually poorly designed software, and Apple pushes all its updates direct to the end user. Indeed, Apple has expanded support for up to five years after a device ships. This means, as an example, that an iPhone 4s can be upgraded to the latest iOS 9 release.

To be fair, both Google and WhatsApp supported Apple in the encryption fight. But how would they react if either company found itself on the receiving end of a court order demanding they decrypt the data on a mobile device by creating some sort of backdoor? If the issue has come up, it isn’t being discussed.

In short, why must it always be about Apple?

Let me put things in perspective: Many people never own their homes; they rent. The latest figures peg it at 37% of households in this country. Cable/satellite boxes and cable modems are usually rented rather than purchased.

When it comes to smartphones, a large number of people never actually own theirs. Whether it’s the mostly discontinued two-year contract or some sort of extended payment plan — with the option for early upgrades — by the time you might pay off the phone, you’re ready to replace it.

But software? Well, for most people, it’s a purchase. You buy the product, well actually a user license, even if you receive physical media and manuals, and that’s it. You are under no further obligation to the publisher, unless you choose to purchase a paid upgrade.

However, more and more publishers are opting for a subscription model. Employing some sort of cloud-based activation scheme, you keep paying, usually monthly or annually, or lose your right to use the software. It will either stop working when payments are stopped, though their might be a grace period, and some apps might function in a limited way till you re-up.

Some software companies, such as Microsoft, offer retail  and subscription options. But the cloud package can be enticing enough that you may prefer it. So consider Office 365 Home, for $9.99 a month (plus local tax) or $99.99 per year. For that fee you receive five Mac/PC licenses plus five tablet/smartphone licenses. Each user gets 1TB of online storage plus 60 minutes of outside (mobile and landline) calls on Skype.

Yes, you can still buy a regular retail license. But at prices starting at $149.99, you’re limited to a single user. So it actually doesn’t make a whole lot of sense unless you don’t care about cloud storage, only use one Mac or PC, and have no plans to upgrade for a number of years. The best deal is probably Home, which is also used by small businesses at least unofficially (Microsoft won’t complain). Cloud storage alone is worth the price and then some.

On the other hand, you have no choice anymore with Adobe. A full Creative Cloud subscription is usually $50 per month, with no ownership plans available. If you’re upgrading from an older retail version of the suite, it’s $30 per month for the first year, after which you pay the full price. Students and teachers are eligible for a $30 discount for the first year. You can pay $20 for a single app, say Photoshop, but as soon as you need more than one, such as Illustrator or InDesign, might as well go for the full monte that includes more than 20.

These subscription plans may seem expensive, until you realize that Adobe has traditionally delivered major upgrades to its suite every couple of years or so. When you factor in the usual upgrade fees, it’s not such a bad deal. Well, at least if you’re someone who is inclined to buy regular updates. Some people I know preferred to skip a version to save money, since the upgrades weren’t always significant enough to warrant the price of admission.

Just so you know, I still use Creative Suite 5.5 on my iMac running El Capitan 10.11.4. It was released in 2011. For some reason, it requires installing Java 6 from Oracle to launch any of the apps, but otherwise seems all or mostly functional. At some point in time, I will have no choice, since the older version may not function with a new OS X (or whatever Apple chooses to call it) or a future Mac. I feel lucky now, as I would have to really stretch to justify the monthly fee for Creative Cloud.

Evidently, Adobe has succeeded with the subscription scheme. Microsoft makes it attractive, but I’m concerned about third-party publishers, particularly smaller ones, making similar decisions. Security software developers have long used a subscription model. You buy the app, and after the first year, you pay annual fees to keep it up to date with detection string updates and new versions.

What about the publisher of a limited-use app pulling a similar stunt?

Now I’m not a user of Smile’s TextExpander. As the name implies, it’s a utility that you can use to create text shortcuts. You create strings of abbreviations that, when typed, automatically expand to the full text. If you have lots of repetitive text or phrases in your documents, it’s quite useful. But not for a monthly or annual fee.

So instead of paying $35 for the app, the new scheme increases the rate to $47.52 per year forever. That entitles you to keep it running and receive periodic updates. But what sort of updates would justify paying $475.20 to use TextExpander for the next 10 years? Maybe $10 per year might make some sense if, again, there are frequent updates, but I’m not one to want to judge the marketing plans of the publisher of an app I don’t use.

In response to complaints from existing users, they can now subscribe for half price. That’s a bone to paying customers. Macworld magazine has posted an article listing half a dozen alternatives to TextExpander.

Again, I don’t begrudge a developer from making a profit. A subscription model, if successful, means a guaranteed income stream. If someone wants to continue to use the app, they have to keep paying. But the prices should be fair for the value you receive. Limited purpose software doesn’t seem to justify any monthly price, particularly when there are traditional retail alternatives.

As far as I’m concerned, I prefer to own the things I use when I can. I may rent my home, and I pay monthly fees for other products and services. But sometimes things can go just a little too far.