A familiar scenario is being played out. A rumored Apple product is being declared a failure even before it has been announced, let alone shipping to dealers and customers. It’s about the alleged iPhone 5se, which would allegedly put most of the guts of an iPhone 6s unto what appears to be the body of an iPhone 5s, or maybe not. Perhaps it’ll end up being a smaller iPhone 6s.

In the scheme of things, either choice would no doubt be quite acceptable, but one online pundit imagines the former, then engages in foolish rhetoric to explain why it’s too little, too late, and that the product cannot possibly succeed.

The logic is curious, but let’s ride with it.

So the pundit imagines that most potential customers are currently using the iPhone 4s, circa 2011. You know, the one where Siri was introduced, even though the critics said it didn’t differ all that much from the iPhone 4. The previous model, however, was the one embroiled in the Antennagate scandal, where you’d lose reception under marginal conditions if you held the handset the wrong way. So, in theory, the way the antenna works was rejiggered for the 4s.

Now the argument has it that an iPhone 5se or variant would be too big, since the iPhone 5 series was a tad over a third of an inch taller than the iPhone 4 series. True enough, but that difference probably doesn’t matter so much. I don’t recall iPhone 5 users complaining. Besides, it’s rare for people to keep a smartphone for over four years without upgrading. It happens, but the larger portion of potential customers for a 4-inch iPhone would be people using an iPhone 5, an iPhone 5s or an iPhone 5c.

But don’t take my word for it. A Forbes Statista survey published in the summer of 2015 concluded that 51% of iPhone users upgraded every two years. Another 47% said they’d wait until “it stops working or becomes totally obsolete,” which may indeed take it to three or four years.

So let’s say it’s a three-year average upgrade cycle for the sake of argument, without the nuances of a few months here and there.

As I said, the target customer for an iPhone 5se — or whatever it will be — is using an iPhone 5 or iPhone 5s. They didn’t upgrade to an iPhone 6, and may be reluctant to do so because it’s just too large for their needs.

That is not an uncommon situation. Besides, any iPhone 5 still works fine with iOS 9, so the rush to upgrade wouldn’t be so compelling unless you must have Touch ID, a better camera, or one of the other improvements in the latest iPhones. And don’t forget support for Apple Pay. I’m not so sure about 3D Touch, which is flashy but not with a lot of substance for most people.

Yes, the iPhone 4s can be used with iOS 9, but, even with the latest improvements, it still won’t shine when it comes to expectations of snappy performance. So that might represent an imperative to consider an upgrade even if it’s otherwise working just fine. Again, customers who find the current iPhone 6 family too large might be reluctant, or just tolerate a larger handset. Maybe some would consider going to Android, but the migration rate is usually much higher in the other direction.

So would it have been better for Apple to have released a new 4-inch iPhone last September? I am not privy to Apple’s internal marketing information, but t’s clear they have all sorts of numbers indicating the potential for a new product. At the time, they might have felt the iPhone 5s served that need, but as the product continued to age, they concluded it was the right time to come up with something more up to date.

I wouldn’t guess how many units Apple expects to sell — and remember the product is still a rumor until something is actually announced — but perhaps it would make the difference in whether iPhone sales increase or fall in the next quarter or two.

But when online pundits continue to invent straw man or imaginary scenarios, and proceed to complain that Apple is incompetent and is making the wrong decisions, it’s hard to take any of it seriously. Don’t forget the fools who want you to believe that Apple should stop making Macs because 20 million  units a year isn’t enough.

As I said, very few believe Apple is perfect, and that mistakes aren’t made from time to time. The timing of a product introduction may be as much art as science, so you can always suggest it’s coming out at the wrong time. But it’s not just throwing in the parts of an iPhone 6s into a smaller form factor. It takes time, engineering and design expertise to make such things happen, and to scale up production to meet expected demand.

Even with Apple’s production wizardry, they often have to adjust production levels among different models to match demand, particularly when a product is first introduced. That is one reason why supplies may be constrained on certain models, and don’t forget the scarcity of parts or a slower-than-expected production ramp. Then again, the critics seem to believe that Apple is always having production products in the early days of a product’s lifecycle.

Now once the rumored Apple event occurs, and I expect it will, you can expect it’ll be a disappointment, at least according to some people who made that decision far in advance.

Take a look at Apple these days. One billion device activations, hundreds of millions of users for individual products. This is mass market to the nth degree, yet it wasn’t so many years ago that the company was regarded as a maker of niche computers. The relatively lower volume products, such as Macs and even today’s Apple Watch, sell in quantities of several million per quarter. Yes, I realize Apple Watch figures are outside estimates since the company isn’t releasing actual figures.

But even when Macs occupied market shares in the low single digits, it was hardly niche, although it was the one and only maker of products using the Mac OS; well except for the failed efforts to clone the platform in the mid-1990s. Still, with the world having moved to Windows, Macs were not regarded as terribly significant in the scheme of things.

Today’s Apple is so large that making relatively low-volume products doesn’t appear to make sense, at lest according to some people. These uninformed critics even suggest the time has come for Macs to be retired, forgetting that tens of millions of people depend on their for them for their workflows. Many of these people would never, ever, consider using a Windows PC, so why deprive them of their recreational, education and work tools?

Now if Apple actually lost money from Macs — which they don’t obviously — maybe the critics would have a point. But this is an environment where the majority of profits for medium and higher-priced PCs industry-wide are earned by Apple. I hope these pundits aren’t quitting their day jobs, and if this is their day job, they are in the wrong business.

In any case, since Apple deals with products that sell lots of copies, with only a relatively small selection of different models, you might wonder what it takes to earn a slot in that model lineup. How many is enough, how little is too little. Does Apple keep a relatively slow-selling product in the lineup because customers might depend on it?

I suppose one such product is the Mac Pro. With roughly five million Macs being sold each quarter, some 80% are note-books. This means that one million are desktops, so how many of those desktops are Mac Pros? Certainly less than 100,000, and possibly less than 50,000. But these are sales to high-end users, such as content creators and scientists. This is not a business to take lightly, considering that a Mac Pro may cost up to ten thousand dollars when fully outfitted, and that’s before the customer adds a display and peripherals. This is a solid and high-profit business.

But it may not be enough to update the product line very often. It’s been over two years since the last refresh, a controversial redesign that gave up on most internal expansion options. Maybe that’s the problem, that customers preferred the huge Mac Pro towers with the cheese grater metallic look. But I don’t know how many of those were sold either. In any case, the iMac has earned a lot of the business that formerly went to the Mac Pro.

At the same time, the Mac Pro represents the sort of prestige business I don’t expect Apple to abandon despite the low sales volumes. Apple also sells a small number of $10,000 Apple Watch Editions. But I don’t expect that sort of luxury business to be abandoned unless Apple gives up completely on smartwatches.

If Apple decides to build cars, you’d expect initial volumes to be in the tens of thousands, if that, at least at the start. But that depends on what price targets Apple is shooting for. I would hope they wouldn’t select the extreme luxury space that the Tesla still occupies, at least until they get the promised mid-priced vehicle into production. I’d much rather see a $35,000 Apple Car; that price may seem high enough, but it’s actually not far above the average transaction price for a new vehicle in 2016. And that’s before all those government incentives that lower the price of electric cars.

Now when you consider that Apple has no problem with lower volume products, it makes plenty of sense to make a 4-inch Phone, since it would be catering not to tens of thousands of customers, but tens of millions. There is indeed a valid market for the smaller iPhone, lots of customers for whom even the 4.7-inch iPhone 6s is too large.

That alleged smaller iPhone is supposedly being readied for introduction later this month. Sales may be sufficient to take negative growth into positive territory. So I just wonder, in passing, why it took so long to get one out, assuming that’s what will be coming at the rumored Apple event the week of March 21st. It doesn’t seem that putting most of the guts of an iPhone 6s into a model with a smaller display represents much of an engineering effort from a design point of view. So why wasn’t it done, or did Apple misjudge the market? Did they believe that selling an older iPhone would be enough?

This doesn’t mean Apple needs to fill every single potential product niche for smartphones, tablets, Macs and smartwatches. But the lineups are certainly larger than they used to be, and if sales volumes of individual models make sense, that’s good for everyone, even if those volumes might be classified as niche by some.

Despite claims a while back that some 200 million have downloaded Windows 10, it’s not as successful as Microsoft has hoped. Even though it’s a free download, at least till summer, the migration rate has slowed. One possible reason is that Windows 10 arrived somewhat feature incomplete with loads of bugs. Microsoft has pushed loads of updates, as those who receive Windows Insider betas can attest. Another reason might be that the improvements weren’t all that compelling to PC users, so why bother?

In order to get the word out, Microsoft has aimed its ads towards consumers, as if Windows 10 had some sort of lifestyle advantage over previous versions. But that’s not the company’s target audience. The real money comes from businesses who usually subscribe to packages of updates and support. Is the enterprise going to adopt Windows 10, or will they stick with Windows 7 — or even Windows XP — because the new OS isn’t their cup of tea?

In keeping with its lifestyle approach, Microsoft has posted a new set of TV ads featuring Jess and Kristie, better known as the “bug chicks.” Yes, I’m serious. Some of those with a politically correct bent might regard the implication as sexist, but I wouldn’t go that far. I just think it’s stupid.

So Microsoft wants to show how Windows 10 allows you to do more than a Mac with OS X. More what?

Well, there’s Cortana, the digital assistant that’s similar in concept to Siri, which has yet to debut on Macs. But it might come with OS 10.12, due this fall. The other two “advantages” are Inking, which allows you to draw on a PC with a touchscreen, and the finger and facial recognition authentication feature known as Hello.

All right, is this enough to persuade Mac users to go Windows? Does any of it make you more productive? Are they serious?

I can see where it might be nice to have Siri available on Macs, though I’d regard it as more of an annoyance on anything but a personal digital device such as an iPhone or an iPad. Still, if Apple sees a need for it, fine and dandy. But that’s hardly a game changer, and I wouldn’t turn it on except for testing.

Apple has already decided that touchscreens are not appropriate for traditional note-book computers, and the convertible tablet/note-books you see on the Windows platform tend to be clunky. If that’s what customers want, that’s all right. But it doesn’t seem as if loads of people are buying up these more expensive PCs; it’s still all about cheap and cheaper.

Now Microsoft might have a point with Hello. But there is actually an inexpensive way to login with a fingerprint on your Mac. You need to set up a $3.99 app known as MacID, which allows you to use Touch ID on an iPad, iPhone and Apple Watch to lock down your Mac and unlock it with your finger. You can also use a passcode. Oh, and it appears to work with Pebble smartwatches too, although that version is in beta.

To make it work, you need to pair the app on your mobile device with the OS X version. It is, however, limited to the Macs with Bluetooth LE support, which means models older than 2011 aren’t supported.

Now I grant the login might be a tad more complicated than just having a built-in sensor on a Mac. But if it works as advertised, and it gets a better than four-star rating at the iOS App Store, it may be a really useful solution.

Facial recognition? Consider KeyLemon for Mac, though I’m not at all sure how well it works. Besides, I do not doubt that Apple will consider adding it to Macs and iOS gear if it could be done as reliably as Touch ID. It’s not a reason to choose Windows instead since facial and fingerprint recognition is, as you see, not unique to Microsoft’s platform, though it’s not as seamless yet on Apple gear.

As with any ad of this sort, Microsoft takes a broad brush approach and isn’t considering the nuances, such as third-party methods to use fingerprint and facial logins on a Mac. They are clearly reaching, and Mac users can cite chapter and verse about Windows usability issues. The usual comparisons demonstrate how basic system operations require far more steps on a Windows box than on a Mac. While Windows has improved over the years, far too many operations are still too complicated. But Apple is hardly into the Mac versus PC comparisons anymore in the same way they managed it with sly humor in a popular TV ad campaign some years back. That’s when Macs didn’t get a lot of respect, but things are far better these days. Macs are now taken seriously as business machines.

In any case, I hardly think the bug chicks are going to gain much traction in this new campaign. They have neither the style nor the talent to become pop culture stars.

As many of you know, there are certain news outlets that have a lock on getting interviews and advance information from Apple. If they ask to speak with Tim Cook, more than likely he’ll respond favorably. When journalists are brought in for background briefings — where Apple reveals future plans without direct attribution as “informed sources” or “sources close to Apple” — they will be included.

This special access extends to new products. A handful will ship to reviewers ahead of going on sale in order to create a buzz. Other reviewers not on this preferred list are considered later on in the food chain, if at all. But Apple is entitled to make its own decisions about such priorities.

So there’s a report from one of those reporters close to Apple, Kara Swisher of Re/code, that a media event will be held the week of March 21 to introduce some new Apple gear. A previous rumor pegged the date at March 15, but since it was never confirmed, it doesn’t matter. And rather than rent a special auditorium in San Francisco, it would be held at the Town Hall in Apple’s Cupertino, CA campus, which may indicate the announcements are not necessarily significant.

Continue Reading…