If you’ve consulted the system requirements for OS X El Capitan, you’ll notice that a number of Macs from 2007 through 2009 are supported. This is quite unlike the early days, where computers that old would have been left out to pasture, or just used to run older software, perhaps PowerPC apps, that will never operate since OS X Lion ditched the Rosetta emulation utility.

By the same token, iOS 9 supports the same hardware as iOS 8, which includes the iPhone 4s that was introduced in 2011. That’s a lifetime in the smartphone market, and that it works at all — even with somewhat reduced performance — is quite unlike what Apple used to do.

You have to sometimes wonder why. After all, when the new operating system is incompatible with older hardware, those newly abandoned products seem less useful even if nothing else has changed. It may also encourage users to look for something new, or seek a more recent used model on the open market.

Now hanging on to older hardware is a mixed bag. As Apple improves the operating systems, there may be features that are not available with your older hardware. One example is the Handoff feature that’s part of Continuity on your Mac. You need a Mac with Bluetooth LE that was released in 2012 or later. One of the highly touted performance boosters for OS X El Capitan is support for Metal. First introduced in iOS 8, it extends hardware support for graphic functions, thus making apps that support the feature work faster. It was touted as a great tool for iOS gaming.

But for it to work on a Mac, it has to, again, be a model built in 2012 or later, where the proper graphics hardware exists. There may be other enhancements in El Capitan that will help users of older hardware, but not that one. And, again, developers need to add support for the additional graphics capabilities.

So one of the considerations in keeping that old Mac — other than the cost of a new one — is whether it’ll get the work done with the level of performance you expect. The new operating systems may have more system overhead, thus making your older computer seem slower. This is particularly true on resource limited iPhones and iPads, and it’s questionable whether the tradeoffs on an iPhone 4s make upgrading to iOS 9 worth it. But for many users, it may not matter if apps launch a little bit slower, or it takes additional seconds to boot.

Overall, however, a five-year old Mac isn’t that much slower than a new Mac in many respects, except where an app harnesses the maximum power its processor can deliver. However, for email, Internet access, and word processing, it may not matter so much. At one time, these were powerful computers, and the improvements in Intel chips haven’t been that dramatic except for graphics.

But there is one area where today’s Macs have become much more powerful, and that’s the result of the wider use of SSDs. It makes the once-speedy hard drive seem awfully slow. Fortunately, you can install an SSD on many Macs and boost performance tremendously.

An example is my 2010 17-inch MacBook Pro. I can tell you that it seemed awfully slow whenever I returned to it from my iMac. With the guidance of Other World Computing, I installed a 500GB SSD some time back to replace the original 500GB hard drive. That made a world of difference, since so much of what you do on your Mac depends on the hard drive. Even the lowly 2012 MacBook, with an Intel Core M processor, manages to seem relatively snappy because of its speedy SSD.

You may also extend the life of your Mac with a memory transplant, at least when you have a model that allows you to upgrade RAM. Most new Macs are hostile to such upgrades, except for a legacy MacBook Pro, the 27-inch iMac and the Mac Pro. But when I took the MacBook Pro to 8GB, again with Other World Computing parts, I did see an additional performance boost. That and the SSD have saved me loads of money compared to a new computer. I still have a pretty fast Mac, and at five years old, it still runs just perfectly. The downside for having a 17-inch display is that a note-book that once seemed fairly light in the scheme of things, is actually a fairly stiff load when dragging it in a case fitted with my other travel implements.

So by extending support for newer operating systems, Apple is making you feel your old Mac is not some obsolete appliance that needs to be retired or handed off to a relative or needy friend. It can still be your constant companion and you can use it till it drops, or the operating system and the apps you need are no longer compatible.

This is yet another area where the Mac’s cost of ownership is usually less than a PC. The ability for computers to work productivity for seven or eight years just expands the value of your investment. That’s also true for the iPad, and it’s said to be a key reason why sales have dropped. If the one you have is doing what you want, what does upgrading to a new model get you? That’s a question that many iPad users have yet to answer unless they really need the new multitasking features of iOS 9, or want games and other apps to run faster.

This doesn’t mean Apple’s hardware has perfect reliability. My son’s 2008 MacBook has had everything replaced on it at least once, fortunately when it was still under AppleCare. So it’s probably on borrowed time, but most of the other Macs in our family unit have been trouble-free.

The typical criticisms about Apple over the years have fallen into a narrow range. It depends on the era, but back in the 1990s it was about being a niche PC maker. Indeed, Michael Dell, founder of Dell, was once famously quoted as saying that Apple should return the money to the investors and close up shop. That was years before Dell, saddled with slowing sales and profits, went private. Ostensibly it was to prevent Dell and the company from being answerable to anyone. At least it was a clever way to keep his job.

A main criticism, then and now, was that Macs were too expensive compared to the Windows competition. One sure solution was to build cheaper gear and depend on volume rather than profits, not to mention license the Mac OS or switch to Windows. Over the years, Apple has earned much higher profit margins on Macs than PC makers did on their Windows boxes.

True there is one “cheap” Mac, the Mac mini, but there are still PC boxes that are cheaper. Still, the profit margins are no doubt much higher on the mini. But the market has largely moved to note-books even though Apple is evidently selling a fair number of iMacs.

The “make them cheaper and sell them cheaper” argument has been made about the iPhone too. The only way to compete with Android is on price, they say, and most Android smartphones are far cheaper than iPhones. But with Apple’s share of smartphone profits now reported to be 92%, it’s clear that selling lots of cheap stuff isn’t the way to be flush with cash. After you add Samsung’s modest profits on mobile handsets, most of the other companies are making next to nothing or losing money. That’s hardly an argument for staying in business. Well, except for Amazon, which hasn’t made much of a profit — ever.

So-called industry analysts may also fret over Apple’s apparent reliance on a single product for most of its revenue and profits. Aside from the iPhone’s enviable position in the market, Apple is clearly earning plenty of money from the sale of Macs and iPads. This is bad?

All right, it would be nice if iPad sales went up rather than down. Perhaps the iPad Pro will stabilize sales, bit it’s too early in the game to know how well it’s doing. It’s not as if there are official figures, which won’t arrive until late January of next year. Besides, the possible success of the iPad Pro will only be inferred from total sales. Apple is not into breaking down those numbers among different models, though it’s possible things will be announced that will convey the message.

When it comes to Macs, growth is ahead of most PC makers, and the Apple Watch is said to be exceeding Apple’s expectations. But wouldn’t it be nice to know what those expectations might be?

Without the iPhone, Apple would still be a pretty successful company. Just how many companies manage what the rest of Apple does?

Again, the criticisms focus on the wrong things. I’m still reading occasional silliness about licensing OS X, or that Apple might switch to its home-built ARM processors rather than Intel. But the reasons, aside from saving some money, don’t consider the tradeoffs, such as forcing developers to endure another processor switch, the need to emulate Intel apps, and the loss of seamless compatibility with Windows via virtual machines and Boot Camp. An ARM-based virtual machine is no doubt possible, but with how much of a loss in performance?

So what are the real problems?

Well, it’s pretty clear that recent Apple software releases haven’t been exactly stable. Despite a public beta program, where anyone with a beating heart can sign up and get regular seeds of the latest and greatest system versions, it doesn’t appear that Apple has been able to take advantage of the user feedback.

While online reviews of operating systems tend to be weighted towards negative experiences, I’m still troubled to read messages from loads of people explaining why OS X El Capitan only deserves one star. This is the release that is supposed to focus on stability and performance. One review referred to it as “an absolute train wreck.”

While you can’t take just one review and cite it as proof of a problem, there are too many that aren’t terribly favorable towards Apple. With two maintenance updates so far, and a third reportedly under development, you’d think that the most serious issues would have been resolved by now.

Sure, OS X and Mac OS updates have been flawed in the past, but many of those public beta testers must be sending feedback to Apple about various problems. Is anyone listening at Apple’s end? I sure hope so.

I could add the issues with the Mac App Store that have caused some developers to go elsewhere. Maybe things will get better now that Philip Schiller is taking over that department. We’ll see.

It would also be nice to see iTunes overhauled. It seems to just get worse and worse.

Meantime, I’m sure many of you can come up with all sorts of things that Apple could do better. But products that are extremely profitable don’t fit into such categories.

Although some of you think of me as just another Apple fan, the truth is more nuanced. Over the years, I’ve used Windows PCs, and I even spent a while with a pair of Samsung smartphones, trying to see how the other half lives. These days, I have essentially given up on Android, except for testing and evaluating ongoing changes.

When it comes to mobile phones, just remember that it’s practical to have multiple handsets set up with the same number and just move back and forth among them. It’s one or the other, and it’s not the same as a traditional telephone (landline or VoIP), where you can swap handsets simply by plugging in a different device.

In any case, I have tried to do the very same things on both a Mac and PC. No operating system is perfect, and there are well known Mac issues. But in the normal course of events, I find a Mac easier to use, and often requiring fewer steps to do something. Macs also develop fewer problems, are simpler for IT people to configure and more reliable in regular use. That explains why IBM has concluded that the Macs they set up on their networks have an ownership cost that’s $270 less than a PC.

Continue Reading…

It almost seemed as if Apple went with the crowd when the iPhone grew up. So with the 4.7-inch iPhone 6s and the 5.5-inch iPhone 6s Plus, and their predecessors last year, it was abundantly clear that Apple was answering the most significant competitive threat head-on. Samsung had made hay of building big smartphones, particularly the ones over five inches that have become known as phablets. How would Apple answer that with a 4-inch iPhone?

Clearly customers were delighted with Apple’s move to the large side. Sales of the iPhone continue to grow. Indeed, despite claims of alleged cutbacks in parts orders from the supply chain, which haven’t been confirmed, there seems little evidence so far that the iPhones aren’t doing well during the holiday quarter. We’ll know for sure in late January when Apple spills the beans on revenue and speaks with financial analysts.

In the meantime, what is the person who really doesn’t want such a large iPhone to do?

Are there no such people? I read one survey indicating about 20% of customers or potential customers might prefer 4-inch. I recall what my colleague, Kirk McElhearn, did when the iPhone 6 came out last year. As a tech journalist, he bought one, only to return it shortly thereafter because he found it ungainly to use. He went back to his iPhone 5s. But this year he relented, no doubt to keep up with the technology.

I haven’t done much with the iPhone 6s Plus, but I can manage its smaller counterpart without much difficulty. In checking it out at a dealer, I find that it inserts with only slight difficulty in my pants pockets. I wear normal-sized and cut jeans, and the pockets tend to be a little tight, especially if I stick a wallet in that side pocket too. So when I pull out the phone, it’s a bit of a struggle, and I suspect the “Plus” would be too much.

The other side is a non-starter, since I place house and car keys there.

But it is somewhat more comfortable with the iPhone 5s. Yes, having a smaller display is a little restrictive in terms of getting around, but it is also easier to carry, and one-handed use is simpler. It’s not possible on the larger iPhones without using a “trick” feature cuts out the top portion of the display area for convenience.

Indeed, Apple’s Philip Schiller made a big deal of this during one of the iPhone demonstrations, that you need two hands with larger handsets. He was right then, and he’s still right. But clearly customers are wiling to put up with the tradeoffs for larger displays. That’s undeniable, and so Apple abandoned that objection and went with the crowd.

However, that doesn’t mean Apple shouldn’t consider a smaller iPhone. There are rumors about a forthcoming iPhone 6c. Others call it the iPhone mini. Regardless, the premise is the same, to provide a smaller handset for those who want one for whatever reason. Having three different sized products, and I would hope a smaller version would be similar in performance, is a perfectly sensible concept. Don’t forget that we now have three sizes of iPads, and Apple sells far less of each. Mac note-books are available in four display sizes spread among several models.

I can certainly see the need for a smaller iPhone in our family unit. Barbara tends to favor tiny purses, and putting a larger iPhone in there would be a bit of a chore, as would removing it to answer a call.

But that takes me to yet one more suggestion about Apple’s approach. How about a “loud” ring mode when you have the unit in a pocket or purse. This can be easily detected, and I know that Barbara often misses calls because she doesn’t hear it ringing. The volume level is set at its highest, but I must still call her twice to get connected.

And she isn’t the sort to put her keys and mobile handset on a counter when she is engaged in a transaction. That’s a sure invitation to leaving something by mistake.

To get back to the subject at hand: Is Apple really considering a smaller iPhone? Well, you can still buy an iPhone 5s if you want to save money and get a more compact product. In the normal course of events, it will vanish from the lineup this fall. I’m not arguing to keep it in production. I am arguing for replacing it with a model with the same display size, but with more updated hardware. Some suggest it might not support 3D or Touch ID. I say don’t cheap out.

As always, we’ll have to see what Apple comes up with next year. The early predictions, based on past experiences, would call for an iPhone 7 with distinct physical differences from the iPhone 6. Moving to a new design would create the perfect opening for having three different models.

If I had voting power, I’d suggest that Apple follow through on this. Certainly if sales are being lost because people are hanging onto their older, smaller iPhones, that would be a great incentive to build one.