So as we close in on Apple’s media event next week, it appears the basics of the next iPhone refresh are pretty well known. There will be an iPhone 6s, and an iPhone 6s Plus. Both will sport faster processors, perhaps more onboard memory, a better camera with more megapixels, Force Touch and perhaps a slightly thicker case made of a stronger aluminum alloy. It will be less susceptible to bending in your back pocket, though that was not a genuine problem.

Now Apple has said none of this. It’s all about rumors that has mostly coalesced around these features. Considering the accuracy of last year’s predictions, it’s likely they are close to the mark. It appears that supply chain leaks just keep on coming without letup. It’s clear Apple can’t shut this down, or perhaps basks in the glow of all this speculation, since it presages a pretty creditable iPhone refresh.

But not all speculation is quite as reasonable, or at least the basis is less certain.

One rumor I read mentions better battery life. Today it’s decent on the iPhone 6, and quite good on the iPhone 6 Plus, since it has a larger battery filling its larger case. But unlike computer chips and other components, batteries haven’t gotten so much better over the years. It’s mostly about using less juice, and thus parts are more power efficient. So is it at all possible the next generation iPhones will survive longer between charges? I suppose, though that’s not a rumor that’s been given much, if any, credibility.

Yet another report suggests the next Apple TV will cost more than twice as much as the current model, and perhaps twice as much as that model’s original price. So it would be either $149 or $199. While it may very well offer a large enough feature set to deserve the higher price, what about the inevitable comparisons to such gear as the $99.99 Roku 3? For that price, the Roku offers motion control and voice search, and a choice of 2,000 apps.

So would Apple really want to increase the price so much? True, there are no doubt going to be other features that will deserve a higher price. Perhaps Force Touch, 4K support, and more powerful graphics for gaming, along with a remote that may partly serve as a game controller. Add all this together, and Apple would be justified in asking a higher price. But if most users are primarily interested in video streaming from Netflix and other services, the frills won’t matter. The Roku will get the job done, even the cheaper models. Remember that Apple is not involved in this game all by itself, and Apple TV has, reportedly, fallen to fourth in recent sales surveys.

I wouldn’t dispute the possibility of a more expensive fourth generation Apple TV. But I’m still skeptical. Then again, it may be about “all this for $99.”

The other predictions are about Apple working on a subscription TV service, but being delayed because negotiations with the TV networks are taking longer than expected. Perhaps. There was also a report that Apple was looking to include local stations, which creates a complicated situation involving far more players. Even if the networks acted as proxies for their affiliates, what about independent stations with no affiliation?

The other possibility, and it can run separate from this service, is whether Apple plans to create its own programming. Certainly, the company has the resources, far more than Netflix, which has delivered great shows that win awards and have millions of binge-watchers. It would be easy for Apple to give producers millions to create new series and movie fare. There’s plenty of talent out there, and perhaps the larger budget from Apple would not just attract new talent but enable them to recruit producers and shows from other networks when contracts are up, or the shows are cancelled.

So would a show such as Hannibal, recently cancelled by NBC, find a new home at Apple? Or would it be far too gruesome for a company that would prefer more family oriented fare?

This also comes at a time when the industry is reportedly realizing that there are far too many shows now that are competing for attention. That means ratings for each tend to be lower, and the bar for avoiding the cancellation bear is also lower. As it is, when I look at this fall offerings from the major networks, and some cable alternatives, I wonder how I’ll have time to watch the shows I like. Even with a DVR that can record several at once, I realize I’m going to have to be more judicious in choosing which ones to embrace.

So if Apple wants to enter that game, how much room is there, even if their shows are great and fully capable of earning Emmy and Golden Globe nominations? If anything, I suspect the networks might want to cut back some in the hope of attracting larger audiences for their existing shows.

In addition, it does appear that expectations for an Apple Car have been buttressed by news of recent hires for Apple’s Project Titan. But it’s still not at all certain if this is a project to develop a car, perhaps electric and self-driving, or to build a platform on which to develop future versions of CarPlay.

But it’s more romantic to think of a car, so I’ll leave it there.

When it comes to dollars and cents (or whatever currency is used in your country), Apple Inc. is in really good shape. Record sales and profits continue to be reported, and the company has over $200 billion in the bank. Nothing troubling about that.

But the stock tanked recently in very large part because of concerns over the state of China’s economy after that country’s stock prices entered free-fall. Indeed, pretty much the entire stock market has suffered of late for the same reason, but Apple’s heavy reliance on China for sales growth put it in the crosshairs. Things began to settle down when Tim Cook sent a letter to a TV financial pundit saying that everything was hunky dory. Other than stabilizing the stock price, some complained that Apple might have violated SEC guidelines in sending that email outside of the normal financial reporting dates. But Apple has revealed information about sales before at media events without such consequences.

To make matters all the more confusing, there’s also a report that the Chinese government has singled out a business journalist for somehow being at fault for the plunge in the stock market. But how would any single reporter have that much power?

In any case, Apple’s stock price is tracking closer to the overall market nowadays. The online chatter is not cluttered with ongoing concerns that the company is in serious shape, except, perhaps, for some online bloggers who think they know something special, and are happy to use Apple to attract hits to their sites.

So I read an article Monday morning suggesting, in the title, that Apple was in trouble. Now perhaps I should have ignored the article, but since it was published on a site run by a prestigious financial publication, I read it despite my better judgement.

Why did the writer believe Apple was in trouble? Well, because of the drop in the stock price. True, Cook’s reassurance was mentioned in passing, but perhaps not taken very seriously. The main thrust, though, is that Apple must deliver a compelling iPhone refresh on September 9th to get things back on track, assuming the company was somehow off the rails, and reassure investors.

The article went on to mention the ongoing rumors about the expected new features as if they were true, such as a 12 megapixel camera, 4K video recording capability, a faster processor, and longer battery life. Well, the latter hasn’t really been given much attention, but perhaps it’ll be possible. Support for Wi-Fi calling over AT&T was mentioned, but that’s nothing that requires the next iPhone. It’s already rolling out in limited areas for people who are using the iOS 9 beta.

But the main new feature is supposedly Force Touch. It debuted in the Apple Watch and has spread to some MacBooks. Certainly putting that capability, to press harder to do more things, on an iPhone is a good thing. But is it the killer feature required to encourage people to upgrade? A good question, and I really doubt that the average user will notice or care. It’s the sort of power user feature that requires an extra effort to learn. I’m sure Apple Watch users are accustomed to it; less so with MacBooks.

A killer feature? Perhaps when someone knows about it.

So who is going to upgrade? Well, people who have smartphones they bought two years ago would be the main target. Add to that Android switchers, and people who have one of those new fangled plans with their wireless carriers that allow them to upgrade once a year, or more often than that.
That iPhone sales continue to rise also means that more people will be in upgrade mode year-after-year regardless of the carrier’s scheme for you to buy or finance new gear. That augers well for Apple, and it has nothing to do with alleged investor concerns that may be based more on emotion than on facts.

Besides, Apple’s stock price has tanked before for reasons having little or nothing to do with sales or expected sales. Consider the situation in 2013 as an example. The price routinely goes up and down, sometimes for good news, sometimes for not-so-good news, and sometimes for no reason at all.

None of it necessarily means Apple is in trouble. While certainly the pressure is high to deliver a compelling iPhone update, that doesn’t mean the company will somehow be destroyed if sales don’t increase fast enough. It’s also fairly certain that the new iPhone will look very much like last year’s model, though some suggest Force Touch will make it a tad thicker.

Someone who has a 2013 model will perceive it as something altogether new and different. Only the people who bought a new iPhone last year would be less apt to want to buy a new one. Well, unless having Force Touch is important.

It’s always thus. Some alleged journalists will seize on anything with an Apple connection, true or false or somewhere in between, to get more traffic. At least we’re in the business of covering the company without apology, but we’re not in the business of creating bit bait with bogus headlines and wacky theories.

The media long ago got over the obsession with the prospects of an Apple TV set. It’s clearly not going to happen any time soon, though I suppose it could arrive eventually if Apple can find a marketing scheme that works in a highly saturated marketplace. With the iPhone and the iPad, Apple entered markets that had not been well served with existing gear. Smartwatches had gone nowhere until Apple Watch arrived and sucked the air out of the room, though it’s ultimate prospects are still uncertain.

Some published reports suggested that the aging Apple TV would be revived for the WWDC last June, in part because Apple was expected to unveil a software development kit to allow third parties to get into the act. As it stands, Apple fully controls what few apps are released and when.

So it didn’t happen, and now there are renewed predictions that it will be the “one more thing” product introduced at the September 9th event, which otherwise will focus on the next iPhone and iOS 9. That seems eminently possible, though other rumors suggest that Apple TV won’t debut until October, perhaps at an event that will also launch the next iPad, including a larger version to be known as the iPad Pro.

Continue Reading…

We don’t know the official Apple Watch sales numbers for the second quarter, but there were broad hints during the quarterly conference call with financial analysts. So we heard that Apple sold more of them than the iPhone in its first nine weeks, or the iPad in the comparable period.

But we do know that IDC doesn’t always deliver accurate or relevant numbers, and predictions for the future can be way off base. So we should have seen a huge growth in Windows Phone market share at the expense of iOS by now. But it hasn’t happened, and it appears it will never happen. Microsoft’s moves to unwind the results of the acquisition of Nokia’s handset division, and the platform’s pitiful share of the market, make that abundantly clear.

Still, IDC is taken seriously, regardless of the actual scorecard, so let’s have a look. So they did a survey of wearables, which includes far more than a smartwatch. So at the top of the is the Fitbit, with an estimated 4.4 million sales, thus capturing 24.3% of the market in the second quarter of 2015. It’s a well-established product, so when Apple achieves an estimated 3.6 million sales, ahead of many estimates, in nine weeks rather than 12, that has to count for something. That number gives Apple 19.9% of this market.

All well and good. Apple achieved a huge presence in a market in a shorter period of time. For most of that time, the product was backordered. So if the Apple Watch had a full three months on sale, and was able to meet demand, perhaps it would be number one. That appears to be the takeaway from this report.

Except for one thing: Can you really put an Apple Watch in the very same category as a dedicated activity tracker?

Yes, you wear a Fitbit, and you wear an Apple Watch, so they would superficially appear to be in the same category. But if wearing is the criterion, how about a pair of socks or a bracelet? Certainly the latter, since it goes on your wrist, right?

True, both Fitbit and Apple Watch track your physical activity, so they are therefore considered against one another by potential buyers, and that no doubt forms the basis for IDC’s conclusion. But activity tracking is just one of many features Apple Watch offers. What about comparing a personal computer to a small DVD player with a built-in display, such as the $129.99 Supersonic SC-403, which sports a 4.3-inch touchscreen? Both play media, have displays and built-in speakers. Aren’t they therefore in the same category?

Almost nobody would connect the Supersonic with a Mac or a PC, but they share a few features. Yet IDC insists on putting the Apple Watch in the wearables category with a loose definition about activity tracking.

I suppose they are, in theory, correct, and the Apple Watch is doing extremely well, in a shorter period of time, against a far cheaper product. That ought to be a good thing at a time when we are being told that the Apple Watch is an abject failure.

Now I wouldn’t presume to know if IDC’s sales figures for the Apple Watch are accurate. They do actually make sense, that this gadget has leaped to the number one spot among smartwatches. So if you compare it to a Pebble, an Android Wear smartwatch or a Samsung Galaxy Gear, Apple is doing incredibly well. This is particularly true when pitted against the Pebble,which sold a fraction of estimated Apple Watch sales over a period of a couple of years.

The prospects for the Apple Watch appear compelling for the fall. Best Buy is pleased enough with sales in 100 stores to want to expand it to the entire chain. With easy availability and the arrival of WatchOS 2 this fall, sales may very well soar. I’ll grant Apple that, although I’ve yet to see the use case that would convince me to abandon my $12.88 Walmart stainless steel calendar watch and replace it with a product that starts at $349. It has nothing to do with my store of ready cash, or credit card limit. I’m still not at all certain I need one.

In any case, the latest news about the sales results for the Apple Watch are extremely encouraging. That’s undeniable, and since IDC has tended to undercount estimated sales of Macs, I will take those numbers as conservative. It is very possible the actual figures are higher, but since Apple isn’t telling us, aside from presenting general statements about being happy with initial sales, it may be that the truth won’t be known ever, unless Apple changes its tune.

To be sure, putting Apple Watch in an overall wearable category is little different than putting the iPad in a tablet category that includes $50 pieces of junk from discount superstores. They are superficially similar products, and may share functions. But they do not realistically reflect the iPad’s actual reach or true market potential. Perhaps the same can be said of the Fitbit and the Apple Watch.

Alas, you won’t be reading about these terms and conditions in very many places. That will not change.