If you can believe what some industry analysts have been saying, Apple should now be playing third fiddle in the smartphone wars. Android and Windows Phone would be ahead of iOS. Apple would, I suppose, be destined to fall back into niche status.

Have you looked at the Windows Phone and BlackBerry market shares lately? Have you noticed how Microsoft is quickly unraveling the failed Nokia handset division purchase? Have you noticed how thousands of brand new Microsoft employees are being consigned to the unemployment lines?

So do you believe those predictions?

There’s one more. IDC, part of IDG, which used to sponsor the now-discontinued Macworld Expo, and, some time back, consigned Macworld magazine to digital, claims that Android will continue to gain share against iOS. But have you noticed that Android’s share is stagnant or falling slightly in the U.S. and elsewhere compared to iOS? That’s hardly gaining share. It goes back to the theory that Android, being open and partly open source, is destined to devour Apple.

The problem is that Apple continues to sell more and more iPhones. The decision to build smartphones with larger displays, including the 5.5-inch iPhone 6 Plus phablet, was genius, or just logical. Some suggest Steve Jobs would never had allowed Apple to build an iPhone with a display that exceeded four inches, but the end result is that Samsung’s high-end Galaxy handsets are struggling. On a per-model basis, Apple dominates the high-end of the market, and Macs dominate the high-end PC space. What’s the most popular thin and light note-book? If you said MacBook Air, you’d be correct.

Sure, Apple doesn’t sell $600 note-books, or $200 smartphones. They cede that market to bottom feeders who struggle to make profits in segments where profits are hard to come by.

Now the big problem with these well-connected industry analysis firms is that their pronouncements are taken seriously. They are quoted without question and never asked “show me how accurate you really are.” The articles about them basically quote, or summarize, press releases without actually exploring the track records to see how previous predictions have fared.

When it comes to Apple, they don’t always do so well. Both Gartner and IDC routinely post quarterly PC sales estimates. Apple is almost always undercounted. But they are also preliminary estimates, so you don’t expect them to be perfect. Still, the tendency to report lower results than are actually achieved is troubling. Sure, all this comes a few weeks ahead of the release of Apple’s own financials, so the real figures are soon known. But not until the incorrect figures get plenty of coverage.

If you can believe what industry analysts have said, the iPhone would have been a huge failure. True, some tend to overestimate sales figures nowadays, which has the added consequence of tanking Apple’s stock price when the actual revenue is lower despite hitting record levels. But the usual approach has been one of counting Apple down and out and overly dependent on one product for success.

True, I suppose it would be nice to see iPads selling more than they do. Maybe the rumored iPad Pro, the multitasking enhancements in iOS 9, and greater emphasis, with the help of IBM, towards business sales, will improve the numbers. But when you see surveys of iPad’s sales, they are swamped with figures for products that barely compete. I’m referring to those $50-100 junk tablets sold at Walmart and other retailers. They hardly rate above toys, and are thus only good for reading and watching YouTube and Netflix — if that. On a broad scale, they are tablets, but can anyone really claim, with a straight face, that a $49.99 7-inch RCA tablet, with 8GB storage and a .3 megapixel front camera, in any way competes with an iPad mini?

Well, I suppose Gartner and IDC believe they do, because such products are considered to be in the very same category as the iPad. Adding these toys to the mix essentially puts Apple’s tablet in a poor light even though they cater to very different audiences.

Now I suppose older customers might be impressed with the RCA brand, a major American manufacturer more than 30 years ago. It was sold off in 1986, and the trademark is licensed these days to a number of companies depending on the product. Today, RCA is usually synonymous with low-end gear.

But when people read about Apple’s prospects, they do not normally consider such matters. They are seldom informed that most industry analysts are frequently wrong in their assessments, particularly when it comes to Apple.

Don’t forget that, when Apple’s stock was tanking in 2013, there were calls for Tim Cook’s head. They continued to claim that he was unsuited to the job, and did not have anything approaching the vision of his predecessor. Apple was therefore in deep trouble.

At least Cook had the smarts to reveal some basics about iPhone sales in China, earlier this week, after Apple’s stock was hit due to concerns about the state of that country’s economy. Some tech pundits claimed that Cook violated an obscure SEC rule as a result, as if just making what appears to be a truthful statement is wrong. Maybe, maybe not.

Of course, you can also suggest Cook was exaggerating to keep the stock price from dropping any further. There’s no evidence of that, but actual sales figures won’t be known till late October, when the financials for Apple’s September quarter are released.

Unless Cook has more to say at September’s iPhone event.

Meantime, don’t expect industry analysts to say, “sorry we goofed.” They are never wrong, even when they are.

So the story goes that, someday, but maybe not very soon, Apple will debut a subscription TV service. Let the world hold its breath, because it’s going to turn the entire industry on its ear.

But first, Apple has to make the proper deals with the TV networks to provide a different experience, so the stories say. One rumor suggests that Apple, sensibly, wants to include your local stations. But to do that, they’d either have to negotiate with hundreds of U.S. stations, or directly with the networks with which they are affiliated. Some stations, however, have no network affiliation, so what about them?

In any case, it’s nonetheless true that the growth of cable has slowed, and that’s blamed on so-called “cord cutters” who want to do without. One key reason may well be that younger people, millennials, are no longer interested in subscribing when they finally leave home and move into their own places. They may seek out free streaming services, such as YouTube, or low-cost alternatives, such as Netflix and Hulu. If they aren’t wedded to appointment TV, or attached to any particular shows, they no longer have traditional TV fare on their radar.

And, of course, the state of the world economy reduces discretionary income, so even a discount cable bundle may not be enough of a discount. They will need an Internet hookup, but that’s all. The landline is gone, replaced by a smartphone, which also is used to watch streaming content.

So with fewer viewers, TV networks are seeing their main audiences skew older. If millennials give up the habit of watching traditional cable/satellite shows, even as they age, it will only get worse.

I sort of wonder if that isn’t one reason why CBS, whose most popular shows tend to have older audiences, is making a huge investment in “Supergirl,” which, ahead of its premiere, already has a large online following, particularly among younger females. This is the sort of show that might have otherwise been presented on the CW network (jointly owned by CBS and Warner Bros.), which has long catered to a relatively youthful audience.

Regardless, the real question is what Apple can bring to the table. So far, all that’s being reported is that there will be a package of 30-40 channels, available for less than cable or satellite. But how is that different from basic cable anyway? In each case, you get fewer stations, but does that make it a better package? I’m not considering the delivery system.

Dish Network is selling Sling TV, a streaming service with a reduced channel lineup. There are extra tiers if you want more. I don’t see how that differs, aside from the delivery mechanism, from their basic satellite deals, other than the lack of DVR capability.

The other question is the choice of channels in these slimmed down packages. If they suit your needs, it will be perfect. If not, are there options to add or replace channels with the ones you want?

Remember, a high-end cable/satellite deal in the U.S. offers over 300 channels. While not all of them get stellar ratings, each has an audience. If you are a part of that audience, would you want to give it up?

Sure, I suppose Apple will want to choose the channels that will reach the largest portion of their user base, so there will be less incentive to stick with what you have. Maybe you give up a few channels for the greater good — the lower price of admission.

A real solution would be a la carte, but cable/satellite providers have balked at such deals. Sure, you can get a few channels via direct streaming, including premium fare, such as HBO and Showtime. But if you just want to turn on the set and have the channels you want always available, perhaps Apple will give you a choice, and if they do, it would be the main advantage over the competition. You get what you want — and only what you want!

I’d even be tempted, because I normally watch no more than a dozen channels routinely, consisting of both broadcast and cable. If I could get these — and only these — for less money, I’d be tempted, particularly iff Apple fleshes it out with a premium channel or two. I’d still like to watch Ray Donovan on Showtime, and Strike Back on Cinemax if I could. Still, I can see the potential for a great deal here.

If Apple can make it work, and that requires the cooperation of the networks who normally offer bundles of channels to cable/satellite networks for a single fee, sign me up.

Of course, I’m probably an outlier among candidates for cord-cutting. Television programming these days is far better than it used to be, with superior production values and acting. It’s not uncommon for Oscar nominees and winners to appear in a TV series, even if only a limited series with a dozen episodes or less. TV is no longer the wasteland for the performer who really wanted to be a movie star.

Unfortunately, the issues of channel choice and selection aren’t being given the attention they deserve in the media. That needs to change, and it still remains to be seen what Apple will do to make their subscription service, should it come to be, the go-to place for TV entertainment.

Global stocks are in freewill, in very large part over fears about economic slowdowns in China. Since Apple has become more and more dependent on China for sales growth, its stock has been in “bear” territory for days, losing a large portion of its recent gains. Some expect the stock to just keep falling because, naturally, there must be troubles in China and Apple must therefore suffer for it.

Except that the facts appear to point in a very different direction.

So on Monday morning, Apple CEO Tim Cook sent an email to Jim Cramer, the seriously outspoken financial pundit at CNBC, which attempts to put things in the correct perspective:

As you know, we don’t give mid-quarter updates and we rarely comment on moves in Apple stock. But I know your question is on the minds of many investors.

I get updates on our performance in China every day, including this morning, and I can tell you that we have continued to experience strong growth for our business in China through July and August. Growth in iPhone activations has actually accelerated over the past few weeks, and we have had the best performance of the year for the App Store in China during the last 2 weeks.

Obviously I can’t predict the future, but our performance so far this quarter is reassuring. Additionally, I continue to believe that China represents an unprecedented opportunity over the long term as LTE penetration is very low and most importantly the growth of the middle class over the next several years will be huge.

The bear market has been blamed on the decision of the Chinese government to devaluate its currency, the yuan, in order to deal with an economic slump. If you are heavily invested in stocks, this has been a difficult summer for you, although the market recovered somewhat through Monday.

I understand that people are fearful of Apple’s performance as a result of the China connection. And fear, or, for that matter, unreasonable optimism, can fuel huge changes in a stock’s price. Apple has taken hits in the past because of unrealized fears. Consider what happened in the wake of the release of the iPhone 5 in 2012. Without any evidence to justify the prediction, some tech and financial pundits decided that Apple must sell ten million of them during the first weekend on sale.

When Apple happily touted sales of five million units, that they could have sold more if enough stock was available, the media declared it a failure. Not only was it a record for the iPhone, it was a record for the entire mobile handset industry. Samsung, despite claiming huge sales of Galaxy smartphones from time to time, has never been able to sell five million of them in a single weekend, ever.

In any case, there were unfounded rumors later in the year that Apple had cut back in iPhone orders, thus presaging poor sales. Instead, record results continued to be reported, and Tim Cook, in one call with financial analysts in 2013, schooled them about the obvious fact that you can’t take a single supply chain metric and apply it to actual sales.

Apple’s stock price continued to fall through 2013, and even the slightest fudge factor in sales was taken as an indication that Apple was on the rocks, and Tim Cook was in over his head.

In those days, Apple said nothing about being beaten up on the stock market. I presume they wanted to stay above the fray and not get involved in a war of words with the media, who’d always get the last word.

This time, Cook wasn’t shy about emphasizing the positives without actually revealing any sales figures. So in referring to “strong growth,” accelerated iPhone activations, and the “best performance of the year for the App Store in China during the last 2 weeks,” he’s addressing all the key concerns. By saying that he continues “to believe that China represents an unprecedented opportunity over the long term,” clearly Apple is feeling vindicated in the decision to focus heavily on that country for future growth.

Unfortunately, this disclosure could have unwanted consequences. There’s a published report claiming that Cook might have violated SEC Regulation FD with his statement, which is evidently about publicly-traded companies releasing material company information privately without also releasing it publicly. Whatever that means, since the statement was quoted publicly. Besides, I hardly expect the SEC to rake Apple over the coals over this, whether it’s a transgression or not. But I do see fear-mongering in full force.

As most of you know, I am not an economist, and I don’t play one on TV or radio. I wouldn’t presume to predict what’s going to happen in China, or whether it’s a short-term problem or one that’ll persist in the long term. But for Apple, it’s all about selling hardware and services, and if sales growth continues to hit their internal goals, the overall economic picture might not be so significant. Sure, perhaps growth will slow somewhat, but Apple obviously doesn’t operate in one country.

As far as I’m concerned, regardless of potential SEC consequences, Tim Cook made the right call to send that email. Investors who were spooked over the company’s prospects may, perhaps, feel a little more confident that the company is not suffering, and that future growth targets may indeed be hit and exceeded. Remember, too, that the stock market is very much about psychology, and believing in bad news doesn’t necessarily mean anything’s wrong.

When Ford wanted to add a modern infotainment system to their motor vehicles they partnered with Microsoft. I suppose that seemed a logical move at the time, since most anyone with a personal computer used Microsoft’s operating system. So surely that company knew how to design a proper user interface.

But for a car?

Well, MyFord Touch became the feature owners loved to hate. Slow menus, touchscreens that often didn’t sense your touch, and a general byzantine interface. It all compounded to reduce the scores in the J.D. Power Initial Quality Study. Ford vehicles were otherwise quite reliable overall. They were well rated for ride and handling, though admittedly they fudged some of the fuel economy numbers on some of their vehicles. But when it came to the infotainment system, frustration ruled.

Continue Reading…