Although it would seem unsuited to a summer release, there are continuing reports that Apple has something new to show is in its initiative to control your living room. Apple TV hasn’t received a significant update since 2012, and the price was recently cut by $30. So is that just a new policy, or a fire sale to move existing product to make way for the next model?

Regardless, Apple’s hobby has performed adequately, with sales of over 25 million units since the first version appeared in 2007. As an Apple gadget goes, that’s not a lot by today’s standards, but it’s also something that has only received indirect advertising by ongoing coverage of what Apple plans for its TV initiative.

Clearly Apple TV is long in the tooth as such products go, although it continues to do its stuff reliably. More and more channels are being added, but that only reveals the most serious shortcoming, which is handling all that stuff efficiently. While you can hide channels, if you watch a few, you have to go through extra steps to get the content you want. Apple’s minimalist remote, with so few buttons, doesn’t make it any easier.

Regardless, I’ll avoid speculation about what new interface niceties Apple might devise. Instead, I want to look at possible new features in light of yet another article that assumes facts not in evidence.

Now remember that Apple hasn’t said a word, at least officially, about what you might expect in the next Apple TV. Not a thing, yet there’s the assumption that it will not, at first, support 4K, the new high definition standard that’s introduced on more and more TV sets. Why this should be is never really explained. The one article that made a big deal of it attempted to frame it in connection with making it some big reveal later on for reasons that don’t make much sense. It’s not as if adding 4K after the fact would necessarily represent a significant development.

The article also suggests that Apple might try to trump the TV makers and go 5K, forgetting that a key reason to have 5K on the new iMac, and a small number of third-party displays, is that you can edit 4K video at its natural resolution, and use the extra pixels for menu bar and other app navigation aids. So it’s a big deal for content creators, but not so much for regular people watching a TV. Besides, the visible difference would be minimal. Right now, you need a fairly large set even to see 4K.

Besides, the next video standard touted by the TV makers is 8K. What sense would it make for Apple to deliver a picture with a resolution unsupported on any TV set since Apple doesn’t plan to make one?

I trust you see my point.

As a practical matter, I realize that having a 4K Apple TV wouldn’t offer much advantage to over 90% of the viewing population, since sales of 4K sets are still in the single digits. But that will change if only because more and more sets in the lower price ranges, below $1,000, are incorporating the feature.

What’s more, there isn’t much in the way of 4K fare just yet. Some streaming, with limited selections, but it’s so compressed to meet a decent bit rate that the quality difference isn’t that noticeable even if you have a large enough screen to reveal that difference at a normal viewing distance.

Now I suppose Apple could withhold 4K for software reasons, but it wouldn’t make sense to release hardware that doesn’t support the higher resolution and add it a few months later. It would have to be native to the device from the get-go. So while I don’t dispute the rumor that Apple will not support this feature on the next Apple TV, at least at first, it hardly makes sense.

In any case, aside from a fancier Apple TV, possible 4K, support for third-party apps, games and a spiffier interface that simplifies watching the content you want, what about the rumored Apple TV subscription service?

Well, there’s no doubt it’s going to happen. CBS CEO Les Moonves confirms the talks, and says that they will “probably” sign a deal, so that would appear to be a lock. It’s not that Apple is going to necessarily have all the contracts ready in the next few weeks, but it’s clear something is definitely under construction. The real question is how an Apple branded TV service of this sort would differ from other companies who merely package a subset of the usual cable channels, sell it for less, and stream it online.

One possibility is local stations, same as you get with cable/satellite, but Dish Network’s Sling TV is already promising that as an extra cost option. So it has to be a lot more when it happens. It’s all about game changers, and how Apple walks an already trod path and presents a new direction.

It’s fun to speculate about what Apple’s corporate moves signify. And when the opinions are all over the place, guessing the truth is probably impossible except by sheer accident. It’s not that Apple will necessarily give you all the facts, although I wouldn’t necessarily say they are lying.

So we have the recent announcement that Sir Jonathan Ive is being elevated from Senior Vice President of Design, where he manages both the hardware and the software divisions, to Chief Design Officer. In the latter position, Ive will oversee everything related to design, including the stores and the new corporate campus. By parcelling out the managerial work to two of his long-time lieutenants, Richard Howarth and Alan Dye, Ive will free himself from the daily drudgery and have more time to focus on what he does best.

At least that’s what Apple is telling us.

There are different takeaways from that announcement. One is that Ive fully assumes the role of visionary, as if he wasn’t doing that already and is thus the linear descendant to Steve Jobs. Does that make him a potential CEO should Tim Cook depart? I can see where less focus on administrative chores would be helpful to his creative process, but not to taking on more management chores.

Yet another theory has it that Ive is preparing the way for his eventual departure. How so? Well, perhaps look at how Bill Gates reduced his workload at Microsoft, by taking on the role of Founder and Technology Advisor, although it’s spun as taking on more work. It’s definitely not a 9 to 5 position, but one that retains a level of authority and still gives him the freedom of not having to show up at the office each day. When Microsoft’s public moves are considered, they reflect the presence of CEO Satya Nadella as the voice of the company.

Over time, perhaps, Ive could disengage himself from most of his work at Apple while focusing more public attention on the accomplishments of Howard and Dye. The former is now Vice President of Industrial Design, the latter Vice President of User Interface Design. This would mean that both would be the design spokespeople going forward, and you’ll see fewer of those new product videos with Ive demonstrating the fine design points of a new product.

While Howarth hasn’t taken much of a public role, he is reported to be the design lead for the iPhone, and a key contributor to all Apple hardware produced in the over 20 years he’s been at Apple.

What this goes to show is that Ive was never the one-man-band. While new products may deeply reflect his vision — and once that of Steve Jobs — we’re talking about a tightly knit team of skilled designers that shepherded Apple’s products from concept to manufacturing.

But this all goes back to the mistaken theory that, when Tim Cook took over as Apple CEO, he was utterly incapable of handling the job. All he understood were numbers, supplies and inventory. How could he possibly handle the vision thing without any such background? What would Apple do without Jobs at the helm?

What was forgotten was the fact that Cook had already been running Apple, at least for limited periods, for several years after Steve Jobs took his first sick leave. One article suggests that the transition was deliberately handled this way to make people more comfortable with Cook’s presence, and to convey the impression that, despite his more limited role in the company, Jobs was still in charge and was only taking breaks to get well. A sudden changeover might have had a more negative impact.

As it was, weeks before he died, Apple made the inevitable announcement that Cook had become CEO, but it still took several years for that to sink in, and for the public to realize that he wasn’t going to wreck the company. By the same token, should Ive have retirement in his sights, it may well be that the change would be handled gradually, so as to cause as little disruption as possible. Once it was certain that his team had fully absorbed the company’s DNA and were perfectly capable of managing the design process going forward, Ive could make his official exit. Even then it could be presented as a transition to a more advisory role and thus a natural progression from his current position.

But it’s all theory. Corporate maneuvers are usually far more nuanced than one might expect from the outside. Regardless, Ive must surely not want to remain in a pressure cooker for the rest of his working life, though I can see where delegating managerial tasks to key members of his staff might give him more freedom for at least a few years.

Yes, I realize that Ive has been suggested as potential CEO material too, but if the advancement to Chief Design Officer is exactly as it appears on the surface, that’s not what he wants to do. It won’t help his creative process unless he restricts himself to tackling vision and design issues, while delegating marketing and inventory to others to handle.

Then again, perhaps the media will still be speculating about when Cook and Ive are leaving five or ten years from now as other executives continue to take on support positions.

A recent article from one of my long-time colleagues, Peter Cohen of iMore, started me thinking about the various approaches taken by Microsoft and Apple towards operating system releases. Up till now, a new OS was an event. There would be full-blown media events, often accompanied by advertising, and tech writers would often be granted early access to get the buzz out.

Microsoft would offer public previews, or betas, to give customers an early crack and what they were working on. In 2014, Apple expanded an existing public beta program to deliver OS X seeds to over one million Mac users.

But success of new versions of Windows has been hit or miss. Windows XP and Windows 7 were extremely successful; the former still has a double digit share of the market even though Microsoft withdrew support many months ago. Windows Vista bombed. With Windows 8/8.1, Microsoft made all the wrong decisions and the public reacted accordingly. Indeed, many of the serious problems were reported during the public preview process, but Microsoft was tone deaf.

Windows 10 is supposed to fix all that was bad, while still retaining the tiles and overwrought colors introduced in Windows 8. The Start menu is back in all its glory, and Microsoft’s copying machines picked up a few hints from OS X, such as multiple desktops and an app/document display window reminiscent of Mission Control.

Microsoft also claims that Windows 10 will, essentially, be the last major release. As with Adobe’s cloud-based apps, there will be periodic rolling updates with some new features. There won’t be one monolithic reference release. This approach will also mean that IT departments won’t have to disrupt their workflows and go through extensive testing deploying major upgrades. Supposedly. On the other hand, each rolling release will still require testing to make sure new and changed features don’t break something. It’ll just happen on a smaller scale, though more frequently.

Now a downside of this new approach is that you won’t be rushing to a consumer electronics store, or Amazon, to buy a Windows upgrade. If you already have Windows 7 or later, Windows 10 will be a free download for the first year. It’s possible Microsoft will just charge for them after that, This is just a scheme to push early updates. But why aren’t Windows XP and Windows Vista included?

While this may seem harmful to Microsoft’s revenue from operating systems, businesses on annual contracts will still pay, and there will still be fees for OEMs to set up Windows on a new PC.

According to Cohen, “Many of Windows 10’s major components are designed modularly, to be replaced with new technology. This iterative design approach should make it possible for Microsoft to innovate and test new features more rapidly than it’s been able to in the past. What’s more, Microsoft’s new operating system will work similarly across desktops, laptops, tablets and phones.”

But what if Microsoft develops a new technology and update scheme that makes the core obsolete? Does Microsoft then release Windows 11? I’m just speculating here, but making everything iterative and based on an existing structure has to eventually limit future development unless Microsoft has developed some miracle update scheme that accounts for this.

And what if Apple considered a similar update method? So OS 10.11 would be the last full release, and all updates would be rolling and incremental from then on. Other than build number, there wouldn’t be a full reference release. Just ongoing bug fixes and feature enhancements. For Apple, it might even make sense since the company doesn’t charge for the OS anyway, even though the annual upgrade cycle means plenty of publicity.

And perhaps a lot of pain, since each major release cycle causes lots of extra work for many developers. Early release bugs appear, and several releases are required to get rid of them, or at least minimize them. New features and APIs are thrust upon developers, and existing apps may have to be updated to be compatible. Indeed, some developers only pay lip service to unique core OS features. Consider Adobe, Microsoft and Quark and ask them when they will ever support OS X’s Auto Save and Versions features. It’s not that they don’t have equivalents of one sort or another, but they are proprietary and restricted to their own apps.

Support for the App Store still isn’t always possible either. You cannot, for example, get Office at the App Store, although I suppose things could change since Microsoft OneNote is offered that way. But not with Adobe, since all apps now require cloud memberships on their network.

Even if Apple did adopt an approach similar to Microsoft, there’d be the same downsides. Ongoing updates would mean regular bouts of pain as developers have to confront a fairly frequent dose of new and changed feature sets. At least with the annual upgrade cycle, they can endure all the pain at once rather than continually. Frequent updates could be wasteful when it comes to developer resources, and some might just opt to take a minimalist approach and only support the features that require the least disruption.

Now Microsoft is confronting a situation where the existing operating system strategy hasn’t worked, so they should be credited with trying something new to see how it fares. While it’s true Apple needs to find a better way to make OS X more stable, it doesn’t necessarily mean Microsoft’s new approach is any better.

There’s something about the way Apple acquires technology. In recent years, dozens of small companies have been purchased, but not because they were in danger of going out of business. In large part, it’s because they had one or more technologies that would be useful for Apple’s portfolio. Don’t forget that the A-series chips that power the iPhone and the iPad incorporate technology as the result of buying such chip designers as PA Semi.

Over the years, Apple has been urged to spend huge bundles of money to acquire one company or another, although the reasoning isn’t always quite clear. After all, Face-book, Google and Microsoft spend tons of money buying up companies that may or may not have useful technologies, a decent product portfolio or, perhaps, the potential for something-or-other. So why not Apple?

Quite often those acquisitions don’t go as planned. One notorious failed merger was AOL’s purchase of Time Warner for $164 billion in 2010. But it was mostly done through inflated dollars that resulted from AOL’s artificially high market cap at the time. It didn’t take long for the deal to be essentially undone by spinning off AOL, which was finally sold this year for a “mere” $4.4 billion to Verizon.

It doesn’t mean AOL was necessarily unsuccessful. A fraction of its former self, with over two million remaining dial-up Internet subscribers, AOL had become a fairly successful online information portal that included The Huffington Post and Engadget.

I won’t go into the intricacies of HP’s $25 billion acquisition of Compaq in 2001. Eventually the CEO who pushed for the merger, Carly Fiorina, was ousted from her post; well, technically the board of directors lost confidence in her. In passing, this failed executive tried to reinvent herself when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 2010. Having lost that race by a huge margin, she has decided to try politics again, but not for a city council seat or something better suited for the first-time office holder. Why not go for the top? So she’s one in a long list of possible Republican candidates for President?

Once king of the mobile handset hill, Motorola Mobility was losing money when it was acquired by Google for $12.5 billion in 2012. The former’s huge patent portfolio was given as one reason, although many of those patents covered set-top boxes and other products rather than cell phones. No matter, Google demonstrated it couldn’t find the silk purse in a sow’s ear and unloaded the company in 2014 to Lenovo for $2.9 billion.

Then again, the $50 million that Google spent to acquire Android in 2005 did reap benefits, but not until the release of Android OS handsets that closely resembled iPhones.

Microsoft may have done better with the $7.2 billion purchase of Nokia’s handset division in 2013. However, a healthy portion of the 32,000 employees who joined Microsoft as a result of that deal found themselves with pink slips during the next corporate bloodletting. Although Microsoft’s newest Lumia smartphones have received good reviews, it’s not at all clear how well the deal will pay off on the long haul. The Windows mobile OS is still an afterthought for most customers.

Now there’s a published report, still no more than a rumor, suggesting Microsoft may be looking to acquire yet another failing mobile handset maker, none other than BlackBerry.

Who?

At one time, BlackBerry, then Research In Motion, ruled the roost when it came to smartphones. No self-respecting executive left home or office without one, and even government officials used them, largely because of first-class enterprise security tools. Indeed, despite BlackBerry’s fall from grace, President Barack Obama still has his BlackBerry.

Unfortunately, BlackBerry’s founding executives totally misread the direction of the smartphone market, and were late to the party reacting to the iPhone onslaught. Efforts to build touch-based handsets were too little and too late. It didn’t help that there were a few serious outages of the company’s enterprise email systems.

BlackBerry isn’t exactly out of business, however. By focusing more on software and services, it remains somewhat successful. But a mere 1.6 million handsets were sold during the company’s fiscal fourth quarter, a fraction of what Apple and Samsung routinely do in a single week. Aside from loyal enterprise users, there’s not a whole lot of interest in BlackBerry these days.

But the company’s email and messaging systems, and a big patent portfolio, may be in Microsoft’s sights to enhance the company’s corporate footprint. Even though the BlackBerry OS is totally incompatible with the operating system formerly known as Windows Phone, taking over BlackBerry’s services might enhance Microsoft’s mobile presence in the enterprise. I suppose they could continue to sell BlackBerry handsets for the small number who care. The price would probably fall in the low billions, which would be chump change for Microsoft.

While I wouldn’t presume to tell Microsoft what to do — and they do appear to be getting better at working well with others these days — I wonder if it wouldn’t be more sensible, and much cheaper, to simply license BlackBerry technologies, and not worry about having yet another line of mobile handsets to sell. I’m assuming it would be possible to somehow incorporate the technology in the mobile version of Windows 10.

Or maybe it’ll be yet another example of a failing company getting swallowed by a tech giant with little evidence that it’ll actually improve the combined company’s prospects.