If you cook a survey, and select or don’t select the participants in a certain way, you can produce any result you want. Even when the survey is accurate, there is often wiggle room about the conclusions. And that’s before you get to the margin of error.

So a new theory that supposedly “benchmarks” the launch of the Apple Watch, claims to predict how it’ll fare on the long haul. But first, let’s look at the numbers, such as they are, which are quoted from Google Trends. It’s a measure of search, not of plans to buy or actual sales. It can be very much about idle curiosity about something as much as someone who is looking to purchase something.

The survey covers a three-week period that includes the original Apple Watch announcement, the preorder period, and the launch weekend, when some customers actually got one. Compared to the iPhone and the iPad, interest in the Apple Watch was substantially less.

So does that mean people really aren’t quite as interested in the Apple Watch? Remember that the iPad built upon the initial interest in the iPhone, and Apple Watch, while another screen, is very different from its supposed predecessors. The real comparison would also include interest in other wearables, such as Android Wear or a Pebble. But those numbers aren’t included.

But there is something far worse in that article, based on a claim that, “research shows that a third of wearable device owners stop using them within the first six months and half stopped using them in 18 months.”

That would seem significant on its face, except, obviously, the Apple Watch hasn’t been around for 18 months, so how would anyone except a time traveler know how users will ultimately behave? More to the point, the survey, quoted from  Endeavour Partners, was released on July 8, 2014, some two months before the Apple Watch was first demonstrated. To think that such stats can have any value that reflects on an unannounced product, except in a general sense, is downright foolish.

The blogger in question also frets over the alleged “challenges developers are likely to face in building ‘new’ smartwatch apps. Once users ‘forget’ to charge their smartwatch, it’s a slippery slope to abandonment.”

Clearly the writer is living in an alternate reality where some 3,500 Apple Watch apps weren’t available on launch day. It’s not that all those apps are necessarily perfect, and problems with slow performance are well known for many of the first crop. To be fair, it’s also true that most developers produced these apps without actually having an Apple Watch on hand to test, so you can expect glitches. That they work at all is quite possibly a miracle.

Honestly, this doom and gloom approach is not unusual when it comes to Apple. Another article, from America’s largest general interest newspaper, USA Today, suggested the Apple Watch launch was a huge failure, and that conclusion was echoed by other publications. But in the article in question, the writer falsely claims that one reason for this perceived failure is that you have to go into an Apple store for a fitting before you can order one. Most of you know that’s simply untrue, and I wonder why the newspaper’s editors didn’t catch it. You can certainly place your order direct from Apple’s site, as many did, without actually seeing one — ever.

As supplies begin to match demand, you may also be able to pick up your Apple Watch from a local Apple Store, if there is one, after you place your order. You might even, someday soon, be able to buy direct from regular retailers, and not just a handful of upscale fashion boutiques.

It is definitely not at all clear if Apple will use this early ordering scheme for other products in the future. That Apple Watch is back ordered clearly indicates Apple is doing something right. There are independent claims that several million were ordered through the launch weekend. True? I have no idea, and it is troubling that Apple hasn’t said anything about total shipments or orders yet. Counting preorders is problematic, though, since people might cancel rather than wait for several weeks, so the final shipments to paying customers might be less. But I’m only guessing.

At least I’m prepared to agree there are uncertainties about Apple Watch demand and the use case. There are clearly flaws, and it’s not certain how many flaws can be fixed with ongoing software updates, or whether some might require reengineering and won’t appear until Apple Watch 2.0.

I’m also disappointed by the fact that an Apple Watch, in its current incarnation, clearly cannot receive a simple hardware upgrade to a newer configuration; there’s no easy way to swap out these components. It will be as current as software updates will allow, and that might be a problem for a product that can get very expensive if you lust for the Edition.

But I do know that applying stats in a misleading fashion, and just making up stuff, doesn’t move the discussion forward.

There are new rumors about the form and function of the next Apple TV. Without doubt, Apple TV is long in the tooth and then some. The current version was released in 2012, although there was a minor parts revision the following year to a different version of the A5 chip that performed no differently. The sole new feature added at the time was support for 1080p video. That seems just so ancient nowadays with the arrival of 4K or Ultra HD.

Now the key changes listed in the current crop of rumors mention using the A8 chip, same as the current iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus. But why not the A8X from the iPad Air 2? Why not an A9 chip, which one presumes will arrive this fall with the next iPhone refresh?

Other changes include more storage — it’s 8GB now — though it would continue to be used to buffer content and not for permanence.

This week, yet another rumor has been added. That the Apple Remote would be replaced with one that includes a touchpad, to provide functionality similar to what you see on an iOS device or perhaps the Apple Watch. Now the current remote was once touted as the solution to switchers with loads of buttons that you often had to think about before you used them. Simplicity was good, I suppose, except that, without dedicated buttons for different functions, there was lots of menu clicking, something that makes Apple TV a little uncomfortable to use.

This is particularly true when you just want to return to a service and programming you’re already watching; Netflix’s “Daredevil” super hero show is a recent example. Worse, the remote — or perhaps the RF sensor on the Apple TV — has a narrow range of sensitivity. So there’s not much wiggle room in pointing it at the right spot, and it’s not just uncomfortable but the source of irritation when I have to click and click again while lying in bed. This is Apple. The remote should just work.

So if Apple went to a touchpad, with perhaps more functionality, that would only be part of the solution? Perhaps they’ll use a Wi-Fi interface, or offer it as an alternative for people who stuck with RF if they’re using a third-party universal remote, such as the Logitech Harmony.

The other rumored enhancements include an App Store, so you can confuse the interface even more with more channels, and Siri support. The latter might be useful if the remote does the pickup, I suppose, so you don’t have to yell across the room at the Apple TV box. But imagine a family fighting to have the system switch to the show they want. Some fascinating opportunities for arguments there.

In any case, that would seem to be a decent number of enhancements to the Apple TV. Other than the remote, assuming it receives the changes suggested, I suppose the actual streamer could use the same form factor as the current model. Or Apple could make it smaller and cuter, since black squares aren’t so unique anymore. But it would be window dressing.

Except that there is one key feature that isn’t being mentioned very often, or at least not lately, and that’s 4K. While sales of 4K sets are still relatively low, you can stream 4K video from such services as Amazon Instant Video and Netflix, though the offerings are slim. There’s also the problem of needing faster Internet, and don’t forget the dreaded bandwidth cap.

But since Apple has added 4K support for second displays on recent Macs — and don’t forget the 5K iMac — I assume they expect to fully support the new standard even if only a small number of customers are using Ultra HD sets right now.

I would also hope the next Apple TV would get a major interface overhaul. Right now, if you don’t hide most of the channels — and the roster grows every month or so — you can end up with lots of clutter and lots of potential confusion if you’re trying to find something to watch. This is one of the key shortcomings of streamers. Imagine wanting to have over 1,000 channels on your Roku there at your beck and call.

So does Apple abstract the individual channels so you can focus more on the content rather than the source? I suppose, although I can’t imagine Netflix, as a key example, wouldn’t want to have their interface take over when you are using that service. But this is an area where the current layouts of these products fall short. As much as you want a lot to choose from, imagine having one interface — however flawed — on a cable or satellite service. Now consider having a few dozen separate services with separate interfaces and perhaps separate login needs.

Aside from iTunes and Netflix, I seldom explore the other options on my Apple TV. If I did, I’d chafe even more over its limitations. I’m real curious to see how Apple fixes what’s wrong, and I remain curious about this alleged TV subscription service that’s also being talked about.

In my weekend column, I suggested that Apple CEO Tim Cook could be a little more direct in responding to the critics and inaccurate reports. Yes, he does on occasion correct the record during the quarterly conference call with financial analysts. But outside of a dedicated audience of Apple diehards and the financial community, those comments, conveyed in his typically calm fashion, don’t receive a lot of coverage.

Take his statement, amid reports of cutbacks in iPhone 5 orders back in 2012, that you can’t take a few supply chain metrics and apply them to overall sales. For the most part, it didn’t penetrate, and it didn’t change the negative trajectory of Apple’s stock price, at least at the time. As Apple continued to stack up record sales and profits, things just turned around on the market.

Now I suppose that’s very much what Cook expected. He’s playing long ball and expects short-term issues to resolve themselves over time. Perhaps that’s why he continues to express optimism about flagging iPad sales. Knowing what Apple’s future plans will be, he appears confident that the situation will turn around and the iPad will eventually return to its stellar growth path. Or at least he hopes it will.

Frankly, I think Cook’s statements about the iPad are mostly corporate spin. Maybe he is genuinely optimistic about the future of the iPad, and that future initiatives to update and promote the platform will eventually bear fruit. He also said, about current sales figures, “it is what it is,” so he recognizes reality as much as he would prefer that things went differently.

Now when it comes to answering the critics beyond such measured statements, that’s another question. I suppose it’s fair to say that corporate executives aren’t expected to engage in much give and take when it comes to dealing with the critics. Stay above the fray, and perhaps that’s the best approach. If a company has an army of supporters, such as Apple, best to let them get involved in the trench wars.

But there are times where unanswered questions don’t look so good for a company. What about lingering bugs in a software update? What about, for example, Wi-Fi performance lapses and Continuity inconsistencies in OS X Yosemite? What about complaints about slow third-party app performance with the Apple Watch, and situations where Siri won’t open or the watch won’t come awake when you move your wrist? Wouldn’t it make sense to occasionally issue a press announcement of known problems and provide the proper reassurance that things will be fixed real soon now? Of course, that assumes Apple expects a quick solution.

As it is, some of the fixes may come as a surprise, even to developers. Even when iOS or OS X is being beta tested, the release notes may not reflect what’s being fixed beyond listing several focus areas. So it makes it harder for testers, and that now includes members of the general public who sign up for Apple’s beta program, to figure out what they are testing for. Does Apple hope they will simply look at the bugs they’ve discovered in the past to see if they are fixed, or just make a good guess?

When you look at the release notes of a final release, you wonder where some of that stuff sprang from. It wasn’t included in the information presented in the prereleases.

That all goes to the way Apple handles corporate communications. Although there have been changes in key personnel, it doesn’t seem that policies and approaches have changed that much, at least so far. You get the predictable PR hype when new products appear, and that is to be expected. Sometimes a PR rep will respond to a request from the media for a response to a specific problem, where they will be told a fix is in the works. But that assumes it’s not just another no comment.

Don’t forget that a “no comment” may convey the impression that the company wants to avoid a question, even if it’s something genuinely being considered or worked on.

At a time where Apple is supposedly becoming more open about how the company operates, and its outreaches, I still do not feel that serious questions are being answered. And when the media makes and repeats outrageous claims about the company — which are sometimes serious enough to impact the stock price — there ought to be fast and detailed responses so everyone knows what’s going on.

After all, it’s rare that the critics who attack Apple for almost everything can admit they are wrong. They will usually get into a loop and repeat themselves as if they were right all along, despite facts to the contrary.

Sure, I suppose you can’t believe a company anymore than a politician when something is denied. But at least there’s another point of view for the media to cover beyond the usual refusal to comment. It would be a refreshing change, but it’s not that Apple appears to be suffering for silence.

On the first day I used a Mac, I was told that it wasn’t suited for real work. I should be using a PC running — then — a version of MS-DOS, or at least that’s what they said. Real PC users shouldn’t be pointing and clicking when they had all that command line goodness.

Of course, graphical interfaces became acceptable once Microsoft got Windows perfected to the point were it was mostly usable. But that took a few years; Windows 95 is said to be the first adequate version that was embraced by even some departing Mac users. My early experiences writing versions of a few of my books on a Windows PC were nonetheless painful, and those early Windows emulators for Macs were even worse, since performance was so slow.

But this isn’t a Windows versus Mac critique. It’s about the myths that have arisen about Macs — and Apple in general — through the years, some of which have not changed. So the other day, on a forum devoted to my paranormal radio show, I still saw evidence of the belief that a Windows PC is designed for real work and a Mac for other things. What other things? Well, it has long been true that the Microsoft platform has more games, and thus dedicated gamers have purchased costly souped up PCs to play their favorites.

Continue Reading…