If you’re a regular reader to these columns, you probably know about my normal workflow. I have a desktop Mac, an iMac, and a 17-inch MacBook Pro from 2010. I haven’t traveled so much in recent years, so the portable doesn’t get all that much use, particularly since I take my iPhone into the bedroom and use it to manage email. On the rare occasions where I need a full-sized keyboard and a traditional computing environment, I walk over to the home office to get things done.

I am in the minority when it comes to a typical Mac user these days, however. Some 80% of Macs sold in recent years are note-books, ranging from the MacBook Air to the MacBook Pro with Retina display. That’s a reason why Apple has clearly invested a tidy sum in advancing the portable platform (not that they’re giving up on desktops). While PC makers will depend on Intel’s guidance, in the form of the UltraBook, from which to base note-book designs, Apple actually has to invent stuff all by themselves.

Once upon a time, going note-book meant severe sacrifices, from the tiny screen to far less computing performance. I remember my first exposure to PowerBooks in the early 1990s, when I had to bring the family with me on a trip for several days, but I couldn’t interrupt the work schedule. This was before I actually owned a PowerBook, and so a company with whom I contracted for writing assignments, owned by a close relative, rented me one along with a portable printer. I brought my backup drives with me, and was soon able to recreate a semblance, far from a replacement, to my daily work environment.

Continue Reading…

Pity the poor company that rises to the top of the market, or in the case of Apple, having the largest market cap of any company on the planet. There will be loads of bottom feeders that will suggest that every single thing the company does is wrong. New products are doomed to fail, and the existing leadership is just paralyzed and they cannot cope with the situation.

Tim Cook? Oh, he’s just the supply chain person. All creativity rests with the designer, Sir Jonathan Ive, and if it doesn’t meet his sensibilities, well that’s just too bad. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Apple’s products? Well, the Apple Watch, which isn’t even arriving in customer’s hands until today, at least for some of the people who got their orders in within seconds after preorders began, is singled out for an incredible amount of criticism. Long and short of it is that maybe it’s just a fancy device for the rich and famous, at least the Edition, and for the rest, it’s the “in” thing and therefore you must have it regardless of quality. Until there’s another “in” thing of course.

Now I am not one to attack people who pay more for something just because it’s fashionable, the hype value, rather than the actual worth. But I also realize that gold isn’t cheap and so it makes sense for Apple to collect $10,000 and more for each Edition. So the critics who wouldn’t dare say a Rolex is overpriced will apply such criticisms to Apple. After all, doesn’t the $349 Apple Watch Sport work exactly the same?

Yet another article I read the other day suggested that the Apple Watch was just another smartwatch while at the same time explaining that the iPhone was a trendsetter. But when I look at the features offered in other smartwatches, I don’t see a similar taptic or haptic sensor, or Force Touch or the digital crown. The same?

What about the published report from Wired that detailed the “secret” history of Apple Watch development? So it reportedly took a year to perfect the sensations delivered by the Taptic Engine so that it met Ive’s standards. That’s hardly imitating what other products contain.

The big difference pointed out in that Wired article is that the Apple Watch appears to be something designed from scratch, but other smartwatches are mostly scaled down smartphones designed to be worn. I’m sure you see the distinction, but you can look at the rich selection of material at Apple’s site and the tech press for a full picture of what the product is all about.

Some of this silliness goes back to the belief that Apple did well with Steve Jobs at the helm, but screwed up royally when Tim Cook took over. But even under Jobs, Ive was evidently given a lot of authority to do things his way. That he has more responsibility under Cook only increases the extent of his influence.

Yet another silly article, quoted in an online column, claimed that Apple had admitted to screwing up the launch of the Apple Watch? How? Well, because Apple’s retail chief, Angela Ahrendts, was quoted in a video presentation to Apple Store salespeople as saying that people would be asking lots of questions. Somehow people being curious about something, or wanting more information, is a negative.

It’s right to criticize Apple’s change in way Apple Watch is sold where, at first, you won’t be able to pick up one at an Apple Store. It appears that situation might change when supplies are more plentiful, but that doesn’t actually answer how many preorders Apple has received. Even if there’s no announcement come Monday, the first weekend after the product shipped, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t successful according to Apple’s own standards, whatever they might be. But if a company can’t build enough of a gadget to satisfy demand, isn’t that supposed to be a good thing?

I realize some might suggest Apple deliberately gooses the perception of being perennially backordered on a new product by choosing not to build enough. Somehow that makes it more popular, at the expense of losing sales. But Apple regularly employs sophisticated manufacturing schemes, new assembly methods, and thus the product ramp is apt to take time. New components may be sourced by one or more Apple suppliers; it may take them a while to deliver sufficient quantities. The specifics may only be speculated about, and they are, but Apple has kept a tight ship on inventory for years. Unlike certain competitors we might name, they aren’t flooding the channel with lots of product, hoping and praying people will buy most of it, while still boasting about high sales instead of high shipments without evidence of demand.

Most of the media lies about Apple have been corrected over and over again. Articles that make foolish pronouncements, or quote industry analysts with ties to competing companies, are regularly refuted. But corrections are rare, and once a story is spread, some might believe it has a basis in fact. Consider “BendGate,” the unproven complaint that the iPhone 6 Plus is too vulnerable to bending under normal use. Well, it just never happened, and even the latest Samsung Galaxy smartphone doesn’t do quite as well in bend tests.

Back in 1997, Steve Jobs, newly minted as Apple CEO (well “interim” CEO) began to cut back on Mac model proliferation. Stuck with loads of Performas with different model numbers but not very different specs, it was clear that Apple needed to clean out the catalog.

The fundamental change, best signified by the iMac and the Power Mac, was to have a consumer and professional model for each product line. You could, of course, custom order to some degree to select processor, memory and storage, and perhaps the graphics card. But you didn’t have to fret so much about which model was best for your needs. This was quite unlike Dell, HP and other tech companies that, to this day, have so many models with non-descriptive names that it’s hard to figure out what might work best for your needs without a scorecard, and perhaps a salesperson to hold your hand and explain it all to you.

But in recent years, Apple under Tim Cook has moved to seriously expand the product line. It’s not near as bad as the mid-1990s, but it can get a mite confusing if you aren’t in close touch with the tech media, particularly product reviews and, where it’s important to you, performance estimates. The same logic holds true for the iPhone and the iPad. With the Apple Watch, the basic product is the same, but the many differences are essentially about fashion and the statement you want to make with one of these babies on your wrist.

So placing an order at Apple’s online store is no longer so simple.

Choose Shop Mac, and you will have seven product lines from which to choose: MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, iMac Retina 5K display, Mac mini and Mac Pro. Each 2015 MacBook has two configurations, available in three colors. But you can also customize a model to include a different processor. Other Macs include different display sizes, RAM, storage and sometimes graphic chip alternatives. So after you choose one of seven, there will be dozens of other choices you will be invited to make.

These are decisions you must make upon ordering for the most part. Only some models allow you to upgrade RAM or storage later. Doing anything but RAM on an iMac is an annoying chore that starts with removing adhesive tape. The process is only simple on the Mac Pro, Apple’s workstation, where high-end users are apt to even change the processor to get better performance.

Moving to the iPhone, there are four models, two of which (the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c) are legacy products sold at a lower price. The plastic iPhone 5c comes in five colors, the others three. You have up to three storage options, and that’s before you get to your choice of carriers for a subsided package, or unlocked. I’m only including the choices in the U.S., since cellular plans vary widely around the globe. Not all the carriers are listed at Apple’s store, so you may end up buying an iPhone at a third-party dealer with more choices.

Are you dizzy yet? I haven’t mentioned the iPad.

Despite flagging sales — and one can always hope the situation will be better when Apple reports March quarter results next week — Apple hasn’t been shy about giving you choices. You have five models ranging from the original 2012 iPad mini to today’s iPad Air 2. Each is available in multiple colors, and several storage options with or without cellular capability.

This doesn’t mean you’re left to your own devices in reaching a decision about which Apple gear to buy. You’ll want to read the tech press to get a sense of which products are best suited for your needs and which configurations to choose. Remember, though, that except for a very few Macs, you need to make your final choice when you place your order. Upgrading a configuration later will not be possible.

But help is available. When you visit Apple’s online store, there’s a tiny Get Help drop-down menu where you can activate an online chat with a specialist to help you make a decision. Or you can call them. You may prefer to speak with someone you can see, with the products you’re considering on display, so an Apple Store or a third-party dealer would be your best bet.

While I haven’t had that much trouble choosing the best Apple product that meets my needs and budget, I usually have to fret over the cost to see what configuration presents the best compromise.

I can see why Apple is providing more and more choices, and that means that it’s easier to select the product that suits you. But too many choices can cause confusion. This is a reason why Apple cut back on the model numbers in the first place. Is it moving too far in the wrong direction? That’s hard to say, because you have to wonder which model ought to be discontinued to simplify. You can make a case for the original iPad mini. But choices of that sort are apt to leave customers without the one they prefer, so it’s a juggling match, and it may only get worse in the years to come.

The headlines get wackier. Let me explain. Now the first wristwatches can be dated back to the 16th century, long before cars were invented. But from the very earliest days, motorists were driving while wearing their watches, and I’m sure they would manage a casual glance every so often. I wouldn’t know how many accidents have been caused by people distracted by something else while driving, and it doesn’t have to be some sort of mechanical or electronic gadget.

True, if you have a smartphone or a smartwatch, they will send you alerts from time to time if so configured. That is certainly a potential distraction. That goes without saying, so drivers need to be responsible about such matters.

But with Apple Watch getting ready to ship, it was high time to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about it and the deleterious impact on auto safety. So we have an attorney filing a lawsuit demanding that Apple, Microsoft and Samsung finance a one billion dollar educational campaign to alert teens as to the danger of playing around with their smartwatches while driving — but not adults? This, evidently, as opposed to texting on their smartphones, with is even a more foolish prospect.

The logic behind this? Well, there’s a claim from Transport Research Laboratory a UK-based consulting firm, that reaction times when looking at a smartwatch are delayed some 2.5 seconds, compared to 1.9 seconds with a smartphone. Based on a report in the Los Angeles Times, though, there’s no indication whatever that the report used an Apple Watch to conduct the tests. As you know, the first units won’t be reaching customers until Friday, April 24th. Earlier samples got into the hands of some entertainment figures and Apple’s group of “preferred” tech reviewers. But that’s an extremely small number, and there’s no evidence that any of these units were subjected to this alleged test.

So without an Apple Watch at hand, it’s hard to take the numbers seriously. Remember that the Apple Watch is designed to convey information with a glance, which appears to mean that you would be less distracted by those notices than you are with a smartphone. I am not, however, considering situations, such as Apple’s CarPlay or Android Audo, where notifications are funneled through the auto’s infotainment system. But isn’t that also a potential distraction?

The legal papers make this claim: “The temptation to check the tiny screen immediately after receiving a notification is virtually irresistible. The lawsuit further alleges that the act of looking at the watch means “the road becomes invisible to the driver.”

More than picking up your smartphone and looking it it? Or seeing a notice on your car’s display?

Now I would be sympathetic to a campaign alerting people, and not just teens, about the dangers of distracted driving, but focusing such attention on smartwatches makes no sense. Besides, since what is expected to be the most popular smartwatch wasn’t even available to be included in any tests of potential driving distractions, the claim from this Transport Research Laboratory appears to be even less credible.

I realize many of you will be looking for the article, although I’m not providing a link. It strikes me as just an attempt by an ambulance chasing attorney to get some publicity ahead of the release of the Apple Watch. Otherwise, why was the lawsuit filed now? And wouldn’t it have made sense for the LA Times to actually interview the attorney and ask about the timing? The Pebble smartwatch, for example, has been available since 2013 and it doesn’t take 18 months or two years to draft legal papers. The source of the survey should also have been interviewed.

Too often, however, even prestigious newspapers such as the LA Times serve more as copying machines than media outlets performing real journalism. Real journalism would have followed through on this story beyond than just publishing the details of the lawsuit and asking the defendants for a reaction. That’s lazy journalism, since nobody would expect a multinational and publicly traded company to respond to such legal actions unless it’s considered reasonably substantial.

But when Apple becomes part of the story, and that’s inevitable even if no specific smartwatch was mentioned, it’s bound to get more attention. Even if the lawsuit is tossed out, as it should be for obvious reasons, the lawyer has succeeded in making a name for himself, although he’d be the last attorney I’d hire if I lived in Los Angeles and needed legal help.

Still, the three companies named in the lawsuit will have to respond within the appropriate timeframe, and one expects that those responses may yield some quotables if they consist of more than basic denials. Or maybe there’s the unlikely possibility that a legitimate discussion will be fueled to consider more seriously all the causes of distracted driving. That would be a useful development.

But it won’t happen through grandstanding.