Do you remember all that chatter before the iPhone 6 was launched last fall? Apple was having problems ramping up production, so they said, and supplies would be severely constrained when the units first went on sale. But you can go farther back over Apple’s history, particularly when a new form factor was about to go on sale. The supply chain rumors routinely claim that manufacturing yields would be low, and you’d have an awful time getting one of these gadgets.

Now it’s perfectly true Apple uses some pretty sophisticated manufacturing schemes to build gear, and those techniques are usually exclusive to the company. So it stands to reason that it may take extra time to boost supplies, but one assumes Apple is savvy to such matters since the CEO is a supply chain whiz.

It’s also true that it took a few months before supplies of the iPhone 6 Plus, as an example, met demand. But that doesn’t mean you couldn’t buy one, or that sales suffered seriously. Indeed, Apple reported record sales in the December 2014 quarter, though I grant that sales might have been somewhat better if you didn’t have to wait for the model and configuration you wanted.

That doesn’t mean Apple ran into trouble building them. Production levels are based on estimates, and it’s often better to err on the side of caution, which means dealers and distributors aren’t flooded with unsold product. Apple is quite unlike other tech companies who routinely ship as many units as they can, and use those numbers to boast of high sales.

As you might imagine, there are stories about claiming there are serious problems ramping up production of the Appel Watch. Apple’s use of an AMOLED display is said to be a cause, except that AMOLED displays have already been used by such companies as LG and Samsung. You’d think, therefore, that the fundamentals of building those displays are already resolved, although Apple is admittedly doing different things.

But in setting a shipping date of April 24, and that was announced in early March, you have to expect that Tim Cook knew full well have many units would be available at launch. Remember this date is at the edge of one’s expectations for a ship date of early 2015.

The stories also vary somewhat in speculating about the severity of early production problems. If you believe the most pessimistic stories, Apple will have product to sell at the start, but maybe not so much. If they can’t ramp up production sufficiently, it may take months to fill the initial demand. If true, of course, and nobody outside Apple and the supply chain knows for sure.

But rumors of that sort might serve a sinister purpose, which is to spook potential customers to maybe look elsewhere. So why wait for an Apple Watch when you can buy a Moto 360 or a Pebble right now, no waiting? That might be the intent of such stories, to discourage buyers, and that same reason might explain similar stories that arose when other Apple gear was poised to ship.

On the other hand, constrained supplies, if not too severe, might have the reverse effect. People want to get in on what’s hot in tech gear, so eager buyers might indeed be willing to wait a few days or a few weeks for the gadget they want. They become part of the exclusive club of early adopters who waited out the storm to get their piece of the action.

When shipping delays extend to months, however, it’s understandable that some people would rather not bother. They’d either wait till supplies are adequate, or just choose something else. It would be Apple’s loss.

Now I don’t know how many people have made that decision, to purchase other gear when instant gratification from Apple wasn’t in the cards. Nobody can fault someone who has needs that one company cannot fulfill.

But despite all the gloom and doom, I doubt anyone has a firm fix on how many Apple Watches are going to be sold. Maybe Apple has some early data about prospective demand, but just because someone answers a survey about buying a new product, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will go through with the purchase.

Certainly, Apple is doing its level best to keep interest real high. In addition to advertising spreads in fashion magazines around the world, consider those carefully timed interviews with Apple executives about how marvelous the Apple Watch is. And don’t forget the TV ads that are quite plentiful for gear that won’t ship for another month or so.

Will loads of customers be waiting at Apple Stores around the world on April 24 — at least in countries where Apple Watch will be available — to get one? Good question. If the initial allocation for preorders is sold out, all bets are off. But if you don’t hear much about sales right after the first weekend, maybe Apple Watch won’t do quite as well as the more optimistic expectations. We just have to wait and see.

So the image of Apple after Steve Jobs took over the company in 1997 was of a place where secrets were kept. While rumors were always present, Apple didn’t spill the beans until the right time, usually shortly before a product was set to be introduced. Sometimes it would happen earlier, if there was no previous version of a product or a service.

During the 2005 WWDC, Jobs displayed a satellite image of a building on the Apple campus where they were developing an Intel version of OS X. The existence of such a project had been rumored for a while, and no doubt Apple kept up parallel development in case something had to give. And it did since development of the PowerPC chip had failed to meet Apple’s needs. There was no note-book version, the most powerful Power Macs required liquid cooling, and Intel was rapidly moving ahead.

The arrival of the iPhone had come long after Jobs decried existing cell phones. It was first demonstrated at a January 2007 Macworld Expo, giving the media plenty of time to speculate on what it all meant. Long and short of it was that there was plenty of skepticism and anticipation about the product ahead of its release. So the revelation clearly worked to Apple’s advantage.

Continue Reading…

After the initial flurry of reports about Apple setting up a project to create a car, the talk has sort of died down. This is quite understandable. Even if true, such a beast won’t appear for several years, unless Apple pulls off a miracle in setting up a manufacturing and dealer network. Regardless, there’s always room for a good Apple story.

So let’s briefly consider how one particular report dealt with it. Do the choices Apple’s executives make about which cars they buy reflect on their priorities for building an Apple alternative?

I suppose if you believed that, you’d have to wonder what sort of music players Steve Jobs might have used before Apple introduced the iPod. The answer is probably none except for testing, because the iPod broke the mold.

Smartphones? Steve Jobs was happy to denigrate whatever was out there, and it’s clear the iPhone went its own way. So you couldn’t look at earlier models as inspiration for Apple, or maybe consider them inspiration of what not to do.

So when it comes to a car, if Apple really planned to build one, and isn’t just prototyping for future versions of CarPlay, just how would it resemble or differ from current offerings? That’s the great unknown.

Remember, this is a well-trod market, and few new car makers have actually been established in recent years. Quite often, new brands are merely versions of existing models at higher price points, such as the Lexus division of Toyota, or the Acura division of Honda. But that’s just a way to expand a company’s presence in the marketplace.

In the car business, it’s more about attrition. So when I was real young, I dreamed of owning a Studebaker Avanti, a futuristic fiberglass-clad touring car. But Studebaker died in 1966; other companies kept the Avanti going for a while. It was followed by American Motors, and later by individual brands, such as Plymouth, Saturn, Oldsmobile, Mercury and so on. Tesla, though it seems reasonably successful for now, is a rare exception.

I’m not considering Chinese car makers or other companies that do not yet have a U.S. presence. But it’s a sure thing that Apple would be coming to a party where newcomers are rarely welcome, and rarely survive. Still, it may happen, though not for several years.

In any case, there’s not a lot to go on now, other than those reports of “Project Titan,” the alleged code-name for Apple’s automotive venture and the fact that they’ve scooped up executives from the car industry. All well and good, but it doesn’t guarantee that it’ll bear fruit.

So what’s the media going to do to keep the story alive? Sometimes it seems they are really getting desperate.

So there’s a report today that describes the cars key Apple executives own now, as if that’ll give us a clue as to what they are planning. We know, for example, that Jonathan Ive adores expensive sports cars, such as the Aston Martin, the brand favored in the James Bond movies. He is also reported to own a couple of Bentleys, which are usually big, fat, luxurious and as far from economical as you can get. But to show you how industry consolidation works, Bentley, regarded as a British moniker, is now owned by Volkswagen of Germany.

Would Apple be considering super expensive sport sedans? Well, the Tesla Model S is certainly not cheap, but it’s quite inexpensive compared to an Aston Martin or a Bentley. But how does going that route make Apple unique?

Remember that, even though Apple gear is traditionally regarded as luxury priced, it is usually only a little more expensive than other mainstream brands, and often not more expensive at all. I suppose the Apple Watch Edition might be the rare exception, but it is intended to compete in an exclusive market where luxury watches at $10,000 up are considered relatively affordable.

But what about Tim Cook? What does he motor around in? Well the story has it that he drives the very traditional BMW 5 series 4-door sedan that is commonly purchased by lawyers, middle managers, you get the picture. Despite his riches, he’s not investing in anything more than a traditional and, to some, boring mid-sized luxury vehicle.

Eddy Cue sits on the board of Ferrari, and he and Philip Schiller own the sort of luxury cars you expect to be in the garage of wealthy executives. They are predominantly European, such as Aston Martin, Bentley, BMW, Ferrari (naturally), Jaguar and Porsche.

You can say they all have tastes for high-end vehicles. They enjoy spending at least some of their well-earned riches. But do their personal preferences give us any clues at all as to what type of vehicle Apple might produce? Don’t forget that Apple usually breaks the mold, so you can’t judge their plans on the basis of existing models, even if key executives own those vehicles. If Apple Watch is a guide, Apple would want to enter the car business just above the mid-range models, but still keeping them affordable with generous lease or loan packages.

In short, the Apple Car won’t be a direct competitor to an Aston Martin or a Ferrari, or even a BMW. If Apple builds such a product, don’t expect it to be like any other car on the market. But you may actually be able to afford one.

It’s a sure thing that, whenever Apple is mentioned, it’s apt to start a media frenzy. So in the wake of renewed reports that Apple is trying to finalize deals with the entertainment companies ahead of launching a TV subscription service, the subject of streaming TV has gotten lots of play.

Unfortunately, key issues confronting cord-cutters are being ignored.

One of these is clutter. With Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu Plus, Sling TV, the rumored Apple or iTunes TV service, HBO Now and all the rest, how does one deal with managing all these disparate services? One key reason to ditch cable or satellite is to cut costs. Another is to simplify your life.

So the logic to cut the cord is to avoid haing to pay $100 or $150, or even more, for a bucket of 400 channels when you’ll only watch a dozen or so. Isn’t it easier, and far cheaper, to choose a few streaming packages to get the shows you want?

Well, published reports peg the rumored Apple subscription TV service as costing from $20 to $40, in the same range as a basic cable that also includes your local stations. Will Apple? Or does Apple believe you no longer need to watch local news, or traditional network programming?

So where’s the advantage? Apple will supposedly offer 25 channels, but evidently not NBC at the start because of the supposed falling out between Apple and the NBCUniversal division of Comcast. But there will be an NBC app that is expected to work on Apple TV. It’s a curious contradiction.

What about premium channels, such as HBO/Cinemax and Showtime? Do you want to miss the next seasons of Homeland or Ray Donovan, not to mention Game of Thrones? An HBO Now subscription will cost you $15 per month when it debuts, first on Apple TV. Assuming other premium networks charge similar rates, and you add the basic cost of the Apple TV service, just what are you really saving for the added inconvenience of having to manage separate accounts rather than just one?

Forgetting the cost of multiple services to replace cable, how does Apple manage to sort things out? This is a key question that’s already front and center on any of the streaming set-top boxes. With a few dozen channels, consider the complexities of seeing up a separate login and billing arrangement with each of the content services you want to use. Yes, you can hide the channels you don’t care about, but you can see where it gets cluttered. It’s even worse on Roku, which offers north of 1,000 separate channels, but again you only need to display the ones you want.

Now I suppose Apple might consider integrating the premium channels for a higher fee. You still may want to add Netflix at $8.99 per month. Indeed, a recent report estimates that 40% of Americans already subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu, or more than one. You don’t even need a set-top box, since most new TVs offer these alternatives under some sort of “smart” option. I have them on my VIZIO TV and my VIZIO Blu-ray. Why do I need to buy another appliance to connect to my system, other than Apple TV for iTunes and AirPlay?

All right, maybe the next Apple TV will sort things out. I hope so, because I’m still waiting for a compelling pitch to make me want to ditch cable. Maybe a practical ala carte scheme, since I only watch maybe 15-20 channels. Today, cable/satellite divides the lineup into a small number of packages. You may find yourself paying a lot more because you want to watch the one or two channels that are restricted to a higher tier. I’m sure it’s a way to rope you in, but a more defined setup allows customers to get only what they want at a lower price might reduce the cord cutting.

It’s also being suggested that young people are really moving to alternative content delivery schemes. According to a Wall Street Journal report, “One risk of the media companies’ strategy is that by bringing TV channels to the Web they aren’t thinking far enough beyond their current business models. Their real competition for young audiences in coming years will come from companies like Face-book, Vimeo and Vessel that are attracting content creators from entirely outside the pay-TV ecosystem…”

Maybe. But the more services that become available, the more opportunities arise for confusion.

But I still remain perplexed why the elephant in the room continues to be ignored. That’s your ISP’s bandwidth cap. If you’re not using your ISP’s own TV service, or satellite, whatever is streamed to your TV  counts against the bandwidth limits. So after you choose a package of one or more providers that meets your needs, how many hours a day can you watch your set unimpeded before you consume too much bandwidth?

While I understand the need for limited bandwidth so as not to saturate a cell phone network, does it make sense for wire-based broadband? Maybe for chronic abusers, but someone just spending a few hours a day pulling content via an Apple TV shouldn’t be faced with high overage charges, or having their broadband throttled or blocked. The FCC’s new rules on net neutrality don’t address this issue.

And why is it being ignored by the media?