Forget about the widely-quoted proclamations of the late Steve Jobs that he had discovered the greatest TV interface of all, bar none. It was first published in the authorized biography of Apple’s late co-founder, written by Walter Isaacson. And I think those of you who read the book or just his comments realize the author knew absolutely nothing about the tech industry. He was just an experienced author paid to interview people and write a book.

Besides, how often did Jobs say he actually hated TV?

Since then, however, there were widespread rumors that Apple had a TV set in the wings, and that prototypes had been built. I suspect some TV makers altered their designs to compete with the expected competition from Apple, which never, of course, actually appeared. Maybe Jobs simply wanted to freak the industry.

Even the Apple TV streamer has been sold without change for three years, other than a $30 price cut announced last week. But the latest news has it that it’s not about an Apple TV set, but an Apple TV streaming service to compete with the likes of Netflix, Sling TV, Hulu Plus and, evidently, your cable or satellite provider.

Supposedly the deal will deliver 25 channels at prices estimated from $20 to $40. The stories mention content from ABC, CBS and Fox, but claim that NBC isn’t going to be on the list. You see, talks with NBC’s parent company, Comcast, are allegedly off due to a falling out between the companies. Or maybe because Comcast is busy buying Time Warner Cable, or maybe both.

That’s the original report, but there’s now a rumor that NBC will deliver an app for Apple TV this fall that will require a subscription to a cable TV provider. I wouldn’t presume to know which rumor is true, or maybe it’s both to some extent.

Of course, there’s nothing knew about Apple working on their own TV subscription offering. That’s been around since 2009, and it’s said to be a key reason why a new Apple TV has been delayed. But you wonder whether it will require new hardware, or maybe Apple is waiting for cheaper chips to support 4K video. So perhaps the A9 chip expected to be included in the next generation iPhones will also find its way into a revised Apple TV this fall.

There’s nothing out of the ordinary in the newest speculation about Apple’s TV service. But with a TV service coming from Sony, and Dish Network’s Sling TV already in operation, what does Apple bring to the table? On the surface, it doesn’t appear to be much more than yet another slimmed down cable TV alternative.

So if it comes to pass, is it all about a prettier interface and better integration among the various channels to make it easier for you to select the shows you want to watch? Is that quite enough? What about a cloud-based alternative to the DVR, so you can time shift without depending on a set-top box with a  big hard drive? But does the storage scheme even matter? What about making all the content on-demand? That means you don’t have to remember to set a record button. Just select the shows you like, and watch them when you want.

If a DVR capability is offered, do you have the same ability that you have now on cable and satellite services to fast forward past the ads? Or does the deal include a limited commercial capability, so you only have to put up with a few minutes of interruptions? Where do local stations come into play? Would you be expected to install a traditional antenna, or, perish forbid, get basic cable to cover those stations? That’s what’s lacking from existing cord-cutting services. And don’t diminish the need for terrestrial channels,  and the still-large audiences they attract. Take this example: Every week when new shows are broadcast, over 16 million viewers tune in to NCIS on a local station in the U.S.. Add to that a few million more who time shift the show on a DVR and watch it later in the week. There’s still a sizable audience out there for traditional TV fare.

So many questions, so few answers. But certainly Apple wouldn’t want to deliver a TV service that really isn’t that much different from other services. A few interface tweaks won’t do it. Online DVR capability might. If it accompanied an all-new Apple TV, along with perhaps a free month’s service to give customers a chance to sample it, it might indeed gain some traction.

But what about those dreaded ISP bandwidth caps?

Consider the inevitable 4K video streaming capability, and the fact that most of you spend several hours a day in front of the tube. How quickly will a typical bandwidth cap of several hundred million gigabytes be exhausted? Does Apple have to make a deal with the cable and satellite companies to allow them to sidestep that requirement? This is the elephant in the room that the rumors seldom address.

Sure, perhaps Apple has something in the works this time, and it’s also possible the bandwidth factor will be addressed. But I remain skeptical. How many times must a rumor be repeated before it comes true — or you just look elsewhere for Apple speculation?

Typical of the way some members of the media handle upcoming products from Apple, there has been a spate of stories saying Apple Watch is doomed to fail. To a large extent, none of the people writing these stories have even seen one in person. At best, they watched the online feed of Apple’s “Spring Forward” media event, or maybe saw some pictures in an article.

Yet they just know it has to fail.

A fairly typical example is an article from ZDNet (a division of CNET), entitled “Has Apple lost its religion of simplicity?” Now I won’t dignify the piece with a link or identify the author. But I will give you a disclaimer. I once wrote for CNET, several owners back, and even won a journalism award for them. Unfortunately, I also worked with some editors who had a questionable respect for accuracy; one of them ended up as a purveyor of silly claims at The New York Times.

So the ZDNet article asserts that Apple made the Apple Watch too hard to use. Unfortunately, it makes claims about “complicated and convoluted” functions that are self-contradictory when he describes what they are. Stay with me.

So tapping, swiping and Force Touch, and using the two buttons at the side of the watch amount somehow to “a ton of things for a user to figure out.” Now how five functions are defined as a ton escapes me, or maybe I have a different concept of what words mean, but let me continue.

You see, the author in question claims that “many of the functions are unlike any other Apple or tech product.” So you can’t figure them out, he assumes. Many? Well, let’s see. Force Touch merely means you press it harder. This is the technology Apple also introduced on the new MacBook’s trackpad, and it also turned up on the refreshed 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display. So it’s not “unlike other Apple or tech product.”

That’s hard to figure out?

What about those obtuse buttons on the Apple Watch?

Well, take a look at a regular watch for a second. The digital crown bears a striking similarity to the physical crown of a mechanical watch, where it’s perfectly normal to pull that button to put it in time-setting mode, and turn it to change the time. Push it in and get on with your business. Special function watches, such as chronographs, will sport additional buttons.

So the “ton of things” is really one new thing, the Force Touch feature that is spreading to new Mac note-books. Period! So perhaps the ZDNet blogger needs a little education on the use of words to understand that one function is not a “ton of things.” But maybe I’m asking for too much.

The next complaint is putting so much stuff on a tiny screen. But if you are designing a wristwatch, the display has to be relatively small. There is a 38mm Apple Watch and a 42mm Apple Watch, so perhaps someone who finds the smaller version too small might be willing to pay extra for the larger model.

But it’s clear what bias is involved when the blogger asserts that the interfaces on Android Wear smartwatches are polished, implying that the Apple Watch’s interface isn’t. But it’s not at all clear what experience he has with any smartwatch, let alone the products from Motorola and LG that he seems to adore. Besides, they have small displays too.

The long and short of it is that, until product reviewers and customers spend a reasonable amount of time with an Apple Watch, it’s hard to know how fluid the interfaces will be, or how simple the new Force Touch function will be to use. This really is something that can be only hinted at by watching online demonstrations. You now the demonstrators will do everything quickly and smoothly. They are skilled at navigating the interface. You aren’t, and the ZDNet columnist isn’t either.

He’s just blowing smoke!

Now before you proclaim this as another Apple Fanboy column, please pay closer attention. I am taking my responses from the online descriptions of how Apple Watch works. I don’t see a “ton of things” that present new and hard-to-use interface elements. I see one to which you might want to become accustomed, and that’s it. I know how to tap and swipe. Most any user of a modern smartphone understands these functions intuitively, and I fail to see where the concept of pressing a display will be hard to grasp.

And anyone who has worked with a traditional mechanical watch understands the function of the crown or one of the push buttons on a chronograph or stopwatch. Do I need to go on?

But I have never handled an Apple Watch, and I wouldn’t presume to guess how well these seemingly intuitive features are implemented. That remains to be seen. Still, you can bet that there will be more ignorant articles about Apple Watch and other forthcoming Apple products. At least you hope some of those writers will actually attempt to use the products first before making foolish pronouncements.

So it may seem that the cable and satellite TV industry is in deep trouble. People are getting more and more disgusted with paying up to $150 or more each month for a bucket of channels, many of which they don’t even watch. Even when you want to get a cheaper deal, in order to get a good cross-section of the content you want, you may have to buy several tiers — or higher tiers — of service. You cannot choose from Column A and Column B. So you’re stuck!

To some degree, you may blame the entertainment companies who bundle channels and provide them to the cable/satellite industry as packages. You may be surprised to know that NBCUniversal’s cable networks include not just Syfy and USA Network. They also include such channels — some of which may be unknown to many of you — as Chiller, Cloo, Sprout, Universal HD, and several more.

Now not all of these channels may be available from your cable company. Cloo, for example, which offers mostly crime procedurals, such as Law & Order and NCIS. It’s not even available in HD, and many of the content carriers, such as Dish Network and Cox, don’t include it on their schedule.

Continue Reading…

At one time, a number of newspapers featured tech columnists. I was one of them for the Arizona Republic, before we were declared obsolete in the endless rush to reduce expenses. True, there are some tech writers who still labor away on their columns at local papers; more so on national papers such as USA Today. Some are quite capable of handling the subject, while others convey the impression that this was a hand-me-down position when other jobs weren’t available.

On cable TV news, the quality of tech reporting is usually worse. Sometimes they do bring on a representative from a tech publication who knows their stuff. At other times, they make do, and not always so well. Or they bring aboard someone with known axes to grind without being aware that they have a built-in bias that may make them not very credible.

So we have a longtime industry analyst, such as Rob Enderle, who evidently has rarely met an Apple product that he honestly believed to be a success. He’s denigrated them with silly fear-mongering claims, which I shall not repeat here, since they have no resemblance whatever to the truth. He also has a near-zero batting average; in other words, what he says is rarely correct, yet some members of the traditional media continue to assume that he must be an expert.

He has also received money to do work with some of Apple’s competitors. At the very least, that’s something that should be acknowledged in introducing Enderle, but it doesn’t happen. Compare that to presenting Karl Rove, a former political advisor to President George W. Bush. What they forget, or ignore, is the fact that he runs a political action committee that funds Republican campaigns. It doesn’t mean what he says should be ignored, but you have to have the full picture of where he stands and what influences his comments.

Indeed, if the mainstream media actually did a little research to see whether a news source delivers accurate information, or projections that bear a resemblance to reality, they might be shocked and surprised. Ahead of just about every introduction of a new Apple product, be it a refresh or the first of its kind, you can assume it will be declared a failure. It doesn’t matter that Apple rarely fails, and has a solid record of revenue growth. It doesn’t matter at all. The new product must be a failure.

How often do you hear the interviewer ask the so-called expert to explain why he or she should be believed if they are almost always wrong about Apple? Fact is you never hear of such a thing. You never read about a reporter asking such basic questions about a so-called expert’s bona fides to demonstrate they are to be taken seriously.

It’s very easy for a lazy reporter to just look at a contact list and call up someone who is supposed to be an expert or go-to person on this subject or the other, without once checking whether that person will make sense. There is no government test for an industry or financial analyst, and anyone can hang out a shingle and try to make a go of it. I suppose if you’re skilled at pithy and provocative comments, and you land an interview or two, you might leverage that to signing up some clients, and you’re on the way to fame and fortune.

I suppose. But I haven’t tried it, even though I think my modest track record is better than most of them, but I’ll let you readers decide.

So we just know that Apple Watch must be an egregious failure, simply because existing products haven’t gone far beyond the tech geek universe. So maybe Pebble sold one million smartwatches, but don’t expert many people will wear them as pieces of jewelry. It’s a tech toy, and possibly useful to some, but it exists in a different space than Apple Watch. From the TV ads, you know where Apple is reaching for sales.

I have no guesses to make here, no predictions except to be on the lookout for early sales reports from Apple. Since Apple Watch is rolled into other numbers in Apple’s financials, you won’t know how well it’s doing, after it goes on sale next month, unless the most popular models are sold out and you have to wait weeks or an Edition, s0 real numbers are publicized. This will happen if Apple Watch meets or exceeds Apple’s expectations, but no numbers won’t necessary presage failure.

You might also want to look at Mac sales for the current quarter. Intel has already disappointed the financial community by announcing revenues will be less than projected, simply because PC sales aren’t meeting expectations. If Apple pulls off yet another decent increase in Mac sales despite the headwinds, that will be significant. But remember that the new MacBook won’t be available until April, the next quarter. But the other new Macs are shipping now.

And, no, I will not charge for delivering these humble estimates, and I won’t quit my day job, whatever that is.