No you might wonder just how a PC company can sell you a note-book for $400, and a desktop PC for $300 and somehow stay in business. Just what sort of components do you expect in computers that cheap, and where’s the profit? Well, it’s not that PC companies are, in general, all that profitable, except for Apple of course. Apple manages to exist in a different universe, ranging from the MacBook Air, at $899, which is in the middle of the price range, to the Mac Pro, which sells for close to $10,000 if you get carried away with the option list on a custom model. Either way, profits are exemplary.

Well, one way the PC makers make up for the profit shortfall is to sell the desktop to third party companies. So you unpack your spanking new PC, turn it on, and you find the Windows desktop cluttered with stuff that you never ordered. It may consist of demo software, which works for a short time before you have to buy a license to keep it working. Or perhaps a six-month trial for a security app, or maybe something that’ll provide some value that you don’t quite understand.

So it seems that Lenovo, one of the fastest growing PC makers, one of the few companies that continues to increase sales, recently installed a possibly insidious variation on the junkware theme, or did. It seemed they loaded a number of PCs with adware from a company known as Superfish. So when you visited a site in your browser, Superfish would insert itself into your request and stick some ads in there, ads that, of course, you never requested. Aren’t the targeted ads you already see online quite enough?

Continue Reading…

It’s likely that Apple Watch sales won’t match expectations right away even though it might be hugely successful. There’s too much anticipation, and that can be a dangerous thing, though it’s likely that the initial publicity will attract early adopters. It’s also likely there will be an Apple media event late next month, or early in April, to herald its arrival, and perhaps introduce some other Apple gear.

What other Apple gear? Well, there are reports of a 12-inch MacBook Air with Retina display and/or possibly a 12.9-inch iPad, dubbed Pro, or perhaps both. A brand new MacBook Air, however, wouldn’t warrant special event status unless the release just happened to coincide with one.

Now there are unconfirmed claims of alleged missing features, including blood pressure and stress sensors, because they didn’t work reliably, particularly with hairy wrists or dry wrists. So we really don’t know the full bill of particulars yet. No doubt Apple is saving something for the launch event.

If you want to buy one, prepare to save quickly. $349 for the Sport version with the anodized aluminum case. But that’s just for starters. There so-called “standard” version, with the stainless steel case and the sapphire crystal face, may cost up to a few hundred more, which takes it into iPhone territory. Well, at least for an unlocked iPhone.

But the real money is all about the “Edition” with 18-karat gold. I’ve seen suggestions ranging from $2,000 to $5,000 and perhaps higher. And I haven’t considered the cost of buying a few of those replaceable watch bands, but I expect they will vary. You’ll also be able to choose a 38mm case or a 42mm case, depending on the size of your wrists and your fashion sensibilities. Aside from a fully equipped Mac Pro, Apple Watch will be the most expensive Apple gadget currently available.

It’s all about appearance, however. The guts of the watch will be the same regardless, so it all depends on what sort of fashion statement, if any, you care to make. But in this respect, Apple Watch is very different from the competition, because other companies are marketing them as fitness devices, wearables, or smartwatches, not as a piece of jewelry. By bringing in fashion executives and reaching out to the fashion industry, Apple is looking for a market not considered by the competition.

To be sure, that’s a good thing. Smartwatch sales have been downright pathetic. The biggest selling single model is the Pebble, starting at $99, which is decidedly bare bones compared to an Apple Watch. The company claims one million sold since 2013, which is great for a startup, but would be extremely poor for Apple. So if Apple sells just a few million Apple Watches during the first quarter, they will already be way ahead of the game compared to other companies. The bar for success is not terribly high — at least no yet.

With version 1.0, Apple Watch is mostly an accessory for a recent iPhone. It will mate with a Bluetooth connection, meaning you have to keep your iPhone close at hand, or most of what it does vanishes in the breeze. Apps will also be hosted on the iPhone, but you will be able to manage phone calls on an Apple Watch, since it has a mic and a speaker.

In large part, this will be a fitness device. If some sensors were omitted from the final production, perhaps they will show up in version 2.0. Or maybe Apple will expect you to shave the hair from your wrists.

But this raises another question, a real big one. With a smartphone, it’s common to upgrade every couple of years. A personal computer may stick around for five years or more. The replacement cycle for tablets isn’t certain, though falling iPad sales may indicate that a lot of you are keeping them around far longer than anyone expected.

On the other hand, a wristwatch is expected to last for many years. My $75 Guess chronograph has been in regular use for over a decade, only requiring cheap battery swaps to keep running. Unfortunately, it does appear you’ll be expected to charge your Apple Watch daily, which may be an inconvenience if you expect to be away from a charger, such as taking a long camping trip without access to a generator. Apple is limited with the state of current battery technology, although one hopes the expected media event will reveal a longer charge duration than is currently expected.

As the first version of a product that, in the most expensive form, people will be expected to keep for a long time, does Apple have any plans for future proofing? What about just being able to replace the core computing module at a reduced price, say $150-200 exchange? That way you’d be assured your Apple watch will stay current. As it is, the first version will seem downright primitive in a couple of years, particularly if Apple manages to make them powerful enough to perform most functions without being tethered to an iPhone. That has to be the inevitable game plan for Apple.

Someone who just paid $5,000 for one isn’t going to appreciate planned obsolescence. Apple is playing a brand new ball game here, so how do they plan to keep those well-heeled customers happy?

Meanwhile, Apple’s critics will tout the latest smartwatch du jour as a potential Apple Watch killer. None of those competing products, however, appear to be in the same market space as Apple Watch.

This is a story that still has traction, despite the very questionable concept. The Wall Street Journal publishes a report about an alleged Apple project, code-named “Titan,” to build an electric car. Or maybe an electric van. Or maybe an electric motorcycle? How are we to know what they are really up to even if you assume the project name is correct and that it’s related to the car business?

As you might expect, there are loads of copying machines in the blogosphere, and this very prospect was picked up and taken seriously by loads of scribes who are trying to justify the possibility that such a product is actually under development. Of course that depends on whether or not the WSJ’s original report is accurate and not a serious misinterpretation of a set of facts or hints.

But even if the project is related to the automotive industry, it doesn’t necessarily spell car. Certainly existing car makers are no doubt skeptical. Yet another auto executive is quoted as saying that the complexities in machining metal and the other manufacturing steps required to build a motor vehicle are way out of Apple’s presumed comfort zone. This assumes that machining miniature components is far easier to do than making an engine piston,  a car door and a handle. I wouldn’t presume to guess, except that the fundamentals of mass producing cars date back to the early 20th century. While there are arrays of onboard computers that form today’s motor vehicles, and more advanced schemes to reduce fuel consumption, the mechanicals are clearly based on concepts that have been around for years.

In other words, there are things Apple could do that are already part and parcel of the technologies tried and tested since 1908, when the Ford Model T was first built. Typical of Apple’s approach to entering — to them — new markets, they will look at the shortcomings of existing technology and usability and work out a solution.

But everything Apple has built so far can be sold in an Apple Store. A TV set would require a hefty redesign to handle big box retailing, and cars would obviously require separate dealerships that can manage test drives and service. Would it even be worth the bother?

This is not to say that a true Apple Car wouldn’t be successful, though it probably won’t be as cheap as your mainstream mid-sized car, which starts at around $21,000 or so. You expect that a fancy electric car with an Apple logo would cost several times that. The base price of the Tesla Model S is $69,900, hardly affordable for most people, unless, of course, there are huge incentives and expected high resale values that make for relatively cheap leases.

I still don’t see Apple going there. By the same token, I am not convinced Apple wants to build a TV set, and you can add that to the list of things Apple may not build in the next few years.

This doesn’t mean some future successor to Tim Cook wouldn’t have other priorities. For now, though, you can be certain there will be no Apple Toaster Oven or Apple Refrigerator, and that Apple won’t build washing machines or air conditioners.

But Apple will continue to tout HomeKit, which lets your Apple gear interact with the computer systems in your home appliances. An Apple thermostat or smoke detector? No, but certainly one of many opportunities for third parties to innovate.

By the same taken, a more developed Apple interface for cars that extends from the speedometer to the infotainment system, would present opportunities for car makers to give up on their lame systems and try something that mostly works without reference to a thick manual. Sure, a speedometer and a tachometer are staples of a motor vehicle, but the interaction among the more complicated components, such as climate control systems, radios and navigation systems, are usually done quite poorly.

Even worse, high-end cars are often far more difficult to operate than a cheaper vehicle. The excesses of BMW’s iDrive and the functional equivalents in an Audi, Mercedes-Benz and other luxury vehicles are well known. Not long ago, I was trying to help a relative figure out how to make sense of the controls on a used Benz, and it was real messy. From a single control wheel on the center console with buttons at the edges to the fact that even storing presets for your favorite radio stations involved navigating multiple menus, it’s clear that even the most respected auto makers haven’t a clue how to design elegant and intuitive interfaces.

Indeed, other than cars with the basic functions, once the onboard electronics take over and offer more sophisticated features, all bets are off. But CarPlay is, at best, but a partial solution to this mess.

Apple could clearly make contributions to many products and services that are part of your daily lifestyle. None of those contributions necessarily require manufacturing gear that is any larger than a 27-inch iMac. It may include licensing technology for Apple approved interfaces to other companies, or just building the APIs to allow their gadgets to interact with those products.

It’s clear, these days, that Apple is happy to give other companies opportunities to profit from their technology under the right circumstances. What’s more, Apple continues to be circumspect about which product categories to enter and how to enter them. It’s fun to speculate about the Apple Car, the Apple Van, or the Apple Television. But that’s all it is — fun!

Recently I spent several hours fiddling with the audio settings on my Kia’s sound system, such as it is. I’ve had a lot of cars over the years, cheap, mid-priced and expensive, and never had the audio hardware that just worked without some manual labor to fix the tonal balance. Not once. The default settings were usually at the extremes of what I can tolerate. Car audio is notorious for boomy bass, and sizzling highs. Impressive in the showroom, but not so impressive when you have to live with those systems day in and day out.

Maybe it needs an Apple solution, but why just the audio system?

So there are reports that Apple is making a huge push into getting more involved in the auto industry. A Wall Street Journal report mentions several hundred engineers being involved in an Apple project that’s code-named “Titan,” which may be working on an electric car, shades of Tesla. There are even reports that Apple and Tesla are busy plucking employees from one another, although there’s a natural affinity in a few areas, such as advancing battery and infotainment system technology.

With $180 billion on hand in banks and investments, it’s not that Apple doesn’t have the cash to create a new car. Typically it costs an auto maker $1 billion to design a new vehicle and bring it to production, although many of the components may be lifted from other models. But they also have the factories and supply chain sourcing to turn the concept into a finished product. Apple certainly has the contract manufacturing resources to build Macs, iPhones and iPads, among other things, but not an entire motor vehicle. At least not yet.

One auto magazine, which I shall not name, suggested Apple didn’t have the engineering expertise to understand how to make the 10,000 working parts of a new car operate properly together. Other than Tesla, and there are still question marks about its long-term prospects, there hasn’t been a successful new car maker in years. It’s mostly about mergers and acquisitions, and building new versions of existing cars at various price points. So we have a fancy Toyota becoming a Lexus, or a fancy Honda becoming an Acura. It’s as much about repackaging and extending existing hardware platforms as creating new brands.

Sure, they said Apple didn’t have to expertise to build a smartphone several hundred million units ago. But that’s nowhere near as complex as selling a product that, today, has an average transaction price of $31,252. It’s not that Apple couldn’t do it, but the betting is that it would take years to accomplish.

Even if Apple were to build a new car, there’d be the matter of setting up production lines, or paying contract manufacturers to handle the chores at the start, and establishing showrooms. It couldn’t just be an expanded version of Apple Store, but a new concept in auto retailing. Apple doesn’t take the sales experience casually, and the usual car buying experience, involving endless haggling and time-wasting nonsense that takes you through several steps from sales to finance, is downright unpleasant for most of you. It is for me.

Again, Apple could surely build the best car on the planet, though you wonder how much it’ll cost to design, and overhaul the manufacturing, purchasing and service experience. There’s more than enough cash to fund such a project, and Apple does think long-term, so taking such a venture from concept to fruition wouldn’t try their patience.

But I don’t see why they need to go there. As with TVs, the auto industry is a cutthroat business, and profit margins are far lower than iPhones, iPads and Macs. Is all that pain worth the gain?

One other possibility is that Apple isn’t so much going after the motor vehicle as the motor vehicle’s dashboard, the brains. If the entire driving experience, from ignition to navigating to a vacation spot in another state, could be controlled via an Apple designed interface, that might have a sizable impact on the industry. Apple has already taken the first steps with CarPlay, which is essentially AirPlay for autos, since it lets you dock your iPhone with your car, which allows it to become the face of the infotainment system.

There have also been periodic rumors about Apple buying Tesla. Technology synergies might seem logical, with Apple gaining control over the Tesla’s sophisticated computer systems to control the entire driving experience. As the company prepares to build reasonably affordable models, such a merger might seem sensible.

It would certainly shortcut the process of entering the car market by a number of years, assuming Apple wanted to go in that direction.

As of the time I wrote this article, Tesla’s market cap was roughly $25 billion. Assuming Apple paid twice that, $50 billion, for this transaction, it would consume a sizable portion of those cash reserves, but Apple would still have $130 billion left.

The question, of course, is why would they bother? What changes would Apple have to make, if any, to make the Tesla conform to their vision of the ideal car? It’s not that Apple doesn’t buy other companies, though it’s mostly for technology, with Beats being a rare exception. But a car company is something else entirely, and I’m not altogether convince this is a sensible direction for Apple.

It may well be that Apple is planning on building some car prototypes with which to test dashboard-related technologies. That might be the true source of those rumors. At the end of the day, a new car design could emerge from this rumored project, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on such a prospect.