So some members of the tech media are talking about the possibilities of Windows Threshold, also known as Windows 9, as a potential salvation for the company. Before you get into the nuts and bolts, this makes sense. Windows 8 and 8.1 were utter failures compared to even Windows Vista. Even reviewers were skeptical, including the ones that usually fawned over every release from Microsoft.

That has to be the unkindest cut of all.

Indeed, even the regular people who had a chance to use the Windows 8 betas were not enamored of the changes, yet Microsoft persevered, evidently hoping that, with extended exposure, the new OS would be a winner.

In passing, I’ve always wondered how this train wreck was allowed to make it to release. Knowing that the PC industry was on the decline, Microsoft should have made doubly sure they had a product that that wouldn’t upset existing Windows users, not an unproven pipe dream. In the face of negative feedback, they might have worked to give the desktop environment more emphasis, and keep the traditional Start menu. Perhaps users would have become accustomed to the interface formerly known as Metro if it was presented as an alternative, not the default.

The fact that Metro or the Modern UI failed on the Zune and Windows Phone should have been a clue that it probably wouldn’t succeed on a traditional PC, particularly in the enterprise where IT people and corporate executives — Microsoft’s biggest customers — aren’t  interested in change for change sake.

True, there appears to be an increase in PC sales of late, particularly in desktop computers, largely as a result of companies replacing older gear in the wake of the end of support for Windows XP. That, however, is a temporary phenomenon. Once the old gear is replaced, sales will likely return to previous levels. It’s important to note that many companies buying new PCs are downgrading to Windows 7. There is no compelling case for Windows 8.1.

With Windows 9, Microsoft is hoping to reverse the trend, and persuade business customers to embrace the new OS. So the desktop environment will be front and center again on desktop computers and note-books that aren’t convertible. There will be a rejiggered Start menu and other features that would seem to be natural outgrowths of Windows 7.

Published reports also mention some sort of Notification Manager setup clearly influenced by OS X. It may be a couple of years late, but it’s good to see Microsoft trying to add some useful features. There may also be improved integration with cloud services, and better power management.

Again, it hardly seems that any of these features are cutting-edge. It’s the usual case of Microsoft trying to imitate features that have already been introduced and perfected on a Mac. This playing catch up scenario, however, is all-too-common with Microsoft, a company notorious for delivering a good enough imitation of someone else’s product, often Apple’s.

Yes, the Modern UI is different, and on a smartphone there may be some value, although customers have yet to give it much support. But it would have been helpful for a reporter with access to Microsoft’s executives to ask the hard questions of why they believed that installing that interface on Windows would somehow attract new customers, or keep old ones. Clearly it was a major misfire.

But doing that is difficult, since reporters may fear the loss of access if they don’t play ball.

From what I read about Windows 9 so far, it does appear Microsoft is trying to reverse the damage caused by Windows 8, at least for those who are thoroughly turned off by the tiled interface and merely want a simple Windows update with the features and interface elements with which they are familiar.

Reverting to a more acceptable environment may not seem as sexy or compelling, but from a business point of view it makes a lot of sense. Don’t forget that, with all the changes wrought by OS X, including Yosemite, Apple has never forgotten what makes a Mac a Mac. As I wrote in one of my early books about OS X, you can take someone accustomed to the original Macs back in the 1980s, introduce them to OS X, and they would understand the fundamentals in short order.

Despite the claims of some that Apple is moving too far into the iOS universe with Yosemite, my personal experience shows otherwise. Without considering the expanded features of Spotlight, for example, I have been able to continue to do all of my work without changing anything. The pointing and clicking achieves the same results despite the flatter, more transparent interface elements and the new system font.

Still, I am somewhat encouraged that Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, seems ready to make big changes. Even trying to restore what was useful in Windows is a good start, though we’ll have to see how Windows 9 works out when there’s an actual public release to evaluate.

Regardless, there’s nothing in what I’ve read about Windows 9 that is destined to excite anyone. But a return to a familiar environment might be enough to reverse at least some of the damage caused by Windows 8.

In recent years, there have been loads of unconfirmed reports about alleged production issues with new Apple gear, particularly the iPhone. This is not unexpected, since Apple is famous for devising sophisticated manufacturing processes, requiring cutting-edge components, and thus supplies are frequently constrained when the product is launched. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same issues impact the iPhone 6.

That a problem appears during the design and manufacturing ramp up, however, doesn’t mean that a product must be delayed. It doesn’t necessarily mean that production levels won’t be sufficient to mostly meet demand, and not having quite enough isn’t a bad thing from a marketing point of view.

Sure, it may just be that these reports are true, that they are based on information from the supply chain that’s accurate in and of itself, but doesn’t reveal the entire picture. Each bump in the road may be exaggerated to hint at a larger problem, whereas it’s also true that Apple has multiple suppliers for some parts. This means that, where one supplier is running into trouble delivering the needed quantities, other suppliers may be asked to do more.

So it may also be that early production tests may reveal potential problems in the manufacturing process. So the production is stopped until the fixes are at hand. Again, leaks about such interruptions may be true, but that may still be a normal part building an entirely new product with unique or innovative manufacturing requirements.

The speculation about the iPhone 6 mentions two sizes, and even seasoned Apple watchers essentially agree that there will be a 4.7-inch version and a phablet configuration of 5.5 inches. Some suggest the smaller version will come out right away, while the real problems impact the larger version. Maybe.

It also makes sense that Tim Cook, an old hand at managing production issues, will put enough slack into the process to accommodate the occasional glitches and delays. So everything may very well be on track, but it’s not as if Apple gets a pass from the critics who desperately seek bad news, or possible bad news.

Another problem is that most of us really couldn’t understand supply chain data. That was particularly true in late 2012, when stories arose that Apple, because of alleged huge cutbacks in production of the iPhone 5, had problems selling them. This news helped fuel a huge drop in the stock price, and the intense speculation that the company was in trouble.

At the end of the day, iPhone 5 sales remained high. There was no problem, and Cook reminded financial analysts, at one of Apple’s quarterly conference calls, that you could not understand the entire supply chain based on one or more metrics. It wasn’t so simple, but few bothered to change their tune.

Understand this doesn’t mean there are no production difficulties with the iPhone 6. It may well be that Apple has encountered unexpected issues in the initial ramp up that will delay introduction, or keep qualities real low.

So I’m not surprised that there’s been a similar round of speculation about the rumored iWatch. Sure, there may be an iWatch in the offing, and sure Apple might have encountered roadblocks in perfecting a workable design. But, aside from admitting an ongoing interest in wearables, such a product really doesn’t exist yet. There have been scattered rumors, still, about what Apple is working on, along with other rumors that the introduction might have been delayed until some time in 2015.

But nobody really knows when or if such a product will come to be, or Apple’s internal timetable to have the iWatch available for sale. As a practical matter, it would be real nice to introduce such a gadget well in advance of the holiday season, and I suppose Apple’s critics would feel vindicated if something really went wrong.

There’s no evidence, though, of any delays, or even the form and functions of an iWatch. To suggest otherwise is just to advance the speculation without any real proof.

Still, unconfirmed reports about such problems can serve the interests of those whose agendas do not favor Apple. So there may be the hope that the stock price will be depressed, or that potential customers of the iPhone 6 might expect a delay and choose to buy someone else’s product instead.

At least that’s the theory.

Of course, I sometimes believe that at least a few of the people who talk down Apple really want to see the stock price go down, so as to serve their personal needs and enhance their wealth. It’s a theory, of course, and perhaps there is little evidence that it’s true, but you have to wonder about the people who speak out against Apple with total falsehoods. Worse, after those falsehoods are exposed for what they are, they are repeated again and again as if nothing has changed.

I can make the same statements about certain politically charged comments that fail to pass a routine fact check, or deliberate efforts to quote someone out of context (sometimes with edited TV clips) to advance an agenda. But this is not a political column, though sometimes you can’t avoid the subject.

In any case, if Apple’s September 9th iPhone rollout really happens, we’ll know the truth before long.

Back in the 1990s, I wrote a weekly column, “Mac Reality Check,” for the Arizona Republic. The column was later picked up for a time by USA Today, and you can guess the subject matter. I wrote 750-1,000 words debunking myths about Macs, and the Apple universe.

I expected hard-nosed PC advocates to attack me, but the only time I ever got seriously under their skins was when I reported on those bake-offs in which a Power Mac was pitted against an Intel PC and came out ahead. The theory had it that Apple manipulated the figures to look better, though it never occurred to them that one of their cherished PC makers might do the same thing.

In the end, it was all about running a set of canned benchmarks using Adobe Photoshop and other apps. Nothing was deliberately manipulated so far as I could see. But I had a first-hand look at how emotions could supplant facts and figures.

Continue Reading…

It is well known that the Mac version of Quicken has long trailed behind the Windows version. Why this should be so is anyone’s guess. The price of Quicken 2015 for Mac is $74.99, same as Quicken Deluxe for Windows, a mid-priced version. On the basis of price alone, customers have a right to expect comparable products.

But that’s not quite how Quicken works.

Indeed, the latest version of the app actually dispenses with features that existed in previous Mac versions. You can no longer create a 12-month budget, show loan amortization, or pay bills from the app. But why? In addition, such features as multi-currency conversion that are found in the Windows versions of the app have never made it to the Mac platform.

Now Quicken has an interesting scheme, partly market driven and partly, I suspect, to reduce development costs. On a comparison page listing Quicken 2015, Quicken Essentials, and Quicken Premier for Windows (which costs $104.99), they give you the chance to Vote for the features you want added to the Mac version. All of the features for more expensive Windows edition are listed from which to select.

Sure, if Quicken adds all or most of the listed features, Mac users will save $30 for an app comparable to the high-end Windows version. But there’s no promise that any of those features will be delivered, nor when. Presumably enough Mac users would have to visit the comparison page and click or tap every single button, except that it won’t work. You only get to choose three, so choose wisely. Worse, it’s not at all clear until you start voting that such a limitation exists. That hardly allows for a fair opportunity to select all the features you want to select, though it probably helps Quicken keep the wish list small.

Of course, this isn’t the latest episode of Quicken giving the Mac short shrift.

Consider Quicken Essentials, a slimmed down version that lost a number of key features, but was, for a time, the only Intel-savvy successor to Quicken 2007. For some unknown reason, Quicken’s programmers removed loads a features — don’t get me started. Worse, when OS X Lion arrived in 2011, the “full” version, Quicken 2007, no longer worked, because Apple pulled support for Rosetta, which allowed PowerPC apps to run on Intel hardware. In passing, you’ll notice that Quicken 2007 came out about a year after Apple went to the new processors.

Finally after a long wait, Quicken released an updated version with the same features, one that did work, except that you had to pay for it yet again. Now a $14.99 upgrade fee isn’t such a bad deal, but charging for compatibility updates is never a good idea. Sure, Microsoft, Quark and other software companies have done it, but that doesn’t make it right. Why should customers be forced to compensate a company for their failure to deliver apps compatible with a new OS?

To add insult to injury, Quicken board chairman Bill Campbell served as a member of Apple’s board of directors for 17 years. He announced his resignation recently, and interviews have touted his wonderful relationship with the company and the late Steve Jobs.

All well and good, but I do wonder whether Jobs or Cook ever asked Campbell why the Mac versions of Quicken’s software almost always trailed the Windows versions in features. That was true even in situations where they cost exactly the same. Even worse, importing Quicken for Windows data wasn’t always supported. This time, according to Quicken, it will be possible to bring in data from both the Mac and Windows versions of the app.

Well that’s good to know.

I also wonder, in reading those fawning interviews with Campbell, why he isn’t being asked why Mac users must accept second best if they choose a Quicken product. How could the man continue to serve on Apple’s board yet allow the company for which he’s chairman treat Mac users in this way?

Of course, few members of the tech press would ever ask the hard questions of an important corporate executive. Perhaps getting the interview is so important in and of itself that they are afraid to lose access. True, many of these publications aren’t above simply publishing a company’s press release about a new product or service with few changes, or no changes.

I don’t think that serves this market terribly well.

Meantime, if you still want to consider the new version of Quicken, perhaps you’ll want to contact the company and express your displeasure over the situation. You might also ask why the ability to vote for new Quicken 2015 features is limited to three choices, and why, last I checked, this limitation wasn’t clearly spelled out until you started voting.

Instead, they tell you, “Your feedback is important. Help us prioritize.” If they really want your help, they should give you a clear opportunity to select all the features you want.

In any case, were I to buy a personal financial app, I would first look at other options, from publishers who care about the Mac platform, before I gave Quicken another go.