So there’s a commentary from a blogger at a certain well-known tech site suggesting that Apple needs to compete with the — take a deep breath — Chrome-book, Google’s no-frills OS. The what? Yes, I am quite serious. The article in question, for which I will not provide the link for obvious reasons, appears to be sincere and all that, but the sheer ignorance about Apple and the marketplace is just too much to ignore.

Before I get into the details, a demand that Apple make cheap stuff isn’t new. It all dates back to the very early days of the Mac, where an IBM PC or compatible almost always cost considerably less except for the high-end models.

Indeed, when the first netbooks came out — those very cheap and small and almost useless PC note-books — there were demands that Apple get into the game or lose out on loads of potential sales. But not profits, since it’s questionable whether Asus or any of the other netbook makers accomplished anything more than move a lot of product for a time with very little gain. Apple’s response, the first iPad at $499, destroyed the netbook market in the first year.

With smartphones, there are constant demands that Apple do cheap. Aren’t Samsung and Android trouncing Apple with cheap handsets? Well, that depends on your definition of trouncing. More units doesn’t mean higher profits, since cutthroat pricing reduces profits to the minimum. The standard bearer for this approach, Samsung, has reported flat sales and diminishing profits. They are being hit at both ends of the market by cheap handsets from China’s Xiaomi Tech and other companies at the low end, and at the high end by Apple.

Xiaomi’s MI smartphones are marketed as lower cost alternatives to iPhones, and the company is trying hard to pretend to be China’s Apple. But all they are doing is to take a skinned version of Android, called MIUI, and selling to the same customers as other Android gear. Since it is a forked version of Android, Google doesn’t benefit, although it’s all jumbled together when certain industry analysts attempt to paint a better picture of the platform’s market share.

So that takes us to the Chrome-book, and the illusion from that commentator that Apple can somehow build a cheaper note-book by using some sort of “enhanced” version of iOS. Since the OS is given away free — and it’s questionable how much of what you pay for a Mac goes to the costs of building the OS, or even that it’s more than iOS — I hardly see any advantage.

When it comes to the alleged inflated cost of Apple hardware, the so-called “Apple Tax,” a MacBook Air or MacBook Pro uses premium hardware. You match that hardware as much as possible on a Windows PC, and add bundled software that’s superficially similar, and the price difference isn’t that significant. Sometimes it’s nearly non-existent, and at the high end, the Mac Pro is cheaper. And don’t forget the price of a Microsoft Surface 3, which is decidedly not cheap when compared to the MacBook Air.

So much for the alleged price advantage.

Besides, if you want a cheap PC from Apple, there’s always the iPad. If they built one with a screen to match that of the MacBook Air, it would cost almost as much before you added the price of extra storage and more RAM. So where’s the advantage, other than to splinter the platform?

How Apple could somehow build a solid, reliable “Slice” note-book with iOS or OS X and sell it for $400 isn’t explained. Apple could certainly beat the pants of other companies at that price point, because of having a better handle on the raw materials and the supply chain. But you’d still get a load of junk, and the customers who have embraced Apple would be sorely disappointed.

The article goes on to talk about sharing apps, improved battery life and other nonsense that betrays very little knowledge of what Apple does or what it costs to build quality tech gear.

Just as troubling is the claim that the author has 20 years experience working on the Mac, Linux, Unix and Windows platforms. That he can write an article exhibiting such ignorance makes me wonder if he, and the site on which it was published, aren’t simply presenting a ridiculous concept as hit bait.

Besides, are Chrome-books all so successful that Apple should regard them as competitive threats? The author in question seems to think they are, but an IDC survey from last year indicated that Chrome-books had only 1% of the worldwide PC/tablet market. That’s not the 1% of customers any company would crave.

So at the very least, Apple is being urged to build an unprofitable note-book to compete with a platform that has a far lower market share than Macs. Admittedly Chrome-books seem to fare much better in the U.S. in some segments, but that’s hardly something to admire or imitate.

Indeed, when some people who are already using Macs or PCs have asked me whether to consider a Chrome-book, my response is always why? Logic, however, isn’t allowed to get in the way when a blogger wants to generate extra traffic.

As I watched a TV ad for the Microsoft Surface 3 tablet/note-book, intended to compete with the MacBook Air, I was troubled by the lame attempt to draw important differences between the two. While an Apple spot will focus on lifestyle and the things you can accomplish with a Mac, an iPhone or an iPad, Microsoft is hoping a logical appeal, however tenuous, will turn the tide and boost tepid Surface 3 sales.

This approach harkens back to those Surface ads that touted the presence of Skype and Microsoft Office, as if anyone outside of the business world really cares about the latter. It was about specs and features, and not about what you could actually do with the product. I also recall the first Surface ads, where a single person setting up the tablet was soon surrounded by jumping, dancing, prancing fools with noisy music, evidently hoping your senses would be so overwhelmed that you’d become the fool to buy the thing.

The current Surface ads tout such debatable advantages as the presence of a touchscreen and a stylus when compared to the MacBook Air. At the same time, Microsoft’s contender requires an add-on to get the physical keyboard, and convertible note-books, those serving both note-book and tablet functions, haven’t done so well in the Windows PC world. Worse, a Surface 3 costs more than any comparable MacBook Air and, in fact, can be optioned up to the point where the price matches some configurations of the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.

Do you wonder which computer customers will prefer?

Evidently Microsoft still doesn’t get it, and it recalls the statement from Steve Jobs so long ago that the company doesn’t have any taste. In a sense, then, Microsoft products lack soul, and thus are less aspirational products than ones you buy of necessity. You need Office for work, although you can get a perfectly usable version for a Mac or an iPad. But Microsoft’s hardware isn’t doing so well, except for the xBox.

But don’t forget that Microsoft dumped billions into the Xbox before the product became profitable, and those profits still won’t add up to the money lost over the years. But since it all got buried in the tax returns, maybe it doesn’t matter.

What does matter, or should matter, is that Microsoft demonstrates conclusively that hardware isn’t their bag. Having spent over $7 billion to acquire the Nokia handset division, though, it means that Windows Phone isn’t apt to be discontinued anytime soon. A hefty portion of Nokia’s employees, however, are getting pink slips, so it may be the death of a thousand cuts.

Remember, though, that the decision to buy Nokia was made by former CEO Steve Ballmer, not current CEO Satya Nadella. It’s not that Nadella can easily untangle this mess, and I suppose the division could some day be profitable, since a Lumia smartphone is actually pretty decent.

It’s just that the public hasn’t shined to Windows Phone, which remains an afterthought when pitted against gear from Apple and Samsung. Sure, perhaps the Cortana voice assistant, as claimed in those ads, does more things better than Siri, but that may not be sufficient to persuade people to switch from iOS.

One article I read recently suggested Microsoft would do best to dump the Surface and Nokia products. I suppose, after things settle down, Microsoft could pawn off the latter to another company, as Google did with Motorola Mobility. But it seems as if Nadella would still want to retain the Xbox. After all, the losses are history, so why not mine the potential profits as long as possible?

Still, the lion’s share of profits come from Windows and Office. Windows 8 is getting shellacked in the court of public opinion, although sales remain decent. But many new PCs, particularly those purchased by businesses, are promptly downgraded to Windows 7.

Yes, there’s a Windows 9 on the horizon, and the first public beta may be out soon. So far, however, the feature set appears to be less than compelling. There will be a normalized Start menu, and greater emphasis of the desktop. So maybe Windows 9 will be designed to be somewhat of a descendant of Windows 7, although the interface formerly known as Metro isn’t going away.

Supposedly the interface that gets prominence will depend on whether you’re using a traditional Windows PC, or one with touchscreen capability. But homes and offices with the latter will often have the former at hand too, meaning there’s apt to be lots of confusion when switching from one device to the other.

Compare that to the way Apple is handling integration of iOS and OS X, where, when possible, apps will carry the same names, and, with iOS 8, Yosemite and Continuity, they will work closely together. Apple’s note-book keyboards have essentially the same feel as their traditional desktop keyboards, again to reduce the time to relearn the feel and thus make you a more accurate typist and thus more productive.

These are things, however, that aren’t on Microsoft’s radar. Still, it’s early in the game for Nadella, and maybe he’ll be more apt to make significant changes over time to set things right, at least if he understands what’s wrong.

Although there are few complaints about the performance of current iPhones, we are nonetheless obsessed with the specs. So with the iPhone 5s, benchmarks indicated that it had a dual-core A7 processor with an estimated clock speed of 1.29 GHz and 1 GB of RAM. Although those numbers seem lacking when compared to some of those high-end Android smartphones, the iPhone still came out ahead in a number of published benchmarks.

This recalls something Apple said back in the days of the PowerPC, that raw specs alone do not necessarily predict how well the product will fare in performance benchmarks. Of course, that came at a time where the clock speed of the PowerPC was far lower than those of the Intel chips used in PCs.

Nonetheless, since the competition continues to make a huge deal of specs, the speculation has grown over how the iPhone 6 will fare with the rumored A8 processor. Remember that we’re talking about an unreleased product, which means no official specs have been released. Besides, Apple seldom reveals such fineries; that information is determined by independent testers, such as AnandTech, or a benchmarking app.

So what about that A8? Just what will it offer that’s new and different? Well, this is the sort of information that usually doesn’t appear in the rumor sites, although there is certainly plenty of guessing. This time, for example, some of the chatter suggests that the A8 will clock in at 2 GHz on an iPhone, which may seem comparable with a desktop processor, although there are clearly other factors involved in determining actual performance. RAM? Well, a story this week pegs it at 1 GB, same as the A7.

Once again, let me caution you that I have no inside information about the A8 processor, and how it will be configured for the iPhone 6 or the next generation iPad. The stories suggest Apple is sticking with 1 GB to save battery life, although I wonder whether doubling the RAM to 2 GB would have a noticeable impact, particularly if Apple is using a heftier battery. Bear in mind that the rumored larger displays will use far more current than some extra RAM.

One thing is sure, however, and that is that the next iPhone must be able to do more things faster than the current model. Both iOS 8 and apps that support the new OS will make bigger demands on resources, so it would make sense for Apple not to starve the system. That is not the sort of compromise anyone would accept.

At the end of the day, the final specs of the next iPhone will be determined at the first teardown, and benchmarks will be run the very first day units get into the hands of customers. Certainly performance will be better, and perhaps better than the competition.

Whether or not the A8 comes with 1 GB of RAM or more may be a discussion some will want to have in order to see how the iPhone 6 fares against the competition. There are already comparisons based on rumored specs, in fact.

There are also ongoing bullet lists explaining why Android gear is somehow better than an iPhone. You see the usual offenders, such as NFC and the lack of a removable battery. Individual features that Android includes but aren’t available, at least not yet, in the iOS will also be listed.

As a practical matter, though, the NFC matter is debatable. Is that the very best way for mobile devices to connect to each other and payment systems, or does Bluetooth LE get the job done? Yes, there are rumors of NFC support on the next iPhone, but Apple would have to have a long-range gameplan to embrace this feature. They don’t just add extra chips and support circuity to look good on a spec sheet.

The inability to quickly replace a battery, dating back to the very first iPod, is a more substantial argument. It has made for a decent business for third party companies with accessory mobile chargers and add-on battery packs. While the longevity of an iPhone’s battery is competitive, there are some Android smartphones with heftier batteries, and thus you wonder where Apple is going to take this.

Certainly, the wish for a removable battery will never be fulfilled. Apple has even taken the essentially non-removable approach with Mac note-books, because the device can be slimmer and lighter without the added bulk of some sort of mechanism for easy removal.

The rumors for the iPhone 6, the smaller and larger versions, speak of larger batteries, with some photos purporting to represent what Apple will use. Of course larger displays will consume more power, and that would, in part, explain the need for batteries with greater capacity. But some of that might conceivably allow the new iPhone to run longer between charges.

I suppose it’s possible that Apple might have some significant announcements to make about battery life, since that remains one of the major criticisms of most mobile gear. Perhaps the combination of a larger battery, greater power efficiencies in the A8 and iOS 8, plus some new battery technologies might deliver credible results. Apple is already offering you all-day battery life on a MacBook Air. What about two days for an iPhone and an iPad?

It would be nice, but it’s not something you should depend on.

After being the tech media’s darling as the company that would take over the mobile handset industry and destroy Apple, Samsung is finding the traveled road more and more difficult. Sales are flat or declining, and profits are down. They are being hit on the high end by Apple, and on the low end by some new Asian manufacturers, particularly Xiaomi.

To add insult to injury, Xiaomi is clearly making a bid to reach a wider market with their low-cost gear. The initial move in that direction was to hire a former Google executive to handle International sales, although there’s no clear message of a major push into the U.S. But you can still find the products listed at Amazon.

Now Apple and Samsung don’t always compete for the same customers. Apple has concentrated mostly in the premium category, although you can get an iPhone free with a wireless contract or extended payment plan. That, indeed, is Apple’s way to reach a wider audience in China, India and elsewhere without sacrificing profits.

Continue Reading…