Maybe it’s all due to the fact that Apple has relaxed the formerly severe developer NDA. Now, they are essentially free to talk about the new OS versions being tested, so long as they don’t post reviews or screenshots. Well, that hasn’t stopped some from posting screenshots anyway. Besides, some members of the media got copies to write about, so it’s not as if there’s much that will remain hidden.

So it’s not surprising that a whole lot of juicy tidbits have appeared since the WWDC keynote on June 2. At a time where you wondered how Apple might find another 200 new features or enhancements to tout, it appears that the list has soared way beyond that. I just wonder whether Apple will put an absolute number on them, or just let you add ’em all up for yourselves.

As I wrote this column, in fact, someone posted a picture of the About This Mac window from Yosemite. It’s possible it’ll change between now and the expected October release date, but still it’s clear Apple has gone to a prettier, more informative interface. You can find several new features here at a single glance, and there are no doubt others so far undiscovered.

Continue Reading…

It may not have been noticed, but Mac prices have, to a degree, been trending downward. It started with certain configurations of the MacBook Pro with Retina display last year. Earlier this year, a tiny refresh of the MacBook Air brought with it prices that were $100 less. That was more significant, because it brought the low-end model down to $899, the cheapest Mac ever beyond the educational market. More to the point, even the lowliest Microsoft Surface 3 tablet/note-book/whatever, with a keyboard, costs more.

Now there’s yet another rumor of an impending Mac price cut, this time heralding the arrival of the 2014 iMac. Now to be fair, Apple doesn’t always update a Mac unless or until Intel has a new processor family available. The 2013 Macs, other than the Mac Pro, relied on Haswell. The 2014 MacBook Air simply used slightly faster variants from the Haswell family.

But the newest Intel processors, known as Broadwell, are late. They aren’t expected to ship until before the holiday season, meaning it may be too late to get them in sufficient quantities for holiday gear. So it may make sense for Apple to just take the best of the current chips, and build somewhat faster iMacs. That and price cuts of $100-$200 would jump start sales of the venerable desktop line.

This doesn’t mean the iMac is necessarily expensive as all-in-ones go. When you compare them to the usual Windows equivalent, and match up the specs and the value of the bundled software, you’ll see that Apple’s prices are quite competitive. It’s also true that Macs are doing better, overall, than PCs when it comes to growing sales. So it’s very possible Apple is making a move to boost the Mac’s prospects for the summer and back-to-school seasons.

But what about the fall? Well, if a new iMac arrives in June, you hardly expect another update until some time in 2015, no doubt after the Broadwell chips ship in quantity. Of course, I could be all wrong about this. It’s happened before, and maybe Apple will be granted a million or so early-release Broadwell chips for the newest iMac. If that’s the case, fine and dandy, but the advantage of the updated Intel chipsets have been more about conserving power than number crunching.

And, obviously, it doesn’t make a difference with an iMac, as the amount of power you save would have a negligible impact on your electric bill.

Still missing an update, though, is the Mac mini. Today’s model comes from 2012, even though faster chips are available, and an update would probably be trivial to implement. I suppose it’s always possible Apple has something else in mind for the cheapest Mac, although it does have lots of fans who just love them. It could, for example, be modified to become a custom media server. Sure, you can sort of do that now if you assemble the raw apps and do the settings yourself. But that’s not Apple’s way.

Regardless, I would expect the next Mac mini, which might also arrive soon, will be cheaper. The original Mac mini in 2005 started at $499, and a $100 price reduction would return it to that level. Besides, I can’t imagine that Apple’s profits would be seriously impacted. Few worried that $100 cheaper MacBook Airs would hurt.

I suppose the MacBook Pro with Retina display could get a similar update. Slightly faster, somewhat cheaper. That would make sense, and such an update could also come soon. If Apple isn’t jumping to Broadwell, it could arrive any week now. As with a 2014 iMac, its arrival would be heralded with a press release and maybe one or two interview opportunities with Apple executives.

Of course, when you consider prices, the Mac Pro is a “no object” product. In saying that, it’s also true that you can’t match the prices with a home-built PC box. Some have tried and found prices thousands of dollars higher, particularly when maxed out. Even such traditional PC workstation builders as Dell and HP do not have direct equivalents to a Mac Pro that approach the purchase price. With a Mac Pro, there is no Apple tax. There’s a Dell tax, an HP tax, a built-it-yourself tax, etc.

But I tend to doubt the Mac Pro is ready for an update. Only this week did Apple catch up with orders. It’s barely a 2013 model, since it only shipped in limited quantities last December. So it may be that the refresh wouldn’t come until early 2015.

So does that mean there will be little news on the Mac front this fall other than the expected October arrival of OS X Yosemite? Perhaps. But what about Retina display variants of the MacBook Air and the iMac? These two products might herald a “one more thing” at a fall Apple media event. The only question would be how much more you’d have to pay to get the sharper display, or maybe the price will be the same as last year’s versions of both with standard displays? That would be quite a development.

You see, when it comes to predicting anything about the Mac in the twilight of the PC era, all bets are off.

To some, Apple’s new announcements at the WWDC represented a coming of age for the company under the leadership of Tim Cook. It’s certainly more open, considering that developers have a little more freedom to talk about prerelease software. So now they can actually discuss what they’re doing with outsiders, although they aren’t able to actually review the product or post screen shots. Of course, that doesn’t stop some from doing just that, but at least they have a little more latitude.

Little of that impacts anyone outside of our little tech bubble. I mean, if you asked most users of Apple gear what “Mapgate” or “AntennaGate” were all about, their eyes would glaze over. It was never on their radar, even though the first, Maps for iOS 7, was riddled with serious bugs when first released.

In any case, since it is important to the folks who frequent these pages, I’ll focus on the ways some elements of the tech media are unable to understand Apple. It seems curious for a company that has existed since the 1970s. Sure, there have been leadership changes, financial ups and downs, and some really mediocre products over the years. But Apple’s playbook since 1997, when Steve Jobs took over as iCEO, has been crystal clear. Focus on a small number of high-profile gadgets, and support those gadgets with Apple-built software and services.

Oh, and of course earn high profits from everything as much as possible. But services such as iTunes, despite being quite successful even if judged as an independent business, are largely focused on adding value to your iPhone, iPad, Mac and even the usually-neglected iPod touch.

But that doesn’t stop some of the critics from demanding that Apple open the crown jewels — the operating systems — or Siri, iWork and other products to third parties including Android. Sure, anything run from your browser, such as the iCloud version of iWork, is cross-platform. iTunes, iCloud and even the AirPort Utility for an AirPort base station are available for Windows users. After the recent purchase of Beats Electronics, Apple will reportedly allow Android users to continue to access their Beats Music subscriptions.

But since the services and apps are largely designed to service Apple gear, which is where Apple earns the lion’s share of profits, it would be absolutely foolish to open up things too much. If Apple stuff is available on any platform, why buy hardware with the Apple label? And, no, I won’t get into the so-called “Apple Tax.” That’s overblown, and when you compare Apple gear fairly with the competition, including hardware capability and bundled software, the alleged price difference is much less than you expect, and in some cases, non-existent.

Still, Apple clearly picks and chooses which products to offer to Windows users, or to make available online. The critics have no cogent arguments to justify opening up everything.

At the same time, iOS 8 does represent a number of efforts to open the platform to afford more profit-making opportunities for developers. Among the key changes is systemwide support for third-party keyboards. You’ll be able to swap in keyboards from Swype and other companies and have it replace the one Apple provides, and several companies who deliver such apps to Android are already planning iOS versions.

Apple’s decision to allow iOS apps to talk to one another, to add features and services, creates all sorts of fascinating possibilities for new and enhanced features. You can add this and other methods to open up the platform and rightly state that you could do some of that in different ways on other mobile platforms. But that’s never the point. Apple doesn’t so much invent a new product category as make it viable. Consider the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad as examples.

One of the most important new iOS features is HealthKit, which has the potential of revolutionizing the early 20th century methods of creating and storing medical information. So much of it is still done with paper, so much of it is done with medical instrumentation that doesn’t even talk to each other. You wonder how many people get subpar care because the medical records are not integrated, or they forgot to mention a critical tidbit of information to a nurse or a doctor as the same questions were repeated over and over again. I want to assume your privacy will be respected.

Clearly, HealthKit may be a key component of the iWatch, should such a product appear. That and HomeKit would be tailor made for a wearable device don’t you think?

Perhaps that’s the reason why financial and media pundits seem suddenly so positive about Apple’s future projects. Even though Samsung is, for example, making a half-hearted health-related initiative in the Galaxy S5, it smacks of a desperate effort to hold off Apple at the pass. It didn’t work. Who is still talking about Samsung, or about Microsoft and the Surface 3 for that matter? Not many it seems.

Let me put my cards on the table. This site and my two radio shows are, in large part, funded by advertising. There’s no magnanimous purpose involved. I just want to pay the bills, and the same is true for others. While erratic, advertising is certainly an honest way to make a living, with the assumption that the products and services offered are honest.

I’ve tried to keep the ads from being too intrusive. There are banners surrounding content on this site, but the posts are front and center and, I hope, not overwhelmed. True, my radio shows are ad-heavy, and the same is true for other network shows in the U.S. In my defense, let me say that the network doesn’t pay me for their ads, but requires that they be run even in the online versions of the show. You can also fast forward through them if you prefer, just as many of you do now when you record a TV show with your DVR.

I also know that there are ad blockers out there that kill everything but the content. I have installed a WordPress plugin to request that you turn them off when visiting my sites, for the simple reason that advertisers who get new business will renew. Otherwise, they’ll take their money elsewhere.

So much for being selfish to survive.

But it’s also true that there are schemes out there that put ads in your face and require that you dismiss them to actually read the content. Among the most blatant offenders are interstitials, which are ads that put up a window before or after the actual content. You may have the pop-up blocker enabled on your browser, but interstitials, or hyperstitials, the full-screen variant, manage to bypass those restrictions. In passing, maybe it’s time browser developers find ways to deal with that. Some third-party ad blockers can manage the task.

I don’t need to remind you which sites use interstitials. You know who they are, and it’s up to you whether you want to dismiss them to read the actual content on the site. Long ago, I tried pop-ups for about a day, and got flooded with complaints. It’s hardly likely that I’ll consider interstitials, and I wonder how much business they can possibly generate for an advertiser if the potential customer is being put-off by the presentation. But that’s just me.

There’s yet another ad scheme that’s a little more subtle but even more irritating. That’s the auto-play video. You visit a site, and, without your intervention, the content plays a few seconds later. Usually there’s a short ad, similar to a TV spot, after which the unwanted content is played.

Now I don’t know about you, but I do not approve of auto-play, particularly without your advance consent. Consider the impact if you’re doing research for a client with whom you’re having an online conference or phone call, or perhaps doing an interview for a radio show. Suddenly the video starts blaring at full volume while you’re trying to get business done.

Imagine what might happen in an office environment, though I suppose the IT people at a larger company will install needed browser extensions, or activate appropriate preferences, to preserve the sanctity of the office environment. But playing hip-hop on a boom box is not relevant to this discussion.

Yes, I know there are ways to turn off this “feature,” but you shouldn’t have to jump through any extra hoops to stop the noise. I just wonder what the companies who run those sites are thinking when they pull those stunts. I mean, if they really want you to watch that video, just put in some content that’ll attract your attention along with a big Play button. Let the visitor decide.

Now it’s perfectly true that we’ve been overwhelmed by banners, and it gets harder and harder to persuade people to click or tap them to learn about a product or service. Google, Microsoft Bing and other search engines keep trying to perfect methods to target ads that attract you, and we do use Google AdSense here, for better or worse. I also try to find willing advertisers who have something to offer that’ll interest you.

At the same time, prices for banners keep going down. In turn, publishers continue to look for ways to put more ads in your face, in the hope of generating extra income. Certainly I’ve been tempted, but I want to show respect and not force you to tap through annoying content to read or hear what I have to say. It’s not easy.

Of course there is one way to stop the interstitials and other over-the-top advertising schemes, and that’s to stop visiting the offending site. Or let the blogger or publisher know that you don’t want to go through extra steps to read their content. I have to think they will pay attention if traffic seriously drops. At the same time, advertisers and ad networks will continue to look for even more intrusive ways to reach customers.

Or perhaps they will devise methods that will succeed in getting their messages across while, for a change, not turning off potential customers in the process.