The latest spanking new (sort of) rumor about the next iPhone mentions two sizes. There will be a 4.7-inch iPhone 6 for regular people, and a 5.5 inch version for those who are caught up in the phablet revolution, or whatever you wish to call it.

Only these stories aren’t new. The Wall Street Journal published an article about similar configurations some months back. The latest rumors quote the usual supply chain sources that have allegedly seen the actual prototypes.

Even if true, that doesn’t mean that any of these models will actually go into production. It’s a sure thing that Apple tests all sorts of configurations before making the final decisions about what to release. But some of the newest rumors are peculiar, because they refer to displays that have no left-right bezel whatever. The screen continues right to the edge, which is a damned peculiar design decision, assuming you can take it seriously.

The news outlets reporting these claims without comment forget one thing. It’s called a case, and the case will overlap the corners of the unit, thus covering a portion of the display. I suppose you can envision a case that covers the sides, and only overlaps top and bottom, which will look rather strange. But they won’t slide off too easily, as opposed to a case with no overlap whatever.

Apple, however, is very much into usability, and you would have to hold your iPhone differently to avoid covering up some of the screen, but why? To reduce the size of the case by a quarter of an inch?

For some reason, though, the next iPhone is being strangely connected to what Samsung will be doing this year. So one particularly stupid source is asserts that, “Apple doesn’t do anything until Samsung does it, and then they improve on it.”

But how does that lame proclamation explain the 64-bit A7 chip, the M7 coprocessor, or Touch ID? Answer: It doesn’t. It’s just another foolish comment by someone who is getting coverage without critical comment. Except here.

Sure, I’m in no position to dispute the claimed sizes or form factors for the next generation iPhone. But I will use a little logic based on what Apple executives have already stated.

We have, for example, Tim Cook, who doesn’t dismiss the concept of a larger iPhone. But he speaks of problems with picture quality, longevity, and the impact of a larger display to battery life. Sometimes, when Apple denigrates a product category, it means they are working on what they perceive to be a solution.

So if there is a 4.5-inch or 4.7-inch or some other larger iPhone, Apple will tout the superior picture quality, the minimum impact to the overall size of the unit, and battery life that matches or exceeds the current levels. Of course, some believe that Apple needs to offer longer battery life, but that’s another matter.

The other issue is being able to conveniently manage an iPhone with one hand, which is what Apple touted when the screen grew from 3.5 inches to 4 inches. That’s not so easy on the 5-inch Samsung Galaxy S4, and certainly impossible on a Galaxy Note phablet. Besides, sales of the iPhone do not appear to be seriously impacted by the lack of a larger model.

If Apple goes that direction — and the current 4-inch iPhone 5s, and maybe the iPhone 5c, will no doubt remain in production — the end result will be large but not too large. While phablets appear to have gained traction in Asia, particularly South Korea, that doesn’t mean that mean that Apple must jump into that sandbox. The real question is whether phablets have staying power, whether people, upon being exposed on an extended basis to an overgrown smartphone, might just choose something smaller next time.

Remember those incessant demands that Apple build a netbook before the iPad came to be? But after the iPad arrived, sales of netbooks collapsed. Not just because of the iPad, but because those shrunken portable computers simply didn’t satisfy customers, although they were popular for a while.

Besides, Apple doesn’t latch onto trends; the goal is to start trends. Consider that most of the smartphones out nowadays are descended from the original iPhone form factor. They might be larger, more powerful, and do more things — needed or otherwise — but the originator is undeniable. It’s not about the BlackBerry, which provided the major inspiration in the market before Apple jumped in.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t begin to suggest what an iPhone 6 would be like. A larger handset would seem a real possibility, although you can’t depend on the sizes being mentioned on the rumor sites as being accurate. But with rampant supply chain leaks, something will coalesce closer to the time of the new model’s actual release date.

It’s a sure thing that Apple won’t jump into the bigger, bolder, badder game that other smartphone makers are playing. If there’s a larger iPhone, Apple will find a way to justify the move in a way that makes it at least seem different — one hopes better.

Imagine the dilemma Apple would face if the majority of Mac users still used the original version of OS X released in 2001. Of course that would be a near-impossible situation for the simple reason that most of the Macs still in service can’t run that OS — it’s too old. What’s more, OS X 10.0 was little more than the second public beta for Apple’s Unix-based OS.

If you recall, it was somewhat feature limited. CD support was lacking, and printing was hit or miss. Performance was slow even on the fastest Macs. In those days, Apple didn’t even support hardware acceleration for interface elements, such as Finder windows. This is why Apple held off making OS X the default system on new Macs. For a while, they’d ship with Mac OS 9 as the default, and OS X as the alternative primarily for testing purposes.

Windows XP, also released in 2001, was decidedly different. After years of hits and misses, most everything coalesced into a pretty decent OS. After some service packs, it became reliable, fast, and not as malware-prone as earlier Microsoft operating systems. It’s no wonder that the adoption rate soared, and it’s been near impossible to convince tens of millions of Windows users to upgrade.

According to a recent Web metrics report, which basically checks traffic on a number of sites around the world, Windows XP had a slightly less than 30% share of the global market. That number seems almost incredible, considering Microsoft has issued no less than three reference releases since then: Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 (now at version 8.1).

Worse, PCs that don’t go online, or only access private online networks (such as banks and merchant processing systems), aren’t counted by such metrics schemes. It’s reported, for example, that 95% of the ATM machines in the U.S. run on Windows XP. So the actual number of users may be far higher than that recent estimate.

It’s not that Microsoft hasn’t tried to convince people to upgrade, but they haven’t made it easy. For one thing, there’s no simple installation scheme to go direct from Windows XP to, say, Windows 7, which is considered the best successor. Unlike the user experience on a Mac, if you want to take a PC running Windows XP — and let’s assume the hardware is up to the task — to Windows 7, you basically have to rebuild the hard drive from scratch. That means wiping it clean, installing the new OS, and reinstalling all your apps. Of course, you have to make sure your apps are even compatible, so there may be the expense of buying and installing upgrades before you can get back to business.

As you can see, consumers would probably prefer to just buy a new PC, and they are cheap enough if you’re just interested in something for casual use, such as going online and managing email. That’s the hope of PC makers, although Microsoft earns more revenue if you buy a retail OS upgrade. Manufacturers — or OEMS — pay far, far less for a Windows license.

A business would probably create a master disk image for deployment across a company’s network. But there still has to be extensive testing to make sure that the mission-critical software needed by the company is compatible, not to mention peripheral drivers.

In my travels, I still see PCs running Windows XP in business environments. From medical and legal offices to dry cleaners, if something works, why switch?

Microsoft’s latest effort to dump Windows XP is to stop support as of April of this year, but such deadlines have slipped before. You also wonder why they haven’t offered a simple upgrade path. Other than buying a new Windows PC with the latest OS preloaded — and HP is now offering Windows 7 because Windows 8 is a non-starter — why should any individual or company go through the horrendous upgrade process? Forget the purchase price.

While Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, has a lot on his plate to remake the company for the 21st century, one of his key jobs ought to be finding a way to persuade customers to abandon Windows XP. Just saying it won’t be supported isn’t sufficient, although some businesses will take the hint and get with the program.

Now I know Microsoft doesn’t care what I have to say, although some of their people do visit this site. My suggestion would be to offer both Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 as a cheap upgrade — say $29.99 — for people who are still using Windows XP. The special upgrade kit would only function on those older PCs, and would include a special installer that would handle whatever needs to be handled to simplify the process for even the novice PC user.

Such an installer might require that you run an analysis tool first to determine what apps and peripheral drivers you need to upgrade, or replace. I suppose Microsoft could strike deals with key peripheral makers and app developers to get you free or inexpensive upgrades that could even be included as part of the OS upgrade process.

This may seem rather complicated. But, other than convincing tens of millions of PC users to dump their computers and buy new models, what can Microsoft do? This sorry situation is complicated by the fact that people aren’t buying as many PCs as they used to. I suppose many Windows users might use the occasion to buy a tablet instead. For Microsoft, it’s late in the game. Nadella can prove his mettle by putting this problem at or near the top of his agenda and announcing a solution that actually works.

So there’s a report out today from one tech site with a headline proclaiming that Apple CEO Tim Cook has confirmed that new product categories will be entered this year. Imagine that! But what most concerns me about that headline is that this is absolutely nothing new. Cook has been saying the very same thing for months now, so why should any of it become news all over again?

If I was writing the headline, I’d say something like “Tim Cook Repeats Promise that Apple Will Enter New Markets this Year” or new categories, or something that reflects accurately the official company mantra.

Now I would think, after all this, that Cook fully believes what he says, that Apple is working on products that will move the company into new markets. Fair enough. It’s also legitimate to speculate on what, but most of that conversation is stuck on wearables and TV.

The auto industry isn’t included, because iOS in the Car has already been announced.

Now a certain controversial politically conservative personality has referred to the press as the “lamestream media,” although that label can better be applied to a certain organization that pays her a salary. However, I wouldn’t object to the phrase “lame tech media” or “lame financial media,” because some supposed members of the press are doing a disservice to the profession.

So in addition to treating old news as something new, there are those false impressions that never seem to get corrected. So, yes, the iPhone 5c sold in much fewer numbers than the iPhone 5s, meaning higher average sale prices. From a financial point of view, if customers are paying more for a company’s products, that should be good news.

The problem is that some media pundits believe that the iPhone 5c was meant to be a cheap product, and that Apple failed by not making it cheap. But what about the iPhone 4S, which is free with a standard cellular contract? What about the iPhone 4, which has been kept in production for sale in developing countries? Oh yes, that information was treated as something new as well, when it was just a repetition of something that is already known by members of the press who are paying attention.

Yes, it appears to be true that Apple’s estimate of the product mix was off the last quarter, so they say, and that more higher-priced gear was sold. But the iPhone 5c, by all estimates I’ve seen, did better than last year’s mid-priced model, the iPhone 4s. In addition, it evidently did better than Samsung’s Galaxy S4, which was supposed to be a huge success.

If the past is the guide, the iPhone 5c would become the free-with-contract iPhone with the next model refresh. If, however, Apple gives up on plastic, it would mean it didn’t perform well enough. But if Apple keeps them in production, the critics will try to tell you that Apple is too stupid to see the handwriting on the wall.

Just for a simple reality check, my wife has an iPhone 5c, in white, and she hasn’t complained about bad performance or poor looks. Of course it’s kept safely in a clear plastic case framed in pink, so maybe it doesn’t matter.

Now even when Apple hasn’t introduced a product, there will be complaints. So consider those reports of alleged production problems with the iWatch.

Did I say iWatch?

Well, you haven’t awakened in a different reality. There is no iWatch, at least no such product has been announced. Sure, it’s very possible Apple has one under development, and prototypes are now being tested. Those tests would likely include production efficiency, and it may well be that the supply chain is accurate that there are some problems that need to be resolved before such a gadget is brought to market.

However, that’s nothing new for Apple, famous (or infamous) for using difficult fabrication processes to deliver gear with the proper look and feel. But Apple generally straightens things out, although some might suggest the failed Power Mac G4 Cube of the early 2000s always had an assortment of assembly issues with the sophisticated plastic casing.

So if Apple releases an iWatch this fall, and deliveries are weeks or months behind because of unresolved and chronic production issues, that would be a problem. But not now, even if you assume the rumors have some basis in fact.

In the end, Apple could decide an iWatch is not yet a viable product, but you can’t use existing smartwatches as anything more than rough guides over what Apple might deliver. Remember Apple’s penchant for entering new markets and solving ongoing problems.

I’ll admit I don’t know if there will be an iWatch, an Apple connected TV, or anything in either category in the offing for later this year. There may be other product categories that the media isn’t thinking about where Apple is poised to introduce something designed to amaze you. But, no, there will not be an Apple toaster oven, or some toaster oven/refrigerator combo. Besides, hasn’t Microsoft tried something that conveys a similar impression already?

You’ve heard the promise from Tim Cook over and over again, that Apple has new products in the pipeline for 2014 that will amaze us, and besides, they will be in new categories. In other words, he’s clearly implying that Apple is going to attempt to recreate the magic of the introduction of the original iPhone and iPad.

Or that’s how it seems, although the promise is vague enough not to predict any product or product category.

But it’s also clear that, for Cook to fulfill that promise — and I expect that he will — you’d have to see something more than a fancy iPhone, iPad or Mac refresh. A new product category clearly means none of the above.

Continue Reading…