For a large company, Apple produces fewer products than some of you might expect. While it’s far more than in the years right after Steve Jobs returned to the company as CEO in the mid-90s, there are endless lists of what Apple ought to build next.

For several years, in fact, industry analyst Gene Munster, currently working at Loup Ventures, insisted that Apple was going to produce a smart TV set. Or at least should produce such a device. But a lot of that emerged from a comment Jobs made, as quoted in “Jobs,” the “official” biography from Walter Isaacson. It was about inventing the best TV interface ever.

But the one you see on the Apple TV does not appear to be all that revolutionary. Was Jobs just ragging on Apple’s competitors to see what they’d do?

In any case, Macworld has continued its policy of writing hit pieces, this time listing the products Apple must give up. Why? Well, I guess if a product hasn’t been updated in a while, it must be “stale” and thus deserve to be disappeared.

Understand that Apple is hugely profitable, and need not apologize for anything it builds whether it’s kept up to date or not. Regardless, I’ll comb through the list and see if these suggestions make any sense.

The obvious candidate is the AirPort, which consists of three products that have been on the market for several years without change other than firmware updates. All this two years after a published report, never confirmed, had it that Apple’s AirPort team had been disbanded.

So are all these models more or less obsolete? While the existing 802.11ac standard has improved over time — and mesh networks promise to provide better coverage in larger homes — the top-of-the-line AirPort Extreme is actually a pretty decent product. It wouldn’t take a lot of development to bring it up to date if Apple cared.

Macworld’s blogger claims that, “Frankly, routers were never really a good fit for Apple’s core competency: designing beautiful products that are easy to use.”

In the real world, AirPort arrived at the beginning of the Wi-Fi revolution, and Apple’s AirPort Utility app made the devices easier to configure than most of the competition, some of which set up default security with a password of “password.” The Arris Panoramic router I used to have came standard from the the ISP, Cox, set up that way.

Now it should be pointed out that a new Wi-Fi standard, 802.11ax, is poised for release in preliminary form in the months ahead, with full deployment expected in 2019. It will mean faster throughput, and the ability to handle far more devices, since so many gadgets offer some form of Wi-Fi these days. If Apple were to reenter the business, that would be a good place to start.

At the very least, one would think Apple would just give it up if there was no plan for the future afoot. But even if the AirPort remains in production as it is, why should it matter? I’m sure if sales were too low, Apple would do what it had to do.

And what about the iPod touch, which is essentially a dated iPhone without the phone, or perhaps the equivalent of a smaller iPad. The latest model dates back to 2015, and doesn’t even have Touch ID, and thus no possible scheme to support for Apple Pay. Perhaps its largest audience consists of children, but is that any reason to kill it off?

(Update!) We have our answer. Apple has now officially discontinued AirPort, and will sell off existing inventory while supplies last.

Although the Mac mini is the product cited next, clearly the blogger is ignoring the very pointed expressions of support, indeed “love” for the product from Tim Cook and other Apple executives. So even though it hasn’t been updated since 2014, there are strong hints in Apple’s pronouncements that something new is afoot. And if not, why should it matter to anyone not obsessed about such matters?

True, if Apple has ongoing plans to enhance the Mac mini, it would have been a good idea to release occasional refreshes to demonstrate a commitment to the product. It would not take a lot of development dollars.

In a similar spirit, the iPad mini 4, the last model released, is three years old. But the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, Apple’s original forays into the phablet game, took sales away, making it seem as if the mini was an interim product. Even though iPad sales have recovered some from a steady stream of losses, the smallest iPad remains untouched. But with the cheapest 9.7-inch iPad available for $329, can the mini’s ongoing existence be justified?

Again, if sales are satisfactory, Apple might be in a holding pattern, or maybe maybe businesses have found a use for them, in which case there’s a strong incentive to keep it around.

The next entry on the list might actually have quite a few takers: iTunes. True it comes across as stuffed, confusing, and allegedly slow. But it has become more efficient at handling larger media libraries, and, to me at least, seems sprightly enough. In large part, however, it’s not as bloated as it seems, with an application size of 275MB on my iMac. Don’t forget it’s essentially a browser, accessing constantly changing online content.

Some suggest it should be broken up into separate apps to handle music, podcasts, video playback and other functions, but how would that change the interface for each function? Wouldn’t five apps take up a lot more space than one? Does the current state of affairs make iTunes the “poster child for app bloat” when the app’s size isn’t all that large? On iOS gear, where resources are tight, perhaps it makes sense to split the functions into separate apps. On a Mac, there are no such constraints, and wouldn’t it be more confusing to have to launch several apps to perform the functions of iTunes? Isn’t it simpler to switch from, say, music to movies by clicking on a single pop-up menu than having to use a separate app? Just sayin’

The final rant is about the “designed by Apple” label, but that’s too absurd to pursue.

At a time where meaningful speculation about the goings on at Apple are at a lower ebb, at least until the March financials are announced next week, comes a few stories about a successor for the cheapest iPhone. Visually, the iPhone SE is very much in the form of an iPhone 5s with most of the guts of the iPhone 6s.

To those who found Apple’s understandable decision to follow the market and build larger iPhones unacceptable, the SE has been popular. Even Macworld’s one-and-only “Macalope” admits to owning one. My wife has an iPhone 5c, similarly sized, and might want to consider replacing it with an iPhone SE 2 should one come out later this year.

Then again, she doesn’t use it that much. She mostly focuses on her iPad, and only began to use her iPhone in earnest during the three weeks we spent stuck in a motel after losing our apartment lease. Since we moved to a new place, she still keeps it around, but hasn’t really used it that much. To her the display is too small, but it fits her tiny purses.

But what form might the iPhone SE’s successor take, and does it really matter all that much in the scheme of things?

Well, the latest rumors have the iPhone SE being a refresh of the original, with more powerful innards. There’s also a report that Apple might “borrow” a feature from the latest models: Wireless charging. That would mean using glass for the rear, same as the iPhone 8 and iPhone X.

Do I sense a yawn?

I suppose it’s neat to have a feature of that sort, if it’s anything you’d care to use. But not necessarily for me.

You see, some years back, I interviewed a company — now out of business — that developed cases for smartphones that enabled wireless charging. It worked well enough, I suppose, but I was quite happy just connecting my iPhone to a charging cable. It seems a more sensible solution than taking along a much larger charging gadget wherever I go, especially the car, in order to recharge my device.

Sure, it works all right with an Apple Watch, and many of you may be using such a charger with your current iPhones. It’s just not my cup of tea, but since the expected iPhone SE 2 won’t be substantially different from its predecessor otherwise, I suppose some of the tech sites were a little too eager to tout something new.

Besides, I wonder how many of these nifty new features really help sell product. Since it’s been two years since the original iPhone SE arrived, having something extra might seem a huge improvement, but I also wonder just how many iPhone users care at all about this sort of wireless charging. I’d be more interested in real wireless charging, where no contact between the device and the charger is necessary.

But the current iteration of wireless charging might help sell product, maybe not for existing iPhone SE users, but those who still have older iPhones that are way past their prime. Imagine, too, if Apple could bring it to market for $299, which is fairly cheap as smartphones go. How? Well, there are published reports that this might be the first model that Apple assembles in India, and perhaps that will provide a way to cut the price.

Apple is also reportedly trying to source OLED displays for the iPhone X and the rumored iPhone X Plus for less money. If that were possible, perhaps these devices will end up costing less. Maybe the larger model would end up costing $999, same as the original iPhone.

Of course that won’t stop people from complaining about price even though it won’t be that much higher than Samsung’s most expensive model. That always remains curious.

Indeed, one of the excuses for the alleged — and so far unconfirmed — claim the iPhone X sales have been poor is based on price. But how does a similar price impact sales of the Samsung Galaxy Note 9? Where are the reports of its sales? Where are the surveys demonstrating that potential customers are passing it by because it’s just too expensive?

Or are sales being impacted by the failure of the Galaxy Note 7 due to swollen and exploding batteries?

Or are the frequent two-for-one sales helping to move more product? While some carriers will offer similar deals on new iPhones, you see them on Samsung gear almost from the first day they go on sale. I just wonder how Samsung can make much of a profit by, in effect, cutting the price in half? Or is it a matter of selling product regardless of profits, which explains why the iPhone now earns an estimated 86% of industry profits.

In any case, I suppose I should be looking out for the next iPhone SE in case I have to find a great deal on one for Barbara.

As most of you know, Apple hasn’t updated its AirPort routers in five years. Even though development has reportedly ceased, there have been occasional firmware updates, and the aging products are still being sold by Apple for the same prices. Perhaps the company feels that the technology hasn’t changed all that much. Most new routers merely refine existing technology, except for those so-called “mesh” gadgets designed to provide better coverage by using multiple devices in a larger home or business.

A quick visit to your local consumer electronics store will reveal a decent selection ranging from the inexpensive to the costlier models that promise better coverage and speed. Unfortunately, the specs don’t reveal much to the prospective purchaser, and they aren’t always as easy to set up as they should be. This is where the AirPort excelled.

The ones I’ve tried recently come with a setup assistant designed to configure the unit to your system. Some offer default network names and tough passwords; others don’t consider password security, which means they are easy to guess unless changed.

Continue Reading…

Once upon a time, there was a huge question mark about whether you could or should attempt to upgrade your Mac. Whether adding RAM or replacing a drive, would the act void Apple’s warranty? But in the early days, except for some of those original all-in-one models, changing RAM was a snap. The top cover of such models as the Macintosh II and the IIcx could be popped open in a flash, giving you easy access to the internal workings.

Later on, as Apple began to produce minitowers, it wasn’t always so easy. By the mid-90s, when Apple’s leadership appeared to be more interested in selling the company than building compelling new products, I recall having to disassemble the thin wiring harnesses around the logic board to get to the RAM slots. Indeed, when some Apple executives held a briefing to testers who had signed up for their “Customer Quality Feedback” program, a new Mac with a rejiggered and simplified upgrade scheme was displayed.

There was a big round of applause from the audience.

In all this, Apple would never penalize you for upgrading your computer by yourself, so long as you didn’t damage something in the process. It was only logical.

Nowadays, adding RAM on a MacBook of any sort is not even possible, since Apple opted to solder memory to the logic board. So you had to buy the product with the RAM you wanted, because the only upgrade possible was an expensive logic board replacement. But the options are straightforward. On the 13-inch models, you get 8GB RAM standard, enough for most users. The upgrade to 16GB, the maximum, is $200. For the 15-inch MacBook Pro, it comes with 16GB already, so there’s nothing to upgrade.

The iMac is a mixed bag. It’s super-easy on the 27-inch model. I manage it in just a few minutes. The 21.5 model requires disassembly of the entire unit, and Apple seals the display assembly to the chassis with adhesive. You’d expect the iMac Pro, a costly workstation version of the larger iMac that caters to pros, to be just as easy as its counterpart. It’s not. Since it requires full disassembly, it’s usually a dealer installation. Again, if you want more RAM, you may want to have it configured that way when you place your order.

Apple offers 32GB standard, which is a decent amount. Then pricing goes awry. For $800, you double the DDR4 ECC memory to 64GB. Going to the maximum of 128GB costs $2,400. Understand that you can save hundreds of dollars if you choose a third-party option and follow the online instructions to take your computer apart. Is it worth it? If I had the money to buy one of these machines, I would certainly put such an upgrade in the hands of a dealer.

But if you do it yourself and seriously damage your expensive workstation, is it reasonable to expect Apple to fix it without cost?

That takes us to a particularly dumb online complaint about Apple refusing to repair an iMac Pro that was evidently wrecked beyond simple repair during the making of a YouTube video. Now maybe the poster believed that ad revenue for this misbegotten project would be sufficient to cover the costs of a replacement.

That didn’t stop him from contacting Apple and being forewarned that it might refuse to repair the unit. But if you can believe the story, Apple Store employees offered to try, but allegedly had difficulty getting the parts, with the claim that “HQ wouldn’t send the parts they ordered.”

If they knew about its condition, I wouldn’t be surprised at any excuse to avoid facing the inevitable. But I find it strange that Apple opted to agree to perform such a repair in the first place, or maybe their support people chose to go the extra mile to satisfy a customer who spent a bundle on a new computer.

But according to an AppleInsider report, the claims made in the video were misleading. Apple’s official policy is that they can refuse to repair gear that exhibits signs of being modified or tempered with. Visible damage would certainly fit into that category. Obviously if you bring in a broken machine, Apple can probably show you the door, or offer to fix it if you’re willing to pay for the replacement parts. But when it comes to a broken logic board and display, the bill may end up being higher than just buying one brand new.

Consider this counterpart: Imagine replacing all the parts of a car seriously damaged in an accident. Depending on the severity of the mishap, once the costs of that repair exceed the value of the vehicle, insurance adjustors will total the car. That’s what happened to me last June when my VW had a disagreement with an old pickup truck that ventured out of its lane. It was enough to trigger the air bags, and enough to seriously damage the engine compartment. The insurance adjuster concluded it was toast. I used the insurance settlement to get a cheaper car and keep the change.

Either way, reassembling a car from the raw components is far more expensive than just buying one assembled. I wonder why it works that way, but that’s how it is.

In any case, this YouTube video featuring someone destroying an iMac Pro and attempting to get warranty service clearly demonstrates that some people have no problem underestimating the intelligence of their audience — or themselves.