Any day now, Apple’s long-awaited Mac Pro refresh will go on sale. Before you consider the spectacular looks that convey the impression of a fashion statement as much as a powerful technological tool, you want to consider the fact that it was long believed that Apple didn’t care about power users. It was all about consumers first and foremost, since that’s where the lion’s share profits are to be made.

When it comes to Macs, the need to buy the most expensive Mac, a workstation that could, when fully configured, cost over $10,000, was seriously hurt by the arrival of the late 2009 iMac. Up till then, the iMac was just a consumer computer. It was fast enough, but content creators required the Mac Pro, and that, as they say, was that.

So, for example, I had a 2008 Mac Pro with a 30-inch Dell display, and I was quite comfortable with the setup. But the prospects for the iMac were intriguing. You could option it with an Intel quad-core i7 processor, capable of Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost. The former, a multithreading feature, allowed the four cores to act as eight. The latter would boost clock speeds under some circumstances, generally when fewer cores were being used.

The iMac sounded awfully powerful for a price that, some built-to-order options, was less than $2,500. I added a FireWire 800 backup drive and ended up with something still below three grand. In turn, I was able to sell that Mac Pro and display and recover the cost of the iMac, and maybe pay the electric bill. It was a great deal.

Indeed, except for chores that required more than four cores, an iMac often benchmarked as fast or faster than a Mac Pro. And I wasn’t the only so-called power user to see the advantage. More and more customers who’d formerly buy a Mac Pro decided the iMac was all the computer they actually needed. Indeed, today’s iMac, with one of those Fusion drives — which combines a 128GB flash drive with a traditional hard drive — is a pretty powerful beast.

Yes, as I said, a Mac Pro is still capable of more performance for certain tasks, such as 3D rendering and mathematics, and content creators might have looked to the Windows market as Apple’s plans become muddied. With the announcement of a totally redesigned 2013 configuration, there was renewed hope that maybe Apple hadn’t abandoned the professional market.

Sure, you had to wonder about Apple’s intentions when Final Cut Pro X came out in 2011. The price and the interface seemed tailor made to capture students and prosumers, but video editors protested because Apple cut out some key features they required for their workflow. Apple PR rushed to handle the negative publicity, promising that all or most of the missing features would ultimately be restored often in a new and improved form. This is reminiscent of Apple’s approach to the new iWork, which was redesigned from the ground up to be fully compatible for OS X, iOS and the cloud. Apple has to fix the messaging problem.

Certainly, the Mac Pro is equipped for action, with a multiple core Intel Xeon E5 processor, and a pair of AMD FirePro graphics processors. Indeed, Apple was often criticized for offering subpar graphic cards. The new tubular container weighs just 11 pounds, compared to about 40 pounds for the older oversized cheese grater configuration.

But all this joy comes at a price, and not just the upfront cost. You see, aside from being able to upgrade RAM and replace the internal solid state drive, the rest of the expansion is all external. You have four USB 3.0 ports and six Thunderbolt 2 ports. When the external hardware is available, and some products have already been announced, the latter will let you attach multiple solid state RAID drives and external expansion cards.

From the standpoint of convenience, I suppose it’s better to have everything inside. That allows for some level of portability, and I gather you might see breakout boxes that will serve as containers for a Mac Pro, which will allow for easy transport. But it also means you can separate the Mac Pro from the likely peripherals it’ll need, and all those external ports mean a larger variety than would you could configure inside the original minitower.

The main question, of course, is convenience and expandability. Some would prefer that most everything be installed inside a Mac Pro, whereas others might appreciate the larger range of potential external expansion options. This is the sort of argument that may not be resolved until sales of the new model are tallied. But even then, there’s little chance Apple would go back. More than likely, they’ll simply stay the course. The won’t be a Mac Pro Maxi with a larger case and a few internal slots.

To Apple, having a high-end prestige workstation with a unique design would certainly nail the company’s commitment to professional users. But for those who prefer the traditional minitower approach, which has served the industry well for decades, it may be a huge mistake.

It’s a sure thing that, regardless of the reception of the new Mac Pro, it’ll be expensive. The starting price of $2999 will cover a 27-inch iMac with lots of options. With the Mac Pro, you’ll still need a display, and, at the very least, one or more larger drives and a lot more RAM (you only get 12GB with the entry-level model). The sky’s the limit, and that sky may be too high for some potential customers.

So there’s a story this week that raises yet another theoretical question, which is whether Apple plans to somehow enter the tablet price wars and sell iPads real cheap. It doesn’t matter where the story originated, since it doesn’t deserve a link. But there’s a long study of tumbling prices of tablets,  wondering how Apple can stay the course without suffering big time in sales and market share.

Of course, this brings to mind the chronic complaints that Macs cost too much, and that Apple was wrong not to enter the cheap PC market even as Windows boxes became cheaper and cheaper. Did I say cheaper?

Apple’s argument is that the company doesn’t make junk. But that doesn’t mean Apple doesn’t make inexpensive gadgets. You can, after all, buy an iPod for as little as $49, and a Mac mini is $599. Well, as computers go, $599 is actually regarded as somewhere in the middle of the price range, if you can believe how far things have come. It’s also not regarded as a huge seller. The far more expensive iMac has that honor, but the best selling Mac is a note-book, the MacBook Air, which starts at $999. That, too, is regarded is quite high for portables except when compared to so-called UltraBook competitors, which may actually cost the same or somewhat more. When you add touchscreen capability, it can be a lot higher.

When it comes to tablets, sure you can buy one for $50, and it might even work, more or less, for a time. But there are valid reasons why millions pay more for an iPad, which begins at $299 for the original iPad mini. In passing, the media originally overestimated the price of the first iPad, which was assumed to be closer than $1,000 rather than the actual $499 starting price. Other companies were flummoxed and were unable to sell gear that was the same price or higher. So they made them cheaper.

That lead to solutions from Google, under the Nexus brand and Amazon, under the Kindle brand, which sell for roughly the cost of making them. So there’s little or no profit, and when costs get lower, it appears prices are lowered rather than take some more profit from the gadget.

Now Amazon and Google have similar marketing schemes. Sell the hardware with little or not profit, and make it up with the sale of other products and services. It’s the old printer and consumable scheme. Here Amazon will fare better, because the online catalog is so expansive. So the Kindle becomes a worthy loss leader. With a Nexus smartphone or tablet, it’s not as certain, as Google Play is nowhere near as prosperous as the App Store.

Yes, I suppose large numbers of buyers are happy to pay less for something, and it’s true that the best Android gear is probably a match for Apple’s in many respects. But most of it is just inexpensive junk. You can’t, for example, expect much value in the $69 Nextbook 7-inch tablet that I found over at Walmart’s site. And that’s not quite the cheapest. There’s a 7-inch RCA tablet for $59.99, but that’s not the RCA of old. The hardware portion of the tradename is owned by ON Corporation, a Korean electronics maker who specializes in cheap gear. Sure, RCA was once the brand name for decent quality gear, but that was long ago and far away, but ON is no doubt hoping people will be deluded into believing the brand still counts for something.

So should Apple abandon all hope of earning high revenues and profits to chase after volume and low prices? Does the question even make sense except to fulfill the foolish fantasies of tech and financial pundits who have lost a grasp of reality?

Yes, I suppose it’s true that Apple might have to change the business plan some day, particularly if sales and profits aren’t keeping pace. But that doesn’t mean a wholesale rush to the bottom is required. It may well be that Apple will just have to modify price and profit structures a little to remain competitive. You may have already seen some of that on the Mac platform with lower prices for the MacBook Pro with Retina display updates, and some of the latest MacBook Air configurations. Certainly offering OS X Mavericks free, and making iWork free for people who buy new Macs, or who already have a recent version, is yet another example of making Macs a better value.

But you can’t exactly call them cheap. Apple still charges fair prices for what you get, just as they do with the iPhone and iPad. Telling Apple how to do business just doesn’t make a lick of sense so long as the company is doing well. The problem has always been that Apple is being evaluated in the same fashion as companies that do things differently, assuming those differences are better regardless of the facts.

The other day, I read yet another revisionist story about Microsoft’s 1997 investment in Apple, claiming that the $150 million influx was necessary to prevent bankruptcy. That, however, is an urban legend. The truth is that the investment was actually part of a settlement between the two companies over various intellectual property lawsuits. Don’t forget that Apple had been after Microsoft for years for alleged theft of the Mac OS interface and other matters.

The most important part of the deal, however, was validating the future of the Mac, with Microsoft agreeing to continue to develop Office for the next five years. Apple also agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser, which continued until the early years of OS X when development languished. So Safari took over and MSIE disappeared from the Mac platform.

So much for urban legends.

What’s unfortunate is that, once falsehoods of this sort are spread and given even a modicum of credibility, corrections no longer seem to matter. It just gets repeated over and over again as if it were true. Sure, Apple was in deep trouble financially back then, but Microsoft’s check wasn’t meant as a lifeline.

Now over the years, Microsoft and Apple have remained frenemies. They compete in some places, cooperate in others. So Office is still being supported on the Mac, and I assume a new version will be out one of these years. You also select Microsoft Bing as a search option for Safari, but both companies are head-t0-head competitors for mobile gear and personal computers.

If this arrangement seems strange, don’t forget that Apple and Samsung compete in the mobile space, yet the latter still supplies parts to the former. Somehow this all works out, though less well with Samsung in light of those patent lawsuits. That’s an area where Apple and Microsoft buried the hatchet with that 1997 settlement.

Now there’s a really screwy theory about where the Apple/Microsoft partnership may lead. It has already been presented on one of the cable TV news outlets without critical comment, so the person who came up with this curious idea doesn’t deserve any more publicity.

So imagine Apple and Microsoft becoming cozier and cozier and, five or ten years hence, actually merging. Really?

Now it’s probably hard to make sense of this theory, except that this supposed alliance is somehow necessary to go up against the onslaught of Google and Face-book. Otherwise, Apple is toast, I suppose, and Microsoft can’t be far behind.

Understand that the tech business is changing really fast, and trying to guess what might happen over the next half a decade or even further out is probably an exercise in futility. But you can look at trends and try to make sense of them.

So, yes, Google’s Android platform dominates the mobile space both in smartphones and tablets. But that’s very much a matter of selling millions and millions of cheap Android gadgets. Profits are mostly confined to two companies in the mobile hardware game, with Apple number one and Samsung number two. Sure, I suppose it’s possible Apple might be forced to consider cheaper gear to expand into the third world. But it’s more certain they’ll remain as they are now, confident and secure with products that have much higher average selling prices.

One argument has it that developers might begin to switch in large numbers to the Android platform, rather than continue parallel development on Google’s OS. But that would require Android becoming a more lucrative proposition than it is now. But the rush to the bottom of the market isn’t going to reach many people who might actually pay for apps. Besides, with so many Android handsets stuck with older versions of the OS, developers are going to continue to have an awful time trying to deliver the latest and greatest features.

In any case, a dismal future of this sort presupposes that Apple’s market share will seriously decline, that revenue and profits will be challenged and that, with Microsoft suffering from the erosion of Windows, and the ongoing failure of Windows Phone to catch on except in a small way, an alignment would be inevitable.

That presupposes an awful lot. But at the end of the day, wouldn’t Apple prefer to just allow Microsoft to die on the vine? Other than Office, there’s not much in Microsoft’s product arsenal that would attract Apple. No, not the Xbox. To Apple, mergers must have valid reasons, generally to acquire new technology. Buying a company, failing or otherwise, with decades of baggage simply fails the logic test.

As to Face-book: I don’t see the point, or how the number one social network competes with Apple or Microsoft. Sure, there have been rumors of Face-book-branded hardware, but wanting and executing are not the same. That Face-book mobile interface, dubbed Home, was one big failure.

Or maybe Apple and Microsoft should be worrying about Twitter. Or maybe worry about a couple of entrepreneurs in a garage who may truly come up with the next great thing.

Some potential Apple products are thought of as inevitable. Despite the lack of evidence of an Apple TV set, you may feel it will arrive one of these days simply because Steve Jobs developed some sort of amazing user interface that would, I suppose, revolutionize the living room. But remember that he didn’t actually say it would appear on a set rather than some other product.

Now there is no similar eureka moment for an Apple wearable device, which most call the iWatch. Such a beast continues to be viewed in the context of existing so-called smartwatches, meaning a watch with a squarish or rectangular LCD display, and a band. Period. Existing products, such as the Pebble, are considered today’s trendsetters for such gear, and other smartwatches appear to follow in its footsteps.

Now at $150, the Pebble would seem to be a pretty good deal. But it doesn’t work in a vacuum. For it to do its thing, you’ll have to mate it with your iOS or Android gear via Bluetooth. So it’s not a standalone device, but a wearable accessory offering a handful of basic functions. So if you’re busy and can’t fetch your smartphone from pocket or purse, the Pebble will alert you of important emails and text messages. You get a call, you’ll see the caller’s name on the Pebble’s 1.26-inch display. There will also be readouts for exercise and such, and there’s apparently a growing app ecosystem for the device.

When it comes to notifications, I can see the logic in a Pebble. If you’re at a business meeting, or watching a movie, it would be downright rude to take out your smartphone. But wearing a watch is perfectly normal, so if you see a tiny notice about something that requires a quick response, you can opt to walk towards the concession stand to follow up, or just ignore it.

I suppose, as accessories go, a smartwatch seems perfectly useful, although it’s far from what anyone would call a mass market success. So as of July 4, 2013, some 85,000 Pebbles have been sold. The pricy Samsung Galaxy Gear smartwatch may have done better, but it didn’t set the world afire either. The Pebble’s sales level is small potatoes for Apple, so the question is whether there is any potential.

Now when it comes to music players, none succeeded until the iPad, so is the iWatch capable of that level of success?

One obstacle is that many of you don’t wear watches anymore. You rely on your smartphones or another gadget with which to check the time, or you just don’t bother. I suppose I’m an old timer, since I’ve worn a watch since I was quite young, and I currently use a silver-colored Guess watch with a few additional buttons and doodads. It’s not so much a fashion accessory as a way to, well, keep track of the time.

If you’re going to consider a Pebble a standard-bearer, though, it has one fatal flaw, and that is its status as an accessory. Is that the approach Apple plans to take? Or would Apple consider making the mythical iWatch some sort of standalone device that combines a subset of smartphone functions, such as the ability to actually work as a phone, without requiring an iPhone or an iPad within Bluetooth range? Of course, with phone capability should come a Bluetooth headset. Maybe Dick Tracy didn’t mind bringing his watch to his face to talk to someone, but not in the real world.

Of course, packing the power of a smartphone into such a small form factor isn’t going to be cheap. Yes, Apple surely has the technology chops to make a great product that would blow away the competition and make smartwatches relevant.

But at what cost?

Right now, the cheapest iPhone, the 4s, is $450 unlocked. Compared to a full-fledged smartphone, an iWatch would be stripped down, and it’s a sure thing that a Retina display adds a healthy number to the manufacturing costs. So would Apple be able to deliver an iWatch for, say, $300 without a carrier contract? If so, wouldn’t that make it free with a contract? How can you argue with free?

Or would all that miniaturization make the first iWatch more expensive?

I would’t presume to want to do real estimates of manufacturing costs, or potential sales and profits. That’s Apple’s game, but you can rest assured there will not be an iWatch of any sort unless the numbers add up. There’s also that nagging question about demand. You know there would be a substantial built-in audience for an Apple TV set if it could be delivered at a price that represents only a slight premium over existing mid-priced units. The demand for a smartwatch has yet to be demonstrated.

You see, to a small company such as Pebble, selling 85,000 of anything has the potential of delivering decent profits. Apple needs to move tens of millions for an iWatch to leave hobby status and become a mainstream product.

Sure, early adopters would lap them up. Once initial demand is satisfied, can Apple deliver the proper combination of features, good looks and value to boost demand? And where would it come from? Would existing iPhone users get an iWatch as an accessory, or would it become Apple’s value smartphone for those who need to be notified of important messages, are concerned with physical fitness, or just need to make a few phone calls?

These are questions I wouldn’t presume to answer, although I wouldn’t say no if someone presented me with an iWatch that met the basic requirement of being capable of standalone operation. But I’m hardly a candidate for this sort of market research.