So there was a published report this week, from no less than the Wall Street Journal, claiming that Apple had severely cut back on orders for the mid-priced iPhone 5c. As you might expect, a raft of stories were posted claiming that demand for the “cheap” iPhone had plummeted, for why else would Apple order fewer units? Besides, didn’t some large retailers have sales cutting the upfront price in half?

Doesn’t that prove that the public wasn’t taking to the iPhone 5c despite all those TV ads?

You can parse these reports in many ways, and there’s no simple answer. Yes, it’s possible Apple did reduce orders, but that doesn’t mean that production rates for such a product must be consistent in the fashion of a wristwatch. Supply and demand may shift from time to time, and quantities ordered will vary from vendor to vendor. There may be a rush to get initial product into the channel, after which the production lines can cool down. Tim Cook said on more than one occasion that you can’t use a single supply chain metric to measure actual customer demand. That pronouncement came on the heels of claims that demand for the original iPhone 5 had collapsed, which was decidedly untrue.

Of course, the people who talk Apple’s stock down with their fake or misleading statements never seem to suffer the consequences, even if someone’s investments in the company are worth much less as a result.

After the iPhone 5c and 5s were introduced in September, some ill-informed members of the media struggled to picture the launch as a failure. It didn’t matter that Apple moved nine million of them over the first weekend. Apple must have cooked the books, or stuffed the channel. What the critics ignored was the fact that the 5s, the more expensive model, remained in short supply, and you may still wait two or three weeks to get the one you want unless you luck into the exact configuration at a local dealer.

More to the point, the second-tier product, which last year was the iPhone 4s, will always sell fewer copies than the flagship model. It appears, based on some estimates, that the iPhone 5c is doing somewhat better with people who don’t need the latest and greatest. The percentages are all over the place, so it’s hard to know the real numbers. Changes in the supply chain won’t help to provide any meaningful answers. It all comes down to the fact that you can get an iPhone 5c of your choice for immediate delivery, so what’s wrong with that?

Indeed, nobody outside of Apple knows precisely how many units Apple planned to sell, or whether demand matches, exceeds, or has fallen short of estimates. When the iPhone sales for the September quarter are revealed by Apple later this month, you will get the total numbers, but it’s not at all likely there will be a per-model breakdown. There wasn’t one for those initial nine million, and there probably won’t be one when the full quarter’s sales are disclosed, unless Apple can produce a statistic that is way better than originally estimated.

Had there been no iPhone 5c, Apple would have simply sold last year’s iPhone 5 as the midrange product. If the iPhone 5c sells in larger numbers than would be expected of last year’s model, Apple is ahead. If the iPhone 5c sells the same, Apple is still ahead because it costs less to produce. There’s no elaborate metallic assembly process involved, just polycarbonate with a metal shell. The price difference may not be a lot on a single unit basis, but when several million are built, it adds up quickly.

Indeed, on any normal basis of comparison, Apple’s strategy is brilliant. Two new models can be advertised rather than just one. For many, the iPhone 5c is really all they need. Having spent a week with one, before I got an iPhone 5s to test, I can tell you that the actual performance differences aren’t necessarily that noticeable for many functions and many of the apps that people might use. Touch ID is a neat and reliable security feature, and the iPhone 5s also takes somewhat better pictures than the 5c. But if you pay for your mobile handsets up front rather than on a subsidized basis with a carrier contract, even a savings of $100 may be significant.

Sure, I suppose Apple could have cut yet another $100 off the price, hurting profits severely, with no guarantee that higher sales would make up the difference. That usually doesn’t happen, and only Apple and Samsung are making any real profits from selling mobile gear.

Now I did notice one significant change from past reports of potential problems with demand for a new Apple gadget, and that is that the stock market barely noticed. The stock price has been on mostly a growth curve for a while. If investors are impressed with Apple’s expected iPad announcements during the October 22 media event, the trend might continue.

What’s more, the WSJ appeared to backtrack from the original story in an updated version.

But, if iPhone 5c sales are better than the industry expects, maybe Apple will confound some of those analysts by telling us so during the forthcoming quarterly conference call. That would be a change. That’s what some of those critics deserve, at least when they’re actually paying attention to facts.

Well, the mainstream media has reviewed the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c, and given them high ratings. Not perfect, but very good, which puts them among the best smartphones on the planet. But not all the reviews you have read are credible, let alone accurate.

Take Consumer Reports, which still believes that the iPhone 4 was the one and only smartphone to exhibit reception problems when held the “wrong way.” Over the years, they have pronounced Android smartphones as better for sometimes specious reasons.

Thus it was understandable that CR would find ways to look unfavorably upon the new iPhones. One main area of criticism was the display size, praising the screens on Android gear from Samsung and other companies as not just larger, but sharper. Sharper!

Beginning with the iPhone 4, Apple has used a Retina display, which means the image will be perfectly sharp, without visible pixels, at a normal viewing distance. So even though some of the competition, such as the Samsung Galaxy S4, boast a higher pixel-per-inch count, it doesn’t matter. The difference isn’t visible. More to the point, Samsung uses AMOLED displays that totally wash out in bright sunlight. But CR doesn’t understand the distinction, although they do admit that the iPhone 5s’s “display is easy to see in bright light.”

Some of the criticisms are a little misleading. When it comes to battery life, the iPhone 5s and 5c are better than average, and certainly superior to the Samsung Galaxy S3 and S4, although there are a few phones with larger batteries. But the iPhones are dinged by CR. They also complain that you can’t talk on the phone and surf the net at the same time. That’s true on Verizon Wireless and Sprint, but not on AT&T, T-Mobile and other GSM networks. As Verizon’s LTE network is updated, this limitation will no longer exist.

There’s also a totally false criticism claiming you cannot create and edit Word and Excel documents. Not quite. Apple now offers the three iWork apps as free downloads for new iPhones. They can all open and edit documents created in Microsoft’s office suite. I’m also concerned about CR’s constant complaint that the voice quality on the iPhone is merely fair, which, compared to all other mobile phones I’ve checked, is decidedly not true.

Two other negatives are also curious. CR continues to downgrade smartphones for not supporting Flash video, yet they continue to fail to understand that Adobe no longer produces a mobile version. So that’s hardly a criticism worth a mention. The final complaint is that the YouTube app isn’t installed on an iPhone, but it only takes a couple of minutes to download, so that’s hardly relevant. Or maybe CR doesn’t know.

In large part, however, CR praised pretty much all of the new features on the iPhone 5s, including the Touch ID. Certainly I do not expect CR to agree with my conclusions. I do not expect anyone to agree with me, but CR presents itself as being a step above the usual consumer review publication because products are bought, rather than accepted on loan from manufacturers, and the magazine doesn’t accept advertising. The only ads you see are for CR-related products and services.

But that also means that the magazine is expected to adhere to a higher standard, and the core issues of smartphone use are often overlooked. Specs are emphasized over real world performance. So you end up with products loaded with useless features receiving higher ratings than gear that may offer fewer bullet point entries, but superior performance with the ones they have.

So the iPhone isn’t perfect by a long shot. There are legitimate areas where Apple may improve the products, and a model with a larger display would certainly satisfy a large number of potential users. But CR continues to overlook the real issues, focusing on fluff that often has little to do with how a product functions in the real world. But since manufacturers rely heavily on getting a top rating in CR, it’s not that they will object if feature bloat actually influences a a more favorable verdict.

But that doesn’t mean they follow CR’s conclusions. Apple didn’t redesign the iPhone 4 after CR refused to issue a recommendation because of the faux AntennaGate controversy.

Now CR does do some good, such as the reports about autos failing normal safety tests. Under extreme handling conditions, a few models have nearly overturned, which could certainly result in a serious accident and possible injury if someone has to make an emergency turn to avoid a collision. Auto makers have been quick to repair flawed designs as a result. That’s a good thing.

But CR still doesn’t get technology. If you want honest usability comparisons between iOS and Android, or OS X and Windows, look elsewhere. If you want to get accurate ratings of the best mobile gear, look elsewhere. You won’t get that critical information from CR, and that’s truly unfortunate.

As names go, “phablet” is butt ugly. It represents the clumsy marriage of a tablet and a smartphone, or perhaps just a halfway point between the two. Regardless, the biggest thing the phablet has going for it, so far as the companies who make them are concerned, is the fact that Apple isn’t making one. At least not yet.

But that doesn’t mean swollen smartphones haven’t been successful. I gather they are doing quite well in Asia. In South Korea, Samsung’s home country, the iPhone gets a 14% share among smartphones, and phablets are quite the popular gadget. They are clearly meant to serve as PC alternatives for many, offering traditional smartphone features, plus a slightly larger form factor that affords some more space to do things.

So far at least, Apple has resisted the call to make a larger iPhone. The theory goes that larger smartphones are less convenient to use with one hand, and the 4-inch iPhone 5 series is already a stretch for those with smaller digits. The 5-inch Samsung Galaxy S4 that I used for several months was nearly impossible for me to use with one hand, and I have long, thin fingers, which they tell me are ideally suited for piano playing, although the only instrument I learned to any degree was a guitar.

Certainly, popping a phablet in your pocket or purse may be difficult, so I suppose a holster-style case might be best suited to that form factor. I don’t present to prejudge how people use those things. But if there is a large demand for an overgrown smartphone, and big profits are to be made, it would seem silly for Apple to overlook the possibility of getting into the fray.

Remember, Apple isn’t always first to the party, but they do try to offer a better solution. So what sort of solution would Apple offer, other than a larger display?

Tim Cook’s excuse for Apple’s decision to stay clear of larger displays is all about alleged tradeoffs. There is picture quality, longevity, and battery life. My main exposure to large smartphones on an extended basis involves two members of the Samsung Galaxy family. Both used AMOLED displays that totally washed out in bright sunlight. Samsung clearly prefers to tout impressive specs rather than impressive performance and usability. That didn’t stop some tech reviewers from falling for this gimmick, although sales are said to be far less than originally expected.

Even assuming Apple decides to build an iPhone in the 4.5 to 5-inch range, and deliver a superior picture and otherwise resolve quality and battery life concerns, how will yet another form factor impact developers? While iOS 7 and its successors may allow for easier scaling of apps to fit different display sizes and resolutions, compromises will likely have to be made.

There’s also the question whether Apple would even consider an iPad micro, a six-inch or smaller version. Would that be a viable answer to the phablet concept? Not if it comes without a phone, so therefore wouldn’t an iPhone Jumbo or iPhone Maxi be the better alternative? What’s in a name anyway?

It’s a sure thing that Apple is trying to boost sales in Asia, and if the customers feel a 4-inch iPhone is too small for their needs, that would be a compelling reason to consider larger alternatives.

But what about Apple’s timetable for such a gadget? While I suppose there could be some unexpected surprises at the now-confirmed October 22nd iPad media event, an Apple phablet seems very unlikely. So when would Apple release such a device? Would it wait until September 2014, or would Apple consider a spring event to increase the frequency of product rollouts?

Some suggest that the rumored iPhone 6 would be the model to support a larger display size. But that doesn’t mean there is no room for even more iPad variants. Just the other day, I wrote about the published report suggesting that a 13-inch version, a possible iPad/Mac convergence device, was being considered.

But when it comes to next week’s product introductions, it’s rare for Apple to introduce something that isn’t mentioned by the rumor sites. One reason September’s iPhone rollout was perceived as a disappointment is that there were no significant surprises. Offering the iWork apps free to new iPhone purchasers, was minor in the scheme of things.

So far, most expect Apple to introduce a fifth generation iPad with a smaller form factor, and an iPad mini with Retina display. If that occurs, it is quite possible that the original iPad mini will remain in the lineup at a lower price, for those who feel $329 is just too much in comparison with the $200 or so 7-inch tablets the competitors are offering.

It is also claimed that OS X Mavericks and perhaps new MacBook Pros will make their debut, though the announcement would likely be relatively brief. The Mac Pro? The latest scuttlebutt suggests mid-November, but that would seem a bit late unless Apple is still waiting for Intel to deliver the parts they need in sufficient quantities. Or perhaps Apple will announce, during the iPad event, that the Mac Pro is available for preordering, with delivery some time in November. That would make sense.

Oh, and by the way, an Apple phablet would not be something I’d be inclined to want to purchase. But I was never the target customer for such a gadget.

According to a published report, Mac sales are not just down, but dropping somewhat faster than the PC market as a whole. Now this is something that hasn’t happened in a while, so could it be an area of concern? Well, maybe, but it does call for a reality check.

First and foremost, the published reports are based on estimates, samplings, and they do not reflect the actual sales reported by Apple. You won’t know that until the 28th of the month. The numbers also focus on U.S. sales, and an ever larger portion of Apple’s sales are overseas.

The long and short of it is that Mac sales will likely be flat or somewhat lower, but the picture is not complete. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for some reasoned speculation about what’s going on, and what Apple might do to reverse the trend.

Or can they reverse the trend?

Overall, PC sales aren’t looking too great. The clear failure of Windows 8 to generate much interest has only moved the trend along. We are clearly in the twilight of the PC era, where more and more personal computing functions are being taken over by smartphones and tablets. Indeed, I suspect more and more people would consider a tablet rather than a Mac or PC for their next purchase. I know of several people who are clearly weighing the pros and the cons, and the answers aren’t certain.

My son is one example. He’s been a Mac user since his early childhood. Today he’s 27, and his 2008 black MacBook is on its last legs. He’s hoping to keep it running until he gets his graduate degree, at which time he’ll seriously consider replacing it with an iPad.

So far as Apple is concerned, a sale is a sale. More to the point, an iPad is less apt to be shared in a family than a Mac, so one sale might become two or more.

But Apple would clearly want to improve Mac sales as much as possible. Sales are still far higher than just a few years ago, and the PC isn’t dead by a long shot. There are still many tasks that are better done in the traditional form factor. So it’s very likely Apple might want to make some moves to keep Macs in demand.

Certainly, the company hasn’t given up on Mac workstations. There will be an all-new Mac Pro very soon now. Some might object to the unique design that abandons the concept of internal expansion, though I can see the logic behind Apple’s approach. Allowing for wide external expansion possibilities may give professional users more flexibility. And having a smaller, lighter computer to take with you is an undeniable advantage, particularly if raw performance far exceeds current models.

It is clear that the Mac Pro won’t sell in the same quantities as an iMac, or any other model in the lineup. But Apple is indicating to high-end users that they are not going to be ignored.

As to the iMac, there’s a published report about a cheaper low-end model in light of rumors that sales aren’t meeting expectations. It’s also true that the entry-level iMacs became more expensive starting with the 2012 model. Sure, the cheapest iMac is priced the same as the original Bondi blue model released in 1998, but these days average computer prices are far less.

Yes, the MacBook Air continues to outsell all or most equivalent PC Ultrabooks. One reason is that the latter isn’t always price competitive. Microsoft is pushing PC vendors to add touchscreens, a costly option that simply hasn’t caught on with customers. Indeed, the value of a convertible or hybrid note-book has yet to be demonstrated. Apple clearly doesn’t accept the concept, at least for now, and continues to believe that a personal computer and a tablet are separate products, with separate operating systems.

There is a published report claiming that Apple is working on a large iPad, perhaps 12.9 or 13 inches. Well maybe, although I hardly see it as a MacBook Air or MacBook Pro replacement. If such an animal is produced, the audience would be far smaller than a regular iPad, and quite distant from the best-seller in the lineup, the iPad mini. Business users might embrace them, and I can see the value for graphic artists, musicians and video editors, not to mention scientists and engineers. But it doesn’t seem to make sense as a potential Mac replacement, and Apple is most likely not going to consider a product that serves both needs, unless they can develop a form factor that actually makes such a product convenient to use.

So consider the MacPad, something that can run both iOS and OS X, assuming Apple can make an A-series processor compatible with the latter, perhaps in some sort of virtual machine layout that’s chip based to minimize performance loss. It would, on the surface, be an iPad, but an easily attached keyboard would make it a very thin and light MacBook alternative that could run all or most of your OS X apps.

But I’m not a product designer. My rough concept of a potential convergence product may never come to be, but it’s nonetheless intriguing. As always, feel free to disagree.