I have lived through all the major Mac processor transitions. Makes me feel old. First it was the Motorola 680×0 series, followed by the PowerPC and, by 2006, Intel.

Overall, the last one went pretty well. There was a way to run PowerPC software for a few years, courtesy of something called Rosetta. It was pretty decent from a performance standpoint, unlike the 680×0 emulator, which suddenly put you a couple of generations behind in terms of how well the apps ran until they went PowerPC. But until the new apps arrived, the all-new RISC architecture didn’t seem so impressive.

So is Apple planning yet another processor switchover? Well, consider how Apple has managed to deliver its A-series processors with huge performance boosts every year, very noticeable with most apps.

Compare that to new Intel processor families that might be measurably more powerful than the previous generation, but the performance advantages are often barely noticeable without a scorecard. Apple’s advantage was to create an ARM-based processor family that took direct advantage of iOS. It wasn’t bogged down with legacy support for things that never existed on an Apple platform, making for more efficiency.

So does Apple have a Mac on ARM in its future? Microsoft tried Windows RT (on ARM) without a whole lot of success, but perhaps its second try will fare better.

Using Apple’s Xcode, it shouldn’t be such a big deal for developers to go with the transition to ARM, and allow developers to build flat binaries for that and Intel. Recent rumors have it that you’ll be able to run iOS apps on Macs, and vice versa, more or less. The Touch Bar on the latest MacBook Pros runs with a second processor on that computer, an A-series system-on-a-chip. A similar scheme is used for low-level functions on the iMac Pro,

So Apple is clearly taking you partway already. How long will it require for a full shift, and should you such a possibility seriously?

It’s a romantic ideal, that Apple has full control of more and more of the parts that make up its hardware. It would also allow the Mac to offer far more differences than just a higher-priced PC in a fancy box.

According to recent reports from reporter Mark Gurman of Bloomberg, the prospective shift may happen beginning in 2020. Take it with a grain of salt for now.

But can an iPhone or iPad chip really power a Mac with equal or better performance than current models? Consider the benchmarks that show Apple’s mobile hardware exceeding the performance of most notebook PCs and coming up real close to the MacBook Pro. No doubt those CPUs are not running full tilt to lower the drain on resources and battery life. What will those benchmarks be if Apple allowed them to run full bore?

What about the chips shipping two years from now? Remember, too, Apple already has control of graphics hardware, so what happens to its existing partners, AMD and NVIDIA? Apple probably wouldn’t care if its taking these steps.

It wasn’t so easy for Apple to persuade developers to adopt PowerPC, but far easier to go to Intel, since there was so much legacy software on the Windows platform. That meant that many developers knew how to optimize their Mac apps for Intel. As I recall, it wasn’t such a difficult move.

But there was one key advantage of Apple going Intel, other than being assured of regular improvements, more or less, in the chips. It was the ability to run Windows natively with Boot Camp, and at pretty good speed with virtual machines courtesy of such apps as Parallels Desktop.

If Boot Camp and virtual machines have to run in emulation on one of these new fangled Macs, how much would performance deteriorate? Or would Apple devise ways to work around this, such as licensing some Intel chip functions using the graphics hardware to reduce the performance bottleneck? I would be loathe to predict how it could be done, but if the ARM chips end up significantly faster than Intel counterparts, maybe most people won’t notice much of a difference.

It wouldn’t take the infamous performance hit of running Windows under emulation the PowerPC. That was just dreadful. I remember opening a document would often take a full minute or two.

Some suggest that Apple, which has often ditched older technologies without apology, might just give up on the concept of running Windows on a Mac. But I suspect lots of users still need that feature. I also suspect that Apple is quite capable of devising a solution that wouldn’t hurt performance in any particularly noticeable way.

But this all needs a reality check. That Apple could make this change doesn’t mean it will. It might very well be that Intel’s existing hardware roadmap is a viable solution, without saddling Apple with the development costs of a new processor transition. But there are good reasons for consistent hardware across its major platforms. If the annual improvements in Apple’s A-series CPUs continue to provide healthy two-digit performance boosts, maybe it will happen after all.

I’m skeptical, but with Apple, never say never, particularly if Intel confronts any serious headwinds in improving its chips going forward.

I thought the furor about Apple’s throttling of the performance of iPhones with degraded batteries would have ended by now. But when lawyers stand to make millions of dollars in fees from class-action lawsuits, it may well be that it’ll take years to resolve, unless there’s a quick settlement.

It started innocently enough when Apple released an iOS 10 update designed to deal with sudden shutdowns. Unfortunately, Apple never bothered to explain how, that it occurred due to a deteriorating battery on recent iPhones. Apple’s solution was to cut back on performance, at least until the battery was replaced.

Typical of the way Apple handles release notes, they didn’t bother, at first, to explain the solution. So when some iPhone users noticed reduced performance, they went ahead and ran some benchmarks, which revealed sharply lower test scores.

You can understand why some felt that Apple was pulling a fast one on its customers. By deliberately throttling performance, people might just give up and buy new iPhones, not realizing that a simple battery replacement would fix the problem. But after Apple admitted what it did and why, some were even more incensed, complaining that they should have been notified.

As you can imagine, a number of legal firms saw the possibility of some huge paydays and filed lawsuits. According to a published report, some 59 such actions have been filed, and more will likely come. There’s even a claim that these filings might present Apple’s “biggest legal challenge” in the iPhone’s history.

Now I don’t know about you, but Apple’s real error was failing to notify customers what it did to eliminate a vexing problem. They didn’t lie about it, just left out the details. What’s more, nothing in this fix involves planned obsolescence. When you replace the battery, performance is restored to its former level.

And, no, it’s not about iPhones becoming slower after a new model is launched, or after a new OS is released. True, the new version of iOS might have stiffer resource requirements, so performance might be somewhat slower on the oldest supported hardware. But it’s not a plot to get you to buy a new one. It’s about advancing the state of the art and adding more features, which are apt to put a stiffer load on older hardware. I would not expect Apple to hold back.

What’s more, Apple reduced the price of replacement batteries from $79 to $29, at least through this year. When asked whether this move would result in people hanging onto their old gear longer, thus causing Apple to lose sales, Tim Cook said he didn’t care.

I just wonder if the people who filed these lawsuits really understand the background of the situation, and why Apple acted as it did. Indeed, there is a beta version of the Battery settings in iOS 11.3 that allows you to turn off throttling if you want to take your chances. It also reports on the battery’s health, so you know when it has to be replaced.

Isn’t that enough to convince the plaintiffs that Apple is trying to address the problem in a responsible fashion? Or is it more about the hope for a fast payday due to all those lawsuits? Certainly the legal firms who got involved assume Apple wants to get past it and will settle quickly. It may just mean a bunch of discount coupons, or maybe coupons for free batteries for customers, but the lawyers will see lots of cash.

If Apple settles and doesn’t get these lawsuits dismissed really fast.

At the same time, one article I read on the subject is somehow trying to relate this matter to the alleged reduced demand for the iPhone. March quarter results will be announced on May 1st, but don’t forget that similar stories appeared about the iPhone X, which actually became the best selling smartphone on the planet during the December quarter.

Regardless of how it all turns out, Apple should have learned to provide more details in its release notes. It was easy for the critics to exploit fear, uncertainty and doubt about the situation. The vultures are out there, and any misstep on the part of Apple will get plenty of attention.

While all this is going on, it’s interesting to see that, in recent years, Apple has supported older and older hardware with OS releases. Macs from 2009 and 2010 can run macOS High Sierra, some with pretty decent performance. I have no complaints with my 2010 MacBook Pro. While my wife’s iPhone 5c is stuck at iOS 10 (but still fully operational), iOS 11 works with an iPhone 5s or later and comparably recent iPads.

Compare that to Android gear. Well, it’s not about wondering whether the new OS will operate on older hardware. The problem is actually being able to install it. Most Android smartphones are saddled with OS versions that are one or two years old, sometimes older. The chances that they will ever be upgraded are little to none since Google hasn’t figured out a way to make it happen for anything but it’s own branded products.

It’s hard to believe that Apple’s response to Google Maps, Apple Maps, has been around since 2012. It was originally demonstrated at the WWDC that June, with release at the end of September. In addition to the usual turn-by-turn navigation, Apple touted 3D artwork and flyovers. Missing were transit directions, so Apple directed you to third-party solutions.

Unfortunately, the debut was a major disaster. Rather than take the responsible route and label it beta as it did with Siri at first, Apple delivered the impression it was a finished product. Far from it. The 3D display was flawed with melted landmarks, where the feature was supported. Directions were hit or miss. I recall a case or two where motorists were unceremoniously deposited onto one-way streets — in the wrong direction.

Apple CEO Tim Cook made no excuses. He apologized and suggested that you use someone else’s navigation app, even Google Maps, until Apple had the chance to fix things up. The executive in charge of the project, Scott Forstall, didn’t sign the mea culpa and was soon gone from Apple. I just wonder how that meeting went.

Continue Reading…

As much as Macworld is regarded as one of the original and few surviving Mac-oriented publications, of late it hasn’t treated Apple so well. In recent months, their bloggers have attempted to redesign the iPhone X in rather a silly fashion, decided Apple must offer a free (not free trial) version of Apple Music, and felt that spec comparisons of released products must have some importance aside from idle chatter.

It is not the Macworld I wrote for in the 1990s, where legitimate stories were published, not hit-bait blogs.

True, one is entitled to their opinion, just as I am entitled to express my disagreement and the reasons for that disagreement. When it comes to facts, however, that’s another story.

So take Apple’s latest educational initiative, punctuated by this week’s Field Trip and the introduction of a 2018 9.7-inch iPad with faster innards and support for the Apple Pencil.

But Macworld’s blogger believes that Chromebooks are the bee’s knees and there is no possible way that Apple, with is luxury priced $329 iPad and $99 Apple Pencil — minus modest educational discounts — can possibly compete. Make them cheaper, please. Make them cheaper, pretty please. Make them cheaper, because they demand it!

Maybe even make them mimic PCs!

This is not to say the article is totally off the mark, but there are questionable comments, misleading assumptions and downright incorrect statements.

As you notice, I am not mentioning the author or giving a link. The post doesn’t deserve it.

According to the stats in the article, sourced by Futuresource, a consulting firm, Chromebooks dominate, with 58% shipped to American K-12 schools, whereas iOS gear holds 19%. The stats do not mention Macs at all, which is quite misleading. After all, both are made by Apple and are meant to work together in schools. Macs certainly are more suited to the higher grades.

On the surface, the article about prices appears to be accurate; well mostly. Apple’s student price for the iPad is $299, whereas a Chromebook is estimated to cost $230. But that comparison is bogus for different reasons. Apple’s modest discount is for a single unit purchase. School systems would very likely pay less if they bought iPads by the hundreds or thousands. But no effort is made by the Macworld blogger to examine that question.

But there’s more, and it’s revealed in this paragraph:

Having used both Chromebooks and iPads for a long time, I can say that Apple definitely has the edge in durability. I went through around four Chromebooks during the lifespan of the same iPad (which is still doing fine, by the way). My iPad 2 is still alive and kicking despite heavy use. As such, I think it’s possible to argue that iPads could be less expensive for schools in the long run, particularly if they reuse them. But that’s simply not as convincing when you’re a school administrator looking at big numbers at the bottom of the bill.

So let’s review this: It’s an example of one, to be sure, but you expect students to be harder on delicate electronics gear than a tech columnist. But even if you assume that its necessary to buy several Chromebooks for each iPad, how long does it take for the total bill of materials to add up? Do we assume school admins are too stupid to see that the former just aren’t very reliable and are unsuited to severe use and abuse? When do the bean counters begin to complain? How much of that 58% of total shipments is for replacement gear?

But that’s what you should expect when you buy cheap and cheaper. Suggesting Apple cut the price to, say, $250, without knowing the actual bulk price, is a statement based in ignorance.

Yet another argument against the iPad is that Chromebooks have ports. True, you cannot connect a mouse to an iPad, but you can connect a keyboard. But when the Macworld blogger goes into external hard drives and monitors, he’s clearly thinking of the wrong product. He wants something that “far better mimics the experience of saving and sending files on a Mac or a PC.” So why not a Mac? Why doesn’t he realize that Apple sells both iPads and MacBook Airs to the educational market.

Without actually having used Apple’s new Schoolwork app, he concludes that Google’s G Suite for Education is better because it appears to support a wider range of devices.

Not mentioned, however, is any comparison of Apple’s commitment to user privacy compared to Google’s. Is there any comparison? Do Chromebooks provide the necessary level of online security for school systems? If they are no better than Android gear, I’d have serious concerns, and the poor reliability of  cheap Chromebooks is going to make that choice a far more expensive solution as time goes by.

Yes, there are legitimate reasons to consider using a low-cost device that more closely matches the traditional PC model, with keyboard and trackpad or mouse. But to assume that Apple is selling just iPads to school systems is a big mistake. The article is clearly spun towards explaining why Chromebooks are better than iPads, but that depends on a number of conditions. I expected far better from one of the original Mac publications.