As regular readers know, Barbara and I are busy looking for a new home. With a very tight budget, we’ve been traveling across the Phoenix area in search of something affordable. Well, one of the leasing agents we visited the other day greeted us wearing an Apple Watch, and I casually asked her which model it was. “I got it in December,” she told me, answering in the affirmative when I asked if it had the cellular option.

She said she used it to count steps, and receive phone calls, and she was only one of a number of people I’ve encountered of late sporting Apple’s smartwatch. At the same time, I have never seen anyone wearing any other device that appeared to be a smartwatch of some sort, but I don’t pretend to recognize all of the available models. The Apple Watch is unique.

I thought that people who’d buy one would tend to have somewhat higher incomes. I do not know the pay scale of a leasing agent at a low-end apartment complex, but I’ve seen cashiers at convenience stores, earning hardly more than minimum wage, wearing Apple Watches too.

Clearly something is going on.

The competition gives clear signs of running scared. Bill Zerella, CFO for Fitbit, has taken notice. He’s quoted as saying, “I have yet to meet anyone who owns an Apple Watch who’s passionate about the product. If you don’t have an Apple phone, you’re not buying an Apple Watch… 80% of the world is Android, not Apple.”

Despite that, the Apple Watch is the best selling wearable on the planet, while Fitbit sales are down. In 2017, Apple Watch sales were estimated at over 50% higher than in 2016. For a product people don’t much seem “passionate” about, they’re stilling buying them in numbers not much lower than the iPhone in its third year.

Just wondering: How many people are passionate about their Fitbit? And if they love them so much, why are they spending more money to buy what is, admittedly, an iPhone accessory? What about Android users? What are they buying? How many bought a Fitbit? What about the tiny market share of Android Wear gear? Remember, the Android platform is far larger than iOS, so way are so few of them buying wearables running Android Wear? Why did Samsung switch from Android to its own Tizen OS on Galaxy Gear wearables in 2014?

Is the relatively rapid growth of the Apple Watch a flash in the pan? How many users will buy new ones, or will they return to Fitbit? What about a $12.88 Walmart stainless steel watch, similar to the one I’ve owned — since the Apple Watch came out?

No, I didn’t buy that watch as an act of protest. It was a practical decision. A GUESS watch that I wore for a couple of decades saw its last and I wanted something cheap that didn’t look cheap. Well, the watch is on its third battery, and it still works well enough. It only gains a few seconds a month, and Walmart can do the annual battery replacement for less than $6.00.

But maybe I’m on the wrong track. If fellow low-income Americans have found a way to afford an Apple Watch — or maybe they have wealthier friends or significant others — maybe I should look for a well-heeled cohort or relative to get me one for my birthday (September 9th if you must know).

I’m not serious!

The real reason I don’t have an Apple Watch is because its special features do not really appeal to me. I am into fitness, but I’ve never considered using a special appliance to keep tabs on the number of steps I take. Measuring heartbeats may be useful, since they’ve been irregular on occasion, and I’m not getting any younger.

I don’t know of those millions of Apple Watch users are passionate about their gear or not. The ones I’ve talked to appear to like them, though I haven’t spent a lot of time assessing how much, or whether they actually love them. Perhaps Fitbit’s CFO has actually done owner surveys, or perhaps it’s all sour grapes.

Remember when Steve Ballmer, when he was Microsoft’s CEO, said there was absolutely no chance that the iPhone would be anything but a failure. That ill-timed statement came in 2007. In 2018, Microsoft’s smartphone platform barely exists, as the iPhone continues to succeed better than most expect. Of course, there are still financial and tech pundits who claim the iPhone X sales collapsed shortly after it went on sale. That happened at the same time that it became Apple’s best-selling smartphone, and was thus the best selling smartphone on planet Earth.

Now just because he’s afraid of the success of the Apple Watch doesn’t mean that Fitbit’s CFO will be out of a job in a few years, or that the company is destined to fold. It’s possible, I suppose, that its new products will catch a wave, or that Fitbit’s armbands will continue to find loyal customers.

Speaking as someone who doesn’t own one, I think the Apple Watch is here to stay.

Let me put my cards on the table. I am no fan of Apple TV, at least not anymore. I did find my third-generation model indispensable, but basically for one reason, and that was Netflix. On occasion, I’d rent a movie from iTunes, and I was always on the lookout for the 99 cent specials. But I could do the same with such services as Walmart’s VUDU.

I did not acquire the fourth-generation version because it not only lacked 4K, but I wasn’t overwhelmed by the new features. Having Siri help me find the programming I already knew about wasn’t important. The available games and other apps weren’t impressive either. Well, maybe to some people, but I’m not a gamer.

It also wasn’t appealing to pay $50 more (for the 32GB version), which further separated the price difference from the competition, particularly front runner Roku. Indeed, the Roku Ultra offered 4K and HDR when Apple released a model without one. That never made sense to me though, in retrospect, it may have been a matter of waiting for HDR standards to settle down.

Don’t get me started, but two HDR formats shouldn’t be so significant an issue, but it is. Cheap 4K sets get you 4K and that’s it. More and more affordable models do offer one or both protocols that improve color reproduction, but not always on every HDMI port. Sometimes one set works with only one even if it has both, and there have been various and sundry reports of inscrutable behavior, incompatibilities that make no sense whatever.

As regular readers and listeners to my radio show know, I haven’t used my Apple TV in more than three months. The reason is explained by the growing number of sets with increasingly usable smart features, in which you can access some streaming apps via the sets themselves. On 4K sets, at least some offer HDR on subset of apps, so there’s no fighting the HDR wars. You have no need of an accessory set-top box.

When VIZIO sent me a 2017 M-Series TV display to review (it’s a display because it doesn’t have a tuner), I put all the key features into play. It has a SmartCast app built in and a more full-featured version for iOS and Android users, accessing Google Chromecast. A small number of apps are built in, and I suppose more could be added via software updates. Some of these can be accessed via direct buttons on the remote. You have the most popular services that include Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and VUDU, plus some lesser players. Using the SmartCast app on your smartphone, you can call up thousands more, including CBS All Access and loads of others.

It didn’t take long to notice that my Apple TV sat unused. I briefly wondered about the 4K version, but why? The services I used, such as they were, came with the set. Although Apple’s user interfaces for TV apps were supposed to be a big deal, the ones provided with SmartCast were just fine. In fact, such apps are fairly close to one another when it comes to the user interfaces.

I also wonder why Apple choose to boost the price to $179 for the entry-level Apple TV 4K, which merely increased the price spread over the others.

Does Apple have an end game? What about original TV content? But it doesn’t seem likely it’ll be restricted to Apple TV, considering the rest of the ecosystem reaches hundreds of millions of users. Remember, too, that Apple Music is also available to Android users, so you expect the TV shows will as well, in the spirit of Carpool Karaoke.

So what’s the end game for Apple TV?

Well, it does offer gameplay, casual games, and it was once assumed this was the best you’d get on such gear. Ditto for iOS.

But imagine, just imagine, if you could run genuine console games on an Apple TV.  Is this at all feasible?

Well, consider the iPhone and the iPad. Every single year processing power soars, and gaming becomes faster and more fluid. According to a TechCrunch interview with Greg Joswiak, Apple’s VP of product marketing, manufacturers of gaming consoles need to watch out. Joswiak revealed that, “They’re bringing the current generation of console games to iOS.” He was referring to such titles as “Fortnite” and “PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds,” designed to offer console-like and cross-platform gameplay with consoles and PCs.

Say what?

Joswiak points out that, “Every year we are able to amp up the tech that we bring to developers. Before the industry knew it, we were blowing people away. The full gameplay of these titles has woken a lot of people up.” In comparison, console updates occur every four years or longer, thus iOS is improving at a much faster pace. Joswiak dismisses the competition from Android because of its extreme platform fragmentation. Roughly 90% of iPad and iPhone users are running the latest OS, thus making it more productive for developers to support the new features. With Android, it’s a small number, so it doesn’t make sense for developers to devote resources to support the latest and greatest.

So if iOS is matching or exceeding the power of a dedicated gaming console, how long will it take for similar processing power to appear on an Apple TV? With the proper gaming controllers, would Apple TV thus reach a point where it is fully competitive with those consoles? Is that part of Apple’s goal of boosting its importance and sales?

At one time, Apple gave gamers short shrift, or approached the market with relative disinterest. But iOS offers huge libraries of games. They have become more and more powerful in sync with the hardware. Console makers have lots to worry about, and maybe there’s even hope for Apple TV.

Regardless of the choices with cable and satellite TV, or whether you’ve cut the cord, some 55% of American households have subscribed to one or more streaming services. Most of those people have settled on Netflix, but others have chosen Amazon Prime or Hulu. There are loads of lesser players that may or may not be worth your consideration.

If you’re a Star Trek fan, maybe you’ve tried CBS All Access, but was it worth it? The regular CBS fare is available on free TV, and, for most, “Star Trek: Discovery” is the major attraction of the streaming service, which is available for $5.99 with limited commercial interruptions and $9.99 ad-free. Maybe that’s enough to cover the production costs of the show, but I wonder about the long-term success of the venture, unless other shows gain traction. That spinoff of “The Good Wife” probably isn’t enough, although I was a fan of the original.

A major factor that sells such services, and has made Netflix the most popular streaming service on Earth, is the wealth of exclusive content. Originally Netflix rented videos. You’d subscribe to a given number of rentals at the same time, and as they were returned, you’d get replacements from your wish list. When they went to streaming, it was mostly about old movies and TV shows.

In 2013, “House of Cards” helped change the equation. That and “Orange is the New Black” heralded a new generation of high-profile scripted dramas, with A-list performers and loads of Emmy nominations. These days, Netflix has dozens of shows plus original movies to attract and retain an audience.

So as it stands, even before Apple enters the picture, there are a number of services that’ll only be delighted to sign you up at various prices. Indeed, there are so many that you might find yourself paying more than you did when you were customers of cable or satellite.

That takes us to Apple.

Since so many people have subscribed to these services, one assumes that there’s plenty of room for one more. On the other hand, there has to be a point where there are just too many services and people are going to resist new entrants.

Then there’s Apple’s expected entry into original TV programming, and it’s presumed to have a good chance for success based on some assumptions. But let’s explore those assumptions and see if the are credible.

So, it’s assumed that such a service might be exclusive to Apple TV, which has millions of users to be sure, but it reportedly had only a tad more than 21 million users as of last summer. That accounts for a market share of roughly 12%, and restricting content to that number hardly makes sense with Apple reportedly spending over a billion dollars for original programming.

It probably doesn’t make lot of sense to establish a separate streaming service and infrastructure for a small number of original shows. Would people be willing to pay $5.99 or $9.99 a month for that? At least with CBS All Access, there is a large repertoire of older content available, such as “NCIS” and “CSI.”

That’s two strikes against Apple so far.

But Apple is very serious about it’s plans. Eddy Cue, who is responsible for such matters, says the company is “all in” on original content. Compared to Netflix, he says, “we’re not after quantity, we’re after quality.”

Of the shows mentioned by the media so far, it’s a mixed bag. There’s a reboot of Steven Spielberg’s fantasy/horror/sci-fi anthology, “Amazing Stories,” which only lasted two seasons during its original incarnation in the 1980s. Why that might do better now is anyone’s guess, though I suppose Apple could be throwing Spielberg a bone in anticipation of better properties going forward.

There’s also a scripted drama about morning TV from Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon. Although both are credible performers (Witherspoon is an Oscar winner) the concept leaves me cold. Do people really care about such fare? Do Aniston and Witherspoon have the clout to attract a sizable audience for such a lame concept?

I’m not a TV programmer, but I have yet to find anyone who’s anxious to see that show.

One possibility so far is a program from Ronald D. Moore, well known for his work on various Star Trek shows and the award-winning “Battlestar Galactica” reboot.

At one time, Apple was rumored to be developing a streaming service with more inclusive content, but reportedly failed to strike deals with the entertainment companies. The usual excuse was that Apple made demands that were too stringent, but that’s just repeating a common meme rather than citing facts.

One possibility is that Apple will add these shows to the Apple Music repertoire, something they’ve already done with such silly shows as Carpool Karaoke. But it would help deliver more exclusive features to expand the subscriber base against such competitors as Spotify, which remains the number one streaming music service.

Or maybe change it to Apple Music and TV to further differentiate itself from the pack.

It makes sense to me. Setting up an Apple TV-only app or a full-blown streaming service doesn’t.

One thing is certain: Apple’s critics and loads of alleged pundits and industry analysts got the iPhone X completely wrong. Even when the features were correctly described, there were incorrect inferences, or just plain fear-mongering about things that might happen but never did.

When it went on sale, the iPhone X was presumed to be an obvious failure from the very first day, but for different reasons. And don’t forget all those misleading claims about alleged Face ID privacy issues, even though it uses essentially the same technology in which to store biometric data as Touch ID — the secure enclave. But because of security concerns about Android smartphones, it was assumed that Apple must suffer from the same problems.

Even though it took up to several years for Apple to create Face ID, it was assumed to be a last-minute move because Touch ID couldn’t be embedded beneath an OLED display. Why? Because Samsung couldn’t do it and blah-blah-blah! But even if Apple has devised a way, they have switched to Face ID now, and you’ll see that feature appear on other iPhones and even iPads going forward.

Continue Reading…