So Google made news this week with the announcement that they intend to bring their gigabit Google Fiber broadband and cable TV service to Austin next year. It appears AT&T is prepared to do the same with their U-Verse offering. This means that the citizens of Austin, or a hefty portion of them at any rate, will be eligible for the same service that’s already available to residents of Kansas City, KS and Kansas City, MO.

The current service isn’t cheap. You have to pay $120 for the full package, plus a $300 installation fee that’s apparently been waived for early signups. In exchange, you get gigabit Internet, 1TB of cloud storage, and a full slate of cable TV programming that appears to rival the traditional satellite and cable providers. If you don’t want TV, it’s $70 per month.

Now it’s hard to imagine what gigabit Internet means in the real world, except that you’ll be able to upload the entire contents of your Mac or PC’s hard drive, up to 1TB, as fast as you can transfer the files on your own local network. Streaming 3D movies will take seconds. How can you miss?

Well, there’s a lot to miss because the chances that Google Fiber will be coming to your city may be little to none. Right now, the service is an experiment, to see what’s involved in managing a significant rollout. While Google can certainly afford to underwrite the costs of such a service in a few selected high density cities, that doesn’t mean it will scale up in a reasonably affordable fashion to New York, Phoenix, Las Vegas, or even San Jose, CA. And what about rural areas, particularly farm communities? The hopes and dreams for such a service are non-existent, unless a wireless alternative can be provided that would offer speeds comparable to the burgeoning 802.11ac Wi-Fi standard.

One estimate has it that it would cost tens of billions of dollars for Google Fiber roll-outs that would only cover a fraction of the residents of the U.S. But that doesn’t mean such a service isn’t sorely needed.

Right now, the speediest alternative in the U.S. appears to be Verizon’s FIOS, which offers maximum download speeds of 300 megabits, with uploads up to 65 megabits. In contrast, Google Fiber is gigabit in both directions.

Unfortunately, Verizon has pretty much stopped expanding FIOS deployment, which is proving to be extremely expensive. As to the cable providers, the local service in the Phoenix area, Cox Communications, now has an “Ultimate” package offering downloads of up to 150 megabits, with uploads capped at 20 megabits. The other local broadband service, CenturyLink, matches the 20 megabit upload claim, with downloads of 40 megabits. Many parts of the U.S. are limited to satellite-based Internet, offering a fraction of the performance of cable, but not at a lower price. HughesNet, one of the major satellite ISPs, charges $99.99 per month for 15 megabits down, two megabits up. In contrast, Cox has a Preferred package, for roughly half that price with the promise of 25 megabits down, two megabits up.

The long and short of it is that I would welcome Google Fiber in my neighborhood, should it ever arrive. Even if it does, it would be a matter of years to actually happen. Regardless, it’s not as if Cox is going to do anything without any meaningful competition to confront, although 150 megabits isn’t too shabby by any means, although I’m currently using a cheaper package.

I would also expect cable providers to continue to find tricks to boost performance beyond the current limits. It may even be possible to somehow offer close to gigabit speeds without rewiring an entire neighborhood. But that’s just an offhand theory without any facts to go by.

My larger concern is the dreaded monthly bandwidth cap. CenturyLink maxes out at 250GB downloads; uploads don’t count towards the total. Cox specifies 400GB “combined download and upload,” even if you’re using the 150 megabit Ultimate package, which means you may get from here to there fairly quickly. Depending on the service provider, you may find speeds severely throttled or suspended if your usage exceeds that monthly limit. If you continue to exceed the limit, you may find yourself looking for another ISP, assuming you can find one.

Now 400GB may seem like an awful lot, until you consider that HD movies may be several GB each. If you consume a regular diet of Netflix or iTunes fare, I can see where you’d hit those limits really quickly. Imagine what would happen if Apple signed up the content providers and attempted to offer a cloud-based TV service to compete with cable or satellite? Millions of potential customers would be smashing their bandwidth caps within days, and that would cause no end of chaos for the customers and the ISPs. Not to mention Apple.

For such schemes to work, the ISPs would have to be persuaded, or bribed with some sort of financial incentive, to relax or eliminate their bandwidth limits. Or perhaps Google will figure out a scheme for widespread rollouts and upset the traditional ways of doing things. That, in itself, may be sufficient reason to hope for the arrival of someone’s “fiberhood” in your city.

Over the years, the critics have urged Apple to build less expensive gear, such as a cheaper Mac, and, nowadays, a cheaper iPhone and a cheaper iPad. I suppose you can see the logic, since it’s assumed Apple’s sales and market share would be higher if more people could afford their products. Isn’t a high market share a good thing? And why not have lots and lots of models in all price categories, to give customers a choice?

Now it so happens Apple followed the latter edict in the mid-1990s, when there were so many models, particularly the consumer-based Performa series, that you hardly know which was which. Indeed, one Apple executive told me at the time that they couldn’t separate the models either without a cheat sheet. But that all came at a time when Apple came close to ruin.

Indeed, in those days, Apple even tried licensing the OS to third-party hardware makers. That approach also failed, although some tech pundits still think it’s a good idea, maybe because they figure that if you try something often enough, it’s destined to succeed even though it’s a lame idea.

This doesn’t mean Apple doesn’t build cheap gear. You can buy an iPod for $49. The cheapest Mac, the Mac mini, lists for $599 sans display and mouse, but that’s not necessarily cheap in today’s cutthroat PC market. Indeed, that price is average in the PC space, which makes a Mac seem all the more expensive by comparison.

But think about how the rush to the bottom impacts tech companies. Profits in the TV market are slim, and some companies are quitting the rat race. PC makers aren’t doing so well either. Take a look at the fate of Dell, once a market leader, which opted for market share at any cost. Profits and sales plummeted as the company pushed more and more cheap undistinguished desktops and note-books. Today, founder Michael Dell and his board are struggling to sell off the company to private investors, hoping for a decent payday. But if I were in the market for a cheap PC, I’d just look elsewhere, since there’s nothing about Dell that stands apart from the pack, but that’s the way it’s always been.

So, as one blogger noted, maybe the critics expect Apple to duplicate Dell’s performance, which makes no sense whatever.

Another demand is for Apple to build a cheap iPhone, because people who live in developing countries, and don’t have access to subsidized wireless plans, aren’t going to pay upwards of $400 even for a 2010 iPhone. The critics are talking of a translucent or another sort of plastic iPhone that would list for between $199 and $299. Magic, right?

The argument has always been that Apple is doomed if they don’t have the highest market share in any market. Being number two, trying harder and all that, isn’t good enough. They have to sell more than any other company. This means that Google and the Android platform have won the mobile computer wars, except, of course, when you look at Google’s profits from the Android division.

In the smartphone business, a recent report had it that Apple and Samsung shared 103% of smartphone profits, with the rest distributed among the remaining players? 103%? Well, that’s because some of those companies reported losses from their mobile gadget operations. But shouldn’t Apple be seeking to sell as much gear as possible regardless of cost? If they sell enough, there will still be profits.

Of course, anyone who looks at Apple’s playbook, or even the occasional comments from members of the executive team, would realize that Apple hasn’t sought a number one status. They seek revenue and profits, even at the expense of fewer sales. Indeed, Apple got attacked by the media and financial community because profits in the December 2012 quarter weren’t as high as they expected, or hoped. If Apple sold more gear at lower prices and hence made smaller profits, would that make sense? Not to Apple’s shareholders.

This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to pay less for an iPhone, iPad or Mac. It certainly doesn’t mean that Apple really needs to hold $137 billion in the bank, catching dust and earning interest in mostly offshore accounts. Apple could, I suppose, have an across-the-board 10% price cut on everything and still be hugely profitable, still adding to the cash hoard. Would that mean that sales would increase proportionately because of the lower price of admission? I wouldn’t presume to take a guess as to whether it would do anything but reduce profits, although it would seem inevitable that more products would be sold.

Now when it comes to the cheap iPhone, if Apple could build a sexy smartphone with essential features intact that costs $299 unlocked and still yields a decent profit, I’d expect they’d do it in a heartbeat. That Apple plans to return some cash to investors as dividends does seem to indicate that somewhat smaller profit margins won’t be so bad. The plenty of money to go around. So maybe there’s a middle ground solution to the question of more affordable gear from Apple.

There’s an article quoting a former ad executive that worked on Apple’s marketing message who asserts that the company’s iPhone naming scheme is, well, lame. The main point is that when a new model has an “S” appended to the name, it signifies a minor refresh, whereas a full numbered version means a new case design. The message sent to customers is that these “S” “off-year” upgrades are therefore insignificant.

However, those “S” changes can be quite extensive. Consider the changes from the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 4s, which included more than just the Siri personal assistant. The upgraded hardware was more powerful, and the controversial antenna system was revised to provide what is essentially the equivalent of the diversity antenna on many autos, where it switched from one system to another based on signal conditions.

But since the iPhone 4s didn’t look any different from its predecessor, the media attacked it as a relatively insignificant upgrade. The full numbered upgrade, the iPhone 5, however, looked different and had a larger display, so even if the components were unchanged (which wasn’t the case of course), it would be regarded as a major model change.

So the criterion is the form rather than the function that determines whether a new iPhone gets a full number upgrade. The issue, though, is whether this sends the wrong message to customers, being that an “S” version just isn’t worth buying. So might as well choose the latest Samsung Galaxy, or the current revision of the HTC One. And notice that this year’s HTC flagship gets the same name as last year’s. And Apple takes the same approach with the iPad.

Now Apple’s naming nomenclature for the iPhone makes perfect sense from a logical standpoint. Each model refresh earns a special designation based on the extent of the external changes, or lack thereof. All so simple, so sensible. It’s not that developing a new case each year has any practical advantage, unless the screen size changes. Besides, if someone is upgrading a smartphone via a typical two-year cycle, the new iPhone will be a substantial change from the old whether the name bears an “S” appendage or not. It’s not that lots of people buy a new smartphone every single year, unless they are making a huge change, such as switching carriers or platforms.

Or at least that appears to be the logical conclusion. Besides, Apple was also attacked by tech pundits because the iPhone 5 wasn’t changed enough from the iPhone 4s, so I suppose you can’t win. But the media is saying much the same thing in comparing the Samsung Galaxy S3 with the Galaxy S4.

I suppose Apple could consider following the Google Chrome browser playbook — now adopted by Mozilla’s Firefox — in which every single minor update gets a full version change. Both are in the twenty-something range — I haven’t bothered to keep track. But if Apple followed that logic, maybe we’d be looking for the iPhone 16 by now, and skip 13 because of the veneer of possible bad luck.

But it’s not as if Tim Cook can be criticized when compared to Steve Jobs for following the same iPhone naming conventions, but the critics will continue to play the blame game regardless of the facts. Yet it’s worse with Macs, where designs will generally persist for more than two years, and the names rarely change. And sometimes, such as the 2012 iMac which dumps optical drives and is very thin for little discernible reason, you wonder why they bothered. If you look at the 2012 and 2011 iMacs from the front, they don’t seem that much different. But it gave Apple something new to advertise, and their contract factories conniptions in figuring out how to assemble the things efficiently.

The real answer to the value of Apple’s naming philosophy will inevitably arrive in the quarterly report of sales and profits on April 23. If a specific model doesn’t do well, regardless of its name, there will be pressure on Apple to make substantial changes to fix what’s wrong. Of course, in the current climate, without any actual evidence that something is wrong, Apple is being attacked relentlessly for being, well, Apple.

It also means that anyone and everyone who ever had a major connection with Apple of one sort or another will be interviewed, particularly if they say something that puts Apple in a negative light. Does it really matter what an ad executive who worked with Apple at one time has to say? Sure, that person may have developed brilliant ad campaigns that really got the messages across and produced results. But how much say did they have in a product’s design or name? Probably nothing, and being able to produce great ads doesn’t mean that someone knows anything about designing a commercial product, any commercial product.

I am more concerned about the judgement of the Microsoft executives who approved the perfectly idiotic ads the company continues to run, day after day after day. I’m so glad I watch most shows after the fact on a DVR, so I can fast forward through those unwanted interruptions.

Just when I began to think that Apple’s stock price had begun to overcome the doldrums, they returned. The bad news, still unconfirmed, kept on coming, with one analyst even claiming, without evidence, that Apple’s sales had declined during the March quarter. If that were true, it would mean that Apple’s own guidance, which tends to be conservative, would be missed by a fair amount.

The early signs appear to point in a different direction. The NPD Group’s recent estimate had it that Mac sales in the U.S. increased by 14% year-over-year in January and February, no doubt due to the fact that the 2012 iMac had finally begun to reach customers in decent quantities. Other surveys indicated that iOS market share had improved against Android. So why assume Apple is suffering from fewer sales?

Obviously the truth won’t be known until Apple releases financials for the March quarter, and that’s due on April 23. Apple knows what really happened now, but the numbers can only be guessed at until the official announcement. Meantime, financial analysts and tech pundits will continue to look for the bad news.

Continue Reading…