Recently, The Night Owl wrote a piece about two gadgets that are reportedly capable of unlocking iPhones. One comes from an Israeli company, Cellebrite. The other emerges from a startup known as Grayshift, said to be run by former intelligence contractors and a former Apple security engineer.

A more recent report actually displays a photo of GrayKey in operation, and it strikes you as an old fashioned home built device without any effort at advanced industrial design. To me, it comes across as a gadget that might have been assembled back in the 1970s or 1980s.

Except from the front, where the sole modern implements consist of a pair of lighting cables.

via MalwareBytes

According to MalwareBytes, GrayKey can work with two iPhones at the same time. The process of downloading special software, which is used to crack the device, takes two minutes or so. The operation is said to be similar to jailbreaking.

Regardless, decoding the actual password can take from hours to days depending on whether it’s a four-digit or six-digit passcode, but it will allegedly work regardless. What interests me is whether GrayKey is 100% effective or not. Obviously that cannot be proven without reports from independent reviewers with hands-on experience.

But in light of the reported success of Cellbrite, I wouldn’t doubt that the GrayKey technologies have the potential to succeed, yet the story is troubling in some ways.

First of all, Cellbrite and GrayKey are reportedly being sold strictly to law enforcement. I’ll assume they will follow the usual precautions to make sure customers of their products are authentic, and not criminal elements. On the other hand, how can they be absolutely sure that such devices aren’t being placed in the wrong hands, given to unsavory elements who want to hack iPhones? What about theft?

I understand about police and all, but what if thieves steal an iPhone to crack it? Maybe it’s owned by a chief software executive, or contains confidential blueprints for a new car or, perhaps, a top secret weapon. Sure, perhaps I’m just summating the plot, more or less, of any typical TV police procedural, but that doesn’t mean such things cannot happen.

Indeed, when the FBI asked Apple to create a back door for iOS in the wake of the San Bernardino, CA terrorist attack, the company warned that, even if the official hack was only meant for one user, its existence would create the potential for rogue countries and criminals to get ahold of that tool also. Apple’s vaunted security would be defeated.

Then again, if relatively inexpensive gadgets can routinely unlock iPhones, Apple is essentially off the hook when it comes to direct responsibility. I’d also wonder if Apple’s own security team is busy looking at such gear to figure out how they do what they do and to put a stop to it.

Not that I am opposed to allowing legitimate law enforcement authorities access to an encrypted tech device in order to solve a crime, protect the public. It’s one of the rights one cedes to some degree to save lives and property. If done with respect, it should be a normal part of the crime solving process. After all, Apple, Google and other tech companies do routinely work with law enforcement, and respond to subpoenas and other requests in order to provide an appropriate level of cooperation. But not access to encrypted gear.

That said, the relatively easy availability of hacking tools is sure to diminish security or the impression of security.

Then again, encrypted gear is something quite new in the scheme of things. Before such devices existed, there was no expectation that your mobile phone was secure. Before personal computers with security features appeared, there was no expectation that any electronics device was secure. If you didn’t have a safe — at least one not easily cracked — all of your stuff was prey to criminal elements.

Even if you have an iPhone X and all the privacy tools Apple can devise, nothing prevents a criminal from confronting you with a deadly weapon and demanding that you unlock it and let them examine it — or else! As I wrote in my original column on the subject, no security technique can possibly be perfect. Apple may be able to defeat these unlocking devices, and the manufacturers of these products will, in turn, find new schemes to regain control.

With all these stories, however, I wonder why it’s always all about Apple. Android isn’t even mentioned as an OS that requires specially-designed gear to allow the authorities to unlock such gear as part of an investigation. True, there’s a report this week that Google claims that its security level has finally matched that of the iPhone. Google has made lots of claims about Android, but it still has many of the same problems that have existed for years.

But even if Android has finally matched iOS, why are no companies touting tools to unlock a Samsung should the need arise? Is such a gadget necessary, or can the authorities unlock them with just a lone computer hacker at the local police station?

So what’s wrong with Siri? Why hasn’t it realized its potential, since it was essentially the original smartphone digital assistant? Why has it been rated far inferior to Google Voice and Alexa?

A key reason is said to  be Apple’s privacy policies. Unlike Google and Amazon, you aren’t the customer, thus ensuring far greater security when you use Siri compared to the other two. By ceding some of your privacy, you will supposedly get a digital assistant that’s more responsive and more accurate. This is a tried and true argument to explain at least some of Siri’s shortcomings.

But there is a published report from The Information that the causes are rather more complicated, the result of an unusual amount of palace intrigue involving infighting and turf wars during its development process. Quoting unnamed former Apple employees who worked on the Siri team, the article asserts that they “rushed Siri into the iPhone 4s before the technology was fully baked.”

True, Siri was marked beta at the time, but some might have regarded it barely alpha level. Despite the reality, Apple made a huge deal of the great things Siri could do, and ran some expensive ad campaigns demonstrating its purported abilities. I recall one featuring actor Samuel L. Jackson, whose strong presence would surely convince any human to listen to him. Siri did his bidding too, but even my best imitation of the busy actor failed to deliver comparable results.

In any case, the ex-employees obviously cannot identify themselves due to corporate NDAs, which means that we have to take such claims on faith, although it seems to make sense, at least on the surface.

So who was at fault? Well, evidently the late CEO, Steve Jobs, because his advocates allegedly wanted Siri to follow his vision even after he was no longer with us. But that doesn’t reflect so well on Tim Cook’s leadership.

When you look at the names of the executives who managed the team, you run across familiar names, headed by ex-iOS chief Scott Forstall and Richard Williamson, who lead the failed Apple Maps project. The article asserts that working on both Siri and Maps may have been too much for them.

Regardless, both executives are long gone but shouldn’t that have meant that things would change after they were given their walking papers?

Many of the original Siri employees that joined Apple are also supposedly gone. Some are working on Samsung’s Bixby personal assistant, but it doesn’t seem that they learned much from the Apple experience, since it’s no great shakes either.

Certainly you can see evidence of a blame game. The piece quotes an email from Williamson, where he responds, “After launch, Siri was a disaster. It was slow, when it worked at all. The software was riddled with serious bugs. Those problems lie entirely with the original Siri team, certainly not me.”

And if Siri’s employees couldn’t get it together, how does one suppose that the project could ever coalesce into a reliable voice assistant?

It’s also claimed that Siri’s implementation in HomePod is underpowered because the Siri crew didn’t learn about it until 2015, after Amazon released the Eco. This was supposedly due to the alleged culture of secrecy that sometimes prevents design teams from communicating with one another in a timely fashion. But that, too, is just a repetition of the usual mantra about Apple.

It is true that Apple didn’t release a SiriKit, to allow third-party developers to use it to enhance their apps, until 2016. Worse, the number of functions was limited to just 10 at launch.

True or exaggerated, Apple clearly has taken notice, issuing a response claiming that Siri is “the world’s most popular voice assistant.”

Apple claims that, “We have made significant advances in Siri performance, scalability and reliability and have applied the latest machine learning techniques to create a more natural voice and more proactive features. We continue to invest deeply in machine learning and artificial intelligence to continually improve the quality of answers Siri provides and the breadth of questions Siri can respond to.”

There’s little doubt about Siri’s limitations with the HomePod, however. But that’s something that can probably be addressed with software updates. Apple can also add adjustable EQ and other features that would help deal with the HomePod’s other perceived flaws.

But has machine learning and the improvements in Siri’s voice reduced its shortcomings any? That’s hard to say. Early testing of the new Siri against Google Voice and Alexa last fall didn’t indicate much of an improvement. But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t received a steady stream of enhancements since then, although the sparse release notes for the iOS 11 and macOS High Sierra updates don’t mention any changes.

Now I suppose it’s possible there is some level of sour grapes involved in these complaints about Siri, although its limitations are obvious. It’s curious that few or any of the former Siri employees appear to have done any better since leaving Apple, so maybe the wrong technology was acquired. That said, services are increasingly important to Apple, and if Siri is fixable (I think it is!), one hopes that the proper level of effort is being made to make it more competitive to Google and Amazon.

After all, Siri was there first, and it’s discouraging to see it fall way behind regardless of the reasons.

It’s a known fact that Apple’s motives are often misunderstood by pundits and industry analysts. This may explain why the company often refuses to do what others demand that they do. Of course there’s always the possibility that Apple simply has better ideas, and its ongoing success ought to demonstrate that “troubling” fact.

So we have the $349 HomePod, which shipped last month. It’s not at all certain how well sales are going so far. Some suggest it’s moving slowly, whereas Apple claims to be satisfied with the early demand. Actual figures won’t be revealed, same as the Apple Watch and other gadgets. After a quarter or two on sale, it may be possible to make some reasonable educated guesses based on total sales in the Other Products category, but not yet.

The only possible clue is that there’s no apparent delay in getting one, meaning you’ll probably be able to buy one in white or space gray at most Apple dealers. That doesn’t mean that Apple is overstocked. It may just mean that supplies are in line with demand, whatever that is. New Macs are not always backordered either.

Regardless, there are already a few stories suggesting what Apple might have in mind. Is it at all possible that a smaller HomePod is being developed, perhaps a HomePod mini? Is it something that would be priced in the $150-$200 range? Would it possibly arrive at the WWDC in June?

Why?

Well, one reason is that the original HomePod debuted at last year’s WWDC, as part of a magnum opus of new product introductions that included a bunch of Macs and refreshed iPad Pros.

Year after year, Apple critics insist that they must produce cheaper gadgets because the existing model is too expensive.But there is a cheaper Apple Watch without LTE. Older iPhones are kept in the lineup for two or three years. which lowers the starting price and reaches an audience that can’t afford the premium models. But these models were sold at the higher price when they were first released.

There are a variety of Macs to be had.

But there is only one Apple TV 4K in two memory configurations. Last year’s model, without 4K, is no longer being sold. The iPad lineup is slimmed out. In addition to a pair of iPad Pros, there’s a single 9.7-inch iPad and a legacy iPad mini.

HomePod? Well, Apple made a huge deal of the fact that this is a speaker system designed mainly for music listening rather than to accept commands for Internet of Things appliances and such, although it will handle that chore. Why else invest so much to devise a clever auto-configure feature that allows it to adjust the sound to different listening environments?

Certainly the HomePod has received credible reviews for its sound quality, ahtough some maintain it’s too bassy, in the spirit of Beats headphones. But maybe Apple will offer some built-in EQ options to better tailor itself to listener tastes.

In any case, why is there a need for a smaller, cheaper HomePod? Well, the theory goes that Apple can’t compete with Amazon and Google, that’s why. That sounds awfully familiar.

So the HomePod has no chance at success as a higher priced product. An Amazon Echo starts at $50, whereas a Google Home can be had for $100 or so.

How can Apple possibly compete with cheap gear? If Apple hopes to dominate the smart speaker space, it must lower the price somehow. Does that make sense?

Was the iPod cheap at the original price of $399? Did that stop it from becoming the number one digital music player on the planet not long after it was regarded as just an overpriced curiosity or indulgence?

Is price preventing the iPhone from becoming the most popular line of smartphones on Earth? Sure, Samsung may sell more units on a given quarter, but they are spread across dozens of models. There are cheaper tablets than iPads, but that hasn’t stopped Apple’s tablet from leading the market. The same is true for the Apple Watch, and Macs, which are premium priced, aren’t being made cheaper to move more product.

So why should Apple change its tune?

Why should the HomePod herald Apple’s foray into delivering cheap smart speakers so you’ll pick theirs rather than an Amazon Echo? Why do so-called tech and industry pundits continue to demand that Apple race to the bottom, profits be damned, because they must compete in sheer numbers with Amazon and Google, even if they aren’t quite in the same market?

That isn’t Apple’s business plan. They surely price gear fairly, even if some of it seems overpriced. But they aren’t selling on the basis of price. Otherwise, wouldn’t there be a $600 Mac notebook?

I do not pretend to know Apple’s marketing plans for the HomePod. I suppose a smaller model might be in the offing. But it would have to be done for reasons other than just to compete on price.

But why go on? This is all Apple 101. It’s too bad some people just aren’t paying attention.

If you follow the political byplay, you’ll find polls and more polls among news sites. Some cover the popularity of a politician or a candidate. Who’s going to win the next election? How’s the President doing? You’ll find plenty of guesses within a margin of error. When polls are wrong, even if they are within that error rate, they are attacked as being faulty.

Are the polls biased, favorable to one side or another?

Or is it worth the bother? Maybe we’ll too much into instant gratification since polling is not a perfect science. Perhaps it’s more of an art.

But when it comes to anything Apple, you can bet there will be polls purporting to gauge interest and satisfaction, or lack thereof, in a product. This is nothing unusual, and is to  be expected. There are also surveys of future purchase plans, and that’s where the results are pretty murky.

After all, the survey team will ask potential buyers what they plan to do weeks or months from now, as if many of the respondents can really give an accurate answer, even if it’s an honest one. This is particularly true for products that do not exist yet, and we only have vague speculation about the next generations of iPhones, iPads and Macs, not to mention the Apple Watch, Apple TV and the HomePod.

So imagine an industry analyst firm contacting an iPhone user and asking about their upgrade plans in ignorance of what they will be able to buy this fall. Sure, probably another iPhone because most iPhone owners will buy another when the time is right. But whether they will actually follow through on those plans may just depend on what Apple plans to release, the early chatter and reviews.

The iPhone X was in the news for well over a year before it arrived. For months it was referred to as the iPhone 8 until Apple’s real plans were revealed. All the fear-mongering about Face ID evidently wasn’t sufficient to depress demand to any recognizable degree, and it sold very well. Well, except in the eyes of those uninformed pundits and analysts who ignored Apple’s financials to claim it didn’t.

That said, there is a published report suggesting that a normal number of iPhone owners are considering upgrading this year, which means, roughly speaking, it’s probably not much of a story. And that’s even before you consider its limitations, that people are stating plans about buying unannounced products.

The survey firm, Loup Ventures, surveyed 511 people, of which 226 owned iPhones. Of these, 22% are planning to upgrade this fall ignorant of what might be coming from Apple, although there is talk of two entries in the iPhone X lineup, and an unnamed “affordable” model with a big edge-to-edge LCD screen.

Last year, it was reported that 23% planned to upgrade, in a climate where the iPhone X was a major subject of speculation. But that’s an insignificant difference, since it falls well within the usual margin of error. Two years previously, the number was 15%, but that came at a time when the rumor sites and Apple critics were telling iPhone users that they should ignore the iPhone 7 cycle and wait for the following year.

That explains those results, and this year’s pretty much indicate that customers expect, at this stage, to see new models similar to the ones that were released last year.

In commenting on the survey, such as it is, industry analyst Gene Munster announced that, “We expect investors will increasingly view the iPhone hardware business as a subscription business, given the upgrade patterns are becoming more predictable.This is also consistent with current Street expectations of 4 percent iPhone unit growth in FY18 and 2 percent in FY19.”

What he is basically saying here is that people will tend to upgrade on a regular basis. Certainly much of this is based on those lease/purchase deals from carriers in which you acquire a smartphone, and, based on the terms, turn it in and upgrade it to the newest model on a regular basis, usually from 12 to 18 months. That’s equivalent to a subscription since you never actually own the device.

Munster also suggests that the promise of a 6.5-inch iPhone X Plus might improve the upgrade numbers, since it will signify an all-new model, even if the changes, other than display size, are normal for an annual refresh. It would probably mean a faster processor, presumed to be the A12, improved camera parts, and other enhanced features. Some of the speculation suggests that Apple is working to reduce the height of the controversial notch, with the expectation of eliminating it as soon as engineering can devise a workable solution to embed the camera and Face ID parts “invisibly” beneath the OLED display.

So what have we learned by this survey?

That, based on only a smattering of information, iPhone upgrades are expected to follow the usual pattern. Once we’re closer to more solid rumors about the new products, surveys are apt to become more accurate.

So was it all worth the bother?