Being number one puts Apple right in the crosshairs. So the critics are always looking for a huge fall, while even Apple’s supporters will make a big deal out of problems that may not deserve so much attention. At the same time, claiming Apple can be nothing but perfect is foolish, as is overlooking past failures, and pretending the new ones are something unique to the presence of a new CEO.

Consider outsourcing. In the 1990s, more and more major tech companies decided to build their gear outside of the U.S., particularly China. The reasons were simple. Salaries were much lower, so manufacturing costs were less. This made it possible to make the product cheaper, or at least get larger profits from each unit sold. But in the race to the bottom in the PC industry, saving a few dollars per unit is not a bad thing.

Now China and other countries have become notorious not just for slave labor and low salaries to match, but for simply horrible working conditions. There were even reports of an unusual number of worker suicides at Foxconn, one of the largest contract makers, and a key Apple partner. So the media went about looking for a scapegoat. Since Apple is one of Foxconn’s largest customers, it’s their fault for tolerating such a terrible state of affairs.

One article in The New York Times closely examined the plight of the Foxconn worker, and I doubt any of my readers would accept such a labor situation, even if it was the only job available. Under Tim Cook, however, Apple promised to do better, asserting they had been working with Foxconn to provide a better working environment, fewer hours and, of course, higher salaries. They even contracted with a third party service, the Fair Labor Association, to monitor Foxconn’s labor situation.

Here the media meme was all about Apple, and since Tim Cook was the key player in outsourcing the company’s manufacturing, he had to bear the brunt of the complaints. But often ignored in these criticisms was the fact that many tech companies, including PC giants Dell and HP, also built a high amount of products at the very same factories under the very same working environment.

Apple, at least, took the responsibility to make things better.

Of course, with salaries increasing by several times, the production cost advantage to Apple lessens, making it more and more appropriate to bring some manufacturing back to the U.S. Just a few weeks ago, Cook promised that at least one Mac line would be built in the U.S.A. come 2013, at a cost of some $100 million to set up the production lines. That, to Apple, is chump change, but it may be a sign of things to come.

There’s already speculation of what Macs will be American built. Some suggest the Mac Pro, which carries high margins and doesn’t require any ultra-sophisticated tooling to manufacture. Others are suggesting the Mac mini, which is also pretty straightforward to assemble, though the components are far more densely packed.

Of course, Apple was also attacked for Mapgate, the failure of Maps for iOS 6, and why it wasn’t near perfect out of the starting gate. With a mapping app, the criticisms were easy to illustrate, with colorful screenshots of the melted landmarks, and the incorrect locations. What a disaster!

While I haven’t minimized Apple’s mistakes with the initial release of Maps, it’s unfortunate the media, by and large, has failed to realize that navigation apps in general are highly flawed. Google Maps is far from perfect, and I continue to document navigation mistakes, although they aren’t quite as severe as the ones for which Apple has been blamed.

But Mapgate was a story that was mostly relevant for the first few weeks of the release of iOS 6. Since then, things have improved in many respects. Landmarks are more accurately positioned, and 3D displays are more consistent with reality. Even at its worst, though, Siri’s verbal descriptions were far more descriptive than the ones provided by Google Maps for iOS. That’s another distinction the media seldom draws.

Apple was even lambasted for releasing two revisions of the iPad in a single year, as if they are fated to do it annually. How dare they betray the customer’s confidence that these products would only receive one refresh per year, even though Apple never agreed to any such thing. It was simply assumed, although it’s also true that other Apple products have gotten more frequent upgrades. Do you recall, for example, that there was both an early 2009 and a late 2009 iMac, two revisions of the MacBook in 2006, and two revisions of the MacBook Air in 2008?

I’ll stop at those three. There are others, but I think I’ve made the point. That Apple choose to release two full-sized iPads in a single year is not a unique situation by any means. Indeed, those who bought the fourth generation iPad appreciate the huge improvements in performance. Was there a valid reason to wait a few months? Indeed, Apple may already be at work on a fifth generation model for next spring that will be thinner and perhaps shed a few ounces. Or should Apple hold off releasing that update for a few extra months, because people who bought a new iPad for the holidays might be upset?

Sure, there are lots of things for which Apple can be blamed. But some of the criticisms are a stretch, and that’s putting it mildly.

The other day, I looked over some of the “worst of” compilations for the tech industry in 2012. Certainly the Face-book IPO got high billing. This is particularly true for investors who bought the stock at its original price of $38 per share; it was $25.91 as of the close of the trading session on December 28.

But flawed IPOs are nothing new. I remember the IPO for Vonage, the Internet phone company, some years back, where the stock price quickly dropped big time. There were even suggestions over the years that Vonage was going out of business, but it’s still here. If you have confidence in the future of Vonage Holdings, you’ll find the $2.30 price, as of December 28, to be quite a bargain. Well, at least the company is making a profit.

Certainly, very few complain about Apple’s profits, although the stock price has been down in the dumps lately. But a key reason for that may just be Mapgate, perceived to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tech industry misfire for 2012. The emotions are high, but it does appear that the facts are getting lost as so many look to the arrival of Google Maps for iOS as navigation salvation.

Continue Reading…

As more and more tech pundits continue to rant about a possible Apple smart TV set maybe next year, maybe the year after, I wonder once again if they’re really on the wrong track. However, this is a subject that just won’t die, as you hear speculation about Apple sampling prototype TVs, ordering parts, and, in general, preparing for a product that you wonder if we really need.

After all, even the people I know who don’t watch TV have one lying around. You go to any consumer electronics store, and you’ll find dozens and dozens of models, more, even, than PCs. So what could Apple possibly do to turn the market on its head and deliver the product you never thought you’d need?

What can Apple possibly do with a TV set that would start a revolution?

I do not pretend to have all the answers, or even some of them, but it’s fair to look at the TV itself, and then how Apple might provide for a better user experience.

When it comes to the screen, sure Apple uses the latest technologies that can be put into mass production and are reasonably affordable. So we have the Retina display on some Macs, the iPhone and the iPad. But does a higher resolution screen serve any purpose on a TV set, where the best content you can get these days is 1080p from some cable/satellite providers and Blu-ray? Yes, there are those super-expensive 4K sets, fulfilling a need that doesn’t yet exist, and costing a bundle. Maybe some day, but that’s not a critical issue now.

Another issue on the TV set is the audio. But there are loads of low-cost home theater in-a-box setups, soundbars and other equipment that will deliver far better sound without costing you a bundle. Indeed, I plan to evaluate some of these products in the near future, so stay tuned. Yes, I suppose Apple could offer some tricked out speakers and more sophisticated electronics in the TV itself, but there’s the question of cost. The Bose VideoWave II boasts of wonderful sound, but the price of admission begins just shy of $5,000 for a 46-inch set. I can’t imagine too many buyers, and this is not a direction Apple would be likely to pursue.

One area where help is needed is the initial setup, where you can make some adjustments for the best picture, along with built-in audio enhancements, such as faux surround sound. For the most part, these interfaces are perfectly awful, and most customers never bother. So they aren’t getting the best picture their new set can deliver. Apple could make this setup process simple, and even do some automatic tune-ups, though this isn’t the sole reason to build a TV set.

There is, of course, content, but it would be a stretch to believe that Apple could replace your cable or satellite provider anytime soon, though I realize some of you may do rely on iTunes and Netflix, plus local stations, to get all of your programming.

One real need in TV land is the integration among your various accessories. Maybe you can rely on what you get on an Apple TV and, perhaps, the antenna, but what about the Blu-ray player and the gaming console? Perhaps the most confusing part of using your TV is integrating these devices with your set, and switching back and forth.

In my setup, I have just the Panasonic flat panel and a Samsung Blu-ray. I use a Logitech Harmony universal remote to simplify the process of turning things on and off, and switching inputs, but it still requires pressing a button or tapping a display to go from one source to the next. Sometimes it misses, and I have to use Help or repeat the process. On occasion, the sound from the Blu-ray, piped via HDMI to the TV set, disappears, and I can only fix the problem by switching back to the DirecTV set top box and return to the Blu-ray. All just to watch that movie.

So what about a new generation Apple TV that can be used as a dock, your digital hub, to connect all your equipment, from a cable/satellite box to gaming console? The rear will contain the usual assortment of HDMI ports and audio ports. But Apple’s marvelous software, no doubt using the iOS, can be used to make setups and switching among devices easy as pie. You can announce to Siri you want to play a game, or watch a DVD, or connect to channel 242 on your DirecTV box (it’s USA Network, in case you’re wondering).

Apple might even offer to provide front-ends to the cable and satellite people, so all you have to do is run one of their apps, login to your account, and access all of your programming, schedule pay-per-view and time-shifting without need of another appliance. This sort of integration might be the most sensible way for Apple to make a difference in TV land, without, of course, somehow providing all of the services. But that would require cooperation and licensing from the cable/satellite people.

I suppose an Apple smart TV would sell pretty well, particularly if the price premium isn’t high. But Apple would have to be able to change a lot of things besides the interface to make it worthwhile. A souped up Apple TV box would be the best bet, as far as I’m concerned.

In yesterday’s column, I discussed the need for a more powerful multitasking solution for iOS, with the option to be able to have multiple documents and apps available for instant tapping from one to the other and back. It was all about having a feature that would be closer in concept to the one in OS X and, in fact, Windows 7.

Obviously, I don’t believe that Apple wanted to exclude this feature. It is all about resources and power consumption, and Apple wants a great user experience. But I’ve gotten a very few emails from readers suggesting that, if I have problems with iOS because I cannot get multiple document and app capabilities, I should be considering moving to, say, Android, or to the Surface RT, which has a passable way of switching  between two open documents.

In other words, I have to love everything Apple does or go elsewhere. This is the sort of questionable logic that troubles me, particularly because it would be impossible to find the 100% perfect OS. I’d be switching back and forth constantly as features and performance levels change, never being satisfied that I’d found the best tool for the job or for my leisure, what there is of it.

Consider those articles from certain inflammatory commentators, many of which are looking for big hit counts rather than try to inform people, who proclaim their miraculous decisions to give up on one desktop or mobile computing platform, and embracing another. Only they soon find reason to become dissatisfied with their momentous decision, and thus they choose yet another platform or return to one they previously abandoned. Does any of that really make sense?

I dare say that most people aren’t really involved in platform wars or other inside baseball issues. When they want a smartphone or a tablet, they will buy one because they saw a tempting ad, or the sales person convinced them that one product or the other was best suited to their needs or budget. It’s not a matter of Apple versus Samsung versus Windows Phone, or whatever. That other companies have more variety than Apple can be mighty confusing, but it may give customers the feeling they have choices.

The other day, for example, while in casual conversation with someone at a medical office, I asked why they choose an Android phone, and, frankly, they didn’t have a ready answer. Well, they needed a smartphone, and the price was right. Aren’t they all pretty much the same anyway? This is the sort of statement I won’t argue with. If that person is satisfied with their gadget, why should I complain?

As a practical matter, I have used Apple products since the 1980s. Sometimes the situation got mighty troubling, particularly when I had to rip apart certain Mac minitowers in the old days just to upgrade RAM, while silently cursing the product designers for making such a foolish decision. I remember buying one Mac that wouldn’t boot. I opened the case, and found the tiny onboard battery had slipped loose during shipment. I reinserted it, closed the case, and the startup process proceeded normally, but I had to endure frequent crashes until I discovered Apple had already released a Mac OS maintenance update to set things right.

Those were the days when the conventional wisdom had it that Apple was ultimately doomed, and you should expect to hear of their demise any time now. Well, history shows they came real close, but Steve Jobs saved the day.

Should I have gone to Windows, as many people did? Well, I did have a Windows PC on hand from time to time, but I didn’t find Microsoft’s solution any better. The interface was unfriendly, and performance and reliability was less predictable. I didn’t appreciate the need for constant babysitting to keep it going. Apple’s appliance mentality, though sometimes poorly executed, still ruled the day in the end.

Sure, I have played with Android smartphones and tablets from time to time. It’s not about the list of features, but the elegant user experience where Apple still excels. Yes, there are things Apple can and must do to make the iOS better. Yes, I wish Maps for iOS 6 was more reliable from the starting gate. But I am just as troubled with the way the tech media has given Google a pass for the obvious and enduring deficiencies of their mapping solution. No, Google Maps hasn’t left me stranded in a national forest, but I have received confusing and convoluted directions for simple destinations on a regular basis. Apple Maps fouls up in different ways too, but it’s not so obviously worse in key respects. That’s going too far.

This doesn’t mean that Apple can’t lose me as a customer, and certainly it seems they’ve done things that might have had that result over the years. For now, I’ll stick with what I’ve got, but I’m not married to their solution, and will move on if something clearly better comes along.