As many of you already know, broadband speeds are getting better in the U.S., at least in some parts of the country. Google is currently testing a gigabit Internet service in Kansas City known as Google Fiber, although the first speed test I saw covering service quality recorded download and upload speeds of 700 megabits. But that’s nothing too shabby. I’d take 100 megabits if I could get it affordably, which, unfortunately, I can’t.

Imagine downloading all the high definition movies you want in minutes, rather than hours. It seems a way of realizing the dream of complete access to all your TV shows and movies in the cloud. You won’t need a cable or satellite account either, and some of you have already cut the cord. I suppose judicious selections of online versions of your favorite stations, iTunes, Netflix and Hulu Plus can give you all or most of the content you want.

Unfortunately there is one troubling limitation that threatens to complicate matters seriously, and that’s your ISP’s bandwidth cap. Alas, most ISPs don’t tell you about it upfront, as a wireless carrier might do when you buy a specific package. It may be hidden in the fine print somewhere, or support will tell you when you’ve exceeded the cap and risk a service slowdown or interruption. Worse, they may still proclaim “unlimited,” as if the word had something other than the conventional meaning.

Here in the Phoenix area, I have access to a pair of broadband services. Cox Communications offers packages with up to 55 megabit downloads (5 megabit uploads), with a cap of 400GB. The only competitive package comes from CenturyLink (which acquired Qwest in 2010), which offers up to 40 megabits downloads and up to 20 megabit uploads. In the real world, CenturyLink downloads are actually faster than Cox, and upload speeds blow Cox away. But their bandwidth cap is pegged at 250GB for downloads. You can upload as much as you want without incurring any penalties.

Now you probably realize that it doesn’t take too many days of constant HD movie downloads before you reach and exceed the ISP’s limits. With both Cox and CenturyLink, you’ll first get warnings, but they reserve the right to terminate your service with extreme prejudice for your “evil” behavior.

I understand that ISPs may be constrained by server capacity, and thus feel they have to restrict users to a fixed amount of bandwidth before you run afoul of their quality standards. But it’s really more about the number of simultaneous connections and the amount of data being downloaded at any moment in time rather than the total, actually. It’s not as if your ISP is storing your content, or at least I hope not.

Now if you’re getting your TV content from your ISP, there are no restrictions, since everything originates on their network. Certainly I can see the marketing advantage in all this, although customers should be allowed to download whatever content they want without being discriminated against. There is a form of net neutrality in effect in the U.S., but it doesn’t address needless bandwidth caps. It just mandates broadband equality.

Of course, if you are careful about how much you download, or your lucky enough to have an ISP in your city with more liberal bandwidth caps — or no caps at all — you have nothing whatever to worry about. For me, I continue to monitor the content I download, and I only occasionally use iTunes to rent a movie.

If Apple plans to introduce a subscription TV/movie service, however, they will confront this obstacle, and it’s not something that is easily remedied, unless the broadband providers get their acts together and treat customer needs fairly. But one big problem is that, in many locales, they have no competition. If your broadband provider doesn’t give you the service you want, you may not find another with equal or better service. This is the sort of monopoly situation that can cause abuses of this sort.

Besides, it’s not a trivial matter to start a new ISP. If you want to build your own network, and not just lease bandwidth from someone else, you have to spend a bundle digging up streets and laying cable. For that, you need permission from localities, and conform to specific licensing regulations. Even then, it’s possible a housing or apartment complex has already made a deal with another provider for wiring, and thus will not allow you to use someone else’s pipes. Sure, they can’t stop you from installing a satellite dish, assuming that you conform to some basic installation scenarios and have a clear path to the satellites themselves. But ISPs? Other than dial-up, forget about an alternative.

I realize that a large portion of my readers live in other countries, and thus your ISP may have different services, bandwidth caps, and other requirements. You still may or may not have an option if the service you get is subpar.

Although I’m not necessarily a fan of Google, I like the concept of Google Fiber. It’s cheap, and even offers a TV service to compete with cable and satellite. If the Kansas City experiment succeeds, it would be real nice to see Google laying cables in my area. I do not expect to see the new broadband service spread far and wide so quickly, though, but maybe the existence of Google Fiber will inspire other ISPs to clean up their acts.

As Apple and Samsung continue to battle each other in courts around the world over patent rights and licensing issues, there may be sign a possible thaw. While it doesn’t mean the two corporate powerhouses will soon shake hands and make up, it’s possible they’ve come to realize that wasting hundreds of millions of dollars has done little but enrich lawyers. It’s not as if, aside from a few court-mandated interface changes to Samsung handsets, products have changed all that much.

You can still buy iPhones, iPads, Samsung handsets, HTC handsets, Motorola handsets, not to mention those bearing the Google Nexus label. And the lawyers keep filing the legal actions. Win a few, lose a few, the lawsuits go on without an end game. Or is it just a case of fighting and fighting until someone cries “uncle.”

Is there any possibility at all that this troubling situation is going to change? Well, it’s a sure thing that a company has the right to protect intellectual property. If Samsung is slavishly copying the iPhone, the iPad and the iOS, then Apple has the perfect right to use the courts to stop that practice if a simple phone conversation or email doesn’t do the job. But quite often it’s all about subtle interface elements that can be easily changed to eliminate the alleged infringement. That appears to have already happened in some cases, such as emulating the bounceback feature from the iOS.

But there’s now a published report this week that Samsung is dropping patent injunction demands filed against Apple in the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. In the U.S., Judge Lucy Koh has denied Apple’s petition to block the sale of Samsung handsets found to infringe on the company’s patents in a recent trial. So while Samsung may still have to pay over a billion dollars to Apple, you’ll still be able to buy Galaxy handsets and tablets. Maybe product build costs will have to include a percentage to cover ongoing legal fees.

I suppose you’ve gathered by now that I think these legal actions are getting downright boring, not to mention accomplishing very little in the real world. Samsung, for example, didn’t do themselves any good attacking the qualifications of the jury foreman in the case in which they lost to Apple. It all came across as a sign of supreme desperation, not a legitimate strategy to overturn a verdict they didn’t like.

But you have to wonder why the claims against Apple in Europe were dropped. Is it possible the two parties have come to their senses long enough to sit down and negotiate a possible settlement? Certainly Apple has huge pockets and can fund these legal actions for years on end. The same is true for Samsung, but it’s also true that Samsung earns buckets and buckets of money supplying components to Apple for various products. What makes it all the more peculiar is the fact that Samsung’s mobile division is being accused of infringing patents for products for which they built some of the parts.

Yes, there are reports that Apple is attempting to expand the supply chain to exclude Samsung as much as possible. In time, I suppose that could happen. But it hardly makes sense for Samsung to want to sabotage billions of dollars worth of business because of a few mobile interface elements and the wrong sized rectangles and squares. Where’s the logic in that?

I suppose some of it is due to corporate pride. Samsung isn’t a monolithic empire, but a sprawling conglomeration of individually managed divisions. Each has their own profit and loss statements, and business priorities. That’s why there’s this curious situation where Apple sues one division, but buys products from another division.

Sure, it’s obvious that Tim Cook isn’t near as intractable as Steve Jobs when it comes to pursuing ongoing legal actions against other companies for possible intellectual property infringement. Or at least you’d come to that conclusion based on what Jobs said about going “thermonuclear” against Google. But that statement, quoted in that authorized biography, may be as serious as one wrestler threatening to vanquish another, to destroy one’s opponent. It may be all about posturing. Surely Jobs was a savvy enough businessperson to understand that, in the end, Apple would have to strike settlements with Google, Samsung, Motorola and all the rest.

Indeed, the recent settlement with HTC over various patent issues demonstrates that Apple can be flexible. But even when Jobs was in charge, he made cross-licensing agreements with Microsoft soon after he returned to Apple. Some years ago, Apple made a deal with Creative Labs over iTunes patent issues. Jobs was still alive when, in early 2011, Apple struck a deal with Nokia involving cross-licensing. Then again, Nokia uses Microsoft’s mobile OS, not Google’s, so there were fewer potential emotional roadblocks to a fair settlement.

I only hope all these companies come to their senses in 2013. Well, if I were part of the legal team for any of these companies, I might be disappointed by the lost business. In the end, though, the real legal actions should be focused on the most blatant violations, not the subtleties, even if a company regards them as critical to public acceptance and sales.

It’s an almost morbid concept, but, within days of the death of Steve Jobs, Apple critics appeared to be writing obituaries for the company. Jobs was the product guy. Tim Cook is the operations guy. How could Cook possibly perform creative miracles after the roster of products of which Jobs approved are used up? Of course, that’s based on the assumption that nobody works for Apple, I suppose, and it’s a sure thing Sir Jonathan Ive isn’t just sitting there counting his millions.

Apple’s mapping misstep became front and center as an example of the sort of screw up that wouldn’t have occurred under Jobs’ watch. Except that Antennagate occurred when Jobs was at the helm, and whom do you think signed off on all those online missteps, culminating in MobileMe and iCloud? And do you recall what Jobs said in response to a complaint about poor reception on the iPhone 4 because of the so-called Death Grip? He dismissed it with the suggestion that customers hold the phone differently. Besides, Maps didn’t just appear overnight. Jobs was around when Apple decided to ditch Google and do it their way.

In contrast, Cook has clearly worked hard to clean up Apple’s image. When Mapgate threatened to hurt Apple’s holiday sales, Cook issued what can only be interpreted as a sincere apology, and even suggested that customers use other mapping apps until Maps could be fixed. That clearly includes Google Maps for iOS, which was posted in the App Store last week. To Apple, it doesn’t matter so much as long as you buy their products. Besides, while loads of people downloaded Google Maps, I suspect a large portion of iOS users aren’t tuned in to the fineries of navigation software, and won’t bother.

Google claims that there were over 10 million downloads of Google Maps for iOS within the first 48 hours of its release. In contrast, within three days after iOS 6 was released in September, over 100 million devices had been upgraded. The ongoing success of Google Maps will probably be clear in a few weeks once the pent-up demand from early adopters has been satisfied.

In recent weeks, Apple’s stock has nose-dived big time. Some suggest Apple deserves a reality check, and the bears have taken over on Wall Street. Profit margins will be challenged this quarter and perhaps through 2013 as the competition becomes fiercer than ever. Tablet market share will decline against the competition and, besides, the iPad mini is cannibalizing lots of sales from the more profitable full-sized iPad.

Perhaps not, as there’s a published report indicating that 47% of iPad mini sales are to new customers. The report is based on a survey from Morgan Stanley and AlphaWise, in which 1,000 U.S. consumers were contacted. According to industry analyst Katy Huberty, yes sales of the regular iPad are being cannibalized to a degree, but concerns are said to be overblown.

Besides, if the iPad mini attracts customers who might have not purchased an iPad if Apple never released a smaller model, that’s a win, right? An expanded market means that Apple will be better able to fend off the growing number of competitors.

What about the introduction of the iPhone 5 in China? When analysts didn’t see reports of loads of people waiting on lines to buy one, they assumed sales were poor, not realizing that Apple set up a reservations system so someone could place an order without waiting and hoping one would be available at a retailer. The first weekend, some two million were sold, according to Apple. Nothing shabby about that.

All right, the stock price stabilized on Monday, though I never make predictions about Wall Street. All it takes is one alleged financial analyst to talk down a stock, and suddenly all hell breaks loose. But you wonder how many are banking on falling stocks to actually turn that into big profits? Buy low, sell high, and sell short, or sell in any way you can to inflate your capital gains. Or maybe, in fear of higher capital gains taxes in the U.S. next year, many holders of key stocks are going to get their profits now to keep the tax bills low.

While I understand Apple can’t expect to remain at the top of the tech industry forever, the current concerns appear to be highly exaggerated. With the revelation that iPhone handset sales in China were quite good, that maybe the iPad mini isn’t stealing loads of sales from the iPad, and that demand, in general, for Apple gear is high, I have to wonder why so many people are suddenly down on the company. I suppose part of it is that old cliché about the bigger they are and such, that Apple is destined for a hard fall any time now. Might as well dump the stock before it all comes crashing down, or maybe it’s all about the Mayan calendar, but I wonder if you realize that there are actually a number of Mayan calendars that do not indicate an end-of-the-world scenario. Sorry to be a party-pooper.

I suppose it’s also a good time to consider what Apple might have in store for you in 2013. The overwrought speculation that an Apple branded smart TV is inevitable doesn’t mean such a product is really in the pipeline. Sure, I suppose prototypes have been built, but Apple builds lots of prototypes, and few translate into a finished product. Let’s not forget what Tim Cook said on the subject, that Apple expects to only do a few things well, and thus shouldn’t be expected to enter many markets. If there is an Apple smart TV in our future, it’s going to have to be something really special. Maybe the Apple TV box will be it, either an enhanced version of the one you can currently buy, or something altogether new. Or maybe it’ll remain a hobby for the foreseeable future.

And don’t forget something else Tim Cook said in those recent interviews, that Apple wants to build products you never thought you’d need, but you can’t live without once you buy one.

So let’s look at the situation realistically. PC sales are down, but Mac sales appear to be flat, or maybe they’ll increase slightly, despite the lack of availability of new iMacs. iPhone 5 sales appear to be moving at a good clip, and Apple may sell as many iPad minis as the full-sized model. If pundit predictions are correct, Apple will even start selling a smart TV set in 2013, but don’t take that to the bank.

Considering the shaky state of the economy. Apple appears to be in really good shape. Revenue for this quarter may still be up considerably over last year, and prospects for 2013 continue to be promising. But there are clearly clouds on the horizon — or maybe not.

Amid reports that Apple had begun to cut back orders from suppliers, Apple’s stock, which had already been falling steadily, nose-dived to levels not seen since early this year. It’s almost as if Wall Street has hoped and dreamed for Apple to fail big time, and the slightest signs of potential failure were enough to push the stock over the cliff.

Continue Reading…