When Apple was honored as the most innovative company on the planet by Fast Company, many of you no doubt assumed it was a national development. How could it be otherwise for the company with the highest market cap? But it’s not as if that would be a universal decision, although I wouldn’t disagree.

So Apple has been attacked for buggy software, such as an issue with macOS in which you could gain root access without a password. The late delivery of promised features, such as AirPlay 2, is yet another example. It’s a reason why you can’t pair two HomePods, and don’t forget Apple’s smart speaker shipped late. Some feel that even the original promised delivery date was itself very late.

In connection with the award from Fast Company, the publication interviewed Tim Cook. It was a fascinating discussion, but sadly limited by an open acceptance of everything he said, with few followups. Clearly Cook had his spiel down pat. Every sales pitch was expressed with precision, believability.

Now I’m not saying he lied or exaggerated about anything, but it did come across as a little too perfect.

So Cook minimized the importance of Wall Street, saying, “Stock price is a result, not an achievement by itself. For me, it’s about products and people. Did we make the best product, and did we enrich people’s lives? If you’re doing both of those things–and obviously those things are incredibly connected because one leads to the other—then you have a good year.”

His comments about Apple Music were especially interesting, particularly in light of that recent overwrought Macworld commentary suggesting Apple was missing the boat in not having a free, ad-driven tier. Cook claimed that, “we’re not in it for the money. I think it’s important for artists. If we’re going to continue to have a great creative community, [artists] have to be funded.”

He evidently wasn’t asked whether Apple Music was also designed to serve the goal of tethering customers to the platform, thus convincing them to keep buying Apple gear. Remember that, when iTunes debuted, Apple said they didn’t earn profits from that either, though you can’t exactly say that today.

When asked why Apple seems to release new products in new categories later than others, thus sometimes following the crowd, Cook had a ready response:

I wouldn’t say ‘follow.’ I wouldn’t use that word because that implies we waited for somebody to see what they were doing. That’s actually not what’s happening. What’s happening if you look under the sheets, which we probably don’t let people do, is that we start projects years before they come out. You could take every one of our products–iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch–they weren’t the first, but they were the first modern one, right?

In each case, if you look at when we started, I would guess that we started much before other people did, but we took our time to get it right. Because we don’t believe in using our customers as a laboratory. What we have that I think is unique is patience. We have patience to wait until something is great before we ship it.

But does Apple always get the first version of a new product right? Can you be assured that you are not a paid beta tester?

Take the first iPhone, which didn’t support 3G networking or native apps. Should Apple have worked out cellular networking support earlier? What about Steve Jobs’ contention that Web apps would be sufficient? He reportedly had to be persuaded by his team that the iPhone needed its own apps. True or not, the arrival of iPhone apps in 2008 really helped jump start the platform. These days, even though the quantity of apps at Google Play is larger, the ones for iOS are generally better designed, more reliable and, just as important, provide far more revenue to developers.

There are certain criticisms that are made about arbitrary review policies, the inability to create apps in certain categories, and the occasional difficulty in finding the ones you want. By and large, however, the App Store is a smashing success.

You could also criticize the first Apple Watch as being buggy and feature limited, but there are also millions of people who are still using them. Clearly the experience was good enough for people to take a chance on the Series 2 and Series 3.

Were there any other products that needed more work before being released?

One strong possibility is the HomePod, which hasn’t always received top marks. Listener tests have had mixed results, Siri needs a lot of help, and the curious problem of leaving white rings on a polished or waxed wood surface should have been discovered before the product was released. It’s just too obvious. Apple didn’t release a support document about the problem until after it was discovered and publicized. And even though competing products, such as the Sonos One, appear to have similar shortcomings, was it something Apple could have avoided?

Sure, it’s creating a market for mats and coasters to protect a wood service, although it doesn’t appear to cause permanent damage. But it leaves you with the impression that it may be better to wait for HomePod 2, and perhaps some software fixes.

But that’s been the shortcoming for a number of Apple products. Cook’s claims about holding off releasing them till they’re ready for prime time are not very credible.

During the days when Steve Jobs ran the show, Apple and the enterprise appeared to exist in different universes. Indeed, it was once common to claim that Macs were consumer computers, and shouldn’t be taken seriously for business use. The interface was too pretty. Besides, there was no software for the Mac, even though that wasn’t true. However, you had to go to a specialty source to buy the latest and greatest.

Despite that, music production was a popular use for Macs. Desktop publishing debuted on the platform and, in turn, nearly put me out of work until I adapted. I’d hardly regard either purpose as not business related. Along with a decent amount of business software, such as word processors and spreadsheets and stuff, it was hard to say Macs were meant just for playing games.

On the other hand, when Windows became usable, suddenly computers with graphical user interfaces were accepted for the enterprise, even though Apple got there first. But it was also true that Apple never seemed to go all in for businesses. During the dark days of the mid-1990s, some Mac apps were discontinued. or simply left the platform. It took a while for things to turn around.

As we all know, iPhone played a huge role in Apple’s resurgence.

As Apple continued to announce higher and higher sales each year for the iPhone and, later, the iPad before sales flattened, Tim Cook would frequently cite the high percentage of Fortune 500 companies testing or deploying them. That was hardly an act of ignoring the enterprise, and it was only the beginning.

After Apple and IBM made a deal to develop iOS business software, it didn’t just involve iPhones and iPads. Macs were offered instead of PCs to the company’s employees and to its customers. In short order, tens of thousands were purchased, and it was announced that total upkeep on the Mac was hundreds less than the Windows platform. What’s more, only 3.5% of its Mac users would call the company’s help desk for assistance on a problem, whereas 25% of PC users require help. It didn’t just mean that fewer Mac users had problems. It was often easier to just do it yourself when something bad occurred — well except for a hardware issue.

Code42, a company that provides CrashPlan online backup services, published the results of its own enterprise survey last year in which the Mac was chosen for three key reasons. 37% for happier end users, 14% for fewer help desk tickets, and 12% for better OS security.

Mac users have known much of that for years, that it’s easier and cheaper to maintain a Mac, but it took decades for businesses to get the memo. That the news was confirmed by the company that was once one of Apple’s fiercest competitors was surprising news indeed, even though it came years after IBM gave up building its own PCs and sold the product line to Lenovo.

Over the years, Apple has made more and more business conquests, such as Walmart, Delta Air Lines — you get the picture.

Although PC sales are on the decline these days, HP is number one in the market. Lenovo is usually a close second quarter to quarter.

So would it surprise anyone that HP is now offering competing products as part of its Devices as a Service (DaaS) business? It allows a company to acquire hardware and support on a subscription basis, rather than pay for it up front or get a business loan.

Even more interesting is that the service includes Macs, iPhones and iPads. In other words, HP has learned a lesson Microsoft discovered long ago, which is that there’s lots of money to be made by supporting Macs and iOS gear with its software and services. In short, money is money, and let’s face it, PC makes don’t make high profits from shipping commodity PC gear. So it probably doesn’t matter so much if a business acquires its Macs and iPhones from HP. It’s very possible HP earns high profits from such deals.

Companies that use these products are no doubt getting a better deal by having a single vendor provide the hardware they need, along with a single source for support.

An HP executive announced in a company press release that, “Our expanded support for mixed operating system environments across every phase of the device lifecycle, combined with our continued expansion into VR and data analytics, is providing smart, simplified solutions for the modern workforce and unlocking new growth opportunities for our customers, our channel partners, and our business.”

Does that mean HP will turn up at the next WWDC?

Steve Jobs once said the platform — Mac versus Windows — wars ended along ago. Microsoft won, although Apple’s share of the market has grown in recent years as total PC sales have flatlined. Apple doesn’t spend lots of time dinging Windows at media events anymore. It doesn’t have to.

Will Dell begin to offer Macs and iPhones next?

Sure, Microsoft has its own lineup of PCs these days, but Surface sales aren’t great shakes. So maybe the designs are meant to point PC makers in new directions. Or Microsoft can’t do any better. It’s mobile platform tanked. Indeed, even the New York Police Department dropped Windows Phones and replaced them with iPhones.

Before I comment about yet another nonsensical article claiming poor iPhone X sales, let me remind you of Apple’s results for the December quarter. During the weeks in which it was available, it was the number one best selling smartphone on the planet. Number two was the iPhone 8 Plus, which explains why the average sale prices hit record levels. Whether a natural evolution of the product lineup, or blind luck (which I doubt), Apple made the right moves.

It also sold more smartphones than Samsung. Not just in revenue but in the number of units sold. So it’s hard to think that any tech commentator would continue to post the fiction that people are resisting the most expensive iPhone.

I even see more and more of them in use. It’s not a survey, just a random observation. I also see more Apple Watches, even on the hands of cashiers at convenience stores who are not exactly among the highest paid employees.

Now you would have thought it strange that, upon the revelation that the iPhone X is popular, there have still been published reports of collapsed demand. So Apple is allegedly sharply cutting back on component orders, which is noting more than the usual misleading supply chain chatter that appears to occur every year or so.

Did Samsung cut back on production of any of its Galaxy smartphones? It’s not something that appears to   be important enough to obsess over.

So there’s an article in an alleged business publication with lots of curious quotables, starting with the headline, “Weak iPhone X demand isn’t just hurting Apple — it’s also causing problems for Samsung.”

Weak what?

Then there’s the claim that, “Fewer people are buying the $1,000 iPhone X than expected.”

Than WHO expected? Once again, the iPhone X was the best selling smartphone on the planet during the weeks it was available during the December quarter. I would assume that fewer are being produced this quarter because that’s the usual sales trends.

But since Apple is allegedly buying fewer parts, including OLED displays, Samsung is thus overstocked, according to that post, which relies on an unconfirmed Nikkei story as its source. So the South Korean consumer electronics conglomerate is desperately seeking buyers to help pick up the slack.

The mind boggles!

But Nikkei, which has a less-than-perfect record reporting about Apple, mentions yet another reason why Samsung may have extra OLED capacity, that OLED makers from China, plus LG Display and BOE Technology, have expanded production. So maybe it’s not Apple’s fault after all.

A report simply citing excess OLED display capacity, however, would be less interesting that one somehow linking it primarily to poor results from Apple. That’s what generates the hits, which is why such behavior continues. So it’s not going to stop even when such claims are regularly debunked.

But what about those OLED displays? Does it mean more smartphones might use them?

How about TV sets? If you’ve read there reviews, you’ll see that models with OLED displays get far higher ratings than those with LED displays. The reasons are obvious. OLED provides superior color reproduction, with deep rich blacks, and a very wide viewing angle. It’s reminiscent in some ways to plasma, which ultimately failed in the marketplace.

OLED remains costly to produce, meaning that such TVs are premium priced. The cheapest 55-inch Ultra HD OLED TVs listed at Amazon and Best Buy are in the range of $1,600. That’s for a highly rated set from LG.  Compared to decent quality LED sets at $700 or so, that’s real high, but it’s not beyond the range of a comparably sized plasma TVs ten years ago.

So does that mean OLED is coming of age, and that you’ll be able to buy one for less than $1,000 in the next year or so? Remember how quickly 4K came down in price, even with HDR. The TV industry is desperately attempting to boost sales of premium quality models, and persuade you to replace your old set. So this year it’s also about 4K LED, including models with HDR, hitting the sweet spot in prices.

Once you buy your 4K set, they’ll want to find ways to entice you to replace it with OLED, and for that to happen, they must be far cheaper than they are now. Maybe the Nikkei report of higher production capacities is the real story here, not a misleading claim the people don’t care about the iPhone X, or that demand collapsed much faster than what you’d expect from normal seasonal trends.

Yet another controversial factor is the alleged failure of Apple to issue guidance for the current quarter at levels financial analysts expected. But Apple also reported that it expected double digit growth in iPhone revenue. How can that be a bad thing?

Maybe in the alternate reality known as the “upside down.”

The biggest issues with the media’s response about new Apple gear isn’t just Consumer Reports. True, the publications seems to have a penchant for inserting itself into the debate whenever something from Apple isn’t working as it’s supposed to do. The publication’s marketing team evidently realizes that any bad news about the company will get loads of hits.

So when the 2016 MacBook Pro delivered questionable battery life results, you can be sure that CR was ready to not recommend it in a preliminary review. But how many personal computers are even granted preliminary reviews?

It turned out that, yes, the problem was due to an obscure Apple bug. But it was only triggered when Safari was used in a special mode that was primarily meant for web developers. How that was supposed to represent an honest appraisal of its real battery life escapes me. Even when the problem was fixed, the results were still pretty funky compared to what other publications measured. So CR appears to reside in its own reality too.

Continue Reading…