Look for Apple Inc. to come to the rescue of markets that need to be rescued. In 2001, when the digital music player business wasn’t going anywhere, with gadgets that underperformed and were hard to use, Apple arrived with the iPod.

In fact, we didn’t believe we needed an iPod. Maybe it was just an expensive indulgence. After all, why spend $399 for a music player anyway? What’s the sense in that? Oh, 5,000 songs in my pocket, and fast transfers via FireWire from my Mac? And the thing’s easy to use? Wait a minute!

The iPod began a miracle, confounding the experts to quickly turn around the digital music player business, and, in fact, the entire music industry stung by the rise of pirated songs hosted on sites around the world. Apple offered a convenient method for the industry to embrace the digital revolution in a way that made it easy and inexpensive for consumers to buy the songs they wanted online without running afoul of the law.

Continue Reading…

It’s a given that, when Intel’s Ivy Bridge processor lineup debuts some time this spring, there will be new Macs to go along with that product introduction. So you’ll see more performance, and lower power consumption. Intel’s now-decent integrated graphics may even get a little more decent.

Now Apple sometimes makes special deals with Intel to beat the competition, and I wonder what sort of financial arrangement that entails, since Apple doesn’t participate in that “Intel Inside” marketing scheme. So, for example, new Macs introduced in 2011 got Thunderbolt, a high-performance peripheral port that was developed by both Apple and Intel. This year, the Windows PC world will have their crack at this feature, courtesy of those new chipsets that embed Thunderbolt. Maybe then we’ll even see more than a handful of products that take advantage of a feature that, in essence, puts the power of the internal slots on a Mac Pro on every other Mac.

Y0u may expect that the iMac will continue in its present form, although Apple will surprise us from time to time. That, among all-in-one PCs, the iMac gets a third of the sales, is a tribute to the ongoing popularity and flexibility of a product that is a direct descendant of the very first 1984 Mac.

What’s happened to the iMac is that it has become a credible tool for many content creators who cherished the power and expandability of a Mac Pro. It’s not a total replacement, but Thunderbolt, plus some sort of breakout box that handles PCI cards, would go a long way towards erasing some key advantages of the Mac Pro, other than it being external, of course. As Intel’s desktop chips grow more powerful, with extra cores, the performance advantage of the Mac Pro has been whittled down to a small number of apps that require six or 12 cores. Over time, you’ll see lots more cores on the desktop chips too, maybe enough to minimize the need for two of them.

Since Apple already sells customized iMacs with two drives, a regular hard drive and a solid state version, it would be a neat idea to have an accessible rear slot to allow you to easily swap drives. It may go against Apple’s design sensibilities, but it would be a practical way to set up an iMac as a more sensible and expandable personal computer. The positioning of the drives and the design of the cover could, I suppose, be done in a way that’s fairly seamless and not likely to be visible without looking real hard. Besides, do Mac users really look at the behinds of their iMacs that closely, and would it hurt product placements? I doubt it.

Sure, there will be a new Xeon lineup this year, thus creating the possibility of a 2012 Mac Pro. Apple would only have to update the graphics hardware to the latest and greatest, add some SSDs to the bundles, plus a pair of Thunderbolt ports. Suddenly the Mac Pro would be up to date without a huge expenditure in development dollars. This would make it feasible for Apple to continue to build these workstations.

But it’s also true that Apple has gone for volume sales in a huge way, and the Mac Pro doesn’t generate much volume. The controversial release of Final Cut Pro X seriously upset some video editors who have gone to Avid systems and Adobe Premiere as a result. But a more consumer-friendly FCP delivers a whole new audience who find $299, plus the cost of a couple of extra modules, low enough to buy in large quantities. These prosumers surely include budding movie makers who couldn’t justify the cost of the full-blown FCP application suite, and a Mac Pro. Today’s iMac at a fraction of the price becomes the ideal video production tool.

So far, I’m not saying anything that presents more than minor changes over existing products, nor is it a stretch of logic.

As you probably know, three quarters of the Macs sold these days are portables. Here there is speculation about a 15-inch MacBook Air, following the design scheme of existing models. Whether the MacBook Pro would change much is an open question. Some speak of a slimmer model, also without an internal optical drive. But that depends on how many MacBook Pro users still require those drives, and whether most of you can live without one except in rare cases where, perhaps, an external version would be sufficient.

Don’t forget that people protested when Apple killed the internal floppy drive beginning with the first iMac. Sure, you could buy an external floppy drive, and that alternative was sufficient for a couple of years until floppies disappeared entirely. Well, at least you had the chance to copy the floppies onto a CD; oh wait, it took a while before Apple realized you needed a CD drive with recording capability.

Nonetheless, I don’t see much reason for Apple to have to change a lot on the Mac platform. It’s not as if there’s any real innovation with Windows PCs these days. But making the mid-range iMac a more compelling replacement for a Mac Pro is a given. I do not, however, expect the Mac Pro to go away right away, although its days are clearly numbered.

There is a report this week, one getting loads of coverage, that Apple’s genius product designer, Sir Jonathan Ive, has a 50-inch Apple TV in his design studio. If true, it might grant credibility to the growing expectations that Apple has such a product in our future that will go on sale some time later this year.

But you have to wonder from where this story originated, and it appears to be a statement attributed to someone who may have at one time worked at Apple. At the same time, if true, it may not mean a thing. Apple typically has development products in prototype form that are never released to the public, and this TV set may be one of those products. It doesn’t mean that you can expect to buy a production version at your nearby Apple Store this year or any year.

All this chatter is clearly the result of that famous reference in the authorized Steve Jobs biography, from Walter Isaacson, that Jobs announced proudly that he had “cracked” the code, as it were, towards succeeding in the TV space. I assume the statement is true, just as I assume Jobs knew the quote would be published and reprinted worldwide. It may very well be that it was made deliberately to cause consternation among TV makers. Just what was Jobs talking about, and how soon would that product appear?

At the same time, any major product introduction from Apple, even in the future, will likely cast a cloud upon the Consumer Electronics Show, which occurs in Las Vegas next week. In recent years, Apple has been good about upstaging the event with their own announcements. Last year, it was news about the impending introduction of a Verizon Wireless version of the iPhone, but it was followed with plenty of speculation about the form and features of the next great iPad.

The rest of the tech industry just can’t catch a break.

As to the alleged Apple connected TV, the media is already designing the product for Apple. It would have Siri voice recognition, and be available in the usual sizes, such as 42 inches, and, if the story about that TV in Sir Jonathan’s studio is true, 50-inches. But that’s nothing special. These are among the sizes in which a flat panel TV is typically offered. What may be true is that Apple would pick two or three popular sizes, and that’s it. You won’t find a 32-inch version. That would be too close to the iMac anyway.

But those sizes aren’t a given. Other reports do mention 32-inch and 37-inch versions, but that seems underwhelming. Sizes ranging from 40 inches to 55 inches seem more sensible.

In addition to Siri, you should expect something akin to today’s Apple TV set top box on steroids, I suppose. It would have an A5 or better processor, support for AirPlay and, of course iCloud. Aside from Siri, though, that would seem to be little more than taking today’s Apple TV and placing it inside a real TV.

What about the content?

OK, there’s the problem, and there can be several solutions. But first and foremost, I do not believe Apple will deliver a TV set that’s deficient in any of the connection choices you expect. There will be a built-in over-the-air tuner, and several HDMI slots for whatever programming you want. You will be able to connect a cable or satellite TV adapter, a gaming console, a Blu-ray player, and even a Google TV gadget if that’s what you want. It wouldn’t make any sense for Apple to skip these essentials, as much as they’d want you to entice you to get your content from them. Otherwise, the set’s sales potential would be sharply reduced. And I won’t speculate about 3D, which still remains underwhelming, unless Apple develops a credible solution that doesn’t require those dreadful glasses.

However, Apple is supposedly working with the entertainment companies to give you their own unique iTunes-derived subscription experience. It may well be that this, in addition to Siri, would be Apple’s ace-in-the-hole, but whether it can truly happen is another issue entirely. For Apple to offer a compelling alternative, they’d have to make deals with all the major networks, and, perhaps, local stations, assuming all the content is going to be streamed.

The other question is the cost of streaming. If you are downloading mostly high definition content for eight to 12 hours a day, and these are fairly average figures for TV watchers, there will come a point where your ISP is going to protest. Faced with the loss of cable TV customers, broadband providers might just raise prices for potential bandwidth abusers. Suddenly what you save in dropping cable won’t be such a savings anymore.

Or maybe, just maybe, Apple will filter your cable or satellite connection, allowing for Siri control and perhaps display of a TV schedule in a customized iOS interface. That might require agreements with these companies, but seeing they’d get more customers, it doesn’t seem as if it would be a problem, right? But they also sell a service with supposedly unique features, so that might not be feasible. Or maybe it’ll just be Siri and you’ll have to endure the same lame programming interfaces they offer now.

If and when an Apple connected TV arrives, I’ll be very curious and, if I have the spare cash, tempted to buy one. But that nagging feeling of skepticism about the whole thing won’t go away.

In the scheme of things, the iPad, up until recently, was not considered to be an expensive product. The pundits had it that Apple would be charging up to $1,000 for the first version, and were totally flummoxed when Apple announced starting prices at just $499. Indeed, that price point formed the threshold for competing products, some of which actually required a data contract with a wireless carrier to match it. But, of course, the iPad, even the one with a 3G radio, doesn’t require any contractual commitment.

Over time, as the competing tablets failed miserably in the marketplace, the prices largely became equivalent to Apple’s, except, of course, that other electronics companies usually don’t have the economies of scale and hence aren’t making the same profit margins.

There did come a time when competing tablets became a lot cheaper, but only when manufacturers dumped unsold units into the marketplace. So you do recall the rush to buy a $99 HP TouchPad which, as a failed and discontinued product, is mostly a curiosity these days. It’s not as if there are many apps for it, or that there will ever be. HP does have hopes an open source WebOS will make things better, but I doubt it.

The market changed when Amazon introduced the 7-inch Kindle Fire, and Barnes & Noble countered with the $250 Nook of the same size. Based on the current reports, it appears the Fire did pretty well during the holiday season, though Amazon is curiously shy about delivering absolute numbers. There is, though, a published report suggesting that the Fire cannibalized one to two million iPad sales. I suppose we’ll get a better picture of the situation when Apple releases its financials later this month.

Regardless, I suppose the Fire is an attractive buy largely because it is cheap, and also because it has been heavily marketed by Amazon. And that’s a highly respected name. As a practical matter, Amazon evidently sells the things at a loss, expecting to make up the difference by selling you stuff. Indeed, although you can surf the Internet and manage email on a Fire, it’s primary function is to serve as a storefront for Amazon’s products and services, and that’s how the interface is designed.

Based on an older version of the Android OS never certified for use in a tablet, there were the typical customer complaints about erratic performance and the poor implementation of the touch feature. That’s understandable, and Amazon did release an online update said to address at least some of the problems. Well, at least Fire owners can get updates, unlike customers of other Android tablets and smartphones that may be running versions of the OS that are way out of date, in need of critical stability and security fixes, but cannot get them.

My limited encounter with the Fire wasn’t terribly promising. The product is very no frills, no doubt the result of severe cost cutting. There’s no camera and no mic. It’s strictly a consumption device, and Amazon hopes you’ll consume their stuff.

But where does that leave Apple?

For now, Apple dismisses the competition, as you might expect. Indeed, the poor hardware and sales performance of iPad competitors shows their approach is correct. The late Steve Jobs also said that a 7-inch tablet is a bad idea, not nearly as usable as the 9.7-inch iPad. But that didn’t stop rivals from offering that size. Evidently the Kindle Fire is at least reasonably successful.

For 2012, the rumors suggest a new iPad, a so-called iPad 3, by February or March; the former would be on February 24th, to coincide with Jobs’ birthday. But since Apple doesn’t observe such events, or hasn’t in the past, that doesn’t seem very logical. When the iPad 3 is ready to roll, Apple will roll it.

Now if Apple follows the iPhone playbook (and it’s not meant as a pun on the failed RIM tablet, on which the Kindle Fire appears to be based), they will offer the new version at the same price as the one it replaces. Maybe it’ll even have that high resolution display and an eight megapixel camera. At the same time, the iPad 2, or a somewhat modified version, will be sold for less. Here the estimates range from $399 to as little as $299. If Apple can deliver an iPad 2 (or 2S) profitably for the latter, the market for the Kindle Fire could be hurt seriously. Why buy a wannabe when the real thing is only $100 more?

Sure, Apple isn’t into engaging in price wars, but they will be competitive when they need to be. Whether that means a cheaper iPad is in the offing, I cannot say. On the other hand, if the Kindle Fire made a severe dent in iPad sales, Apple isn’t going to take that sitting down. You’ll probably get a better picture if iPad sales meet or exceed expectations, or fall a tad behind. If the latter, expect the model lineup and pricing structure to be altered somewhat. Regardless of how it turns out, it does seem sensible to keep the existing iPad in the lineup so long as customer demand stays relatively high.