A curious story crossed the wires the other day that has already created a furore from freedom of information advocates. It seems that Apple is developing what appears to be an iPhone kill switch feature, and it’s clear the implications are troubling.

The report is based on an Apple patent application filed 18 months ago. The software described would evidently interact with a nearby infrared sensor to shut down the camera when the unit is brought within range. Supposedly it’s designed, for example, to keep concertgoers from recording and selling videos of live concerts, which is usually prohibited. But it’s just as easy for the authorities to harness such a feature to prevent you from shooting pictures of police officers engaged in an embarrassing act, such as abusing a suspect, by having the infrared sensor embedded in patrol cars.

Clearly organizations dedicated to free speech, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Free Press, are up in arms over the threat of a possible kill switch. I suppose they have a point, although it’s also true that concert promoters want to protect the acts they spend loads of money to bring into their stadiums and arenas. Even though they will usually warn the audience at the start of an event that taking pictures and movies isn’t allowed, people will do it anyway. Sure, management has a right to eject the offenders, but if the movie taking is done surreptitiously, it is apt to present a problem for an act and/or an entertainment company that wants and deserves the right to distribute such performances, and monetize them naturally, as they see fit.

As they said in that super hero movie some years back, with great power comes great responsibility. Should such a kill switch appear on a future iPhone or iPad, or even the Web cam on a Mac, wouldn’t its presence create ample opportunity for abuse?

There are potential legitimate concerns there. But there are also legitimate reasons for having such a tool, aside from protecting entertainment figures. Consider a company that hands out iPhones to employees for use strictly for company business. They already have stringent controls over such devices, meaning they can install proprietary in-house software, and they can engage the remote wipe function if the device is lost or stolen, or the employee is fired from the company and doesn’t return the device.

It also would make sense that a company might want to prevent employees from shooting pictures of proprietary products, services, or even an entire test laboratory. They have a perfect right to protect their trade secrets, and if they own the iPhones, they can configure them any way they want. The issue of freedom of information doesn’t apply.

Where the concerns arise is when the “privilege” or whatever you wish to call it, is abused by governments to prevent citizens from exercising their rights to take pictures in their homes and public places. Certainly those widely published photos of abusive acts around the world have caused rebellions that ultimately sank corrupt governments.

This is the sort of genie that you would possibly want to keep sealed in the bottle, right?

At the same time, it’s fair to say that there is no kill switch on your Apple iOS gadget now, nor is there actually any evidence there ever will be. This whole brouhaha is based on a patent filing and nothing more. Apple’s engineers create a technology, and they want to make sure the rights to that invention are protected. In the filing, they will even suggest conditions where the invention might be used, but that doesn’t mean the product will ever see the light of day.

I mean, where is the touchscreen iMac? Have you seen it? Please tell me where I can watch it demonstrated? The fact of the matter is that, despite the existence of a patent filing that describes such a technology, no such product has ever left Apple’s test labs, assuming one’s even there. Considering Apple’s attitude about touchscreens, which limits them to iOS gadgets and input devices, it’s likely such a product will never be released. But some of the technologies may find their ways into gear where it makes sense.

At the same time, I get it. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the possible threat of a camera kill switch. To release such a feature in the core iOS would be a serious mistake. At the same time, offering a such a function that a corporate IP person can activate might be understandable. Sure, if the feature can be activated, someone will heavy-duty computer programming skills might find a way to have it deactivated. At the same time, if the company discovered evidence of such tampering, and I suppose some sort of appropriate logging system could also be built into the software, the offender could find themselves seeking a new job.

I also think that Apple wants to do the right thing, and, if such a feature ever appears, it would be delivered with serious restrictions that wouldn’t infringe on the rights of individual users. At least I hope so. But as I said, the existence of a patent does not mean the invention will be used in a shipping product now — or ever.

As loads of users of Final Cut Pro lambast Apple for not releasing a new version with the exact same look and features as the old — and then some — I suppose some are wondering whether the this means Apple is losing their mojo. And I should point out that Apple is now reportedly giving refunds to at least some disgruntled Final Cut Pro X users.

It didn’t help that Apple had the hubris to discontinue the previous version on the day the new one came out, although that’s pretty much par for the course for new software releases.

On the other hand, maybe Apple is brain-dead. Surely they’d know that video editors, accustomed to a specific workflow and production routine, would be upset over an app that seems totally different despite having a similar name. In Apple’s defense, lead Final Cut Pro coder Randy Ubillos, who also invented Adobe Premiere way back when, is quoted as saying this is version 1.0 of a brand new foundation, so give Apple time to flesh out the feature set, and fix early release bugs. Shades of iMovie ’08, where suddenly features Mac users took for granted vanished. At the time Apple was forced to keep iMovie HD, the previous version, alive so people didn’t have to upgrade. Over time, most of the lost features were restored, but Apple probably will have no more than a few months to set things right with Final Cut Pro X. It’s not as if there aren’t alternatives.

Now if Apple wasn’t the largest tech company on the planet by market cap, I suppose people wouldn’t care so much about an allegedly flawed app upgrade. Besides, it’s not as if the previous versions of Final Cut Pro stopped working when the new one arrived.

But the biggest chronic complaint against Apple is all about that so-called “walled garden.” Apple carefully controls the products and the sales message, and that’s supposed to be a “bad thing.” A “good thing” is the Android OS app market, which breeds malware and crummy software. But at least Google doesn’t serve as the gatekeeper, except in the most limited way. Customers have the freedom, and therefore the liability. If malware damages their Android smartphone or tablet, so be it. That’s the price of an uncontrolled environment.

Even though some apps will never make it to the App Store, the ones that are there will, for better or worse, operate without constantly crashing your iOS device. You shouldn’t have to worry about malware, although there are occasional security lapses that Apple will regularly patch. All in all, these gadgets are as close to appliances as you can get.

The other argument is that you cannot get the “full Internet” under the iOS. There is no support for Adobe Flash — and it’s pretty certain there never will be — and the competition will boast that their products do contain Flash. It doesn’t matter if it’s messy, slow, buggy, and loads of sites still won’t work properly without major recoding.

So the critics will say that Apple cannot continue to have record growth, and record profits, because openness is the great equalizer. Customers don’t want walled gardens, they don’t want products that may lack features or software because the manufacturer doesn’t believe they should be there.

It doesn’t matter that loads of iOS app developers are clearly able to innovate within that controlled ecosystem, or that there are far greater freedoms to build software for Mac OS X. It doesn’t matter that loads of companies make huge profits selling software and accessories for Apple gear. So what if they may have to pay license fees to build an “approved” iPhone or iPad case, or battery extender. You think it’s wrong for a company to want to charge fees for licensing technology, or the right to use official logos?

In the real world, does the owner of an Android OS gadget have a better user experience because the OS is, relatively speaking, open, and developers can build products without having to get past a heavily-armed gatekeeper? The surveys almost always show a higher level of owner satisfaction with Apple products, and that also includes support where, particularly in the PC space, the competition fares just miserably.

In the end, Apple’s success won’t depend on whether an industry pundit decides the ecosystem is too closed. It’s not that a company doesn’t have the right to decide what products to sell, how to sell them, and the requirements for third parties who want to get involved. When Microsoft stops charging Xbox developers for an SDK, and gives software away, I suppose they might have a point. Or maybe not.  But it’s not as if the totally open Linux OS, in its many iterations, has garnered much success on desktop PCs.

Sure, opinions are a dime a dozen. If you believe that you can run Apple better than Steve Jobs, quit your 9-5 office job selling landlord insurance and set up and apply for Steves job. He’s not going to be there forever, and maybe one of you will get lucky.

In this weekend’s newsletter, I gave a brief overview of the state of certain compact and mid-sized cars in different price ranges. I was actually quite impressed by the lot as far as comfort and drivability were concerned, certainly compared to the little cars I drove long, long ago. The lone sore spot, and you can take it literally, were the hugely uncomfortable seats on a 2012 Ford Fiesta, their fancy subcompact, which is based on a splashy European design. Now maybe I’m the exception, but I adjusted those seats every which way and couldn’t find the magic bullet to ease the back pain. And, in case you’re wondering, I’m not overweight. I weigh just about what I did at age 18.

Now in passing, I should mention that the salesperson didn’t seem to care. I suggested looking at a more expensive model, and he delivered a low-register grumble. So I told him to stick it and left. If anyone cares, the dealer is Power Ford in North Scottsdale, AZ. Treating potential customers that way means they don’t deserve your business, though I’m willing to accept the fact that it was just one bad apple; perhaps the rest of the sales team would be more accommodating, particularly when someone was actually considering the more expensive product.

But Ford’s biggest problem is not a subcompact with seats that may not appeal to some drivers. As I said in my earlier commentary, the MyTouch system, using technology licensed from Microsoft, is a bitter pill for some customers to swallow. It’s meant a serious drop in the J.D. Powers new car owner surveys, where users report problems with the voice activation system, touchscreens and the user interface.

But Ford isn’t alone in having a pathetic OS for their onscreen interfaces. While user friendliness varies, I’ve yet to see anything I’d classify as good, even Honda. Yes, the Accord has decent screens with crisp type for their navigation system, and the buttons are large, easily reached, and clearly labeled. But the interface needs serious work. Consider the Bluetooth “hands free” system, which mates with your mobile phone. In my brief tests, voice recognition was perfect, the caller at the other hand of the line could understand me (for once), but each and every time you enter a command, you have to press a button on the steering wheel.

So consider: You want to call a stored number, say your home, so you’d say, for example, “Call House.” You wait for the onboard system to respond by repeating the name of the party you’re calling, and it takes a few seconds for the recognition software to function. Now you have to press the button a second time to say, “Yes,” in response to whether you want to actually place that call.

This lame setup reminds me of the old fashioned CB radios, where you pushed to talk, and released to listen. Other hands free systems seem able to stay active through an entire set of commands. And, though it’s trivial, every time you have to press a button, that presents one potential minor distraction from safe driving.

Now it’s quite true that most companies have problems dealing with voice, button, and touchscreen control systems. There are many “interfaces from hell” with which to contend, yet it doesn’t seem as if the auto makers are going to the proper source to offer customers a healthy dose of user friendliness and an elegant interface.

Some years ago, there was a story that Apple was going to team with VW to build the next great auto interface. But it never happened. VW these days is on a massive cost-cutting trip to better compete on price; they were finding that premium prices proved a hard sell, even if the cars had beautiful interiors, interiors that were somewhat reminiscent of the ones in an Audi, VW’s premium brand. This cheapening process may sell more cars, but the VW “magic” is playing second fiddle. I don’t see them working with Apple to make things better.

On the other hand, what if Apple devised a car-based interface and OS that they could market to the various car companies without prejudice? They’d simply pay the license fee, and agree to install these systems on the right hardware, without making changes. It would ensure consistency, since it would mean that one car would have the same interface and control buttons as another. But it wouldn’t stop an auto maker from supporting certain features in some models, but not in others, unless you buy an optional package of some sort.

Would Apple consider such a move?

Well, you just know Apple isn’t going to build cars, even though they have a stock market capitalization that’s way higher than any single car maker, and they have more than enough cash to buy a real auto company if that’s what they wanted to do.

However, licensing an Apple OS for motor vehicles would mean that tens of millions of potential Mac and iOS customers would be exposed to the brand. That would create a halo effect of massive proportions. And, yes, I know that some new cars come equipped with manuals stored on new iPads.

Of course, all this depends not just on Apple deciding to build a car (and truck) OS and a set of appropriate apps, but on the auto makers willing to license the technology. Since Ford has already teamed with Microsoft to get their software, as imperfect as it might be, the precedent has been set. Whether Apple is interested is, of course, highly uncertain now or ever.

As much as I have concerns about the way Consumer Reports reviews tech gear, I will take their reader surveys seriously, having answered some of them myself. While some of the questions seem a tad too general, at least CR appears to be making an honest attempt to determine if a product or service is reliable or not.

My personal experience has actually shown those reliability surveys to be very much on the mark. Consider that 2002 Honda Accord I used to drive. CR says there are transmission issues, and yes, Honda did have a special repair program that addressed premature failure. But it never happened to me over the 74,000 miles my son and I put on that vehicle.

The earliest Intel-based Macs also didn’t have quite the bullet-proof hardware reliability you’d expect from Apple gear. They ran hot, a problem that was at least controlled somewhat with ongoing updates to the cooling fans. But it appears that hardware may have been prone to other ills.

Continue Reading…