Many of you have heard of the term “fat binaries,” or “universal apps,” in which the code will work on more than a single platform or product. It may even offer a different look and feel depending on the needs of that product.

So when Apple went to Intel CPUs beginning in 2006, they embedded a built-in emulator, dubbed Rosetta. for Power PC apps for several years. That way, you didn’t have to wait for developers to build compatible software. Developers could also serve both users by building apps that combined both Power PC and Intel code, so-called universal apps. It meant for larger downloads, but at least you were assured of a version that would work even on your older Mac.

Eventually that all went by the wayside; Apple made Rosetta an optional install for OS X Snow Leopard. Support was removed beginning with OS X 10.7 Lion. After that it was Intel or nothing.

Microsoft has supported fat Windows 10 binaries that run on regular PCs, tablets and, while they lasted, mobile gear. But with the constrained resources of a smartphone, it would seem wasteful, unless the download process strips the unused code from the binary.

Now there are published repots that Apple is planning on taking a similar approach with its current gear. So developers may be able someday to create one universal app that works on an iPhone, iPad and, yes, a Mac. The story comes from Bloomberg, which has a less-than-stellar reputation for accurate reporting about Apple, but it posits some intriguing possibilities.

As it stands, many iOS apps are universal in that they are optimized for both iPhone and iPad, with their very different display sizes and feature optimizations. That makes perfect sense, as does automatically stripping an installer of unneeded code to keep the download size as small as possible. It also simplifies the development process.

The theory from the Bloomberg blogger goes that, if developers can build one version of an app for the three Apple platforms, more software will be available in the Mac App Store. I suppose that means the selection could be larger.

But Apple’s own sandboxing restrictions already limit the kind of software available for iOS and macOS. So, for example, Rogue Amoeba’s Audio Hijack, used to capture and mix audio from a number of sources, wouldn’t be approved for Apple’s online software repositories. I should think ways can be found to ensure security in pushing audio from one app to another, but I don’t claim to be a developer.

In any case, the article cites unnamed sources in claiming the existence of what is being called Marzipan. But that doesn’t imply that it’s an official source. It may even be that some developers would like for something of this sort to happen. Then again, such a move would have no meaning for most people outside of the developer community.

Besides, it’s not the same thing as running an iOS app on a Mac. That’s already done in emulation in Xcode so mobile apps can be developed, but as a practical matter, many iOS apps are limited-purpose or otherwise restricted compared to their macOS counterparts. Very much of this is due to constrained resources and the requirements of Apple’s mobile hardware.

If true, this move has the potential of making it far easier for developers who have produced millions of iOS apps to embrace Apple’s traditional computing platform.

It would also demonstrate is Apple’s ongoing commitment to the Mac, something that was a little questionable in 2016, when only one product, the MacBook, received an update until fall, when the controversial MacBook Pro arrived. And some people weren’t even satisfied with that.

Yet another suggestion is that Marzipan is only the first step towards running macOS on Apple’s custom A-series silicon. Apple is already offering such chips for specialized tasks, such as the MacBook Pro’s Touch Bar and Touch ID implementations, and low-level functions on the iMac Pro.

But they aren’t intended, so far at least, to replace Intel’s CPUs. But by offloading certain functions to Apple designed CPUs, it may make way for better performance, and to build Macs with features that no PC maker can easily duplicate.

Is that the first step towards a wholesale chip migration? I suppose you can romanticize the idea, that today’s A-series CPUs can essentially match or at least approach Intel silicon in many performance parameters. Remember, too, that even today’s A11 Bionic chip, used on the iPhone 8 and the iPhone X, are probably not run at full bore because of the resource constraints of mobile hardware.

I don’t think it’ll happen in the foreseeable future, unless Intel falls down bigly in developing new Core chips. It’s not a matter of performance. It’s not a matter of being able to ease migration with an Intel emulator that offers decent performance. But it would also handicap the ability to run Windows natively on a Mac with Boot Camp, or with really good performance in a virtual machine. Apple would have to develop CPUs with much faster performance than Intel offers to be able to overcome the losses entailed in emulation.

But building a universal or fat binary shouldn’t represent a huge problem, if such a move makes any sense for developers, and, of course, to Apple.

I purchased my last TV set in 2012. Our 50-inch Panasonic plasma was showing its age, and it was time to find a replacement. Flush with some cash from an unexpected ad deal, I purchased a 55-inch VIZIO E-Series Full-Array Smart TV set. Picture quality was quite good for a relatively low-cost LCD panel of the period, with bright, crisp pictures. In contrast, the Panasonic wasn’t near as bright, but it had an infinite viewing area. The VIZIO’s picture quality declined sharply off angle, typical for even the best of these sets.

But after talking about the 4K high resolution format so much on my radio show, I realized it was time to consider getting one of these sets in here or review. The folks at VIZIO agreed to send a 2017 55-inch M-Series SmartCast 4K Display with HDR. It bears model number M55-E0. All they asked was that I actually review the set in exchange for receiving it, but they had no restrictions on how I should approach the task, or what I’d conclude about the product.

They know me well enough to realize that nobody tells me what to say and how to say it.

The set arrived in October. I’ve mentioned this before, but the UPS delivery person stuck it on my apartment’s rear patio, taking advantage of the fact that I live on the first floor. I didn’t notice until I received a notice from VIZIO’s PR agency that the unit had shipped.

I nearly freaked for a few minutes until I noticed some barely decipherable scribbles on a delivery notice stuck on the side of the front door. I almost missed it, and I had an epiphany!

Once I brought in the set, I opened the box and took a fast look. A few days later, I asked one of my neighbors, someone who used to work for a cable company, to assist in carrying things. My back is still recovering from that June auto accident that totaled my car.

Within a few minutes, the legs were attached. We removed the old set from the stand and prepared to place the new one in its place.

But we hit a sticking point!

You see, the older VIZIO has a single stand at its center. It was was placed atop a Zvox Z-Base 580 soundbase. The new VIZIO has two metal legs situated 43 inches apart near the edges. I mention this for reasons you’ll see in a moment.

The soundbase had to go, since it’s only 36 inches wide. But here’s where we confronted a potential deal breaker. My existing TV stand was just 41 inches wide!

My helper suggested I go to a lumber store and have them cut a piece of wood wide enough to accommodate the new set, or see if I could find a precut piece of glass in the right dimension. The price of a single piece of glass, however, proved to be higher than the price of a new TV stand. A piece of lumber became the last resort until I lucked upon a TV stand with glass shelves that measured close to 50 inches wide. It was perfect, but cost more than I wanted to spend. But the store was fixing to close for good in a day or two. The stock was nearly cleared out except for a small number of items, and the manager was only too happy to take a $20 bill to get rid of the remaining TV stand, made by AVF, which usually sells for $80-90.

Now it goes without saying that few TV sets these days offer anything close to decent sound. The real thin designs, and the struggle to price them as cheaply as possible, means something has to give. Only the really large sets offer anything close to good audio quality, particularly when it comes to reproducing the thundering bass provided in those blockbuster super hero or sci-fi films.

VIZIO suggested a solution, one of their latest 2.1 soundbars, bearing model number SB3621n-E8. The unit measures 36-inches wide, and it comes with a 5.4-inch wireless subwoofer said to reproduce 50 Hz. The Zvox claims to reach 34 Hz, which is a noticeable but not significant difference. Although it lists for $149, the  VIZIO is getting stellar reviews, even when compared to competing gear priced at two to three times as much

Now a couple of things about the new TV. It has Google Chromecast built-in, offering a small number of embedded apps, such as Netflix. You can also “cast” thousands of other apps via an iPhone or other mobile device. Since it’s offering 4K streaming, you can theoretically dispense with an external streaming set-top box, such as an Apple TV 4K or devices from Amazon, Roku and even Google. I’ll have to see just how well it works, but remember you will still need an Apple TV to receive iTunes content.

Also notice that VIZIO refers to this product as a “Display” and not a TV set because there is no built-in tuner. For most of you, that isn’t going to be much of an issue. You probably receive most of your TV content via a cable or satellite set-top box or a separate streamer — or perhaps both. I suppose that’s another reason VIZIO has managed to keep the retail price at $699.

If you need a tuner, you can buy one for $30 or so at Amazon.

As most of you know, there’s not a whole lot of 4K content available yet, so much of what you watch will be scaled up from HD. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of a quality 4K TV is the ability to upsample lower resolution fare and deliver a good picture, close to the real thing. Amazon, iTunes and other services are beginning to offer more 4K content, but don’t expect much or anything from the cable or satellite providers. You’ll also find a growing number of Ultra HD Blu-ray discs if you’re willing to buy one of those new players, which aren’t altogether cheap yet. They will be.

I’ll post a preliminary review of the VIZIO in the next issue of our weekly newsletter. While I am guided by the approach taken by other reviewers, I am not going to follow their usual routine and calibrate the set professionally. Sure, that will help the unit produce the best possible picture, but it doesn’t reflect how most people will set up their TVs, particularly lower cost models. I prefer real world experiences, and I’ll try to make the best of the presets, so you’ll have an idea of what to realistically expect without lots of hoop jumping.

Meantime, I’m thankful to VIZIO for the early Christmas cheer.

Apple can’t get a break. Software glitches that are not terribly unusual on other computing platforms garner amazing amounts of publicity when it happens to an iPhone or a Mac. That the average price of Apple gear is higher — even though usually competitive — means they have to answer, I suppose, to a higher authority.

Most recently, Apple had to rush out a fix to address a root bug in macOS High Sierra, which allowed you to gain root privileges on a Mac — meaning you’d have full control of your computer without restriction — without a password. Clearly a foolish error, Apple fixed within hours after the flaw was revealed to the public.

That should have been the end of it, until it turned out that, if you installed the macOS 10.3.1 update after running that fix, the bug would return.

As a practical matter, there are always security flaws that will allow someone with access to a computer to take it over, more or less. The root bug didn’t come into play unless someone had physical access to your Mac. It wouldn’t just happen.

Still, there are just so many ways you can attack this boneheaded move. Mistakes happen, but was this one sufficient to condemn Apple forever? What about all the other bugs that have appeared in previous macOS and iOS updates. Three years ago, an iOS 8.0.1 update had the side effect of partially bricking newer iPhones. That’s far worse than granting hackers easy access, because it meant no access.

Even though Apple pulled that update within less than an hour, and released a fixed version, 8.0.2, the very next day, the affair got plenty of coverage from cable news talking heads. The affected iPhones could be restored, and would soon be back to normal, but it was still a big inconvenience. I suspect Apple’s support lines were clogged for days.

Again, this all happened in 2014, and there are other software and hardware flaws over that years that were troublesome to greater or lesser degrees. I still remember buying a Power Macintosh 8100 in 1994, because the experience was memorable, but not in a pleasant way.

Adding RAM was a treacherous process, which required you to physically remove the logic board after disconnecting some delicate wiring harnesses. In retrospect, the process was actually easier than pulling one of today’s iMacs apart. But once reassembled, it was crash city because of a seriously buggy Mac OS update. Sure, that didn’t happen under the watch of Steve Jobs or Tim Cook, but it illustrates something long-time Apple customers know full well. The products are pretty reliable and long lasting, but they are far from free of glitches.

Despite this clear and obvious fact, some of Apple critics seem to think that the High Sierra bug, and some particularly irritating ones with iOS 11 that seemed near as foolish, represent a serious decline in the quality of Apple’s software.

It’s easy to claim that they are doing too many things, releasing too many products — after a period in which people claimed they released too few — and need to spend more time and resources making sure that all or most of the serous bugs are fixed before release.

There’s certainly plenty on Apple’s plate, with four OS platforms — iOS, macOS, watchOS and tvOS — to actively support, not to mention amazingly sophisticated hardware.

Even if the number of bugs per product is the same or less — something Apple has claimed from time to time — once you add them up, it means there’s more to complain about. Having a larger customer base means that every one of those bugs impacts more people.

So I can understand why some tech pundits will complain about a rapid decline in the quality of Apple’s products, even if serious bugs are usually fixed quickly. If you buy a flawed gadget, one that clearly doesn’t work or work properly due to a hardware defect, Apple will replace it without question. They are known to establish extended repair programs to fix hardware defects even a few years after the product goes out of production and warranties have expired.

How can that happen if Apple’s gear has always been perfect?

While Apple should be justifiably embarrassed when stupid mistakes are made, those mistakes will continue to occur until robots take over the entire development, testing and manufacturing process. Or maybe not even then. After all, how can robots be perfect if they are created by humans?

But whenever you find something with an Apple label on it to complain about, consider the competition and how often bugs appear on those products. Consider Windows patches that cause boot loops — repeated booting without end – or the complete failure to start. Consider smartphones with biometrics, such as facial recognition and iris sensors, that can be easily defeated with digital photos.

Sure, Apple’s Face ID and Touch ID are not perfect, and there are elaborate methods to defeat them, but they deliver a high degree of security for most users. The biometric flaws I mentioned in the previous paragraph, which impact a Samsung Galaxy S8 and Galaxy Note 8, don’t seem to stop some reviewers from praising them to the skies. Imagine if you could defeat an iPhone’s biometrics as easily. You’d never hear the end of it.

Now since Apple has never been perfect, it’s hard to claim that there are sudden declines in quality control. One surely hopes that Apple learns from its mistakes and, as with the rest of us, strives to do better the next time.

For the longest time, you’ve read stories about why the iPhone X was fated to be unsuccessful. First and foremost, it was too expensive. How dare Apple charge $1,000 for a smartphone? Even when Samsung came out with the Galaxy Note 8, listing for about $50 less without counting discounts, it wasn’t such a big deal.

But Apple?

Imagine how they felt when it was announced that the 256GB version would sell for $1,149? But it’s also true that many people just put the purchase on their credit cards, so they’re paying a small amount per month, or they sign up for one of a carrier’s lease/purchase plans. I realize such plans aren’t offered in many countries, but in the U.S., you can sign up to plans where you pay forever, more or less, but you are eligible to trade back your smartphone and get a new one without penalty every year, every 18 months, every two years. Your monthly payment depends on how often you want to upgrade.

What this means is that the “exorbitant price” of the iPhone X may actually be affordable, only a few dollars more than the cheaper product.

The other complaints were about availability, that Apple couldn’t meet demand and thus you would be forced to wait weeks or months to get one. Forget about holiday giving. That happened at the same time some suggested sales weren’t so hot. I suppose you get the disconnect.

So today I read a piece at a site, unnamed, which claimed that iPhone X sales were poor. The source? An alleged industry analyst, Karl Ackerman, from Cowen and Company, who concluded they were much lower than Apple hoped. There doesn’t seem to be much to back up this claim, and it clearly flies in the face of other analysts who reported that sales were, to be blunt, just great.

Indeed one of those reports indicates that Apple is selling one million iPhone 8’s and one million iPhone X’s each and every day. Samsung would love to be able to do even a fraction of that business with those Galaxy smartphones. Yes, even though the Samsung Galaxy S8 earns a very slightly higher rating than any iPhone from Consumer Reports, that evidently isn’t translating to higher sales.

So what about the view of iPhone sales from a different reality, one hopes this one?

Well that survey comes from Localytics, a firm that bases its conclusions on monitoring of some 70 million iOS devices, and calculating the percentage of the new models that have been activated, which means they are now in use.

At least these are hard numbers, based on a sampling. It’s not someone making a claim about poor sales without much in the way of provable data. But the lower sales reports were enough to set Apple critics afire. One talked of the “Osborne Effect,” the practice of pre-announcing something altogether new and thus hurting sales of current gear. But that usually refers to a new product that’s very late.

It doesn’t apply here. Apple announced the new iPhones at the same time, and only postponed delivery of the iPhone X by a few weeks compared to the iPhone 8. People could still decide which model to purchase, because the delay wasn’t all that significant. Well, except at first where preorders slipped to five to six weeks before catching up quickly.

So Apple is close to balancing supplies with demand. You stand a decent chance of getting next-day or wo-day delivery of an iPhone X, or even pick up the one you want at a nearby store. That’s quite unlike the AirPods, where deliveries are now delayed until January at the earliest.

But that doesn’t mean iPhone X sales are poor. According to the numbers from Localytics, as of Friday, November 17th, some 11.2 million iPhone X’s were sold. That’s just two weeks after it went on sale. In passing, it’s interesting to note that the iPhone 8 Plus was outselling its smaller sibling, with some 18.6 million sold since the late September launch, which includes the previous fiscal quarter. Don’t forget that the larger iPhone 8 is $100 more expensive than the smaller one!

How does that relate to the claim that higher prices must always put off customers?

Localytics estimates that, after the iPhone X came out, its sales rate exceeded those of the other two models, and thus Apple is on track to meet or exceed its guidance for this quarter. That means possible sales of over 80 million iPhones, an all-time record.

To be fair, one shouldn’t assume that any one set of numbers based on a sampling is accurate. But if it’s even in the ballpark, it puts the lie to the claim Apple’s new iPhones aren’t doing so well.

But there’s more. Investment analyst Amit Daryanani from TBC Capital Markets says there’s high demand for the 256GB iPhone X in China. It also appears that higher demand for larger capacities — obviously the more expensive models — is typical in other countries.

That, however, hasn’t stopped those inveterate Apple critics from claiming, without evidence, that people are rejecting expensive gear from Apple. Or maybe they are hoping to dissuade people from buying iPhones by demagoguing, a tried and true example of political gamesmanship.

In any case, this game of dueling analytics will end once Apple releases its results for the December quarter next year.