Part and parcel of our polarized society is the feeling that, if we accept the other side’s approach, it may be the end of the world as we know it. They wish us ill, and are doing foolish and/or evil things to take us all down.

Now I’m not going to dwell on my political viewpoints about the crazy things that are going on in Washington, D.C. except for one thing, and that’s the promise — or threat — that net neutrality is ending soon.

As is often true, the facts are more nuanced, and whatever does happen can be overturned by a future FCC, and we start all over again.

Continue Reading…

So before the iPhone X came out, there were oh-so-many complaints about an expected starting price just shy of $1,000. It was the most expensive mainstream smartphone, although the critics were pushing it. After all, the Samsung Galaxy Note 8 wasn’t all that much cheaper, particularly when you paid for one on a monthly basis.

And if you can see people freaking out big time over a smartphone that can cost over $1,000 in its top-of-the-line configuration, imagine a Macintosh computer that can be optioned to a price north of $13,000!

Indeed, the media meme has focused heavily on the fact that the iMac Pro is Apple’s “most expensive computer,” and that might be technically true. But the original Macintosh IIfx, a computer workstation that debuted in 1990, retailed for $8,969 in its entry-level configuration, and that’s the equivalent of $16,797.90 in 2017.

And it didn’t even come with a display, though you could upgrade it to a fare-thee-well. So it may have ended up costing even more in 1990 dollars.

The starting price of the iMac Pro is a “mere” $4,999, and it’s actually not entry-level by any means, since it includes an 8-core Intel Xeon-W processor, 32GB of ECC RAM, and a 1TB SSD. Not too shabby. Indeed, it is a workable configuration for many people, although I might consider the version with a 2TB SSD if I had the budget for one; that configuration adds $800 to the price.

If you need the best available, you can order up an 18-core processor, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 with 16GB HBM2 memory, 128GB of ECC RAM and a 4TB SSD. That gets you to the $13,199 figure.

However, the price is not out of line. A Windows PC equipped with similar parts would be priced in the same range. This has long been true of Apple’s professional workstations.

From the front, the iMac Pro appears to be nearly identical to a regular iMac, except for the space gray color scheme. The rear has more ports, fitting for a computer that’s meant for 3D rendering, complex mathematical calculations and other high-end use. To go with it, Apple released Final Cut Pro X 10.4, which includes a wealth of new features including support for real-time 8K editing.

Now if only Apple had an 8K display for such chores. Right now Dell has such a beast, and I suspect the promised Thunderbolt display will also fit into that category when it arrives next year. An iMac Pro can drive two external 5K displays, and probably just one with 8K capability. But that might be more the province of the forthcoming Mac Pro.

Still, Apple is definitely making moves to reclaim the professional video editing market by piling on features in its $399 app.

Now when it comes to the iMac Pro, users are going to have to consider whether buying a computer that starts at $4,999 will really suit their needs. With a minimum of 8 cores, it’s clearly meant for apps that take advantage of multiple cores, and the preliminary benchmarks reveal expected performance boosts across the board.

But if you’re not using such apps — or just can’t afford the price of admission — the regular 27-inch iMac would very likely meet your needs. For up to four cores, it’ll probably benchmark faster in CPU tasks than those expensive Xeons. All right, the Pro’s graphics are more powerful too. But the standard iMac isn’t necessarily cheap when check all the boxes. Indeed, a maxed out iMac with 2TB of solid stage storage is $5,299.

As to the iMac Pro, I thought it would end up even being more expensive, because I overestimated the premium for the 18-core Xeon-W CPU. I predicted a total price of over $15,000.

The media, however, is focusing on the wrong thing. As I indicated above, the iMac Pro is not more expensive than comparable Windows boxes. You might mention the Microsoft Surface Studio all-in-one, which more directly competes with a regular iMac, and includes a touchscreen, but you cannot option it to the same level as the iMac. That’s why it never gets much above $4,000.

Contradicting the emphasis on price, in the past the critics complained that Apple had failed to listen to its power users. The 2013 Mac Pro was a misfire, never upgraded, and, even though it’s still available, it’s mostly a placeholder for the next model.

As to delivery, you might stand a chance of getting one of the “lesser” iMac Pros before the end of the year, but you’ll have to wait a couple of months of you want 14 cores or 18 cores.

But there’s also a new modular Mac Pro under construction. Will it just be a version of the iMac Pro sans display with easy upgrades and space for multiple drives and expansion cards? Or will Apple choose Xeons with up to 24 cores and perhaps even RAM slots? Will the price approach $20,000, and will the media rant about that factor rather than its value as a high-end workstation? You betcha!

Oh and by the way, one valid criticism being made about the iMac Pro is that RAM isn’t as easily upgraded as one the regular 27-inch iMac. You have to bring it to a dealer, which probably means it has to be taken completely apart if you want to use third-party ECC memory instead of just checking off Apple’s overpriced parts.

I wonder why Apple couldn’t simply follow the regular iMac RAM upgrade scheme, although it’s likely components had to be positioned differently to take advantage of the higher cooling requirements.

The other day, the Night Owl posted a column suggesting that you can’t judge potential sales of a product on the basis of the number of searches recorded by Google. But it’s also true that high search volume certainly indicates that people are interested.

At least when the product is finally available.

So in 2016, speculation persisted about what Apple might deliver for a 10th anniversary iPhone, assuming such a thing would even happen. Even during the rumor run-up to the iPhone 7, some suggested you might as well not bother. Next year there would be something a whole lot better. It didn’t hurt that Apple decided to ditch the headphone jack, which kind of/sort of raised a ruckus for a while. But it doesn’t seem as if a significant number of potential sales were lost.

After all, didn’t Apple provide a free adaptor so you could plug your wired ear buds or headphones into the lightning port? Well, unless you wanted to listen and charge at the same time, in which case you needed a more expensive combo adapter with both the headphone jack and a lighting port for the charger.

But just now, I found one for $12.99 at Amazon, and assuming it is of good quality, that criticism doesn’t really pass muster unless you tire of dongles. But Apple’s end game is no doubt creating the climate for a wider array of affordable Bluetooth headphones, and not just the AirPods, which may or may not be affordable depending on your point of view.

But let’s get back to those searches.

For months on end, speculation continued about a 2017 iPhone that continued to be referred to as iPhone 8. It was assumed the regular upgrade to the iPhone 7 would be called iPhone 7s, and it would have strictly minor improvements. Until we came real close to September’s iPhone launch event, the product that became known as the iPhone X was still referred to strictly by its rumored name.

Are you with me so far?

Well, in that December 8th column, I cited a blog that claimed that iPhone X searches on Google weren’t especially high, thus indicating sales may not be all that great. Unfortunately, that flew in the face of estimates from real industry analysts that indicated great sales and clear evidence of improved availability.

If you visited to Apple’s online store as of December 13th to order an iPhone X, you’d be promised two-day delivery. That’s about as quick as anything you might order this holiday season. In addition, it appeared that most or all of the Apple Stores in and around the sprawling Phoenix metro area had at least some in stock. Unless you plan on competing your holiday shopping on Christmas Eve, it does not appear that you’ll have much trouble getting one.

Now comes some fascinating information that raises questions about that claim about subpar search requests for the iPhone X. Based on “what was trending in 2017” at Google, the iPhone 8 was second among total searches. The iPhone X occupied the third spot. First on the list was Hurricane Irma, and rounding out the list was Matt Lauer and Meghan Markle. Indeed among actors, Gal Gadot (“Wonder Woman”) only managed number three. I hardly think Markle rates; well except for the abiding interest in matters relating to the British royal family.

In any case, among consumer tech gear, the iPhone 8 was number one, followed by the iPhone X, Nintendo Switch, Samsung Galaxy S8, and the Xbox One X. The Pixel 2 Phone by Google didn’t make the top five.

Now why would the iPhone 8 rate higher than the iPhone X?

One key reason ought to be obvious. Under this past summer, the iPhone X was almost always referred to as the iPhone 8, meaning the search involved the very same product. While Google’s tables don’t quantify exact numbers, it’s safe to say that Apple is doing far better generating interest in its products than any other tech company.

Again, because people are searching for a retail gadget doesn’t necessarily correlate with final sales figures. It’s always possible that, once the information is consulted, they’ll look elsewhere. Interest in Apple products, however, appears to rate way ahead of any other tech gear, which is why two iPhones generated more interest than anything else other than a weather-related catastrophe.

It may be useful to look at the topics that didn’t rate so high in Google searches, but I’d rather not engage in political discussions in these columns.

In any case, with wide availability of the iPhone X in at least some countries, and industry analyst estimates of high sales, clearly Apple took the right approach in managing this product launch.

If I had less limited access to money, and was still in the business of replacing most of my gear every year or so, I might even consider one. The reality is otherwise, but obviously lots of others have no qualms about buying a more expensive product. Indeed, there are analyst estimates that Apple will sell well over 80 million iPhones, in total, this quarter, and that the 256GB iPhone X may actually be earning higher sales than its cheaper sibling.

When Apple launched the iMac Pro at June’s WWDC, I have to admit I was surprised. I expected a regular old iMac with some higher-end configurations. There are versions of Intel’s Core chips with extra cores, and I thought Apple would choose them.

What I didn’t anticipate was a new model with, essentially, the guts of a Mac Pro in an iMac case. But that’s precisely what Apple is giving us with the iMac Pro, which was promised to ship this month. The internal cooling system was revised to handle the expanded needs of 18-core Intel Xeon, AMD Radeon Pro Vega graphics and up to 128GB of ECC RAM.

As I said, the guts of a Mac Pro, or at least one possible configuration of a Mac Pro.

The new space gray computer with a chassis you expect in an all-in-one workstation, including four Thunderbolt 3 USB-C ports, four regular USB 3 ports, an SDXC card slot and even 10Gb Ethernet for super-fast networking.

Predictably, it’s going to be an expensive beast. You can max out a regular iMac to hit $5,299 U.S. with pretty much all options selected, plus AppleCare. The iMac Pro starts at $4,999, and you can expect it to easily soar to two or three times that amount if you click or tap pretty much all the options.

But even the entry-level is pretty well configured with an 8-core Xeon, 32GB ECC RAM, and a 1TB SSD. High-end Xeon chips are expensive. An Intel price list I saw lists the W-2195 18-core CPU, the one Apple is reportedly using, for a suggested price of $2,553. Add to that the cost of 4TB of SSD, the more powerful graphics card and 128GB ECC RAM, and you get a mighty expensive beast.

In the spirit of the MacBook Pro, the iMac Pro will include a T2 system-on-a-chip that supports low-level functions, such as the boot process, password encryption and other functions, including audio, the camera, the SSD. It’s the sort of advantage Apple’s in-house chip design capability provides, but there’s evidently no support for Touch ID or even a Touch Bar.

According to published reports, the 8-core and 10-core models will ship this year. Both 14-core and 18-core upgrades won’t arrive until 2018. The former has yet to be officially announced.

All told, you can expect a maxed out iMac Pro to approach the cost of a compact sedan.

Since the iMac Pro can support up to two external 5K displays, that might be quite enough for content creators. But Apple is still reportedly developing a modular Mac Pro and a new lineup of Thunderbolt displays, and here’s where I might make a prediction or two.

You see, the first group of power users that Apple seeded with preproduction iMac Pros are also running a fairly major upgrade to Final Cut Pro, version 10.4. One of the new features is support for an 8K timeline. But the iMac Pro’s internal display tops out at 5K. So what’s going on here?

Right now, Dell has a 32-inch 8K display priced at $3,699. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the iMac Pro drive one of these beasts, and the next Mac Pro might handle a pair. But is it possible the new display lineup from Apple will include an 8K version?

Blockbuster movies are already being shot in 8K, but the cameras cost upwards of $30,000. On the other hand, if a movie company is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a movie laden with special effects, paying more for a camera is no big deal.

Indeed, it’s very possible there will be an 8K TV in our homes someday, though it would be an extravagance. As 4K sets become cheaper and cheaper — even with HDR capabilities — 8K prototypes have already been displayed at the CES. But I question the value. Many people can’t even see the 4K advantage unless they have a model with a very large screen or sit fairly close. 8K in the home would be meaningless for most people, though that resolution will look just great on the big screen.

But just as Apple pioneered affordable 5K capability when it introduced a special version of the 27-inch iMac in 2014, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear about an 8K version someday. It’s the future of movie production, and Apple continues to work hard to add more professional features to Final Cut Pro X, and somehow persuade video editors to embrace the app once again.

In any case, I didn’t expect Apple to make a huge deal about shipping a new Mac so late in the year. The late December shipping date of the 2013 Mac Pro seemed an afterthought. This time, however, Apple is ramping up the publicity machine with stories about power users seeded with the iMac Pro, preliminary unofficial benchmarks and other reports.

Getting user reactions ahead of reviews from the usual selection of tech journalists clearly demonstrates that Apple wants to tout the iMac Pro’s credibility as a professional workstation.

We can worry about the HomePod next year.