Funny how some Apple critics are so often proved wrong.

Take the claim that, when Sir Jonathan Ive became Apple’s Chief Design Officer in 2015, it was the first step on the road to leaving the company. Maybe he’d just gather up his family and return to the UK, or perhaps find another gig. In the meantime, other Apple executives reportedly took the lead in product design.

Ive allegedly focused most of his efforts on finishing up the new Apple “spaceship” campus said, in part, to represent a memorial to the memory of Steve Jobs.

In 2016, Apple delivered fewer new products than usual. The iPhone 7 was regarded as, at best, a subpar upgrade, although it did fairly well in sales. Macs were virtually ignored until the end of the year, except for a minor speed bump upgrade for the MacBook.

The long-awaited MacBook Pro refresh was controversial. It was thinner, lighter, and the changes weren’t believed to represent a commitment to building a professional notebook computer. It was more about needless fluff, and don’t forget the Touch Bar. And what about such neglected products as the Mac mini and the Mac Pro?

Were both on the chopping block?

So what role did Ive play in those designs anyway? If his attention was focused elsewhere, did he at least spend a reasonable amount of time with the new product prototypes before approving them? Did he take advantage of that authority, beyond recording marketing videos to extol the new products?

What was really going on at Apple? Had the company lost its way? Could it even survive without Ive working hands-on to make sure all designs past muster?

Despite the skepticism, there was reportedly high demand for the new MacBook Pros, with sales results showing slight increases. So did Apple nail the design, or were customers overanxious because they’d waited so long for a new model? But why would they pay several hundred dollars extra for an inferior product?

2017 started off quietly, until Apple summoned tech journalists to participate in a roundtable discussion with Apple executives. In a sense, it was mea culpa time, as Apple admitted it goofed with the Mac Pro design. An all-new modular version was being developed, but without a promised ship date; well, maybe hint that it might arrive in 2018. A new iMac would incorporate pro features. Marketing VP Philip Schiller said a nice thing or two about the Mac mini, but reminded his audience that it wasn’t the focus of that session.

After rumors arose over a bunch of Mac updates for the WWDC, Apple confirmed them and then some, releasing new versions of the MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac. The latter two were fairly significant in terms of performance boosts. A matter of catching up?

The high-end iMac wasn’t just a few models with faster parts. It was a whole new model, dubbed iMac Pro, with darker colors, and a revised thermal design to accommodate professional parts, including an 18-core Intel Xeon processor. Prices start at $4,999, and it will soar to several times that if you customize the unit with all the available options. According to Apple, it will be available to order on December 14th.

The Home Pod, more speaker than a “smart” gadget, is delayed until 2018. The Mac Pro is still forthcoming, and when Tim Cook said nice things about the Mac mini, it seemed to be a reasonable assurance that a new model will probably arrive next year.

Loads of new stuff was introduced at the September iPhone event. In addition to a traditional iPhone upgrade dubbed iPhone 8, the long-rumored 10th anniversary version, the iPhone X, arrived with the promise of delivery in early November. Despite predictions that it would be back ordered for months, production problems were quickly resolved, and you can order now one in the U.S. and wait no more than two to four days to receive one. Or visit your nearest Apple Store and stand a decent chance of finding the one you want.

Now that the new Apple campus is open, it is reported that Ive is back running the design team. While the critics point to a bunch of missteps over the past couple of years, you also have to compare Apple’s results with other companies.

Most all new Apple gear ships with a hardware or software defect of some sort. The iPhone X does appear to be a winner for the most part. Consumer Reports claims it’s not quite as tough as it should be, though you have to expect at least some damage after 50-100 drops to a hard surface. The Samsung Galaxy S8 doesn’t seem to fare much better. But watch Apple find ways to make the 2018 version stronger.

It’s easy to suggest that the lack of new products in 2016, and some controversial design choices, were all about Ive ceding responsibilities. But if he signed off on designs that others created, it’s still his fault. Besides, if a new product came across his desk that doesn’t meet his standards, don’t you think he’d send it back with recommendations (or demands) for change?

Despite all the speculation, it’s really hard to know what really happened behind the scenes when Ive’s focus was more on the campus than the next Mac or iPhone. Maybe after someone leaves Apple, there will be a tell-all. Or maybe things worked out pretty much the way they would have worked out anyway regardless of how many hours Ive really devoted to designing new gear.

I’ve written about the iPhone X for months. It is not on my shopping list for a near-term purchase, because I have bills to pay. But I’ve always had extended access to iPhones and many iPads. So it was high time that I spend some face time with Apple’s latest and greatest.

The occasion came Friday when I met a colleague who bought one the very first week. He had plenty of time to put it through his paces and, as a power user, he made sure to type some notes about his early experiences. So when he handed it over to me for an overnight “visit,” I was able to consult them to compare his reactions to mine.

Now as you know, the iPhone X’s edge-to-edge OLED display allows for a product that is similar in size to the regular iPhone 8 to incorporate a larger display. I had an iPhone 8 Plus on hand to compare the feel, and the iPhone X is not only smaller, but noticeably lighter. The former actually feels a tad heavy when I hold it in one hand, and it wears a little over an extended period of time.

Continue Reading…

So far, reports from industry analysts — and I don’t think they use crystal balls — does lead one to believe that sales of the iPhone X are off the charts. As Apple continues to improve production, more product is available to buy.

Apple’s online store indicated, as of the time that I wrote this column, delivery ahead of Christmas, with limited availability at Apple Stores. This is a tremendous improvement from the five to six weeks backlog right after initial orders were taken in late October. It also helps put the lie to all the fear-mongering that you wouldn’t be able to receive an iPhone X for a month or more, or that it would make well into 2018 for things to settle down.

While I’m not suggesting you’ll be able to go out and buy the version you like the night before Christmas, the situation does appear to be far better than one might have expected. This comes after months of claims that Apple would encounter serious difficulties in overcoming alleged early production problems, particularly with the sophisticated hardware for its Face ID feature. That Apple delivered the iPhone X weeks after the other new iPhones went on sale does indicate a slower production ramp up, at least at first.

But you have to expect things to be difficult what with an all new model that’s, by the usual definition, a hot ticket.

Now when industry analysts check sales, it would seem sensible that they would survey potential customers and, of course, check with dealers. Would they base potential sales strictly on searches?

Well, a certain published report suggests “sales of [Apple’s] new iPhones may not have been as robust as some had hoped.” I won’t mention the name of the analyst, because of what this claim is based on. The article also asserts that “some investors have been disappointed by lack of enthusiasm for the iPhone X.”

But isn’t the iPhone X backordered? Aren’t industry analysts that talking of blowout sales? What about published reports that some six million iPhone X units were sold during the Black Friday/Cyber Monday holiday weekend? Were those reports false?

Well, the survey that questions iPhone X popularity is based on — get this — the rate of Google searches!

Take a deep breath dear reader.

Now I presume if someone wanted to check out an iPhone, wouldn’t they also consider going direct to Apple’s site to find the information, or perhaps a dealer from which they’d want to purchase one? What about a magazine that may have reviewed the product, such as Consumer Reports? Does it always have to be a Google search?

Besides, are there surveys of iPhone X purchasers, or purchases of any iPhone or rival product, which can correlate the Google search rate to the final purchase decision? What about smartphones from Samsung, LG, even Pixel, Phone by Google? Can you relate their sales numbers, such as they are, to the number of searches they generated?

I’m not suggesting there’s no connection, even a slight one. I’m just saying that, if one is going to base possible sales results on searches alone, prepare to be disappointed.

Obviously if the reports of high demand for the iPhone X are correct, the search data has to be questioned. But that also assumes that the report in question — and I’m not linking to it or identifying the source — quoted that search data accurately. Google is identified as the source.

More to the point, how many people out there will base their decision on what to buy on what others search for? Is that a serious factor in reaching such a decision? I do notice that when I just searched Google for the iPhone X, it reported “About 275,000,000 results (0.59 seconds).”

275,000,000?

That’s an awful lot of results for a supposedly unpopular product. In comparison, a check for iPhone 8 yielded “About 173,000,000 results (0.56 seconds).” The Samsung Galaxy S8 brought “About 37,200,000 results (0.69 seconds).” A search for Pixel 2 brought “About 31,600,000 results (0.56 seconds) .”

You know, maybe there is a correlation after all, one that indicates that the iPhone X is is at the top of the list, followed by the iPhone 8. The searches for gear from Samsung and Pixel brought predictably lower results. So it doesn’t appear that Google is gaming the system.

But results re not akin to the search rate, meaning how often people are looking for something.

What it dos mean is that there is an amazing amount of information out there about the iPhone X, and that would appear to indicate lots of people are interested in the product.

By comparison, one of my radio shows, The Tech Night Owl LIVE, brought “About 5,410,000 results (0.53 seconds).”

You know, that’s not half bad actually.

The real question, however, is whether the headline, “Apple’s iPhone X Ain’t a Blockbuster,” has any factual basis whatever. The actual results will be known in early 2018, when Apple releases its quarterly financials for the December quarter. But since they don’t normally reveal model breakdowns, it might have to be inferred by how Apple describes the totals and where they lie. If Apple does achieve record sales as is expected, it wouldn’t matter so much, right? It’s about the total sales, not any individual model, right? What might indicate a preference for the iPhone X is the average selling price for obvious reasons.

Some time in the not distant future, Apple may begin to stream real TV shows, and not silly stunt fare such as “Carpool Karaoke” and “Planet of the Apps.” It seems real enough, but is there a demand for any more content?

That was the question I had a while back amid reports of the failure of Apple’s plans for a TV subscription service. Supposedly the fourth-generation Apple TV was meant to spearhead the new delivery service, which would provide a slim and light repertoire of TV channels, maybe local stations, and perhaps a cloud-based DVR scheme.

The Apple TV arrived with complaints that it was too expensive and lacked 4K support. While such companies as DirecTV and Dish Network introduced lower-cost streaming services, Apple was reportedly unable to reach the necessary content deals. Rumors had it that Apple made demands that the entertainment companies refused to meet.

So if you take any of this seriously, does it mean that the industry realized they gave up too much to Apple when digital music went legal?

Of course, when nothing is actually confirmed, except for Apple’s statements of interest in the living room, you can only hope the sources for these stories are at least somewhat informed. At long last, though, there is an Apple TV 4K, and it may even deliver a better picture and superior sound when compared to the far cheaper contenders from Amazon, Google and Roku.

But it really doesn’t help sales when you can buy some really decent TV sets with Google Chromecast and Roku providing the smart features. Other than iTunes and AirPlay, does anyone even need an Apple TV 4K? That it has search and Siri?

After Apple Music arrived, it was reported that Apple decided to produce some original TV fare, in the spirit of Amazon, Hulu, Netflix and other services. But the first attempts seemed lame. “Carpool Karaoke,” for example, is based on a popular skit from The Late Late Show with James Cordon, in which famous people appear.

This year, however, it became clear that Apple regarded its Worldwide Video project as something serious with the hiring of several Sony Pictures Television executives to manage production chores. More recently, yet another seasoned executive, producer Michelle Lee, was brought in become part of the growing team.

This and the previous hirings have to be taken seriously, because they were reported in Variety, a major industry trade journal.

So just what does Apple plan to produce?

Well, there was a short-lived rumor that plans were afoot to attempt to acquire Eon Productions, the firm that produces the James Bond films, but really? One would think that Apple would want to bring something original to the table, but the first alleged projects appear to be a mixed bag.

So Apple will reportedly reboot “Amazing Stories,” from Steven Spielberg. This was a 1980’s fantasy, horror and sci-fi show in the spirit of “The Outer Limits” and “Twilight Zone.”

But it’s also true that the series ran just two years, with a total of 45 episodes produced. That’s hardly a harbinger of success, so why would Apple want to bring it back? Even if the production values, the cast and the scripts were first-rate, shouldn’t a reboot be based on something successful.

What about “Twilight Zone”? Well, I guess not since that reboot is reportedly set for CBS All Access, the streaming service that also brings you “Star Trek: Discovery.” So is Apple getting second best? I don’t recall being super impressed with “Amazing Stories,” or maybe my memory fails me.

The second series? Something starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, a drama about producing a morning TV show. It is said to have a two-season, 20-episode order. But does anyone really care what happens on those shows? Maybe in 1955, but 2017?

Why not something new, something truly original?

However, Apple will supposedly not deliver any edgy programming in the spirit of “House of Cards” or “Dexter.” It will reportedly be more family friendly, which is fine and all. But what is there about rebooting an old anthology show that only achieved a modest level of success?

Well, I suppose you could use “S.W.A.T,” a CBS scripted drama, as a somewhat similar example. The original premiered in 1975 and lasted just two seasons. There was also a modestly successful 2003 movie version featuring Colin Farrell, Samuel L. Jackson, LL Cool J, and Jeremy Renner.

The new show, which has already received a full season order, is essentially a star vehicle for Shemar Moore, who was one of the stars of the long-running “Criminal Minds,” also on CBS. While derivative, the third version of “S.W.A.T.” is not a bad show actually, and ratings are quite decent overall.

Maybe the revitalized “Amazing Stories” can go somewhere?

It may well be that Apple is dipping its toes into TV production carefully, but why should anyone choose these shows with all the competition among scripted dramas? As it is, there’s too much available already, an embarrassment of riches.

How does Apple set itself apart? Family friendly? You already get a lot of that on broadcast TV; well there are the commercials of course. But you can always buy a season pass and get them ad-free.

I’m also wondering how the new Apple shows will be distributed. I suppose it’s possible they’ll be offered as value added extras for Apple Music in a move to boost memberships.

Or will they just be sold or rented via iTunes?

Either way, I’m not expecting much. What do you think, readers?