For the longest time, Apple has maintained that Macs and iOS gear — iPhones and the iPads — are meant to be separate gadgets. Operating systems, related to one another at the core, are otherwise quite different. Macs are meant to be managed via keyboard and mouse, while iPhones and iPads use touchscreens; well, except when you pair keyboards to them.

In the Windows world, Microsoft has tried for convergence, supposing 2-in-1 notebooks that have touchscreens that can be swiveled or perhaps even removed. Supposedly Windows 10 can adapt. Surface PCs all have touchscreens, and receive a remarkable amount of media coverage even though actual sales are no great shakes. It’s not dissimilar from the outsized publicity the Amazon Echo platform gets even though the supposedly “unsuccessful” Apple Watch has a larger customer base.

Apple tells us that a Mac with a touchscreen would be akin to trying to merge a toaster oven with a refrigerator. Besides, it’s awkward to type and reach up to navigate your desktop by touching the display. It’s even more awkward when you have a Mac with a larger display, such as the 27-inch iMac.

On the other hand, what do you have when you attach an iPad to a keyboard? Remember, those keyboards do not have trackpads, and therein lies a tale.

Since Apple’s A-series chips became powerful enough to nearly match a MacBook Pro in benchmarks, despite being installed in a device that’s very resource limited, some have suggested Apple leave Intel. Do another processor switch for Macs.

While Apple has done this twice before, it didn’t come without some pain. Older apps had to be run in some sort of emulator mode, thus reducing performance. One great advantage of using Intel CPUs is that you can run Windows on a Mac with native performance under Boot Camp, or with pretty good performance via a virtual machine.

If Apple goes to ARM-based processors, unless there’s some miracle hardware-based emulator, that capability will lose its luster. Indeed, does it make any sense at all for Apple to ditch Intel?

At the same time, Apple has added features in iOS 11 that provide better multitasking, something that will help an iPad become more useful as a productivity tool. The Files app provides limited but workable file access. No doubt that can be expanded as needed to incorporate a more traditional file and folder structure, but it’s still largely focused on external cloud-based storage mediums, such as iCloud Drive and Dropbox.

But what if Apple built a convergence device?

Macworld columnist Jason Snell, who once ran the editorial department when it was a print magazine, has written a thought piece suggesting that the time has come for Apple to consider building what is essentially an iPad in a genuine notebook form factor.

He points out that using an iPad with a Smart Keyboard is a poor fit for placing on one’s lap. Third party keyboards manage the task in better form, but there’s still no trackpad, largely because the cases are designed to follow the form of the core product. I have thought of a keyboard with a slide-out trackpad, which would, with OS support, provide a reasonable facsimile of a notebook.

Jason uses the Google Pixelbook, a Chromebook that can run Android apps, as a workable form factor. It’s a device that is meant to serve both tablet and notebook functions with a swiveling display. But how different is that from removing an iPad from a keyboard case, or an alternative that provides a more stable environment for use on your lap.

If Apple is going to build an iOS-based notebook, based on the iPad, why not go the whole hog? Why not turn it into a MacBook-style device with a touchscreen and the traditional notebook trackpad? Why shouldn’t it have a trackpad if you expect to use it as a real notebook? But how different would that be from a Windows 2-in-1 other than the OS? Why not just offer an iOS version of the MacBook with the ARM-based processor and a 12.9-inch iPad Pro display?

Isn’t that what we’re really talking about?

You can argue that a notebook or any PC with a touchscreen is a poor fit from an ergonomics standpoint. The form factor is apt to put extra strain on your wrists as you raise your hands to the screen between keystrokes. But if it also had a trackpad, and a display that can be removed and used as a regular iPad, wouldn’t that resolve such a dilemma? That way, you wouldn’t have to concern yourself with the keyboard/touchscreen dilemma.

Would it be meant as an ultimate convergence device, something offering the best of the Mac and the iPad combined? Is that where we’re going? Does that mean Apple would ever consider something akin to a Surface RT? The Apple iOS-Book or iPad Book— Jason uses the name iBook, once the name of a regular Mac notebook — would strictly run iOS apps. But wouldn’t apps optimized for touchscreens have to be modified to be more Mac-like if a trackpad were offered as an alternative input device?

I’m not against the iPad as notebook, and perhaps there’s a market for a model that comes in notebook form without compromise. I just wonder if this works against Apple’s goal of simplicity. It doesn’t seem all that simple.

Apple and self-driving cars have been in the news ever since the existence of Project Titan was revealed. This was a program that, at first, was believed to represent an attempt to design an autonomous vehicle of some sort, perhaps an electric car in the spirit of a Tesla. The alleged testing facility was said to be located near its original corporate headquarters in Cupertino, CA.

But it appears that the possibility of a motor vehicle went by the wayside, as the original staff of 1,000 people was thinned, and leadership was changed amid reports of turmoil. Long-time hardware executive Bob Mansfield reportedly took over the project with a scaled down goal of building a reference  platform that would integrate with iOS.

In April of this year, Apple received permission from the California DMV to begin to test a network of specially modified Lexus RX450h SUVs so that self-driving technology could be tested on public roads.

Of course Google is also conducting such tests. Uber, the world’s largest ride hailing company, has acquired Volvo SUVs for its autonomous vehicle project. I’ve seen some of them on the roads in and around Tempe, AZ. Since my income-producing pursuits include an Uber side gig, I once picked up a Uber employee whose job was to ride along and keep tabs on one of those self-driving Volvos. He didn’t have much in the way of insights to offer during the short trip, but it’s clear the company is serious about autonomous driving.

And, no doubt, to put its human drivers out of work some day. But maybe I’ll be too old to care.

Normally Apple doesn’t say a lot about the technologies on which it’s working, but there are hints from time to time. Amid rumors that Apple might offer its own smart TV set, or a TV subscription service, Apple CEO Tim Cook confirmed the company was interested in the living room. None of that has happened, though, and the current Apple TV 4K doesn’t appear to have moved the needle very much.

With it comes to motor vehicles, Cook has admitted, “We’re focusing on autonomous systems. It’s a core technology that we view as very important. We sort of see it as the mother of all AI projects. It’s probably one of the most difficult AI projects actually to work on.”

Of course, once DMV approval was requested, the cat was out of the bag, that something is actually under development.

But what? Is it a technology package that will be offered to auto makers to integrate into their own vehicles? Or is Apple still testing the waters without an end game in mind? Could there still be an Apple Car in our future?

It all becomes more fascinating with a Reuters report that, “Research by Apple Inc computer scientists on how self-driving cars can better spot cyclists and pedestrians while using fewer sensors has been posted online, in what appears to be the company’s first publicly disclosed paper on autonomous vehicles.”

Now when you consider Apple’s usual approach to such matters, which is to operate under deep security, this news, if true, appears to represent a shift in the company’s approach. Obviously being able to detect humans moving about, so the vehicle can avoid striking them, is one of the most critical functions of one of these systems.

According to the report, Apple’s research team claimed “highly encouraging results” during simulations. That is certainly not the same thing as achieving similar results in a live setting, where “highly encouraging” isn’t quite the same as 100% success. Obviously there is no room for error, and autonomous test vehicles have humans on board to take over should the complicated systems of computers and sensors lose its way, or is in danger of causing an accident.

This is something that tech commentator Peter Cohen talks about on an upcoming episode of The Tech Night Owl LIVE, where we discuss a moral dilemma that such AI systems might confront. What if a collision was unavoidable, and the system is has to consider the inevitability of causing serious injury to different people in different vehicles. What choice would it make? Would it be the collision that it believed would harm the least number of people? Would it attempt to match the faces with government databases to see who deserved to live because they were more famous, had a higher income-earning potential, or perhaps a larger family to support? Or is that too sci-fi?

If the expected accident involved either a vehicle or a pedestrian, surely the latter would be the responsible choice. But what about an accident that might injure someone’s pet?

The problem with self-driving is not just keeping up with traffic, staying in lane and stopping for red lights and stop signs. There are loads of split-second decisions that have to be made to avoid striking moving or stationary objects or living people. Even if the AI is absolutely perfect in every respect, how does it cope with imperfect human drivers, particularly those who are driving while under the influence?

Again, what is Apple’s goal with Project Titan? Is an Apple Car a pipedream? If a fully-functioning autonomous driving system is developed, how will it be marketed? Does Apple license it to different automakers? Remember, it’s not just the integration of sensors and software. It would involve managing the core driving systems of the vehicle, which would likely have to be modified to support Apple’s reference platform.

So what’s the point of this disclosure, or is it designed to tempt auto makers, demonstrate to them that Apple is on the case and will some day reach its goal?

Or will Apple simply offer the technology without cost to auto makers, with the expectation that it’ll allow iOS gear to tightly integrate with the cars and thus sell more gear? Remember that with CarPlay — and Android Auto for that matter — you’re simply casting some of your smartphone’s features to the vehicle’s infotainment system. That’s not even close to integrating a self-driving system that controls every movement the vehicle makes.

Loads of questions, few answers, other than to make me more curious than ever about what Apple is planning.

Does it matter if a company is late to ship a product? I suppose if you need it right away, now, yesterday as if you’re life depended on it, maybe it would be a major issue. If you wanted to give it as a gift for the holidays, someone’s birthday or someone’s anniversary, and the deadline was missed, it would be an upsetting situation. After all, just sending a sales slip as proof that a present was on the way wouldn’t convey a very nice impression.

When it comes to technology, being late is not unusual. An auto maker introduces a new model, and it may take a while for production to catch up with demand, especially for a hot seller. I remember waiting for months for certain cars years back; I’ve always been a little obsessive about colors and options. More recently, in addition to setting my sights on cheaper models, I try to buy what’s on the showroom floor, or something that can be exchanged with another dealer. That way, virtually instant gratification, well except for that lengthy and annoying process of making the deal and waiting for the finance manager to get things in order.

When it comes to software, the usual process is to get a point-zero version out on or about the promised release date, then rush out maintenance updates to address the most serious problems. Tech gear may have features that aren’t ready for release, or don’t do all that they can do until updated.

Take the iPhone 7 Plus and Portrait mode. While the iPhones for 2016 shipped on time, this feature depended on an iOS update that came some weeks later. But it’s not just Apple. Samsung’s Bixby voice assistant, developed by some of the people who brought you Siri for the iPhone, wasn’t available on U.S. models of the Galaxy S8 for weeks.

This is something perfectly normal, something you should expect given the complexities of design, testing and production ramp ups for sophisticated gear.

In 2013, the Mac Pro was supposed to ship by the end of the year. It did, barely, with only a small number leaving the factory. Most didn’t show up until early in 2014. Forget, for the moment, the problems with this unique design. At first, there appeared to be plenty of demand for it, and, no doubt, early production issues that had to be tackled.

Over the years, iPhones are routinely backordered during the early weeks of availability. Apple misjudged the product mix between the iPhone 7 and the iPhone 7 Plus, and it took a while to get supplies in sync. This year, it appears more people prefer the iPhone 8 Plus over its smaller companion, but it’s not hard to find one at a local dealer, or direct from Apple. The iPhone X didn’t ship until early this month, but that’s what Apple promised, although supplies remain seriously constrained. But delays have been reduced from five to six weeks down to two to three weeks.

AirPods were backordered through much of its first year of availability, although I can easily find one now at the two nearest Apple Stores if I was interested.

At the June WWDC, Apple introduced two products with the promise of future delivery. One, the iMac Pro, was expected to ship in December with no word so far on whether that schedule will be met. At a starting price of $4,999, it’s hardly the sort of gadget one might offer as a gift except for the well-heeled. That said, if it doesn’t ship on schedule, it probably won’t be a catastrophe except, perhaps, for content creators and other power users who gave up on the Mac Pro but need something powerful with a state-of-the-art design.

But if you hoped to give a HomePod for the holidays, choose a different holiday. Apple has announced that it won’t meet the December shipping date, but that it’ll arrive in early 2018. But expecting it to arrive before December 25th would have been a crap shoot anyway. Even if it shipped on time, it would probably be backordered for a while.

Nothing I’ve just written should come as any surprise to you. It is par for the course, but you know how it is with Apple. If something goes wrong, be it a product defect, or failing to meet a shipping deadline, it is a major catastrophe that must reflect on Tim Cook’s supply chain competence.

I suppose he is supposed to not only be a genius in setting up production lines, but he must be capable of precognition too, capable of knowing precisely what’s going to happen in the future. Indeed, he should know what people will like six months or a year hence and thus command his troops to build the gear that will be a top seller.

Of course, that doesn’t explain the 2013 Mac Pro misfire, nor misjudging demand for some tech gear. What it really indicates is that Apple gear is designed not by psychics or extraterrestrials, but by imperfect human beings. So there will be defects, there will be misfires, and some products and services may not be ready on schedule.

In other words, Apple is little different from other companies. At the end of the day, I’d prefer something ship a little later to allow more time to eliminate or minimize defects. But with deadlines looming, and sales of profits depending on timely or reasonably timely delivery, there will be compromises. Apple is no more guilty of pushing a product to market early than any other manufacturer.

Some people might want to pretend it’s catastrophic for Apple, but that’s beyond absurd.

As regular readers know, this past weekend’s newsletter covered a survey from a previously unknown company that indicated higher demand for the Samsung Galaxy S8 than the iPhone X for holiday giving. This was a survey of adults. For young folk, the results were essentially reversed.

While the market research company, Propeller Insights, seemed real enough, at least based on its site, there was no indication that it had any known clients, or any clients for that matter, and certainly no track record for providing accurate data. Now I don’t want to seem paranoid, or expressing sour grapes since I have no personal interest in the outcome, but it may well be that the company was put together to conduct a single survey. Or perhaps to produce similar faux surveys.

While the survey was supposedly commissioned by Ebates, a company specializing in tracking product rebates, I also wonder about the motive. Apple is not offering product rebates for any iPhones these days. It’s not a practice in which they often engage. So what was the point, unless this was all done to hide the identity of the party that really funded the survey.

Was it a move by Samsung to prop up sales for Galaxy S8 smartphones? Who wrote the check that funded that survey? Was the company who did the survey set up strictly for that purpose and nothing else?

Now when it comes to credible reporting, there’s a recent estimate from a Wall Street analyst about the price target for shares of Apple Stock and the apparent demand for the iPhone X.

It comes from Michael Walkley, who works for Canaccord Genuity, a Canada-based investment bank. A quick check appears to indicate that Walkley is a serious guy with a decent track record, estimated at 66%, so what he says ought to be taken seriously, particularly by investors.

Walkley gives a “Buy” rating to Apple, setting a price target of $195 for the company’s stock. He estimates sales of 78.5 iPhones for the December quarter. He also projects growing demand and market share for the iPhone 8, the iPhone 8 Plus and the iPhone X throughout the quarter.

Just as interesting is Canaccord Genuity’s estimate that Apple earned 72% of smartphone industry profits for the September quarter, an increase of 4% over the June quarter. Most of the remaining profits evidently come to Samsung, so you wonder just what the rest of the industry hopes to accomplish.

Now Walkley isn’t calculating the percentage of adults or children who want to receive an iPhone as a present. He is focusing on sales, market share and profits — and Apple’s expected stock price of course. If his numbers are correct, or close to the mark, it will mean yet another blowout quarter.

It doesn’t matter how many people claim to want a certain gadget as a present in someone’s cockamamie survey. It’s about how many units are actually sold. I also wonder what percentage of people really expect to receive smartphones, valued from $700 to $1,000, as holiday presents. I suppose if they have relatives or friends with some extra cash lying around. Well, perhaps if someone wants to set up new cellular service for the family, or plans to upgrade existing gear.

I mean, if a relative outside of my immediate family offered to give me an iPhone X, I wouldn’t refuse. But if it was a Samsung Galaxy S8, frankly I’d exchange it if I could.

In any case, I just wonder how many people actually care about the alleged buying preferences of total strangers. Even if the survey in which a Samsung smartphone emerged supreme was done correctly, with realistic sampling methods, what difference would it actually make in the end? Would Samsung smartphone sales magically increase?

I’m more concerned, though, about the suspicious methods used to promote such gear. I’m sure you can argue that some of the claims Apple makes for its products are exaggerated to one degree or another. That’s just marketing. But that’s not the same as outright lying, and it’s not the same as adding features that are barely tested, or just don’t work purely for bragging rights.

That takes us to one of the major complaints about Apple, which is that they haven’t added this, that, or the other feature. Other companies had it first, but Apple fell behind for one reason or another. They have to do better.

You can see that through the years even with the first iPhone that didn’t support 3G cellular networks. When LTE came out, Apple seemed late to the party, though it was mostly about waiting for the chips to reach a point where they wouldn’t reduce battery life. Apple also claimed to have waited to deliver an iPhone with an OLED display until it could achieve the quality level it wanted.

So the LTE iPhone has roughly the same battery life as previous models, and the iPhone X’s OLED display is rated at the top of the heap by almost every reviewer. It may also be that Apple wasn’t previously able to get displays in sufficient quantities to install them on iPhones.

Oh, and Samsung had facial recognition on its Galaxy smartphones before the iPhone X arrived, but Face ID is the only one to be taken seriously.