I suppose there’s an eternal battle between a company’s product engineering and marketing departments. The former wants to deliver something as close to sheer perfection as possible, while the latter needs something to sell and deliver income to the company. As you might suspect, these goals are usually out of alignment.

You just know, for example, that Apple wants to get certain products out to meet a long-term schedule. Early in the year, you may see consumer products, such as new note-books and perhaps the latest versions if iLife and iWork. Mid-year, the WWDC delivers professional gear and perhaps word of a new operating system. Since the iPhone appeared, there have been June and July updates. For the fall, September is devoted to the iPod, and additional consumer Macs generally appear in October.

As some of you will remind me, there have been notable Apple product introductions in March and other parts of the year, but it’s always on cycle and always consistent with their long-term marketing strategy.

This is well and good, but what happens when a key product isn’t available to meet the expected shipping timeframe?

Well, I suppose that was true for the 27-inch iMac with quad-core processors. They didn’t actually begin to reach customers until late October, and Apple originally promised November. However, as some of you know, the process wasn’t seamless. Although we’ll never know the actual numbers, some customers got defective units. Even though they exhibited no apparent shipping damage, a small number evidently arrived with cracked screens. Customers continue to complain about display defects, such as flickering and bands of yellow.

As I’ve said before, I’ve been lucky so far. After 15 days, my 27-inch quad-core iMac remains defect free, at least so far.

The larger question takes us back to eternal development/shipping conflict. While Apple will occasionally push shipping dates out, they are usually by never more than a few weeks. But what if a serious production hangup blows that shipping date out the window? Would that have prevented the complaints about the 27-inch iMac?

Let’s return to the last decade. Remember when Apple first introduced a PowerPC-based PowerBook using lithium-ion batteries. There were a few incidents involving smoking or overheating because of unknown battery problems, so Apple delayed production a few months and returned to the older battery technology. You didn’t get the same battery life, but at least it didn’t smoke. On the other hand, these PowerBooks were riddled with defects anyway, involving logic boards, screen bezels and so forth and so on. I remember spending upwards of five grand buying a 5300ce, and sending it back to Apple several times. The new owner returned it for repair a couple of more times before he passed it off to a third party.

When Apple first delivered Intel-based note-books, let’s not forget that the things ran awfully hot. Ongoing cooling fan tweak updates addressed some of that, but not the discoloration on the surface of some MacBooks. And, yes, there were reports of swollen batteries and other issues too.

In my case, I got one of the early 17-inch MacBook Pros. Yes, it ran a mite hot, but the real problem was that the battery wouldn’t sustain a charge after a few months of use. The black MacBook we got my son, Grayson, in 2008, also had a defective battery. In both cases, Apple quickly replaced the offending parts without any complaints.

Let’s not forget the raft of defective power supplies that afflicted the iMac G5. I had one client who encountered that defect twice. The first time he brought it to a third-party dealer who didn’t bother to remind me that Apple had an extended warranty program in place to handle those repairs, and charged him anyway. Maybe it was double dipping. Fortunately, he contacted Apple the second time out and got another repair free, plus a promise from Apple service to help him get back the money he shouldn’t have paid for the initial repair.

When it comes to software, you just know that installing any point-zero release is probably a bad idea. One Mac OS X version had a bug that damaged the partition map of some FireWire 800 drives, meaning you couldn’t access the data. Another had a nasty Finder bug that damaged or deleted a file if you moved, rather than copied it, to another drive or network share. More recently, that notorious Guest account bug in Snow Leopard would occasionally delete your regular user account when you switched from Guest.

In the end, all of these problems and lots more were eradicated. But you have to wonder why such blatant problems weren’t discovered and dealt with before release, rather than after an unknown number of users were hurt. The solution may have worked, but what about the people who lost data?

Looking at these situations, it may well be that some of these issues just weren’t anticipated before the products came out. Maybe they only appeared as the result of a unique combination of circumstances that remained under the radar or couldn’t be nailed down. I hesitate to say that Apple simply allowed these problems to happen.

Regardless of what really went on behind the scenes, I have to hope Apple is learning a few lessons along the way and will be more cautious going forward before they rush products to the marketplace.

So let’s understand a few things here. AT&T is the wireless company you love to hate, except for all the others of course. I have been customers of several of these carriers, and I never felt the love. I’m sure most of you tolerate your provider because their network is at least functional in your city, or they happen to have the phone of your dreams.

Regardless, there are a growing number of reports that Apple is poised to add Verizon Wireless to its growing list of carriers just as soon as their contract with AT&T is up. But even before we go there, just when is that going to happen? Some say next, year, others suggest 2011 or 2012. It’s not as if Apple or AT&T will give up this information voluntarily, unless there’s some strategic advantage, and I’m a little skeptical how that could possibly happen.

Aside from a few rumors that Apple might avoid Verizon and choose the number four provider in the U.S. instead, T-Mobile, because of its network compatibility, that doesn’t seem to be a viable possibility. So all eyes remain on Verizon.

So what about the Verizon factor?

Consider those ads Apple is running now to counter the aggressive “it’s the map” campaign from Verizon that touts superior 3G coverage around the country. Before I get into what this actually means for iPhone users, it appears to be correct that Verizon reaches a larger number of people with their 3G service, largely because they don’t just focus on the larger cities, which is where AT&T concentrates a hefty portion of its high-speed service. So the Verizon map looks far better than it might be when you count the actual numbers.

But all 3G networks aren’t the same. As Apple cleverly indicates in their new spots, you can hold a phone conversation on your iPhone and run another app, such as Mail or Safari, at the same time on AT&T’s 3G network. Within a mere 30 seconds, you can see the possibilities, which just don’t exist on Verizon’s network, since you cannot multitask a phone call. Yes, Apple gets dinged for the lack of multitasking on the iPhone, but it’s there when it counts.

So, yes, maybe you’d get better 3G or overall network coverage via Verizon. It may also be true that there will be fewer dropped calls and superior customer service. But at the end of the day, what counts is how your iPhone functions in your city, and whether you are willing to accept the single function telephone limitation as a viable tradeoff. You do see that limitation now with AT&T’s slower EDGE network, just as you did with the original iPhone.

Remember, too, that Verizon’s CDMA network is a dead-end. As with AT&T, they are moving towards a newer networking technology, LTE (short for Long Term Evolution), which will be deployed over the next few years. When that happens, Apple will be able to build a single product that would provide full functionality on either system and those of other carriers in the U.S. that will adopt the new network.

Right now, Apple would have to build a separate CDMA version, or perhaps use one of those new Qualcomm chips that supports both CDMA and GSM. That would increase the production cost of the handset to an unknown degree, though perhaps Apple would be able to compensate through higher build levels. Moreover, I don’t pretend to understand the scope of the reasons why you can’t make a phone call and check your email at the same time on Verizon’s 3G system. Maybe there’s a way to work around that constraint, or perhaps customers are simply willing to put up with a few limits in exchange for what they perceive to be a superior system.

At the end of the day, being able to buy the iPhone from multiple carriers in a given country has been shown to be a good thing. It creates more competition, better pricing and helps force wireless companies to improve their networks to reduce customer churn.

By the way, I’m also somewhat skeptical about the prospects for this alleged new Google-designed smartphone that is apparently making the rounds among some of their favored employees. Yes, it may be terrific laboratory test bed, with lots of cool new features undergoing trial.

At the end of the day, however, Google is going to have to decide how it wants to play the smartphone game. If they sell their own unlocked phones, they will confront the very same dilemma faced by Nokia in this country. Without subsidies from the wireless carriers, these devices are very expensive and will appeal only to customers who can afford the price of admission, which would probably be upwards of $600 per copy.

Moreover, if Google wants lots of handset makers to adopt Android, their own competing product isn’t going to sit very well with those other companies. Imagine how Microsoft’s PlaysForSure partners felt when the Zune came out.

Indeed, this new Google device may be nothing more than a ploy to take attention away from the iPhone during the ultra-critical holiday season. It may be nothing more than smoke and mirrors, or at best a prototype that may not be released into the real world anytime soon.

I suppose I was naïve when I first ordered a 27-inch iMac equipped with the optional Intel Core i7 processor, and I took the modest backorder status in stride. My opinion of the current situation is encapsulated in a short email I wrote to my friend Dennis Sellers, proprietor of the Macsimum News site:

I ordered mine with the Core i7 processor and 8GB of RAM on November 24th from MacMall.

It arrived apparently undamaged on December 2nd, the day after MacMall called me and told me to wait another week for it.

The screen was not cracked.

The image does not flicker.

There is no yellow cast.

It may well be there are some units that shipped with such problems, which may be typical of early production of any model that has a fair amount of new components.

As to blaming the ATI graphics card for the stuff that doesn’t involve broken screens, aren’t we forgetting that there’s a 21.5 inch version with the same ATI card (4670) as the cheapest 27 inch version?

Or am I just lucky?

Maybe I shouldn’t have said anything. Now I have to wait with trepidation for the screen to crack, the flickering to start and I will no longer wonder where the yellow went.

Why did I even write this letter?

On the other hand, it’s also true that delivery times for all 27-inch versions have, as of this writing, slipped to two weeks at Apple’s online store. MacMall won’t quote an official shipping date, and simply puts a “Please Call” label on the product listings for the 27-inch iMac. However, Amazon, which works with third-party resellers for some of its consumer electronics gear, states that several models, including a few custom configurations are “In Stock.”

Now Apple has actually admitted that there’s a shipping delay, telling CNET contributor Jim Dalrymple: “”The new iMac has been a huge hit and we are working hard to fulfill orders as quickly as possible. We apologize for any inconvenience or delay this may cause our customers.”

Notice that Apple doesn’t state the precise cause for the delay. They do not admit to the existence of video defects or cracked screens. While I’m not going to dismiss the possibility of the existence of those issues, it is clear that lots of people are getting these products virtually defect free, although I must admit I have been feeling the strong urge to cross my fingers periodically, and inspecting my new iMac’s screen periodically in search of a potential defect.

In the end, aside from a few defective units, the entire problem may stem from building a product whose popularity is way beyond Apple’s initial estimates. Indeed, it makes sense they may have expected the sales rush to be concentrated on the 21.5-inch model, or the cheapest 27-inch version. After all, the state of the economy is still fragile, and Apple is competing in a market segment that has a high price of admission. That they’ve done so well clearly indicates that customers are willing to stretch their budgets in order to get superior quality.

In terms of the iMac itself, that there is some defective product out there shouldn’t deter anyone from placing an order, so long as you understand that there’s going to be a shipping delay. In fact, Apple tends to err on the conservative side when quoting delivery dates. You may find that you get your new iMac faster than you expected.

In the event it is dead on arrival, or exhibits damage, Apple and third-party dealers will usually exchange your unit. You may have to wait for the replacement, but you’ll get one. There is no way you’ll be saddled with a huge investment and not get full satisfaction.

As far as screen flickering and yellow casts are concerned, the former was supposedly dealt with as part of the 10.6.2 update released last month. The release notes state: “this update addresses video playback and performance issues for iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2009) and iMac (27-inch, Late 2009) computers that may occur in some situations while AirPort is turned on.”

Within a few weeks, I expect that backorder situation will be history. You’ll be able to pick up a 27-inch iMac at most any dealer, or get a custom-built configuration within just a few days. The impact to Apple’s bottom line for this quarter is not certain. If they don’t catch up by the end of the year, there will be an unknown number of potentially lost orders, or sales that won’t be booked until the next quarter. How serious that might be is anyone’s guess, though it may not be near as bad as you might suspect.

In the end, it does appear that Apple may actually move more product this quarter than many expect. Some estimates of iPhone sales are suddenly exceeding ten million, Mac sales will likely be in the three million range once again, and the iPod will do modestly well.

And one more thing: I think the 27-inch iMac, particularly when equipped with one of those powerful new Intel quad-core processors, is one tremendous product. Current or prospective Mac Pro customers take note.

When Google CEO Eric Schmidt left Apple’s Board of Directors several months ago, you just know it was the final stage of a process that had begun to play itself out much earlier. Although Apple and Google seemed to be working in lock step to fight Microsoft’s dominance, the playing field has clearly changed.

These days, more and more financial and tech pundits are suggesting, with a fair amount of justification, that Apple and Google are beginning their great war over a number of products and services.

Now this doesn’t mean that Apple is going to enter the search engine business anytime soon, or that Google will build personal computers, but there are a load of areas where they are clearly going to compete head on. Indeed, potential competition appears to extend to areas way beyond the obvious.

When Apple recently acquired the Lala streaming music service, it was widely reported that Google was another suitor, but Apple simply got in there and made a better deal. On the other hand, Apple allegedly had demonstrated interest in acquiring a mobile ad service recently. However, Google was the victor when they bought AdMob, a mobile display ad specialist.

Continue Reading…