When I wrote about recent Apple partnerships with businesses, I only looked at part of the equation. There’s a lot more to report, but I’ll get to that shortly.

Now the closest look I had at the business case for the Mac was a company I worked at during the mid-to-late-1980s. It was a prepress shop, a descendant of traditional typesetting, which output clients’ jobs on a high resolution printing device from CompuGraphic. It was a close cousin to phototypesetting, based on similar output technology, but incorporating Adobe PostScript for compatibility with documents created by our clients.

Despite the fact that the Mac started the desktop revolution, Microsoft still ruled the roost when it came to personal computers. In the days of MS-DOS, Macs were not taken seriously by most business. Point and click was not the way to do real work. Macs were just toys, or best used by artists and entertainers.

But I remember one important factor that cemented the dilemma of the PC user. I wanted to set up online chats with an office colleague, who used a PC. I used a Mac app, Microphone plus a modem, and I was able to set it up and begin to run terminal sessions in less than 15 minutes. The fellow at the office told me he was setting up a “shell” on his PC, and he’d have it working soon. Each day he’d tell me he was close. Just a few more things to do, and it would be ready.

Soon became never and he eventually left the company. I lost touch with him then.

Once Windows became useful enough for most work, Microsoft came close to killing the Mac. Software companies made Windows versions of their products. True, it was harder to set things up on a Windows PC, and maintaining those boxes was costlier than a Mac, even though the Mac cost more.

But the enterprise didn’t get the memo, at least not then.

Worse, Apple really didn’t pay attention to the business market except in the areas where the Mac first became popular. This situation existed more or less until the iPhone arrived. As hundreds of millions bought them, customers looked to Macs as a way to ensure a consistent experience within Apple’s ecosystem. Both the iPhone and the iPad had high business penetration percentages, and Apple provided the tools to help IT people to manage deployment of these devices quickly and safely.

In recent years, Apple has made notable conquests for Macs in the enterprise. As I reported previously, IBM made a deal to work with Apple to build special mobile apps, and even gave employees the option to use Macs instead of PCs. They also reported something Mac users have known all along, that a company saves hundreds of dollars per device due to the much lower support costs when they switch. It makes up for the differences in purchase price.

Many companies also allow their employees to bring their own devices (BYOD), which means that you don’t have to depend on what the IT person gives you. That has only added to Apple’s ability to chip away at Microsoft’s dominance.

According to published reports, such companies as Delta Air Lines and GE are now deploying Macs and iOS gear. Other adopters include Capital One, the financial company, Bank of America, Medtronic, Panera and even Walmart. Walmart? The New York City police have given up on Windows phones because Microsoft doesn’t support the platform anymore? They bought iPhones.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. But isn’t it curious that it’s taken the enterprise over 30 years to realize that Macs are cheaper to run and more reliable? We are in the twilight of the PC area, and Microsoft is no longer a dominant player in all markets it enters. The Windows Phone platform has failed miserably, and is basically history in the wake of Microsoft’s failed acquisition of Nokia’s handset division. Ask the former Nokia employees who got pink slips.

At one time the Mac’s market share had declined to what might be referred to as little more than a rounding error in some countries. It’s a lot better now, and when it comes to the mobile space, Windows Phone’s market share is a rounding error since it’s so low. It’s not that Nokia handsets were bad. They were, in fact, well reviewed, or maybe tech journalists cut them too much slack. Clearly customers weren’t buying.

iOS gear has clearly helped Apple make unexpected inroads into the enterprise. As companies bought iPhones and iPads, dumping PCs for Macs proved to be a fairly easy process, especially if a company used apps that are available on the Mac. Those that rely on Office should be able to move over without much trouble, although some less-used features might not have been brought over. It helps that Microsoft also offers credible versions of Office on iPhones and iPads.

As for apps that aren’t available in Mac versions, the ability to run Windows and other operating systems within virtual machines, such as Parallels Desktop, or via Boot Camp, completes the process. Running macOS and Windows side by side with great performance can clinch the deal.

This is, by the way, a key reason why Apple probably will not move the Mac to its custom ARM CPUs. The Mac platform has grown considerably since the switch to Intel. So why switch?

Now when I recall my Mac experiences of 30 years ago, I hardly expected it would take all these years for businesses to take them seriously. But it’s better late than never.

As we get closer and closer to the on-sale date for the iPhone X, the claims and counterclaims about whether you’ll actually be able to take one home from an Apple Store in a timely fashion, like right away, are becoming more confusing than ever. Add to that, recent suggestions that Apple had to reduce quality of the Face ID system in order to improve yield rates to acceptable levels.

The overall impression that’s being conveyed is that maybe you shouldn’t even attempt to buy one, because you’ll wait months to receive it. Worse, the quality of the facial recognition components — which replaces Touch ID —might be subpar. It won’t be safe, and maybe it won’t even work.

All this is happening before you can even buy one. Sure, a small number of journalists are already reviewing them, and if there are any problems with anything on the iPhone X, you’ll hear about it plenty a day or two before the on-sale date. There’s not a shadow of a doubt about it.

Obviously, the stakes are high for Apple. This is the first time Apple has launched two separate iPhone product lines in a single media event. Usually it’s one model in two sizes in recent years, plus older models at reduced prices.

When it comes to performance, the iPhone 8, the iPhone 8 Plus and the iPhone X will be about the same. They use the same processor and other components. The major difference is that the iPhone X has Face ID instead of Touch ID, and that 5.8-inch Super Retina OLED display. Since these two are new for Apple, although OLED has been used on other smartphones, you expect it to take more time to rev up production. That is a key reason for putting it on sale several weeks after the other iPhones.

Indeed, according to published reports, sales of the “mainstream” iPhones are substantially lower, in part, because there’s a tremendous amount of interest in the iPhone X. Indeed, people were being discouraged from buying last year’s iPhones because of the expectations of a special 10th anniversary version. Of course, until very shortly before it was announced, the iPhone X was usually referred to as the iPhone 8.

But maybe this year, with the flagship iPhone on the horizon, people are paying attention and holding off, at least until they see whether it’s worth spending $999 for one, and whether they are endure a shipping delay.

Now about that report that Apple has lowered its standards for Face ID accuracy. The story originated in Bloomberg, which does not have a terribly good track record when it comes to accurate reporting about Apple. It’s quite possible that ongoing changes in the product to improve production efficiency may be interpreted as some sort of serious quality compromise that Apple was force to make out of desperation.

You see where the fear-mongering comes in?

So far Apple has been coy about how many units will be available on November 3rd, other than to say that you will be able to pick up one at an Apple Store if you get there early. That leaves plenty of room for lurid speculation. Supposedly far fewer units will be available this year, which could mean serious backorder situations that will hurt sales. Or maybe customers will just take one of the “lesser” models if they need a new iPhone.

But the mere suggestion that Apple might be sacrificing quality to build more product has brought a swift reaction. In a statement issued to the media, the company states:

Customer excitement for iPhone X and Face ID has been incredible, and we can’t wait for customers to get their hands on it starting Friday, November 3. Face ID is a powerful and secure authentication system that’s incredibly easy and intuitive to use. The quality and accuracy of Face ID haven’t changed. It continues to be 1 in a million probability of a random person unlocking your iPhone with Face ID.

Bloomberg’s claim that Apple has reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication.

So how often does Apple ever deny a press report? Or even acknowledge it exists? Now Apple isn’t actually denying that that running changes might have been made to improve manufacturing efficiency. But if the end product meets specs, why should it be a problem?

Now I suppose it’s possible that Apple might have intended to offer a “2 in a million” accuracy spec once upon a time, and realized it couldn’t meet that standard in a mass produced product. If that were true, it’s a decision that was made months ago, before the iPhone X was launched. But that’s just speculation. If there were such a change, it’s quite likely you’ll never hear about it — ever.

Obviously, if there are any problems with Face ID accuracy, you’ll know soon enough. Once customers have them, they will be using and abusing them to see if anything breaks.

But imagine! All this ruckus before a single iPhone X ships.

It’s not surprising that VIZIO has opted to release what they call the “Home Theater Display” instead of a regular TV set. Since most people don’t receive stations via a TV antenna, why include a tuner? Most people rely on cable or satellite. But with pay TV prices rising every single year, more and more people are choosing to go without.

So why would the carriers up their prices? Well, the entertainment companies want bigger and bigger pieces of the pie, and there have been notable and unfortunate situations where channels were blocked until a contract agreement was settled.

A common complaint: There are 300 channels and not much to watch. I’ve had this happen to me over the years. These days, I have a low-end cable package with most of the channels I want, and I was willing to give up a few tiers to save money. Some of these shows end up on Netflix anyway, so it’s only a small loss to wait for the seasons to end. I barely have enough time to watch what I want anyway.

Where I live now, I’m stuck with Cox, the cable company. Over-the-air reception is a non-starter, and the layout of this place makes it impossible to set up a satellite dish without running afoul of the property manager’s tough terms and conditions.

Some people can exist just with Netflix and a few other services, CBS hopes you’ll subscribe to All Access because they added Star Trek: Discovery and, in fact, they’ve renewed it for season two. One of my son’s friends had a digital antenna, and he is close enough to the stations in Phoenix to get decent reception. He has what he needs without spending a dime beyond the estimated $25-30 cost for the antenna.

So you expect that the cable and satellite companies are suffering to some extent. According to AT&T’s Q3 2017 earnings, the number of pay TV subscribers dropped by 385,000. It’s not a lot with a subscriber base of over 20 million, but most of it came from DirecTV. How many simply went with Dish Network or the cable company? It’s hard to know unless a customer tells AT&T why they are leaving.

There’s also an all-streaming service, DirecTV NOW, which offers a subset of the more popular channels from the satellite provider. AT&T has been offering discounts for signups, and, in fact, you can get a pretty good deal with the satellite service if you happen to live in a home where a dish can be installed.

Now it’s easy to blame most of this on the cord cutting phenomenon. Other TV carriers aren’t doing much better. But AT&T has another problem, although it claims to provide the best customer support in the industry. Unfortunately, I have enough personal experience not to believe a word of it.

True, DirecTV used to offer pretty decent support. So did AT&T, at least until the two companies combined in 2015 at a cost of $48.5 billion. Typical of large corporate mergers, customer service is often the first to suffer. Almost every time I call them for one reason or another — and I’m just using the wireless service — I get an overseas rep who is barely conversant in English. Don’t get me started about the lame digital voice assistant that answers the phone, and fails to understand even the most simple requests.

I’ve gone through multiple support loops, talking to one person after another, with disconnects along the way, and I’ve occasionally been forced to reach out to AT&T’s executive offices to find someone who is able to help. It hasn’t been easy. I’ve been tempted to go elsewhere, very tempted.

In its favor, AT&T is giving me a special discount because I’m a member of AARP. I’m not altogether sure how one qualifies without complaining, but I have been told that you should go to the nearest authorized dealer for guidance. With that discount, which is 20% off the core service package, the advantage of switching to, say, T-Mobile, is no longer quite as attractive. That T-Mobile and Sprint may soon combine is another impediment. Such corporate mergers often bring out the worst in a company.

But the stories about the loss of pay TV subscribers are probably not going to blame any of it on poor customer service, and they should. Yes, a small number of people are going without for different reasons. A few surveys about why would help clarify the issue.

Besides, cord cutting may not be quite what it’s cracked up to be, unless you are careful about the number of services you select. The ideal setup would be a TV with a tuner — and you should check the specs — if you live close enough to the stations in your city to get decent reception. But cable TV was originally intended to serve people in large cities with tall buildings that hurt reception, or who live in outlying areas far away from the transmission towers. All the dedicated channels came later.

With a decent TV antenna, Netflix, and maybe somewhere to rent or buy movies, such as iTunes, and you can have a pretty complete package at an affordable price. If over-the-air reception is a non-starter for you, you might be tempted to add more services, but it’s very easy for things to get out of hand. Too many subscriptions, not to mention the confusion of dealing loads of separate services, may eat up the savings.

In the meantime, I’m not at all surprised that traditional cable and satellite companies continue to confront a gradual erosion of their subscriber bases. That’s why DirectTV and Dish Network offer dedicated streaming services in order to reclaim some of the lost business, or serve customers who can’t get satellite. It would also help if they considered a la carte offerings, where you picked, say, five from Column A, and six from Column B, and paid only for the channels you want to watch.

Actually serving the needs of the customer who wants to pay less, and is sick of having 300 channels and nothing to watch, might actually help boost the cable/satellite subscriber base, or at least keep it from dropping any further.

It’s strange. Really strange. Apple sits at the top of the tech industry with a market cap ahead of all other companies. Over one billion of its products have been activated, and it’s hard not to find a person using an iPhone, iPad, or even a Mac. All right, the Apple Watch isn’t on everyone’s wrist yet, but give it some time.

No, I’m not saying the Apple Watch is destined to lose its accessory status, but it’s certainly not going away.

To build hundreds of millions of units, Apple had to create a very sophisticated supply chain, with many interlocking parts, in order to speed products from design, to production, to the dealer, and finally to the customer. Indeed, Tim Cook’s expertise is the supply chain, and he is credited with doing wonders over the years to make Apple’s production lines as efficient as possible.

Unlike other companies that use mostly off-the-shelf parts to build products, Apple designs custom chips that make it difficult for the competition to match. On occasion, Apple buys the technology it uses, such as the purchase of AuthenTec in 2012, which resulted in the Touch ID fingerprint sensor. Apple’s 2013 purchase of PrimeSense, a 3D sensor firm from Israel, brought in-house technology reportedly incorporated as part of the Face ID feature that will debut in the iPhone X.

These acquisitions each cost Apple in the neighborhood of $350 million, which is small change compared to the billions Google and Microsoft have wasted buying mobile handset manufacturers.

Now we know that Apple’s supply chain expertise isn’t perfect. Demand for a product can only be estimated, and last year, the iPhone 7 Plus was backordered for weeks because Apple misjudged the product mix. Customers aren’t always predictable, and are apt to make last minute decisions before they add something to the online shopping cart, or when making a selection at an Apple Store. How can you account for an impulse purchase?

Well, there’s now a report that Apple might have “lost its supply chain mojo.”

Really?

Well, the very idea sounds provocative enough. These days, Jeff Williams, Apple’s COO, is the person who handles these chores. But one assumes Tim Cook watches the situation closely and could certainly second guess an incorrect decision. It’s not that Cook somehow lost his ability to manage the supply chain because he now has other chores that occupy his workday. He did, after all, select Williams as his successor and is quite capable of making a change if that’s necessary. Ask Scott Forstall.

So how has Apple lost its mojo?

Well, according to one published report in a publication that doesn’t deserve to be identified, the main argument appears to be based on the alleged hiccups in the supply chain over production of the iPhone X. If true, Apple has encountered serious delays in building sufficient supplies to satisfy expected demand.

Now the real question here is whether these delays exist or not. They might, but are they significant enough to seriously delay the iPhone X more than Apple expected? I wouldn’t pretend to know, since that is highly competitive information that Apple isn’t going to share with outsiders. The publication in question doesn’t know either, even though it claims to be reviewing evidence of supply chain activity.

Tim Cook has, from time to time, reminded financial analysts that you can’t make a decision about product demand or production plans based on a few supply chain metrics. No doubt the publication in question can’t either because one supplier might be running late in delivering parts. Apple often has multiple suppliers, so if one company experiences problems getting up to speed, there is an alternative. As demand for a product changes, different quantities of parts may be ordered, and how does one predict what Apple has already stockpiled?

More recently, there have been reports that Apple is getting a handle on early production glitches, and will catch up with production some time in November. If demand for the iPhone X far exceeds expectations, it will simply take Apple longer to rev up the production lines.

Remember that the 10th anniversary iPhone is using a number of components that have never before been used in any Apple product, and represent newly invented features, particularly Face ID. Apple has never before built an iPhone with an OLED display, although such a display is used on the Apple Watch.

That possibility that it might take a while to get up to speed shouldn’t be unexpected. It shouldn’t represent incompetence on Apple’s part, the loss of its “mojo.” In fact, I wonder if the publication in question even understands enough about the supply chain to make such determinations.

Remember, too, that this piece was posted before customers have even received the iPhone X. It’s not due to ship until November 3rd, as you know. While I wouldn’t be surprised to see it in short supply during the first weeks on sale, would that mean Apple is doing something wrong? Or is this the best they can do what with all the new parts and manufacturing techniques?

I do expect that, if unexpected supply chain or manufacturing troubles arise, Apple’s management is smart enough to do what’s necessary to fix what needs to be fixed. Flashy or fear-mongering headlines might generate hits and ad revenue for a publication, but that doesn’t mean the story has any resemblance to fact.