Sometimes rumors just get so far away from the truth that the inevitable come down makes you wonder how they all got started in the first place. From the earliest days of stories about the iPhone X — when it was known as the iPhone 8 — there were reports that there would be serious production problems right at the starting gate.

So the stories went that, since OLED displays have yet to hit what one might call volume production, Apple would have difficulty getting the quantities they needed. When it came to Face ID, well there you go! How could Apple possibly get all the complicated parts sorted out, such as its TrueDepth camera, to build an iPhone X. It will take long months for production to catch up with demand.

Indeed, I had a guest recently who wondered whether, after ordering an iPhone X on November 3rd, he would have to wait until 2018 to actually receive one. So he planned to set up multiple devices to connect to Apple’s online store when it goes on sale in order to make sure that his order is recorded before it became backordered.

Otherwise, you will wait.

Of course, I suppose it’s possible that these rumors of production problems were intended to dissuade people from ordering an iPhone X. Why buy something that may take weeks or months to arrive, when you can buy something else that can ship right away? But whatever they say is going to be proven or disproven by the time the product ships. After that, it won’t be possible to fake it.

Apple plans to reveal its 4th fiscal quarter 2017 financial results on November 2nd, the day before the iPhone X ships. I’d be surprised if Apple didn’t deliver some sort of perspective about iPhone sales, and how expectations of the new model impacted sales of the iPhone 8. Perhaps there will be questions about availability.

However, new reports appeared this week suggesting that Apple is rapidly gaining control of iPhone X production and that they might, in fact, be caught up before long. If this is correct, and the story does seem more credible since it reveals a company with people who know what they are doing, you shouldn’t be afraid to order one. It’ll arrive before long, even if it doesn’t reach your home or office on the very first day on sale.

Obviously there are plenty of loose lips in the supply chain, but it’s very complex, and Tim Cook has already said that you can’t take one or more metrics and come to conclusions about demand. Indeed, if there are multiple sources for parts, Apple will switch from one to another depending on their needs and the ability to deliver parts that meet Apple’s standards.

Despite the reality of the situation, there a few years back, there were reports from the supply chain that implied a lower demand for the iPhone than was really the case. I recall a situation where it appeared Apple stock price was negatively impacted because of the erroneous perception of poor demand. Yes, there have been down quarters for the iPhone, and sales for the September quarter may be in curious shape, since the flagship iPhone hadn’t shipped, thus depressing demand.

Maybe.

But if the iPhone X proves as popular as expected, and there are decent supplies, any possible impact to iPhone sales would be of short duration. Again, there will be clues based on what Apple says during the forthcoming quarterly conference call and, of course, Apple’s guidance for the current quarter.

So it all comes down to this: If the stories that Apple is overcoming early production glitches are true, just why was there so much fuss about severely constrained supplies? Was it all true, and Apple managed to get out from under production hell by a stroke of luck? Or does it perhaps mean that Apple just happens to know what it’s doing, and how to ramp up production of a new product. If there were a few hiccups along the way in the early production stages, that’s to be expected. Obviously higher-than-expected demand will still result in backorders.

Were those reports true, or exaggerated by some journalists in search of a juicy story about Apple’s alleged production difficulties for the iPhone X? Or were they fed by one or more competitors to put cold water on demand, to, as I said, attempt to make customers gun-shy about ordering something that won’t ship for a while?

Would that even make a difference? I suppose it’s possible that a product perceived to be in high demand would actually attract more customers. I recall one of my radio show regulars who has suggested, from time to time, that Apple might deliberately constrain supplies for a time to help boost sales on the long haul.

Does it even make sense that Apple would hold back on production to make a product seem more popular than it really is? Isn’t there the danger that some people might just give up and buy something cheaper, or someone else’s product instead? I’m sure Apple knows the answers. I’d rather not guess.

At least, the prospects of buying an iPhone X, and actually seeing it show up, appear to have improved greatly in recent days.

You can bet that, when reviewing smartphones, Consumer Reports magazine appears to have a blind spot towards Samsung; maybe a few blind spots. How so? Well, I’ll get to that shortly.

Now on the surface, CR ought to be the perfect review source. Unlike most other publications, online or print, it actually buys tested products from retail stores. That includes luxury cars costing over $100,000 if need be. So, in that area at least, it should be incorruptible. Compare that to regular publications that contain reviews, most of which receive free samples from the manufacturers.

Indeed, when I announced recently that VIZIO sent me a 4K TV for review — with no preconditions as to how I rate the product — I got a comment from a reader suggesting that my article would somehow be tainted. But I’ve been reviewing tech gear received on that basis for over two decades, and it’s definitely not a factor. Never has been.

But even if there’s a tiny bit of suspicion on the part of some people that product reviews might be slanted if those products are sent free of charge, I am not surprised that CR gets high credibility. So there’s a story from Seoul, South Korea touting the fact that, “Samsung’s Galaxy S8 tops U.S. consumer review.”

South Korea? But isn’t CR an American magazine? Yes, so this story no doubt originated from Samsung, even though a manufacturer is theoretically prohibited from quoting a CR review. So the article mentions the conclusion, not the contents, so even if it was originated from Samsung, the company is off the hook.

According to the latest CR report about smartphones, the Samsung Galaxy S8 and the Galaxy S8 Plus gained top ratings by CR. Number three, peculiarly, was last year’s Galaxy S7. Really. So where did the iPhone 8 end up? According to CR, fourth and fifth. Number six was the Galaxy Note 8.

I decided to take a look at the factors that put the iPhones below three Samsungs, including one of last year’s models. Let’s just say it didn’t make a whole lot of sense in the scheme of things, but I’ve had these issues before with CR.

Take, for example, the Galaxy S8 versus the iPhone 8. The former is rated 81, the latter is rated 80. So despite the implications of the article from that South Korean publication, the scores are extraordinary close. A minor issue here, another minor issue there, and the results might have been reversed.

But was it it that makes the Samsung ever-so-slightly superior to the iPhone? Unfortunately, the two reviews aren’t altogether clear on that score. So on the basis of 11 performance categories in which the two phones are rated, the iPhone 8 has six excellents, four very goods, and one good. So in theory the Samsung should have scored better in these categories. However, it has four excellenst and seven very goods.

From my point of view, the Apple ought to rate better. More excellents, right? But there is a Good rating for battery life, whereas the Samsung rates as Excellent. Evidently that factor must supplant all other considerations and award the Samsung with a higher total. Curiously, the longer battery life of the iPhone 8 Plus evidently didn’t merit a rating higher than Good either. Just saying.

But there’s more. It turns out that the iPhone is far more resilient to damage than the Galaxy S8. According to CR, the iPhone “survived the water dunk test and our tough 100 drops in the tumbler with just some minor scratches.”

Evidently, being a rugged mobile handset doesn’t count for very much, because the qualitative ratings don’t include that factor. So the Galaxy S8, according to CR, doesn’t fare nearly as well. The report states, “The screen is rather fragile. After 50 rotations in the tumbler, our experts rated it only fair. The display was badly broken and not working. For this phone, a protective case is a must have.”

What does that say to you? It says to me that the Galaxy S8 should have been seriously downgraded because it’s very fragile; users are forced to buy extra protection for normal use and service. Smartphones are routinely dropped or knocked against things.

To me, it’s barely acceptable. To CR, ruggedness doesn’t matter.

Nor does the reliability of a smartphone’s biometrics count evidently. As most of you know, the Galaxy S8 and its big brother, the S8 Plus, have three biometric systems. The fingerprint sensor, located at the rear, is an awkward reach. You are at risk of smudging the camera lenses instead. Both the facial recognition and iris sensors aren’t terribly secure. Both can be defeated by digital photographs.

In short, you have a breakable smartphone with two biometric features of questionable quality being judged superior to another smartphone that’s rugged and has a reliable fingerprint sensor. But maybe it has somewhat shorter battery life than the competition. In other words, CR seems to regard battery life above other important factors, but how ratings are weighted, and why potential breakability is not considered, is just not mentioned.

But since CR buys the products it reviews, the serious flaws in its review methods aren’t important. The media that continues to quote the magazine’s ratings without critical comment aren’t helping to encourage CR to change its ways.

And please don’t get me started about the curious way in which it rates the battery life of notebook computers.

I don’t know why I have to repeat the obvious, but far too many tech commentators just don’t have a clue.

So here we go again.

As most of you know, the iPhone X will not ship until November 3rd. Orders will be taken beginning on the previous week. What’s more, there have been rampant reports of alleged production problems with the new device, focusing mainly on components for the Face ID system. If true, it would mean that supplies will be severely constrained and it may take weeks or months for production to catch up with demand.

I don’t disbelieve the claims of production issues, since Apple is manufacturing parts that are very different from previous models, and that includes the OLED display. So anything is possible, and it may well be that Apple might have waited even longer to deliver the iPhone X, except that we’re closing in on the holiday season and they wanted to build the backlog as soon as practical. On the other hand, there are now published reports that production of the iPhone X will catch up with demand quicker than expected.

To be sure, there’s been plenty of fear mongering about the alleged lapses of the Face ID. But remember that the media has only had a short amount of time to use the feature, at Apple’s September event. No doubt some journalists have shipping product now, and will post their reviews when the iPhone X ships. If there are any glitches with Face ID — beyond a few things reported by reporters at that media event — we’ll know soon enough.

In the scheme of things, I expect the feature will work pretty much as advertised, but will have some minor glitches that will be addressed in iOS 11 updates. I’m shooting from the hip, though. It’s just a guess, but it is in keeping with the release of the iPhone 5s and the first iteration of Touch ID. It wasn’t perfect, and some users had better luck than others. Either way, there are always passcodes, and you have to consider other smartphones with facial recognition, such as they are, as a means for comparison.

With the facial biometric on the Samsung Galaxy S8, a digital photograph can defeat it. Apple says that its TrueDepth feature will prevent such easy hacking, but your evil identical twin will probably be able to unlock your iPhone. So one hopes you have a friendly relationship with that sibling.

The latest fear-mongering article is about the alleged lapses in the iPhone X, possible missing features. The blog quotes an unconfirmed report that Apple is working on a digital pen for the iPhone. Or maybe they are going to add support for the Apple Pencil, or release a smaller version. It’s being compared to the S Pen stylus for the Galaxy Note phablets.

For now, Apple has decided that a stylus, or whatever you wish to call it, works best on an iPad Pro. Or maybe they are waiting to refine the OLED displays, or a future display technology, before considering one for the iPhone.

Or maybe none of this makes any sense from a marketing point of view. Are people clamoring for iPhones with digital pens? Are the existing third party digital pens for iPhones successful?

There’s also the curious claim that the GPU on the iPhone X can be bested by the one on the iPad Pro. But the reverse is reportedly true, according to preliminary reports that claim to have benchmarked the new smartphone. I’ll leave it at that, except that the benchmarks do reveal that the iPhone 8 might be a little faster. But it may also be that the tested iPhone X was a prototype lacking final performance optimizations in iOS 11. The real benchmarks will be the ones that apply to shipping product.

The long and short is that there will always be a feature the competition offers that Apple has not yet seen fit to include. In some cases, that feature will never appear because it’s just not worth the effort. Over the years Samsung has added some useless functions, such as Tilt to Scroll, which barely worked. Or at least they barely worked when I tried them out, and so I gave up on them.

Apple still hasn’t offered an iris sensor, but the one on the Galaxy S8 is flawed in almost the same way as Samsung’s facial recognition feature. It can be defeated with a digital photograph. If Apple adds this biometric to iPhones and iPads, you can be reasonably sure it’ll be properly tested first.

Some rumors suggest that Face ID was added to the iPhone X because Apple couldn’t devise a workable scheme to embed Touch ID in the OLED display. That’s a reason why Samsung chose to push its fingerprint sensor to the rear of its latest Galaxy smartphones.

But Apple claims it spent years perfecting Face ID, and cites a two-year development process for the iPhone X. Clearly the feature wasn’t added overnight as a desperate last-minute move to get a working and secure biometric system on the new device. Indeed, if Face ID proves to be a successful alternative — or successor — to Touch ID, you can bet the latter will gradually disappear in the next year or two.

Apple has not been reluctant to remove features that are, for whatever reason, no longer viable. In contrast, rival companies will keep features forever under the sometimes mistaken belief that people want them even if they are outdated or barely functional.

It does appear that the media is sometimes just aching to find bad news about Apple, even if it’s indirect evidence. It represents the ongoing viewpoint that years of success has all been a fluke. It was a stroke of luck, and if the fates had behaved properly, Apple would have disappeared long ago, or would have remained strictly a personal computer company struggling in a declining market. In other words, yesterday’s news.

Or maybe it represents the efforts of one or more competitors to feed fake news to bloggers in order to skew Apple coverage negatively. That doesn’t mean I believe the usual offenders are dishonest; some of them may actually believe Apple will soon confront a negative reality.

It is true that, after years of stellar growth, the iPhone stumbled for a quarter or two before increasing again. But the increases have been modest, no doubt representing saturation of the market. Apple’s tougher prospects in China haven’t helped, and it also explains why it’s expanding to other developing countries, such as India, hoping to gain traction.

Continue Reading…