Raw sets of statistics can often be interpreted in many ways. Taking them out of context can also put those numbers in a very different perspective.

So you can point to the recent industry analysis that indicates that Mac sales decreased in the September quarter and say some nasty things about Apple. But it’s fair to remind the reader that surveys from Gartner and IDC often undercount real Apple sales. They are, after all, surveys and not expected to be completely accurate. The only genuine sales figures are the ones posted by Apple as part of its quarterly financials, and the numbers for the last quarter won’t be announced until early November.

Further, you can rightly point out that PC sales, overall, have also decreased. Yes, it appears that Apple is doing worse, if the numbers can be taken seriously, but it may be a part of an overall trend as much as less interest in buying new Macs.

Then there is a less-favorable report about the iOS 11 adoption rate. Over three weeks after it as released, it’s hit 47% based on numbers from Mixpanel, an analytics firm. iOS 10’s adoption rate is 46%, and the remaining 6.7% are using iOS 9 or older. But to be fair, Mixpanel’s numbers tend to be somewhat higher than the ones Apple makes available from its developer portal.

On the surface, that sounds pretty good, but it has been pointed out that the migration rate for iOS 11 is much slower than last year and iOS 10, which had fewer compelling new features. So it took two weeks for iOS 10 to pass iOS 9, but this year Apple is a week late.

One feature article on the subject mentioned the fact that Apple has pushed three maintenance updates so far, the latest being iOS 11.0.3. But developers and public beta testers are already working on the second betas of iOS 11.1. I wouldn’t assume that lots people are holding off for a few more updates before taking the plunge.

Before I look at the meaning of this slower adoption rate — and the reason to me is painfully obvious — consider the situation for Android users. During the first year, less than 10% of the user base will be running the latest version. Most devices use operating systems that are two or three years old, which has to present security vulnerabilities to the largest portion of the  Android user base. It also makes it all the more difficult for developers to support the latest features in their apps. After all, it may take two or three years before a decent number of users have the this year’s release. But that will probably require replacing their existing handsets.

It doesn’t surprise me that the quality of Android apps is reported to be lower than iOS apps. All things being equal, even if the same developers do both, the low OS migration rate remains a serious handicap. Google’s promises to do better never wash. As it is, Android smartphones are routinely modified by the manufacturers with their custom junkware, and may be further configured by the carrier with their promotional apps.

When a new version of Android comes out, Google sends it to the manufacturer for testing and implementation against their own modifications. Usually the updates go to the carriers next for them to do their thing, and their thing may be to do absolutely nothing.

Only the “pure” Google handsets, now known as Pixel, promise to stay up to date with the latest version of Android.

While Apple was severely criticized when the iPhone first came out for its decision to exert full control over OS updates, this approach makes sense. Apple pushes the updates direct to customers. The carrier isn’t involved, so if an update is late or faulty, you can blame Apple and nobody else. But at least you’ll be able to download the update as soon as it’s released

Now about the slower iOS 11 migration rate: It’s probably not because people don’t care, or are concerned about the quality of the new version. It’s because of the minimum system requirements. The oldest supported models include the iPhone 5s, released in 2013, the iPad fifth generation, also released in 2013, the iPad mini 2 from 2013, and the iPod touch 6th generation, released in 2015.

What this means is that hundreds of millions of Apple’s mobile gadgets cannot run iOS 11. My wife’s iPhone 5c, for example, has iOS 10.3.3 on it. Unless Apple addresses any further issues with iOS 10, that’s all folks!

I think you get the picture.

Apple ought to be commended for allowing mobile hardware up to four years old to run the latest version of iOS. That’s a pretty good run. macOS High Sierra runs on Macs that are seven to eight years old, which is also a pretty commendable lifecycle.

So you can expect to see future versions of iOS support increasingly lower percentages of hardware as older gear is left behind. It doesn’t mean people aren’t interested in updating, nor is this an argument for Apple to improve support. People with the oldest supported products will often complain about more sluggish performance with the new OS. Some updated or innovative hardware features will not work mainly because the older equipment isn’t up to the task.

While some might point to this state of affairs as evidence of Apple deliberately making older gear obsolete to sell you something new, it’s also due to the fact that these products get better and more powerful every year. It would be foolish for Apple not to take advantage of the improvements in their operating systems.

Compare that to Google, where the vast majority of Android smartphones and tablets routinely run older operating systems. Developers can take their sweet time to make any effort to support new Android features, since most users won’t benefit from them.

Long-time Mac users understand that Apple has had a complicated relationship with some of its partners, most particularly Microsoft. Even though Microsoft has produced products for the Mac, the company remains Apple’s biggest rival in the personal computing space. At one time, Apple was engaged in litigation with Microsoft over claims that Windows basically ripped off the Mac.

After the “second coming” of Steve Jobs, Apple settled with Microsoft, received a $150 million investment in the company along with promises to continue to develop Office for Mac. While Windows dominance continues, Apple has trounced Microsoft in the mobile space. Office remains multiplatform, with versions available for Windows, macOS, iOS and Android. Windows Phone is essentially dead and, yes, the Surface PCs sort of compete with Macs, but the former hasn’t really delivered any great shakes in sales.

Overall, Apple and Microsoft continue to get along as “frenemies.”

While Apple has sued Samsung for stealing the designs and interface elements of the iPhone — and the legal actions are still going on — Samsung in turn sells such parts as memory chips and now OLED displays to Apple. These are multibillion dollar deals in fact.

And don’t forget which search engine remains the default on macOS and iOS gear.

Having competitors also do business with one another is not unique to the tech industry. Rival auto makers make deals to source components or jointly develop technology.  Higher volumes mean lower costs, and the individual companies can still compete with one another over individual products.

Most of you know this. That’s just business.

Well, except for a certain business publication that evidently hasn’t a clue of how such things work. So there’s a headline from Forbes that expresses this lack of vision, “Apple Shocker: It’s Using Chips Made By Frenemy Qualcomm In Apple Watch Series 3.”

That’s supposed to be shocking?

The story is dealt with as if it’s a revelation of something nobody knew, based on someone’s teardown of the new Apple Watch. Supposedly Apple was expected to use Intel cellular radios instead.

But that conclusion was never based on fact. Apple uses both Qualcomm and Intel modems on iPhones. Indeed, there are published reports that Apple needs to throttle performance from speeds of more than a gigabit on the Qualcomm parts to duplicate the lesser capabilities of Intel.

For the Apple Watch, the Qualcomm part reportedly provides better integration with Apple’s design, so the decision is apparently based on engineering needs.

Yes, Apple is still suing Qualcomm over supposedly exorbitant royalty rates for licensing its intellectual property. The legal skirmishes will go forward even as Qualcomm continues to earn boatloads of money from its Apple contracts.

That doesn’t mean that Apple plans to continue to buy such parts indefinitely. More and more custom silicon is being designed in house, and any company that cuts deals with Apple must realize it’s only temporary. Imagination Technologies was cut out of Apple’s supplier loop when the latter decided to design its own GPUs beginning with the iPhone 8. By the same token, Apple is reportedly designing its own modem hardware for iPhones, iPads and the Apple Watch, and the fruits of those designs may not take long to appear. Apple has also partnered in a proposed deal to acquire Toshiba’s chip business to ensure a steady supply.

What this means is that more and more of the components that make up an Apple gadget will be designed by Apple and built by one of its partners.

A singular exception, for now at least, is the Mac, which will continue to be powered by CPUs from Intel, and GPUs from Intel, AMD and NVIDIA. When I suggested on a recent episode of The Tech Night Owl LIVE that Apple might bring GPU development for Macs in house, I was quickly shot down. Developers have customized their apps, particularly games, to support the unique features of existing graphics hardware. Well, except for Metal 2 on Macs, which is an exclusive Apple feature.

But even if Apple does design at least some of the GPUs in Macs, that doesn’t mean that it’ll switch CPUs to its A-series ARM-based designs. While Apple doesn’t seem to mind moving low-level functions to an A-series system-on-chip, such as the Touch Bar on recent MacBook Pros, that doesn’t necessary presage a wholesale switch.

I have little doubt Apple could manage such a feat. It’s switched processors twice before. But Apple would again have to manage some sort of emulation or virtualization for existing Intel-based apps. And what about Boot Camp, which creates a native Windows environment on a Mac, or a virtual machine that allows you to run loads of operating systems and pretty decent speeds? Moving to ARM-based silicon would make that difficult or impossible to achieve with acceptable performance. Indeed, the ability to run multiple operating systems on Macs at close-to-native speeds helped power the switch to Intel.

That doesn’t believe Apple won’t move Macs some day. If Intel’s processor roadmap, which has slowed in recent years, doesn’t meet Apple’s needs, anything is possible.

Through it all, however, the fact that Apple continues to buy parts from a rival is nothing new or surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. Clearly that Forbes blogger is not one of those people.

Amid published reports that Apple is eyeing original TV programming, to compete with the likes of Amazon, Hulu and Netflix, it appears they may be close to inking a deal with a major Hollywood player.

Before I read about the show that was being planned, I got to thinking about the original shows on some of those other services. Netflix is a key example of how a streaming service can deliver quality shows that can also win Emmys, or at least get people talking.

I’m taking about such offerings as “Orange is the New Black” and “House of Cards.” Certainly the gritty Marvel Comics shows, such as “Daredevil,” have been acclaimed; well most of them anyway.

Now Netflix is reportedly spending $6 billion this year, and $7 billion in 2018 for original programming. By comparison, Apple’s decision to spend $1 billion on such fare is little more than testing the waters. They’ve also hired former Sony Television executives to handle the production chores, so perhaps you should expect something highly entertaining and compelling, something way beyond that pathetic karaoke show that Apple recently produced.

So what is Apple planning to do next?

Well, there was that recent unconfirmed report that Apple was seeking to acquire Eon Productions, a UK-based film production company that is responsible for the James Bond films. It’s hard to believe it all began with “Dr. No” in 1962, a lifetime and several James Bond actors ago. The next unnamed Bond film is set for 2019, again starring Daniel Craig as 007.

So far, there’s been no word of a new owner, so let’s set that aside one that may actually be true, since it comes from the Wall Street Journal, which often has the inside track on financial news.

Now one irritating knack of TV producers is to bring back an old show, or do a TV version of a movie. This compares to the tendency of some movie producers to produce a film based on a TV show. So successful films include some “Star Trek” entrants, but such movies as “I Spy” were major flops.

On the TV screen, “Rush Hour” didn’t fare so well without the original stars, Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. A TV version of “Lethal Weapon” is in its second season, and the second incarnation of “Hawaii 5-0,” is now in its eighth season.

So reboots sometimes they succeed, although I often wonder if the entertainment companies are just running out of ideas.

So rather than do anything original, Apple is reportedly completing a deal with Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Television and NBCUniversal to revise a 1980s fantasy, horror and sci-fi anthology series, “Amazing Stories.” Even then, I didn’t regard it as terribly trendsetting, since it was reminiscent of such fare as “Outer Limits” and “Twilight Zone.” The title, by the way, is derived from a pulp sci-fi magazine that originally debuted in the late 1920s.

So what’s coming to happen next, a TV version of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” or is any of that suited towards series treatment? I suppose they might consider “Independence Day,” as the Earth continues its ongoing battles against alien invaders, but why must all alien visitors be evil?

Assuming the “Amazing Stories” deal goes through, it’s not known when it’ll debut, although it’ll reportedly involve 10 episodes budgeted at $5 million each, which is on the high side of what scripted one hour dramas usually cost. Well, perhaps it’ll give them the resources to do better special effects. Will the producers use Final Cut Pro X and other Apple apps to put it all together?

I suppose it can be an excellent showpiece for Apple products.

How it’ll be distributed is also the big question mark, since Apple doesn’t have a streaming TV service. I suppose episodes could be offered via iTunes, or perhaps Apple Music can become Apple Music and Video and serve as a showcase for such fare.

While I have no doubt that Spielberg’s production company will deliver high quality shows, and I’m a huge fan of genre programming, I wonder whether Apple might have done better to consider something more original. Then again the sky’s the limit with an anthology, where lots of stories and casts can be featured.

It might even be possible to consider a single episode as a possible pilot for its own series if the concept catches on. So maybe there is potential for an “Amazing Stories” reboot.

But where does Apple go from there? There are reports about a show starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, and that may just be the beginning.

To a company the size of Apple, a $1 billion investment is just an experiment. Original programming might, at first, be little more than a hobby unless one or more of the new shows catches on.

But it’s a crowded environment out there when it comes to scripted dramas. I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that I don’t have the time to watch what’s available now. Except for the summer, when original offerings are slim, I wonder whether how many people will have the time to embrace yet another show.

I won’t dismiss the possibilities, however, because this is Apple we’re talking about. And saying that Apple has absolutely no experience at producing original TV shows doesn’t wash. Apple finds a way, as hundreds of millions of owners of iPhones can attest.

This is a curious situation. Time after time, Apple is attacked for being late to add a feature to one of its products. Over that time, feature after feature will be listed as something Apple must have to avoid total ruin.

Or something.

Take the arrival of LTE service from a growing number of wireless carriers, offering far better data speeds. Although other smartphones had it, Apple seemed to take its sweet time.  But it was also true that those early LTE cellular radios were inefficient, power hungry. If Apple took that direction, battery life would be worse. And, except perhaps for the iPhone Plus models, battery life is no great shakes as it is.

We don’t talk about LTE performance anymore, or do we? Well, nowadays, Apple is sourcing parts from Qualcomm and Intel, but the latter supposedly achieves a lower potential performance level than the former, so both are throttled. This is supposed to be some huge deal, except for the fact that real world performance is still a lot more than your wireless carrier can probably deliver. So does it even matter?

In the world of Apple critics, it does. But so does the fact that competing CPUs often offer more cores and clock speeds than Apple’s A-series chips, but Apple consistently delivers better performance in actual benchmarks. Some years back, Samsung tried to pull a fast one, by deliberately overclocking chips when some benchmark apps were being run. It sort of reminds me, to a far lesser degree, of the stunt Volkswagen pulled when it only activated most emissions control features when a car with a diesel engine was running on a test machine.

And, yes, other smartphones had a variation of OLED before the iPhone X, but the Apple’s real ace in the hole is Face ID.

Facial recognition is not new with Apple and the iPhone X. Such features were already around on other gear. The Samsung Galaxy S8, for example, has three biometric features. But two of them, facial recognition and the iris sensor, can be defeated with digital photographs. It’s enough to make you doubt the security of such features, and I can see where the critics have a point, at least about previous technology.

Obviously, the efficacy of Apple’s Face ID will not be certain until lots of people have an iPhone X, and we can see whether “edge cases” of one sort or another can confound the system. I’m not expecting perfection, but I would hope it’ll be superior to the competition. It’s clearly not something Apple added at the last possible moment because they couldn’t embed a reliable Touch ID sensor beneath the device’s OLED display. That’s just nonsense.

Even then, if Face ID might be a little flaky at the start and require some software updates to reach something close to perfection, just as Touch ID did.  We’ll know the particulars in a few weeks.

In the meantime, however, just as smartphone makers attempted to add fingerprint sensors after Touch ID debuted on the iPhone 5s, you can be assured they will be working hard to perfect facial recognition for future products. Rather than just a feature that can be included in a bulleted list, they will have to at least make the effort to deliver a reasonably reliable and secure system.

Face ID will be the benchmark, and it has been suggested it puts Apple more than two years ahead of the competition. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Face ID migrate to “lesser” iPhones if it proves successful, and Apple can deliver enough product on a scale of hundreds of millions of copies. Touch ID is destined to disappear over time.

By the same token, the Apple TV 4K delivers a much more expensive solution to Ultra HD streamers. The flagship Roku Ultra, which lists for $109 until the new Apple TV arrived, is now $99. Does it make sense to pay nearly twice as much for Apple’s set-top box? Are the apps so superior, is the interface better?

Does Apple offer better quality video? Probably not with Netflix, but maybe with the 4K movies you stream from iTunes. The specs for both product don’t reveal potential advantages except in theory. Both Apple’s HDR and Roku’s HDR include HDR10. Apple also has Dolby Vision, but how many movies are going to come in that format and is it visually superior on streamed content, assuming you have a 4K set that delivers both?

But the Apple TV 4K features more digital audio formats, touting Dolby Digital 5.1 and Dolby Digital Plus 7.1. Dolby Atmos is coming in a future update. In comparison, the Roku Ultra evidently limits multichannel support to DTS Digital Surround, so if superior audio quality is important to you, Apple’s streamer is far superior. That advantage is not getting as much attention as it should.

Then again, Apple didn’t build the first personal computer, the first digital music player, the first smartphone, the first tablet, or, for that matter, the first smartwatch.

But Microsoft copied the Mac OS with Windows, digital music players that arrived after the iPod tried to match Apple, and we all know about the iPhone and the iPad. Roku would not have become successful with video streamers had it not been for the Apple TV to set the standard.

That’s the way it’s always been with Apple, but some members of the tech media still aren’t paying attention.