Once again, let’s put all this in perspective: On Tuesday, September 12th, Apple will hold its annual iPhone bash, where new models are expected to be introduced. There may also be a third-generation Apple Watch with an optional LTE radio, and a fifth-generation Apple TV featuring 4K and HDR.

But for the sake of this column, I’m not going to bother with much in the way of new products and product specifics beyond the iPhones. While I can read the rumor reports as well as anyone, it hardly makes sense to speculate about matters that may or may not have been made obsolete before some of you actually have a chance to read this column.

Instead, I’ll continue my focus on how the skeptical Apple media continues to try to spin their stories in a negative way. Where I discuss specs, it’s only in relation to the products you can buy now from other companies.

Continue Reading…

I’ll try to phrase this commentary carefully because, as usual, Apple must play by a different set of rules. If a blogger perceives the rules may no longer apply, the company must be in really deep trouble. Not just ordinary trouble, but deep trouble. Really deep trouble. Deep.

So let’s start at all those reports that Apple is going to spend at least $1 billion to acquire or develop TV shows. In order to hit the ground running, the company has reportedly hired several seasoned executives from Sony TV to make sure it’s done properly.

Indeed, one of the properties Apple might also be going after is the James Bond franchise. This report is based on a Hollywood Reporter story, so it might have a basis in fact. Or it may just be that Apple executives have made a number of routine inquiries, and the media, having learned about them, will give them more credibility than they warrant.

So there may be more stories about Apple going after this, that or the other franchise. But obviously not Marvel and Star Wars, which are owned by Disney, or the DC super heroes, such as Batman and Superman — and of course Wonder Woman — all of which are owned by Warner Bros.

But wasn’t there a story once that Apple wanted to buy Warner Bros.?

So there’s a blog in a certain publication that suggests Apple is “losing its cool factor,” which may prevent the company from succeeding in the TV production business.

Now on the surface, or above or below, this is utter nonsense.

Sure, there may be some truth to the fact that Apple is far more predictable than it used to be. Going into a media event, the public usually has a good handle on what’s coming. Sure, there may be a few details here and there that you don’t know about. Take the actual configuration of the iMac Pro, or even that there will be an entirely separate product line that catered to a very different audience than the mainstream iMac.

But does predictable mean less cool? Compared to whom?

The blogger in question assumes that Apple used to dominate the industries it entered, and that the competition is smarter now, so therefore that’s no longer possible.

But in fact Apple rarely dominates a market. Certainly the Mac never dominated the PC market, at the beginning, the middle or the present. Never happened, although market shares varied over the years. Apple does have a much larger share among premium computers, but Windows PCs still retain in the neighborhood of a 90% share of the global PC space.

Does that somehow make Microsoft cool?

Smartphones? Certainly iOS and the iPhone dominate in certain areas. Apple earns the lion’s share of profits. and no single smartphone outsells the iPhone. But most people have Android handsets. Apple’s market share depends on which country you’re looking at, but the numbers are usually in the mid-teens across the globe.

The iPad may sell more units than the competition, but its sales history has been mixed, and one recent quarter of growth is not enough to determine whether sales will continue to increase.

The Apple Watch certainly leads so-called smartwatches, but the lead isn’t so clearcut if you put it into a wearables category.

Apple Music? A work in progress. The service is young, still finding its way, and it may well be that adding TV shows will be a major factor in boosting subscriptions. But if Apple is destined to stay in second place compared to Spotify, so be it. Which company stands to make the highest profits? Indeed, how much money has Spotify lost so far? As subscriptions grow, so does the red ink. How long can that situation continue before its access to capital markets dries up?

Do I have to answer?

But is it really true that only a company perceived as “cool” can succeed in TV production?

Is Warner Bros. cool? Well, it did produce “Wonder Woman,” currently regarded as one of the best super hero movies ever. Does that make the company cool or the producers, director and stars? What about Comcast, which owns NBC/Universal? Is a cable company cool even if it does own a big entertainment company? Really?

Is Disney cool because it partly owns the ESPN sports network, and wholly owns ABC, Marvel, Star Wars, some overpriced theme parks and Mickey Mouse? Does that make the corporation somehow cool? Or are the properties cool for those who enjoy them?

Netflix? Amazon? Hulu? HBO? Showtime? CBS All Access because a new Star Trek series is coming soon?

This is a perfectly ridiculous argument that has little to do with the quality of the content that Apple may produce or acquire. Will buying 007 help? Remember that the entertainment business is only cool when the product is cool, and otherwise we’re dealing with yet another money-making corporation with mostly faceless executives.

At least Tim Cook has improved his public persona to make him sort of cool, but that’s in the eyes of the beholder. I want even begin to consider the argument.

Nor will I gave any further coverage to the silly blogger who imagines that Apple’s success as a TV producer is not about the shows themselves, but somehow the result of the public’s perception of the company keeping its cool factor.

That should be obvious to most people, but not to the some of the hit bait purveyors who continue to come up with wackier and wackier stories to justify their existence.

To realize how much influence the James Bond film franchise has had, consider that the first film of the theatrical series was released in 1962. But it wasn’t the first time there was a visual interpretation of one of Ian Fleming’s best selling novels. A version of Casino Royale was produced as part of the TV anthology series Climax! in 1954, starring Barry Nelson as 007.

You don’t remember? I don’t either, and I was alive at the time.

For all practical purposes, Bond actually debuted with “Dr. No,” one of the few films that actually had a passing resemblance to the novel of the same name. After all these years, the most famous — and arguably the best — Bond was the star of that film, Sean Connery. After a procession of actors, the character is currently being played by Daniel Craig, who has decided to do one more film after evidently holding out for a bigger bundle of cash.

But rather than worry about the history of the franchise, the future may be more interesting, because Apple may be involved. And no wonder. Including price adjustments for inflation, the franchise has so far grossed over $14 billion in box office revenues.

So there is a published report that Apple has joined the bidding war to take over the film rights, which would include streaming. The previous deal for 007 expired in 2015, and Apple is said to be competing with Amazon and Warner Bros. to assume the rights.

Now anyone who has followed the long procession of rumors and speculation about anything Apple might just wonder whether Bond, James Bond is actually under consideration. But this story comes from no less than The Hollywood Reporter, a respected trade paper, which conveys an extra degree of credibility.

Regardless of who gets control of the rights, the next Bond film is due for release on November 8, 2019, when Craig will be 51. While that might seem a tad old for a 007, the late Roger Moore played the character well into his 50s. On the other hand, Craig is the sort of actor who does many of his own stunts, whereas the upper crust Moore was said to use a stunt double even to walk across the room. He was also said to be averse to handling guns, so when he conveyed the impression of being above the battle, it appears he didn’t have to do much more than read his lines.

But that’s me. I suspect some people out here cut their teeth on Bond when Moore was involved and might prefer his portrayal.

Is this report about Apple entering the Bond bidding war even possible? Well, the franchise is reportedly valued at between $2 billion and $5 billion, which is little more than a casual expense for Apple. It’s not just about the money, however. It is reported that the long-time 007 producers, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson of Eon Productions, would have to be persuaded to embrace Apple’s focus on digital content. They still evidently believe in traditional movies and traditional movie theaters.

I suppose it’s also possible that Apple’s rumored presence in these negotiations may also be designed to convey the impression that the company is really serious about content. Recently Apple hired former Sony TV executives Zack Van Amburg and Jamie Erlicht to manage content creation. These executives are best known for such programs as ‘The Blacklist” and “Better Call Saul,” the spinoff to “Breaking Bad.”

Another four hires, also former Sony TV executives, have been added since then. Clearly things are ramping up.

Does that mean that Apple Music is destined to become Apple Music and Video and thus became an all-encompassing medium to present a wide variety of streaming content? If that’s the case, it would put Apple in quite a different category than Spotify, which has been, up till now, basically a music medium.

Remember, this is not a casual enterprise. It was already reported that Apple plans to spend $1 billion to acquire new or existing TV-related content. The move would still put the company way behind Netflix, which is reportedly spending $6 billion this year, and $7 billion in 2018 to develop or buy up the rights for new shows.

But if Bond has suddenly entered the picture, Apple may just have a wider aspirations in content creation than previously suspected. But this isn’t the first time Apple has been named in negotiations to buy an entertainment property. In the past, a possible purchase of Warner Bros. — all of it — has also been mentioned without any direct confirmation.

On a practical level, though, I just wonder when there will be a surfeit of good stuff to watch. There are more quality scripted dramas to watch than ever before, but you need to sign up with an increasing number of streaming services to watch them all since many are exclusive to a single service. Even if you have cable or satellite for your daily TV diet, you need these extra services to get the full range of content.

At some point, I suspect many people will come to realize that cutting the cord may not save any money, so there may be some level of cutting back. When will the saturation point be reached? For me, it’s already there. There’s too much good stuff for me to watch, or even afford, right now. I have to decide what to give up, or what to avoid, and I can’t be alone in being put in that position.

So Siri is bad. Terrible, a huge fail. Apple is late to the party, and the digital assistants from Amazon, Google and Microsoft are the only ones to be taken seriously.

You get the picture.

Yes, it’s typical Apple fear mongering, the sort of thing where nothing the company can do will ever gain the respect of certain critics. It doesn’t matter that Siri arrived in 2011, ahead of the digital assistants from those other companies. It has to be behind the curve, because Apple refuses to configure its cloud-based servers to capture your personal information to better configure Siri to do your bidding.

Now that may, in part, have been true up till now. Tests show that the Google Assistant may be more responsive than Siri in answering your requests, particularly when they become a little more complicated than setting an alarm or performing other simple tasks.

But that’s yesterday. Apple has promised improvements in recognition and intelligence in Siri for iOS 11 and macOS High Sierra. For one thing, the voice is more human-like, and machine learning will supposedly help Siri to better adapt itself to your needs. Apple has also provided enhanced tools for developers to support Siri in their apps.

It sounds good to me.

Yet the usual Apple critics would rather make unfounded and unproven assumptions as to whether Siri has improved. An article in a major online publication — very major — takes this assumption and runs with it at full speed, all without any evidence of how much Siri has changed.

So we’re told that that “Amazon turned Alexa into a product brilliantly,” which presumably refers to the Echo. But the Echo has, in a little under three years, achieved unit sales about a third of those of the Apple Watch. So success must mean selling less.

Google, in contrast, “has brilliant technology,” but Apple is somehow fated to make Siri and its artificial intelligence technology merely “good enough.”

Again, these assumptions are being made without actually testing anything.

With iOS 11 and macOS High Sierra in the late development stages, why not actually run some tests to see how much Siri has improved?. I did see a test with the early beta indicating it had a ways to go, but that’s not good enough. How does Siri stand now? Put Apple’s digital assistant up against Amazon, Google and Microsoft and see whether the improvements make it “good enough,” whether it still needs improvement, or whether it’s actually superior.

What are they afraid of?

Taking this negative posture also means that the article’s author can make some absurd requests, such as having Apple partner with other companies, and I assume that includes Google, to share expertise. That, of course, would put the kibosh on one of Apple’s key advantages, which is to protect users from becoming the product for targeted ads and other promotions. It would violate Apple’s privacy policies big time!

Yet according to the blogger in question, it must be done to make Siri good enough to compete against the competition.

But all this is said on a backdrop of nothing. Again, the new and improved Siri isn’t being tested. Its advantages and disadvantages must remain the huge unknown unless you actually put it through its paces.

Now it just so happens that the publication in question routinely tests a whole assortment of products and services. But the article in question doesn’t consider that possibility, and instead provides some juicy quotes designed to buttress an unproven argument. It’s all about Apple inevitably being behind the curve and thus forced to play a huge game of almost catch-up.

In the real world, I don’t know whether Siri is all that much better in the new Apple operating systems. Granted, the voice is definitely more realistic, but that doesn’t mean that commands and context are better. But regardless of how a brief test fares, how will machine learning help to make Siri more responsive to your requests? Will Siri adapt itself over a few weeks to become a little better, a lot better? What?

All this is part of the usual anti-Apple meme. The perception is that the company succeeded by sheer luck, or a fluke, or that customers have been hoodwinked into believing that iPhones, iPads, Macs and the Apple Watch are only perceived as better because of someone’s reality distortion field.  But Steve Jobs is no longer with us, so that can’t be it. Tim Cook is just a numbers guy, so he can’t persuade anyone of anything, right?

So maybe Apple is a religious cult that has attracted hundreds of millions of loyal fanatics who aren’t smart enough to know what’s good for them. No, that’s not it either.

I’d rather play around with Siri and see if it does what I want, and consult the experiences of others. If product reviewers run tests, I would hope they wouldn’t design them to favor one digital assistant platform over the other, but would give them all a fair shake.

Let’s see if the publication the specializes in reviews — and an occasional fear-mongering post — has the courage to do the right thing.