In yesterday’s column, I cited stats that indicated that the iPhone 7 was surprisingly successful in the June quarter, with sales slightly above last year, and ahead of every other smartphone on the planet. These are the kinds of numbers that continue to cement Apple’s position in the market.

So even though Android rules the roost as far as the total number of units sold, Apple has it all over Samsung and other companies when it comes to premium gear.

These sales come despite the torrent of speculation about an unannounced model that is generally referred to as the iPhone 8. There’s been talk about an edge-to-edge OLED display, 3D facial recognition, and other goodies. It conveys the impression that buying the current models makes no sense, since the next one will be so much better. Aside from the move to larger displays, starting with the iPhone 6 series, it would represent the biggest change in years. If true, of course.

The other question mark about the iPhone 7 was Apple’s decision to remove the headphone jack. Some tech pundits are still ranting about it. One article suggested you’ll spend hundreds of dollars stocking up on dongles to serve your Apple gear, but of course that’s nonsense. The iPhone 7 comes with an adapter, so you can still use regular wired earphones, including the ones supplied, without suffering much inconvenience. Replacement adapters are $9.

The only real problem occurs if you choose to listen and charge the unit at the same time, in which case you must buy a more expensive adapter. But Apple is forward looking in removing legacy ports. No doubt the product planners expect most people to switch to wireless before long, and not an expensive Bluetooth set, such as AirPods, but something that costs about the same as current wired models.

It may even be that a future iPhone will come with wireless ear buds, and then the complaints may be stilled. But Apple is attacked whenever ports are changed or removed, and it’s understandable there will be some inconvenience for a while as people have to buy adapters.

Did that decision hurt iPhone 7 sales? It’s hard to say. Did the speculation about the next model hurt? Likely, because that’s what Tim Cook suggested in commenting about slightly lower sales for the March quarter. You’d only expect it to be worse now as we get closer to the next iPhone media event, which will likely happen in September as usual.

The critics also savage Apple about the alleged failure of the Apple Watch. But let’s put things in perspective.

Sales of the iPhone from mid-2007 through 2009 totaled 33.73 million, far less than Apple sells in a single quarter nowadays. Estimated sales for the Apple Watch from the spring of 2015 through the June quarter are in the 30-31.5 million range. The iPhone was regarded as a success early on. The Apple Watch continues to be regarded as an underachiever.

True, iPad sales grew much faster, until they plateaued and began to drop. Indeed, June quarter sales represented the first time sales of Apple’s tablet grew since 2014.

In any case, Apple Watch sales, which continue to rise relatively quickly according to Apple, may not hreachit iPhone levels as quickly or at all. But that doesn’t make it unsuccessful.

Compare it to a product that is thought to be successful, the Amazon Echo. Some weeks back, I saw an estimate that Amazon sold 14 million units from its 2014 launch to this past spring. This is the sort of disconnect that often applies to Apple.

Indeed, the Microsoft Surface is often regarded as a successful high-end PC line. Macs are frequently compared, unfavorably. But Surface sales have remained flat for a while, until they dropped 26% in a recent quarter. Even then, revenue was a fraction of the Mac’s, so how do you regard Microsoft’s PCs as successful?

Even worse, it does appear that the Surface is not getting a terribly good reputation for reliability. All right, the recent Consumer Reports claim, that 25% of the units sold in a two-eyer period developed problems, has questionable methodology. Aside from depending on untrained readers to correctly check the boxes on questionnaires, the sampling size may not even be sufficient to get a reasonably credible result.

But online reports also tell a tale that isn’t terribly promising for Surface reliability. Even such Windows fans as blogger Paul Thurrott wrote about the complaints, along with a Microsoft memo that admitted such problems.

Now perhaps Microsoft will find ways to improve Surface reliability and get its reputation back. Maybe they can demonstrate flaws in CR’s reliability tests — well aside from the obvious ones — and restore a Recommended rating.

What it all goes to show, however, is that Apple is treated differently from other tech companies. Products that are successful by any conventional measure are deemed failures, and Apple’s design decisions are often found to be wrong even if they prove successful in the end.

I could mention the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, but it, too, has been a success.

Although Apple reported somewhat improved iPhone sales for the June quarter, there was, as usual, no breakdown for individual models. It was left to third parties to make good guesses. So we know the total was 41 million.

But before we look at the estimated breakdowns, consider that Apple achieved these results at a time when the iPhone 7 was getting old as smartphones go. At the same time, this was the first full quarter of sales for the Samsung Galaxy S8 and its big brother. This means that sales are apt to go downhill from here, though they should spike some during the holiday period.

Just wanted to make that clear.

So a market research firm, Strategy Analytics, has delivered its own estimates of worldwide smartphone sales. At the very least, the numbers seem logical enough, so they probably aren’t far off the mark. Based on these estimates, the firm’s Smartphone Model Tracker survey concludes that the iPhone 7 series was number one. Apple shipped some 16.9 million iPhone 7 units, and 15.1 million iPhone 7 Plus units.

If these numbers are reasonably accurate, it shows yet again that the larger iPhone fared better than many expect. Remember, this is the high-end model, with dual cameras and Portrait Mode. It tops out at $969 for the 256GB model, plus tax. In other words, for all practical purposes, it is a $1,000 iPhone to many buyers.

Let’s keep that in mind for a moment as I continue.

These figures are, remember, about iPhones that are getting long in the tooth. At the same time, there has been a avalanche of rumors and speculation about the alleged iPhone 8. Indeed, Apple CEO Tim Cook suggested that iPhone sales were depressed in the March quarter because of anticipation of what might come this fall. I would presume, then, that the situation grew much worse in the June quarter even if Cook evidently didn’t mention it.

Or maybe he wasn’t asked since sales were still a tad higher than last year, and analysts were pleased as punch how well Apple was doing.

Let’s also put this in perspective: Samsung’s new Galaxy handsets have received stellar reviews, for the most part. Consumer Reports gives them its highest ratings, ahead of the iPhone and all other comers. Compared to the “aging” iPhone, it’s a brand new model.

Despite that, Samsung shipped 10.2 million of the Galaxy S8 and 9.0 million of the Galaxy S8+, which puts them in third and fourth place. Even though prices are in the same league as the iPhone, carriers were more inclined to discount the new Samsungs to improve new customer signups. You usually expect that treatment for gear that’s been out for a while.

To be realistic, Android users have lots of choices, with high end smartphones from other makers, and a rich selection of the cheap stuff. So it’s not as if all the attention is necessarily focused on any single model, even though Samsung does far better than the rest.

If anything, I wonder why sales were ahead of other Android handsets in light of serious flaws discovered soon after these models were announced. It wasn’t just the rear-mounted fingerprint sensor, or its proximity to the camera lens that often resulted in your fingers smudging the latter. It’s about the fact that the other two biometrics, facial and iris recognition, were seriously flawed. That both were readily defeated using photographs is troubling. But it’s not unusual for Samsung to introduce a new feature that’s not fully baked.

But there may be some hope. The Samsung’s Bixby virtual assistant — designed by former Siri engineers — is getting decent buzz.

CNET ran some comparisons that also included Google Assistant and Siri from beta 2 of iOS 11. Bixby mostly kept up and delivered credible results, so it is a valid contender despite being brand new. But you would expect former Siri engineers to know their stuff, and I’m not at all surprised.

On the other hand, Siri was handicapped here due to its beta status. iOS 11 is up to beta six now, and it will take a while for third party apps to deliver support. This is the shortcoming of testing betas, and one hopes CNET will update the tests this fall to reflect the released version of iOS 11, and to see how Bixby is coming along.

Returning to smartphone sales, the best picture of iPhone sales will come with the December quarter. Unless something changes drastically, Apple will again soar past Samsung’s flagship models. Of course, the excuse then will be that the Galaxy S8 series has been out for a while, and the iPhones are brand new. But even when the situation is reversed, Apple continues to do better.

And, yes, I do expect to see the “threat” of a $1,000 iPhone come true. The rumored iPhone 8 — or whatever it’s called — may be priced $100 more than the alleged iPhone 7s Plus. So it’ll be $1,069. Or maybe Apple will freak out the media and industry analysts by cutting $100 from the price of the “lesser” models, meaning that the most expensive 2017 iPhone will be priced the same as last year’s most expensive iPhone.

Sure, people rarely expect Apple to reduce prices. But sometimes they do. A notable example is the 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display. ‘Nuff said.

Even though Android has a gigantic share of the mobile handset market, Google clearly needs Apple to generate income. How gigantic? I’m talking about roughly 85%, with iOS occupying roughly 15%. This varies a few points one way or the other from quarter to quarter.

What this means is that Google has agreed to pay Apple fairly large fees to grab the default search position. Unless you change the search engine to Yahoo, Microsoft Bing or DuckDuckGo, it defaults to Google.

Apple doesn’t make that decision by lottery or customer vote or out of the goodness of its corporate heart, although the fact that Google holds an 79.88% share counts for a lot. That’s based on August 2016 numbers — and there’s little that indication things have changed much — Bing has just 9.9%, lower than it was some years back. Yahoo rates for 8.34%. The rest are in the single digits.

Now I suppose Apple could choose another default search engine because, well, Google is a competitor. But it’s also true that Google pays Apple a reported $3 billion annually to earn that default spot.

In a sense it’s self-fulfilling prophecy, since most people don’t really fiddle with the default settings on one of their devices. With sales of a couple of hundred million iPhones a year, any change to the standard search engine would have a huge impact.

Now one bit of data is particularly compelling. Despite Android’s larger market share, Google reportedly earns half its mobile search revenue from Apple and iOS. No wonder it was willing to write a $3 billion check.

Don’t forget that Google gives away Android to mobile handset makers, hoping to derive income from search and app sales. In the second quarter of 2017, Google earned $3.1 billion as its cut for Google Play app sales, a fraction of its total revenue. Apple’s App Store sales are buried in the Services category, which brought in $7.3 billion for the comparable quarter. So the actual numbers would only be estimates, though still no doubt larger than Google.

I’ve read predictions that claim that that Google will match or exceed the App Store later this year, but even if that happens, individual iOS developers will stand to make a lot more money.

Then again, I don’t take such predictions seriously.

The unfortunate thing about the search deal is that Google has attained such a high level of dominance, that anything it does can be construed as unfair. It consigns other search engines to niche status, and you almost wonder why some bother. So, for example, Yahoo is actually using Bing to power its search engine, so maybe it would be more accurate to say that Bing has a share that’s a tad over 18%. That does sound less demoralizing.

Now things will get a tad more complicated when you realize that Google is the default search engine for Safari, and, of course, other browsers. But Microsoft’s Bing is used for Siri’s search engine unless you specify you want to use Google. Bing is also used for Spotlight.

And, yes, Microsoft hasn’t earned that status because Tim Cook and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella might like each other. It’s all about money, and Apple receives a decent paycheck for this deal.

Now it may well be that most people still rely on Google search. But as Siri becomes smarter, more and more search requests will be processed in a way that bypasses Google. The same is obviously true for Spotlight. Sure, you can trick Spotlight to use a different search engine, but it’s hardly worth the effort.

Does this mean that Google might ultimately lose a hefty portion of its search revenue because users of Apple gear will come to rely more on other ways to find stuff? Certainly if you want to be free of Google, you just change the search engine in Safari or the other browsers you might use.

Indeed, you can even change the default search engine in Chrome, even on an Android handset. Most people won’t bother, but if you prefer Google’s browser, and don’t want to see them earn money from you, go ahead and change the default search engines across the board.

You can live Google free.

As a practical matter, I’m not necessarily opposed to Google. But I have had a fair amount of exposure to Android smartphones, and I don’t like them. What is simple on an iPhone may require lots of extra steps on a Samsung or another Android device. Just today I met an Uber rider who needed help finishing up a transaction on his cheap handset after the trip was done.

He was trying to be nice, since Uber was offering to double tips due to a special promotion. But he couldn’t even get it to consistently recognize his payment method. I suppose he did sort all this out eventually, but is a crying shame that Google hasn’t focused more on usability. And, yes, he let me look at it and I, too, ran into multiple irritants in trying to make it work for him.

But at least you can get a cheap Android phone if you’re on a budget.

Now as to search engines: I don’t expect Google to suddenly lose prominence on Apple gear. But Siri and Spotlight might some day become Google’s worst enemy.

When I wrote that Microsoft had a potential Consumer Reports problem on its hands, I didn’t see — at least not yet — the tip of an iceberg. Clearly the story has taken hold and has garnered attention in lots of places. It also raises the specter of a wider range of product defects that Microsoft should take seriously.

Now I’ve made it clear that I have problems with the way CR does its reliability surveys. Manufacturers will probably not provide such data, since it is proprietary, and independent repair shops probably won’t have much information on recent models. Instead, CR relies on is own readers for this data. They receive questionnaires covering a whole range of product categories, and, with simple checkboxes and brief descriptions, list their own experiences.

CR does explain online why it is able to apply its own sampling methods so the results represent the U.S. population. I’ll accept it as accurate for the sake of argument. But that doesn’t necessarily validate the results. It doesn’t mean the information collected is accurate, since they are relying on tens of thousands of strangers to decide what information to enter and even if their perceptions are correct.

How is that scientific?

Now a published report quoting analyst Ben Bajarin, of Creative Strategies, provides yet a further reality check on CR’s conclusion that 25% of Microsoft Surface tablets and notebooks have developed serious defects during the first two years of ownership. As a result, CR will no longer recommend them.

The survey covers 91,741 owners who have responded to CR’s survey. But how many of those people actually own a Surface? Good question. Bajarin suggests it could be less than 50 people based on the Surface’s low market share. Is that sufficient to provide an accurate picture of the reliability of these PCs? What sort of sampling error should you expect? Remember that political polls in which hundreds or a few thousand people are surveyed will list a sampling error of several points. How about 50? Really?

Now compare Microsoft’s response to the CR decision not to recommend the Surface. It was one of denial, an insistence that their gear is reliable. Compare that to Apple when it was confronted with inconsistent battery life tests for the Late 2016 MacBook Pro last December. Apple worked with CR to isolate the cause, which turned out to be an obscure Safari bug only triggered by the publication’s peculiar testing scheme.

Apple fixed the problem, received a Recommended rating, and that was it.

CR got the opportunity to earn click bait headlines for two stories. The original story reporting the problem, and the updated report about a macOS Sierra update that fixed it. Apple didn’t engage in corporate spin; they did what they had to do, which was to find out what went wrong and fix it.

And now there’s yet another published report claiming that a leaked memo from Microsoft lists unusually high return rates for the Surface Book and the Surface Pro 4.

This is not just about owners having problems, but about buying products that result in customers sending them back. The memo was reportedly written by Panos Panay, a Microsoft VP, and published by Paul Thurrott, a known Windows advocate. If anything, you might expect Thurrott to skew his coverage positively towards Microsoft, so it’s particularly damning that he’d be the one to reveal such damaging news.

The memo lists 16% returns at the launch of the Surface Pro 4, which declined to below 10% after the first month on sale. Microsoft supposedly traced the high returns to problems caused by early bugs in Intel’s Skylake processors, but it’s also reported that, when Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella contacted people at Lenovo to see how they were dealing with those issues, they were told there were no issues.

Now it may well be that these glitches were the result of software or settings issues. Problems with an unresponsive touchscreen or constant freezes might be about the software rather than hardware, Such ills are not unusual in the Windows world, and they can usually be fixed with patches.

From a customer’s standpoint, though, it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t work, they want the problem fixed, or they might just return it and choose something else. Problems with Surface gear are legion, and evidently widely documented online.

It’s not the sort of news Microsoft would want to confront, since poor reliability ratings will just dissuade customers from buying a Surface. Even though the Surface usually earns stellar reviews, the people who write them rarely have enough time to evaluate reliability unless they have to deal with an obvious defect with a test sample. Some issues may not appear until after days or weeks of regular use.

Even then, you’d think that CR should have encountered similar issues during their own product tests. After all, they buy everything they test; they do not rely on manufacturer samples except, perhaps, to write a preliminary report. But a final review will always be based on a shipping product purchased anonymously at retail.

But even if CR’s reliability survey doesn’t accurately reflect Surface reliability due to its low sampling size, and the unreliability of its data, it does seem that Microsoft may have real problems on its hands. With relatively low Surface sales, maybe it’s time to figure out what’s really going on. The corporate spin game is getting old.