Welcome to the world of near-insanity, where a highly successful company is constantly thought of as being poised to fail. It’s the sort of journalist and tech analyst freak-out that has played itself out for years when it comes to Apple Inc.

You almost wonder if there’s a deep, dark conspiracy at work here? Or maybe some competitors, and I can think of one from South Korea offhand, are subsidizing reporters and analysts to write bad stories about Apple. But there’s no support for any of that. It’s just an offhand possibility that very likely isn’t so.

What makes such matters more troubling is how the so-called industry experts are so busy touting products — compared to Apple — that are not doing near as well as you’d believe if you didn’t check the actual sales estimates.

I’ll get to the Apple Watch shortly. Let’s look at personal computers first.

So a key example is the Microsoft Surface. It’s not that Microsoft hasn’t had a few intriguing ideas. I suppose the Surface Studio, with its foldable 28-inch touchscreen, has some potential. However, its entry-level price is $1,200 more than the starting price of Apple’s direct competitor, the 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display. Is the presence of a touchscreen that can be folded into all sorts of different positions for content creators worth the extra money?

I mean, whatever you think about large touchscreens, it’s an intriguing idea, though it doesn’t seem as if it’s made the Surface lineup any more sales-worthy. So in the March quarter, sales dropped by 26%. Maybe they would have fallen more had there not been a Surface Studio around, but it doesn’t auger well for the ongoing relevance of Microsoft’s PCs.

Besides, I wonder how other PC makers feel about the company on whom they depend for their operating system also competing with them for hardware sales.

Regardless, the Surface is clearly getting a lot more traction than its history of tepid sales would justify. Apple is regularly urged to copy the Surface, and the iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard is thought of as having such influences. But there have been keyboard cases for iPads for years. Maybe the Smart Keyboard is a somewhat better solution, but that doesn’t make Microsoft’s approach original.

But what about another Apple product line that has not been given so warm a reception by the media?

Introduced in 2014, the Apple Watch more or less made the smartwatch credible. Although there had been contenders from Samsung and other companies — and don’t forget the now-departed Pebble — sales weren’t so terrific. What was Apple going to do to enter this space?

The first Apple Watch served several functions, for fitness, reminders and as pieces of jewelry. The Apple Watch Edition listed for $10,000, and a fancy watchband would put the price in compact car territory. Apple sought fashion experts to gain coverage.

For the Series 2, Apple took a more practical approach, and moved more heavily towards the fitness market, and made the gadgets somewhat more affordable at the low end. The Edition became Ceramic and far cheaper. New features were added, including an onboard GPS that would allow you to do more things on an Apple Watch without dependance on an iPhone.

Despite Apple’s claims of growing Apple Watch sales, the critics took a “yeah, sure” approach. It’s not that they had better data, or any data. Apple doesn’t disclose actual sales, but they can be inferred from the “Other Products” results. Some might feel that the numbers aren’t being revealed because Apple doesn’t have confidence in the product, or it may be just to keep the actual numbers from competitors.

Now there is some good news about the potential for the Apple Watch. But it comes in a survey that has essentially meaningless results..

So according to a survey of some 500 consumers taken last month, Apple fared well in buying intentions. Now understand that such surveys are at best rough approximations of customer plans. It doesn’t mean that the people who respond to such surveys will actually go through with those purchases, especially if those plans won’t be acted on for several months.

That said, let’s look at the results from analyst Raymond James. Again, don’t take it seriously.

So some 14% of those taking part in the survey plan to buy Apple’s forthcoming HomePod speakers, or Beats wireless speakers. It doesn’t make much sense to mix those products, since Beats speakers are available now, and the HomePod, which features the Siri digital assistant, isn’t expected until the holiday season. The numbers were higher than the Amazon Echo, which is an allegedly successful and high profile product.

It doesn’t matter that recent sales  estimates pointed to Echo sales in the 12 million range since the gadget debuted in 2014. I don’t consider that so successful, since it’s much less than even the Apple Watch, which is, as I said, supposed to be a failure.

The survey also indicated high demand for the Apple Watch and AirPods. But why would fancy wireless earphones be matched with a fitness gadget? Well, it is true that both are included in Apple’s Other Products category, but that doesn’t explain why they were combined.

As I said, surveys of buyer intentions are bound to be misleading, and extremely inaccurate. It’s even worse when you combine two products that are only superficially in a similar category — one of which hasn’t even been released yet.

So there you have it. Some positive news for Apple I suppose. Make of it what you will.

The past few decades have been littered with failed auto companies. Over my lifetime, I remember such makes as Edsel, Studebaker, Packard, Rambler, AMC, DeLorean, Saturn, Plymouth, Pontiac and Oldsmobile. While there are no doubt used cars from each make to be had, although some would be very old, there are various and sundry reasons why these vehicles have joined the dustbins of history.

This is not to say they were necessarily bad cars. But changing tastes, poor planning and marketing, lackluster designs and, in the end, poor sales, helped hasten their departures. Sometimes manufacturers had trouble differentiating one brand from another. It’s hard, for example, to define how Oldsmobile differed from Buick, even though both were supposed to represent premium brands, a step below Cadillac. And, yes, I realize that some of you can probably explain in exquisite detail what made one brand distinct from another, or maybe the distinction blurred over the years due to corporate “badge engineering,” in which parts, such as engines and body frames, are shared among several makes.

So when Tesla Motors was founded in 2003, there were skeptics aplenty, and there still are. In those days, the promise of electric cars that could travel hundreds of miles before they needed a recharge was a misguided fantasy. The closest you came was a hybrid vehicle, and the standard bearer was (and is) the Toyota Prius. It used both a conventional gasoline-powered engine and an electric engine, working together to enhance fuel economy.

Continue Reading…

One thing is certain: When someone attempts to predict Apple’s future plans, you should be cautious about the result. Well, unless that news comes direct from Apple. Even then, there’s the expected hype factor.

So we have those almost endless reports about whether the so-called iPhone 8 will have a Touch ID fingerprint sensor or not. Well, at least when certain commentators aren’t saying it’s all going to be a big fail because — well the Samsung Galaxy S8 is such a marvelous piece of kit.

Before we get to Apple and the alleged lapses of the unannounced iPhone 8, let’s not forget that the Samsung flagship smartphone has three types of biometrics, and all are flawed in some way. You may not quite realize that from the highly-rated Consumer Reports review, but consider what’s really happening.

So Samsung supposedly couldn’t figure out a way to embed a fingerprint sensor in the front, which has an edge-to-edge display, so it was put in the rear. It can be an awkward reach, I gather. Even worse, it was positioned in such a way that you could easily touch the camera lens instead, and thus soil it. You have to keep your fingers clean.

The front-mounted sensors, iris and facial, are easy to defeat with photographs. So they are essentially useless. To me, that presents a potential security hazard, particularly if you depend on them to keep your phone from being unlocked, and it doesn’t work as advertised. Isn’t that CR’s stock in trade, to reveal which products have serious flaws? It’s not as dangerous as a car that can tip over if you have to make a rapid maneuver to avoid a road hazard, but still…

So does the fact that Samsung couldn’t devise a front-mounted fingerprint sensor mean that Apple couldn’t either? If that’s the case, does this mean that you’ll have to fiddle with a rear-mounted Touch ID? Is that what you ought to expect?

Even if Apple had to take that route, it would still be there. But there are ill-informed stories suggesting Apple might be forced to forego Touch ID, or any biometrics. But that would be a stupid decision of the first order, since Touch ID is not just a powerful security feature for unlocking the device, but it’s also crucial for Apple Pay.

As more and more banks add Apple Pay, why would people pay prices that might be as high as $1,000 or more for an iPhone that doesn’t support the feature? Does that even make sense?

Now I suppose the rumors might be partly right, based on supply chain chatter that Apple had to experiment with different ways of outfitting the device with a fingerprint sensor. No doubt different prototypes were built, testing different ways to handle Touch ID. Some samples might have it in the rear, others might have omitted the feature, if only for testing purposes.

There are also reports of a possible 3D sensor for facial recognition. So instead of putting your finger on the iPhone, you’ll look at it instead. But you shouldn’t use Samsung’s failure to deliver a secure facial sensor as evidence that Apple is going to have a similar problem.

Having not used a gadget that recognizes my face — although I do hope my visage doesn’t damage the system — I cannot suggest whether it’s more secure. Do you just glance at the front of the device, or hold still for a second? With Apple, it would have to be pretty seamless. Stare to unlock or something.

That said, perhaps reports of facial recognition might be more about testing the feature than readying it for release this year. Maybe it’ll be offered as a second biometric method, and Touch ID, however it’s implemented, will be the primary system. Or it’ll be put off until 2018 or later.

If the iPhone 8 is real, and if it’s going to be introduced in September, you would think production is in the early stages by now, meaning the final design has been nailed down and it’s now a matter of ramping up the production lines. I suppose it’s possible Apple might demonstrate the 10th anniversary iPhone, but put off release until some time in October. It’ll still count for the December quarter, but might impact September if the expected iPhone 7s refreshes aren’t so compelling.

All this is highly speculative, however.

Last year, you were told that the iPhone 7 and its big brother (or sister) were destined to be inadequate upgrades. That didn’t stop iPhone sales from recovering. The real product was actually a pretty decent release, even if it didn’t look so different from its predecessor. So one might expect an iPhone 7s to also be a modest refresh, but that shouldn’t make it less compelling for the people who would be apt to buy them. That means customers who have had their gear for at least two years (thus the iPhone 6s or earlier or some sort of Android device).

At the end of the day, I’m not about to guess how this will all play out. But the doom and the gloom might be fed by Apple’s competitors, rather than represent someone’s honest opinion. Forgive the paranoia, but I am skeptical of reports that the next Apple gadget is destined to be a subpar upgrade. Let’s wait till something is actually released before reaching any conclusions.

For a while, many Mac users felt abandoned by Apple. The critics said that, since Apple makes roughly 60% of its revenue from iPhones, other products are being given short shrift. It would seem to mean that Apple didn’t care about 40% of its business.

But is that even remotely true?

Certainly there’s no evidence that Apple is ignoring the Apple Watch. Apple TV? Well, it seems curious that the current model doesn’t support 4K, although it’s also true that there is no 4K content on iTunes. But Apple is behind the curve there, because more and more low-cost TV sets are available offering the higher resolution screens, and models with enhanced color, HDR, are also spreading through manufacturer product lineups.

The iPad is another story, and the multitasking changes in iOS 11, and the new iPad Pros, may help jump start the lineup.

When it comes to Macs, after very little action, other than a very modest MacBook refresh last year, Apple introduced a brand new MacBook Pro lineup in the fall. While mostly in the spirit of previous updates, with a somewhat slimmer and lighter form factor, Apple was attacked for failing to deliver a proper pro notebook.

The most controversial decision was to replace the seldom-used function keys with the Touch Bar, an OLED display that’s configurable. Developers would be able to craft shortcuts for key functions. Forgetting the technology, that would seem to be worth the effort, except for the fact that these new notebooks were several hundred dollars more expensive than their predecessors. I’ll forget the arguments about why Apple didn’t offer 32GB of RAM, because they never did. Microsoft Surface notebooks also max out at 16GB.

At any rate, however controversial, it appears that Apple was correct in reporting high demand, because Mac sales were up for two quarters after dipping slightly.

But what about the rest of the lineup?

Well, as you know, Apple issued the closest to a mea culpa you’d expect from the company during a reporter roundtable in early April of this year. So the Mac Pro, touted as the next insanely great thing in 2013, was a misfire. Apple misjudged the direction of the market, and ended up with a product difficult to upgrade. Why it took from 2013 to 2017 to realize this is a huge question mark.

Maybe the Mac product team was sleeping at the wheel, or taking extended naps during product planning sessions. Regardless, a new Mac Pro and a new display are coming, probably in 2018. The promise of an iMac with pro features will be fulfilled when the iMac Pro arrives in December at a starting price of $4,999.

Today, you can buy a new MacBook, a new MacBook Pro, and a new iMac, all of which are faster than you’d expect from a normal processor refresh. The 13-inch MacBook Air received a slight processor upgrade, and we know that Apple likes the Mac mini. But not enough to deliver an upgrade, at least not yet.

If you’ve read most of the product reviews, you’ll see benchmarks indicating double digit improvements almost across-the-board. The 27-inch iMac’s marvelous 5K display is even more marvelous.

As product upgrades go, this is certainly more than you’d expect. Even that costly iMac Pro may not be expensive when compared to the competition. Apple boasted that similarly equipped PC desktops cost over $7,000, but some people managed to configure build-it-yourself PCs that are within a couple of hundred dollars of the iMac Pro. But they aren’t all-in-one designs; they are towers plus displays, which would at least make them easier to upgrade.

Regardless, it’s clear that Apple has delivered credible upgrades to most Macs. The promise of a $5,000 iMac may seem curious in light of the company’s usual approach to professional workstations, but the all-in-one desktop has always been an Apple thing.

Despite that, I read a piece recently suggesting the iMac refresh was boring. A yawner, and thus the reviewer isn’t going to bother to cover it. Why?

Well, I suppose a brighter display with better color reproduction is unimportant. Double-digit performance boosts are also unimportant, as is the ability to upgrade to 64GB and order up SSDs of up to 2TB. All, right a fully decked out iMac costs over $4,000, coming closer to its forthcoming big brother, but this is one powerful beast.

Why is it boring?

If a huge improvement to an existing product is boring, just what is exciting? Aha! Well, to the writer in question, it must be a touchscreen, as typified by the $3,000 Microsoft Surface Studio.

Having a collapsible touchscreen may have some value to certain users, but it doesn’t seem as if people are lining up to buy them in great numbers. Surface sales were down 26% in the March quarter. People who insist Apple should be somehow emulating Microsoft need to explain how a product that isn’t selling so well should be regarded as a source of inspiration.

This isn’t to say that Apple’s objection to touchscreens always makes sense. Just take an iPad Pro, equip it with a Smart Keyboard — or a third-party equivalent — and you’ll see what I mean. This is particularly true if iOS 11 delivers on the promise of making these tablets more credible as productivity devices.

As far as I’m concerned, the Mac refreshes aren’t boring, and the same goes for the iPad Pro and iOS 11.