To understand what Apple is doing with the iMac, you’ll want to recall where it all began. I’ve mentioned this before, but I was there when it started, as a member of Apple’s Customer Quality Feedback program, which allowed Mac users access to software and, on occasion, hardware.

Well, in the spring of 1998, Apple sent me a bulbous plastic box that bore the label iMac. It was the original Bondi blue model that debuted in August of that year. I might have actually been able to keep it, except that my Apple contact told me that I needed to run a firmware update first to bring it up to the final version. Now maybe he was leading me on, but when I ran the update, it bricked the computer, so I sent it back.

Not that it was anything that suited my needs. It was strictly a consumer box, with parts derived from the PowerBook. I had always used the most powerful Mac minitowers. That said, the iMac was, in a way, a throwback to the original Mac, except that you could, with a little difficulty, update its parts. Indeed, I recall updating an iMac’s RAM on a fairly regular basis. To many of them, it was the perfect home computer, and, at a starting price of $1,299, it was fairly affordable for a Mac.

Over the next few years, Apple changed the colors, and finally updated the design with a base that resembled a lampshade and a movable articulated arm. It was also more difficult to upgrade.

Beginning with the iMac G5, it became more powerful, closer to a mainstream Mac with a built-in display. Indeed the case was almost all display, a design that has been enhanced with subsequent versions.

With the introduction of the 27-inch iMac in late 2009, it became powerful enough to actually replace a Mac Pro for many users. It also managed to relegate the latter to a smaller user base with more specialized needs. That move, in itself, caused Apple’s conundrum about how best to serve professional users.

In early April of this year, Apple executives met with several specially selected tech journalists in efforts to reassure professional users that they still had the love. That came with the admission that the 2013 Mac Pro redesign was a misfire, though those words weren’t used. But it was promised that a new Mac Pro is under development, but it won’t arrive this year.

Also promised was a version of the iMac with pro options, which implies models with higher-end configurations. As it stands, the iMac is made up of basically notebook-grade components, largely to keep things from running too hot. But that doesn’t mean an iMac isn’t a powerful computer. When topped out with the fastest available CPU, it can beat the Mac Pro in canned benchmarks, except for apps that can exploit more than four cores.

Since the iMac statement was made, a few tech sites have engaged in speculation as to how the iMac might change, or at least what might be available when you click “Customize.” One report suggested a low-end Xeon processor, similar to the silicon used in the Mac Pro. There would certainly be more powerful graphics, no doubt with the ability to drive a pair of external 5K displays. But adding USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 ports would only duplicate what’s already available on the Late 2016 MacBook Pro with Touch Bar.

Looking at the available CPUs, I suggested Apple might look to an 8-core version of the Intel i7, or perhaps the AMD Ryzen, also available with eight cores, which would the first time Apple used someone else’s chips after the 2006 switch to Intel. But since AMD builds processors that are x86 compatible, it wouldn’t be so big a deal to use processors from two companies.

Now it certainly hasn’t been verified, but a forum post at a tech site, AnandTech, claims to contain leaks about forthcoming Intel i9 CPUs, sporting up to 12 cores and 24 threads. They would be part of the forthcoming “Core i9 Skylake X” and “Kaby Lake X” families, and, according to the post, they are expected to ship beginning in June.

The post goes on to list model numbers and detailed specs. With the claim that the most powerful chips would have power requirements equivalent to comparable Xeons, I suspect there would be concerns over whether an iMac in its current form could handle such heavy-duty needs. I suppose it’s possible that Apple could redesign the iMac with a heftier power supply and more elaborate cooling to accommodate more powerful parts, all without seriously changing the basic form factor.

Even if the claim is true, that doesn’t mean any of the new chips will make their way into a new Mac. If anything, these processors might present possible lower-cost options for a Mac Pro.

But if Intel is poised to ship new processors in June, surely it would have been announced by now. The alleged “leak” is getting serious attention from sites that cover Intel, however. It’s also possible that the new silicon will be announced next month, but may not ship until a few months later, perhaps by fall. So it may be possible, yet, for Apple to consider using them. Obviously Apple already knows what Intel plans to deliver in time for the next iMac upgrade.

Without final confirmation, the best I’d say is that it makes for a fascinating story. It points to a possible new direction for Apple in refreshing the iMac, but there will probably be few specifics until the expected 2017 model is close to release.

I cannot tell you how many times a tech pundit, or a wannabe, claimed that Apple should be looking to Microsoft for inspiration to make the Mac better. No, not cribbing a few ideas from Windows, which Apple has done from time to time, but from Microsoft’s PC hardware line that’s sold under the Surface brand.

Did I say Surface?

So when Microsoft came out with a large 2-in-1 all-in-one PC, the Surface Studio, some asked why Apple hasn’t built its counterpart. But Apple already has a large-screened all-in-one. It’s known as the 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display. The main difference is that the Surface Studio is fitted with a flexible arm, similar to a gooseneck lamp, so you can move the display around in all sorts of ways, even push it down real low so you can easily hover over it. That’s supposed to be important to artists who can use it as a big drawing tablet.

Continue Reading…

The Mac mini arrived in 2005, several months after its potential existence was basically denied by Apple. So at a conference call with financial analysts, Apple was asked if they planned to build a low-cost Mac. The answer was no.

At $499, the Mac mini was strictly no frills, without a keyboard, mouse or display. If you wanted to upgrade memory or change out the hard drive or other parts, you had to use a putty knife or a similar tool to open the case. I wonder, in passing, what the designers were thinking.

Evidently the  message got through, for a time. A major revision to the form factor, priced at $599, included an easy-access slot at the bottom for RAM upgrades. But it went away in 2014, when Apple released a tepid refresh at $499 that followed through on the approach taken with notebooks. RAM was soldered to the logic board.

There it stood until Apple marketing VP Philip Schiller was asked about the mini during that roundtable with a handful of tech reporters in early April. Although it was largely focused on Apple’s failure to deliver an upgrade to the Mac Pro since 2013 — and the promise that a redesigned model was under development — Schiller did make a notable comment about Apple’s cheapest Mac, saying, “the Mac Mini is an important product in our lineup and we weren’t bringing it up because it’s more of a mix of consumer with some pro use.”

By “some pro use,” Schiller was no doubt referring to the fact that a Mac mini is not only used as an entry-level personal computer, and a home media server, but as a web server in the back office or in datacenters. In fact, I ran a test with one hosting company that equipped cabinets with Mac minis. I moved all our sites to one for several weeks.

Understand that I normally manage these sites on a fairly powerful Linux server, so I wasn’t expecting much. But the Mac mini was outfitted with a quad-core processor and an SSD, and the latter meant that performance barely changed. I wouldn’t recommend one for heavy-duty use over a prolonged period, but for less severe use, it is perfectly all right.

Regardless, the Mac mini has fallen through large cracks of seemingly abandoned Macs. So is there a clue in what Schiller said that points to its future direction?

If Apple were to release a new Mac mini, would it retain the existing design, or perhaps expand its horizons? I’ve wondered about this in several ways over the years. So some years back, former Macworld writer/editor Dan Frakes and I separately conceived a new Mac design. He called it a “mythical midrange Mac minitower,” which I envisioned as a “headless” iMac, containing its guts without a display, plus some added expansion capability.

Now you might also regard such a design as a souped up Mac mini, something to be placed in Apple’s product lineup between the mini and the iMac.

But as the sales mix moved away from desktops and towards notebooks, I can see where such a product probably didn’t stand a chance of being green lit by Apple.

That was then. These days, Mac notebooks have hit 80% of sales, so you can see where Apple might not be so inclined to invest much into desktops. But with the assurance that they have great plans for future Mac desktops, particularly the Mac Pro, I just wonder about the Mac mini.

Did Schiller throw out the “some pro use” phrase to raise a few possibilities, or just as casual conversation in deflecting the questioning away from the Mac mini?

It’s not that there aren’t possibilities out there that Apple might explore. Take one computer I’ve mentioned a few times in recent columns, HP’s Z2 Mini Workstation. Yes, I said workstation!

If you look at the promotional material for this computer, you’ll see that HP has taken a far more aggressive approach to its design. It’s not simple and elegant by any means. It’s dark, imposing, and seems larger than it really is. But when you check the physical measurements, you’ll see it’s not a whole lot wider or higher than a Mac mini, although it weighs two pounds more.

Designed for CAD and other professional uses, the Z2 Mini starts at $679. It’s obviously not a Mac mini alternative, and it can be optioned to several times that price with more powerful graphics, big SSDs, and even a low-end Intel Xeon processor. Typical of any PC box, HP offers loads of configurations, plus the promise of easy upgrading. In other words, the polar opposite of how Apple approaches a Mac design.

Now Apple will only admit to designing a new Mac Pro, and plans to offer professional options for the iMac. But what about the Mac mini? Does Apple plan to cater to those pro users? Could Apple truly build one with more powerful parts and not detract from the basic simplicity and compact design of the original?

So many possibilities. Regardless of how it turns out, I do not think for a moment that the Mac mini will go away so long as it remains “important” to Apple.

Despite the fact that iPhone sales in the March quarter were a tad below the year-ago quarter, Apple continues to lead the smartphone market. Now on the surface, that may not seem logical. Isn’t Samsung the world’s largest maker of mobile handsets? Doesn’t Android control over 80% of the market?

So what, pray tell, is The Night Owl talking about?

Yes, it’s true that, if you count mobile handsets rather than specific models, Samsung is on top. It’s not about profits, but volumes. But the flagship Galaxy smartphones don’t come close to matching iPhones. This despite all the hype that Apple can’t keep up with Samsung.

So where’s that put Apple?

Well, according to a survey from Strategy Analytics, the iPhone 7 took 6.1% of worldwide smartphone sales, making it number one. The iPhone 7 Plus received 4.9% for the runner-up slot. The only Samsung handsets among the top five were a handful of cheaper Galaxy handsets. No, not the high-end models, even though the Galaxy S8s are getting tons of promotion, and big discounts. There are plenty of two-for-one sales to be had. Sure, you’ll see some for the iPhone 7 too, but it’s been out for eight months, so it’s near the end of its original product cycle. The Galaxy S8 just shipped last month.

Of course, Apple’s critics won’t see it that way.

Beyond that, though, Apple gave excuses for the slight sales shortfall. So it was a matter of inventory management, meaning that sell-through of the iPhone in the March quarter was higher than the comparable period last year. But since sales are reported as shipments in the financial report, the numbers weren’t quite as good. A positive outcome is that more people are buying the larger handset than expected, which is borne out in the Strategy Analytics survey. iPhone 7 Plus sales were only a few million behind its smaller counterpart.

So even though phablets are more awkward to manage — and Apple made a huge deal of that limitation before the 4.7-inch iPhone 6 was introduced — the public doesn’t seem to care. It’s about large and larger for many, even though there’s still a demand for smaller smartphones. The iPhone SE, for example, was evidently more popular than Apple expected, because there are still people out there who just can’t deal with bigger handsets.

But it’s also likely that some people who bought the largest iPhone may have, as a result, opted not to buy an iPad. In some parts of the world, a phablet — a big smartphone that doubles as a reasonably functional tablet — is the only personal computer. It’s an all-in-one device.

This factor may explain why iPad sales continue to falter. The iPad mini may suffer the most from this apparent change of customer preferences. But to Apple, it doesn’t matter. A sale is a sale, so long as it’s for an Apple product, and average sale prices of iPhones are higher than those of iPads.

At one time, the iPad was touted as a next generation personal computer, but it hasn’t worked out that way so far. Some people do use them that way, at least if they aren’t choosing iPhones instead. But the argument in favor of an iPad as a productivity machine is not very compelling.

Tablets, in general, have been regarded as consumption devices. Whether it’s an Amazon Kindle Fire or most other lower cost tablets, they are almost universally used for reading books and watching Netflix and other streaming services. Sure, people will also manage email and use a browser, but when it comes to doing something more productive, the use case isn’t as compelling.

I realize some people happily type away on glass or an accessory iPad keyboard. So there are quite useful versions of Apple’s iWork and Microsoft Office for iOS. While not as full-featured as their desktop counterparts, they manage enough chores for many people so it may not matter.

Apple’s advantage over most of the tablet market is a decent selection of productivity apps. With an iPad Pro, an Apple Pencil is quite a compelling input device for creatives. Clearly Apple continues to invest in the platform, but it’s not as yet certain when or if sales will grow once again.

iPads are evidently being used by a high percentage of Fortune 5o0 companies. The number was 98% as of just a few years ago, but the fact that a company has some around for testing or other purposes doesn’t really mean there’s widespread deployment.

Apple is also continuing to tout iPads in the educational market, and setting a $329 purchase price for the fifth generation model, introduced in March, may be part of that initiative. If a school system orders them by the thousands, the prices will be much lower. But Chromebooks are a growing presence in higher grades, partly because of the low purchase price, and also because they are notebooks with regular keyboards. Using a keyboard with an iPad is just plain clumsy.

But if the iPad continues to lose sales to an iPhone Plus, does that mean that Apple should consider making a special smartphone keyboard for them? Sure, there are plenty of Bluetooth keyboards that can be used with an iPhone. Some are foldable for easy carrying. Some allow you to put your iPhone in a slot above the keyboard for convenience. Is there a better way? Or does Apple prefer to leave this market to accessory makers?

When it comes to the iPad, Apple may be happy to keep it going, so long as sales don’t drop too much further. Selling nearly nine million of anything in a single quarter is nothing to be embarrassed about.