Do you remember the IBM Selectric? It represented the pinnacle of traditional typewriter technology before companies tried to turn them into rudimentary word processing machines. The Selectric made it easy to change typefaces by putting the letters on tiny switchable font elements or balls.

My recollection of the Selectric is that they were smooth, reasonably reliable and expensive. Even better, IBM would easily finance most anyone, making it possible to get one with for a small monthly fee. That’s how I acquired my red Selectric II in the early 1970s. At one time, the Selectric had 75% of the typewriter market.

The Selectric survived from its introduction in 1961 until 1986 with only modest changes. I kept mine for well over a decade, until it developed some irritating mechanical problems, and I replaced it with one of those so-called electronic typewriters that were sold in the heady days before personal computers took over.

Continue Reading…

As Mac users — and would-be Mac users — wonder about what Apple is up to, speculation is starting to become more detailed about the next product refreshes. Indeed, it almost seems as if speculation about a new iPad Pro with a 10.5-inch edge-to-edge screen is no longer relevant. But the release of a single lower-cost iPad without much fanfare probably set those discussions aside for a while, even as we still don’t know what Apple plans next for its tablet lineup.

While ongoing chatter about a future iPhone has been roughly consistent for a while, except for final specs — and evidently the placement of the fingerprint sensor if you can believe the reports — there hasn’t been an awful lot about the new Macs expected this year after the initial coverage of Apple’s roundtable with tech journalists. Some of that may be no doubt due to the fact that development hasn’t reached the point where final prototypes are being tested. Once that happens, I suppose there will be more detail on what to expect.

But maybe not the Mac Pro, assuming that it will be assembled in the U.S., same as its controversial predecessor. You’ll recall that the first demonstration of the 2013 trash can Mac Pro came very much as a surprise, and possibly a shock to some. I recall my reaction when I first saw it. It certainly looked attractive enough, and surely original for this sort of product. But how did it reflect the kind of computing workstation that Mac users expected? Apple seemed to believe that all expansion should be done externally, so a wiring mess would surround the unit.

I suppose they thought of it as compact enough to make easy to take to remote locations, forgetting, perhaps, that you’d have to bring the drives too, and you’d only hope they were lodged in a single case.

I suspect sales were satisfactory at first, because the Mac Pro was backordered for months. Or perhaps people were just waiting so long that there was enough pent-up demand even if Mac professionals, by and large, questioned Apple’s design decision.

Why it languished for more than three years unchanged is yet another question. Did Apple hope it would die, and that pros would just buy iMacs? Maybe after the 5K iMac came out, but it was otherwise no more powerful than its predecessors, except for the minor ongoing improvements in Intel silicon. While Apple promises that the next iMac will have professional configuration options, why wasn’t that done before?

Nothing stopped Apple from beefing up the cooling system to allow for use of a Xeon processor, more powerful graphics, and twin SSDs before now.

What’s more, I still don’t see why it took so long for Apple executives to realize that the Mac Pro moved the product in the wrong direction. Perhaps there was an ongoing dispute among executives, something that would never be admitted of course. So let’s think about a mythical argument between Sir Jonathan Ive’s design team and the Mac hardware team, the former touting the trash can look, the latter touting a more traditional solution.

With last fall’s release of the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, perhaps the complaints from pros ratcheted up enough for Apple to begin to realize something was wrong. But this sort of insular attitude is definitely troubling, and some might wonder if Steve Jobs would have pushed for a decision before now, or advocated one.

Don’t forget, though, that Jobs had his failures, a notable one being the Power Macintosh G4 Cube. When he denied it was going to be discontinued during a Q&A with journalists during the rollout of OS X in March of 2001, I had the impression the Cube was his baby. It did seem as if he did not want to stop making them, but had to accept the raw numbers.

So perhaps the Mac Pro ended up as another Cube, this time the fault of Ive, only it took longer for Apple to get the memo. Apple may need to flesh out the Mac hardware team and give it more say in the corporation. Letting a division that size languish was a foolish decision, even if it wasn’t meant to turn out that way.

One hopes that Apple is serious about its ongoing commitment to the Mac, and that Tim Cook and his team aren’t throwing us a few bones to shut us up. One hopes the next Mac Pro will, at last, meet the high standards professional users expect, that it will be modular, with the hope there will be a decent amount of room for internal expansion.

I also look forward to seeing what Apple does to enhance the iMac, by giving it more options that will cater to pros. Obviously it’s not hard to imagine what that might mean based on the current design. It mostly means putting more powerful parts inside, and making appropriate modifications to accommodate their needs. When I suggested that you will see iMacs optioned to the max costing north of $5,000, that’s a prediction you can probably believe.

Then there’s the Mac mini. Will it just be a simple refresh — something that could have been done already — or a way to boost its capabilities? Is the HP Z2 Mini a design Apple should emulate in its own way?

Will the new Macs make it easier for my skeptical readers to order the computer they want without making too many sacrifices? Well, if they can’t, there’s always a Hackintosh I suppose.

As more and more early reviews appear about Samsung’s new flagship smartphones, my comments about overlooking its obvious flaws are confirmed. Reviewers are clearly knocked out by the quality of its “Infinity” AMOLED display, and it stands to reason that Samsung can pull it off. After all, some of the best flat panel TVs out there are made by Samsung, but the handset’s flaws are being given short shrift.

That said, some of the reviews I read about its display are just plain dumb! So, for example, the fact that it has a higher resolution than an iPhone 7 and an iPhone 7 Plus supposedly means that it delivers a better picture. But Retina is Retina, which means that smaller pixels won’t provide a visible improvement. What does appear to be true is that Samsung tends to follow the Windows “ClearType” scheme, which means that the edges of fonts appear to be sharper compared to an Apple product. This is because Apple uses text smoothing, which supposedly makes it more readable on an LCD display.

But there’s no disputing the fact that OLED, when well done, will provide rich, vibrant colors with deep blacks and an infinite viewing angle. An iPhone uses a more natural color palette that may not be so striking, but is more accurate. But if you begin to move an iPhone towards its side, the image will dim slightly, the colors will be less rich. That’s a known shortcoming of LCD displays, however backlit, although technology advances have reduced the problem. You can see this symptom more easily on a large TV set, but if you view it from a normal distance, it probably won’t be much of a problem. My wife complained about watching our VIZIO’s picture from an angle at our previous home, with a smaller master bedroom. But not since we’ve moved to a home with a little more space, because the effect isn’t as obvious at a longer distance.

In any case, rumors persist that Apple will use OLED at first on a high-end iPhone, presumably known as the iPhone 8 or iPhone Edition, or perhaps even iPhone Pro. Over time, it’s likely the technology will spill over to lower-cost gear. Some might wonder why it took so long to get with the program, but OLED production yields remain low. Samsung sells fewer flagship smartphones than Apple, so it doesn’t need as many parts. Besides, I’m sure Apple will explain in exquisite detail why its displays are better than the competition.

On the other hand, a smartphone can’t be judged based on the display alone. Android’s performance problems are still there in bold relief, and the iPhone is, according to published reports, still faster under real-world use.

I’m also really concerned that the S8’s shortcomings with its biometric features are not getting the attention they deserve. One review I read only mentioned the problems with using a rear-mounted fingerprint sensor.

But the S8 has a seriously flawed facial recognition sensor, easily fooled by a photo and is thus virtually useless except perhaps for photo matching. The iris sensor is brought down by darkness, eyeglasses and apparently hard contact lenses.

And the jury is still out whether the battery layout on the S8 avoids the problems that afflicted the Galaxy Note 7. Evidently the same batteries are being used, but one hopes Samsung worked harder to make sure there are no fatal flaws this time.

It remains true, however, that Samsung Galaxy smartphones are often rated as equal to or better than an iPhone.  The are often considered potential iPhone killers, likely because tech pundits mistakenly assume that people just switch back and forth between Android and iOS based on the perceived quality of one smartphone or the other. Today it’s Apple, tomorrow it’s Samsung — and back again.

In the real world, we all know that such decisions aren’t trivial by any means. Even if you manage to import your data, and it’s not such an easy process when switching to Android unless you use Google’s services for both, things do not quite work the same. What works all right by default on an iPhone may require a fair level of customization on a Samsung or any other Android handset. To some, having more options may be an advantage, but to people who don’t want to mess with arcane settings when they just want to get things done, it’s just a needless impediment.

Still, Android is the leader of the pack, even though that advantage is largely confined to cheaper gear. Certainly if you want something cheap, or almost free month-to-month, you will probably do all right with one of the better Android handsets. But don’t expect to get the latest OS release, or critical security updates when you need them, although Samsung is allegedly trying to remedy the latter shortcoming.

Apple exists in its own space, however. The claims from the tech press that Apple has lots to fear from the latest Samsung or Google smartphone just never seems to pan out. Apple has had some sales problems with the iPhone, but profits remained high even when shipments fell for a few quarters. Sure, Apple has to keep innovating and the new iPhone must always be better than the previous one. Serious missteps, and they might have something to fear — but not now.

As tech companies go, Samsung hasn’t had it so good overall of late. Its CEO, Jay Y. Lee, was arrested in February as part of the scandal that led to the decision to impeach South Korean President Park Geun-hye. When a corporate executive does things that help bring down a government, that’s big news. Huge.

It certainly was a big story in Asia, and the departure of the President also had a fair amount of coverage throughout the rest of the world. But I doubt that many people outside of South Korea, even people who are fans of Samsung’s tech gear, know that its former leader was accused of being complicit in that scheme.

As far as most customers in other countries are concerned, however, Samsung’s corporate issues are unimportant. There is some disagreement on whether the Galaxy Note 7 debacle has seriously impacted potential sales of new gear, however. It certainly has to count to the millions of people who had to turn them back because they were prone to overheat or flame on. Samsung had the opportunity to provide the proper degree of spin control, but that didn’t come until weeks after the Note 7 was discontinued.

Supposedly it was all due to a battery design defect. Supposedly Samsung has learned its lessons and has improved quality control. Perhaps, but it is also true that they are evidently using the very same battery, from some of the same vendors, in the Galaxy S8. That’s based on an iFixit teardown of the device. iFixit also reports: “The design surrounding the battery — its installed position, spacing, and reinforcement — is very, very similar to the Note 7.”

That doesn’t mean the S8 is going to develop the same problems. “Similar” isn’t the same, and maybe Samsung made a few subtle tweaks in the design to avoid the issues that plagued the Note 7. For everyone’s sake, I hope so, but some of the early chatter about the S8 is already troubling.

So consider its fingerprint sensor. It’s placed at the rear, supposedly because Samsung couldn’t find a way to make it work on the front, embedded into the edge-to-edge AMOLED display. In addition to being an awkward reach, it’s placement means you might, by mistake, place your finger on the lens and smudge it. This is why Samsung advises users to clean the lens before taking snapshots.

At the same time, there have been unconfirmed rumors that Apple is running into the very same troubles in configuring the iPhone 8 — or is it iPhone Edition — and its edge-to-edge OLED display. Supposedly Apple may have to release it without a fingerprint sensor, or place it at the rear. Neither makes a lick of sense. Touch ID has been used on iPhones since the 5s came out in 2012. Only the 5c, a plastic-clad version of the iPhone 5, didn’t have one. Apple has continued to make it better on each iPhone revision, it’s integrated with the Apple Watch and macOS Sierra, and don’t forget the Touch ID feature to the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar.

In short, Touch ID is an extremely important security feature. You also need it to activate Apple Pay. To remove it is absurd. To stick it on the rear of the phone is equally absurd. This non-issue has been raised only in comparison to the Galaxy S8, which means that, if Samsung can’t do it, maybe Apple can’t either.

The other biometric features of the S8 are flawed in their own ways. Facial recognition can be readily fooled with a photograph, which means it’s useless. The iris sensor doesn’t work if you wear glasses, or when it’s nighttime. At least with the latter one expects that Samsung might have beamed a flash of light from the display to provide sufficient elimination to see your eyes. The glasses problem is not as readily solved, and this is a known limitation with this technology. Hard contact lenses may also be also troublesome, although soft contact lenses reportedly work.

But what this means is that the S8 has three flawed biometric features.

Early benchmarks show that it is mostly slower than last year’s iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus. Apps launch slower, apps switch slower, and boot times are longer. Canned benchmarks reportedly reveal that the iPhones are faster in single core tests, and trail somewhat in multicore tests, which are not terribly relevant to the sort of computing a smartphone does. Tests of the GPU also reveal that the iPhones are ahead.

And wait until the 2017 models arrive.

On paper, the iPhone 7’s A10 Fusion CPU should be slower than the multicore processors Samsung puts in the S8. A Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 is used for the U.S., and an Exynos 9 is used elsewhere. Either is crippled by having to cope with the high system requirements of Android. Despite promises by Google of improved performance, Apple’s ability to optimize iOS with the chips used on iPhones is unparalleled.

Despite its flaws — and there are others you’ll read about in the days ahead — reviewers have largely fallen in love with the Galaxy S8. I just hope they are taking its obvious flaws into consideration in making those judgements. And even if Samsung has done the right things, using the same battery design and layout scheme as the Note 7 smartphone is a troubling development. There may be nothing to worry about, but Samsung should explain to its customers why that decision was made and provide some assurance that the Note 7’s failures won’t impact the S8.