So if you take Apple at its word, the next Mac Pro is being developed as we speak, but it won’t arrive this year. That said, there has been some speculation it might not arrive next year either, but it’s not as if Apple would offer too many specifics.

I will take Apple at its word that an all-new Mac Pro is forthcoming, but there are loads of unanswered questions, and plenty of room to speculate about what’s will come. But if you look at what little we know, that it’s going to be a “modular” computer that’s easy to upgrade, they appear to be describing something like the original cheese grater Mac Pro. But if Apple were to go that route, it would have been done long ago, and clearly there’s going to be a new direction.

My feeling is that the new box will be sized somewhere between the 2013 model and the previous model, still compact but allowing for some level of internal expansion. So you could add multiple drives, more RAM than you can now, and perhaps expansion cards. How many is an open question mark, but Apple ought to consider what a typical user would require, while leaving plenty of external expansion ports for the edge cases.

That said, is there something Apple is doing that takes more than the usual time to design such a computer? What about the designs that didn’t make the cut? Apple certainly constructs different prototypes before settling on a final design, and it’s always possible a proposed design that’s closer in concept to what they want was previously started and discarded.

The other question is when it all began.

During the roundtable with a handful of journalists, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing, Philip Schiller, admitted Apple has misjudged what its pro users wanted, that they planned for a workstation with twin GPUs capable of parallel processing rather than a single powerful GPU. Clearly they hadn’t considered the need for internal expansion.

When it comes to graphics, no doubt Apple talks to the people at AMD, Intel and NVIDIA about their product roadmaps, so I think they knew early on about the direction of future graphics processors.

That said, the Mac Pro languished for quite a while as professional users wondered about Apple’s end game. Were sales so low it wasn’t worth producing them? Despite the high price, were profits sufficient to justify production at a company that can sell hundreds of millions of iPhones every year? What were Apple’s priorities?

Some tech pundits suggest that Apple really didn’t come to a conclusion about what direction to take with the Mac Pro until very recently, and that’s why it will take another year or longer to get the work done.

Is it at all possible Apple is waiting for a new CPU family from Intel and perhaps a new graphics processor to flesh out the package? I suppose, but the graphics are more intriguing in light of a recent development.

So Apple has announced that it will be moving away from using GPU technology from Imagination Technology and rely on its internal team. But Apple’s A-series processors, despite being developed in-house, use ARM technology under license. When it comes to graphics, Apple evidently wants to roll its own, and that makes sense if it can do the job justice.

You’ll find extensive background on the move in Daniel Eran Dilger’s detailed study on the subject for AppleInsider. Apple’s switch to in-house graphics designs is mostly viewed from the perspective of GPUs for Apple’s mobile gear, the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch and Apple TV. Daniel deals with Mac graphics only in passing.

But what if Apple is also working on a super powerful Mac GPU to debut in the next Mac Pro? While Schiller says that Apple won’t switch from Intel to ARM CPUs, building its own graphics chips could be done and not force developers to do any major redesign work other than to better optimize their apps for the new silicon.

If Apple gets it right, and the A-series chips have rolled past anything developed for Android smartphones, it would result in a Mac Pro perfectly capable of delivering the powerful graphics pros require without reliance on outside components. It may even be possible to deliver superior gaming performance from the same GPU for those who are accustomed to paying extra for such gear on the PC platform. It would mean chips focused strictly on the requirements of the Mac and macOS, without the unnecessary overhead present in a GPU that serves the needs of multiple platforms and hardware priorities.

Obviously it will take a while for Apple to get it right, if that’s what is in the cards. More to the point, it’s quite possible Apple designed GPUs will also be used in other Macs that require discrete chips, such as the 27-inch iMac and some MacBook Pros. With the focus strictly on Apple’s own needs, the end result would be better performance and, for notebooks, more power efficiencies. Exclusively relying on Apple GPUs may make it possible to deliver a MacBook Pro that doesn’t have to engage in a clumsy graphics switching process, between Intel internal graphics and a discrete GPU, to maximize battery life.

At the same time, it’s possible Apple will be handing off more low level functions to custom designed A-series processors, in the spirit of the Touch Bar.

By its decision to phase out the use of Imagination Technologies intellectual property for future GPU designs, Apple’s plans are crystal clear. It’s even possible we’ll see the fruit of this project beginning with the so-called iPhone 8 or iPhone Edition. But it may well be that future Macs will incorporate Apple’s in-house GPU technology as well. That is in keeping with Apple’s obvious desire to bring more and more chip design functions in-house.

For a while now, you’ve been reading rumors about the form and features for the next iPhone. Only this time, it’s not just one iPhone lineup but, if the rumors are right, two. The first will be the standard “iterative” refresh, from iPhone 7 to iPhone 7s and the iPhone 7 Plus to the iPhone 7s Plus. So you can expect some new features, but it’ll look mostly the same, maybe even allow you to use the same cases.

You can probably predict some of the new features, including a faster CPU, possibly known as the A11 Fusion, improved camera — you know the score. But there might also be support for faster recharging, maybe even wireless charging. That isn’t an original concept either. I remember playing around with a “contactless” charger base at least 10 years ago. It used custom mobile handset cases with rear sensors for charging.

If Apple goes that route, however, will there be a new wrinkle? What about “real” wireless charging, which doesn’t involve having two metal pieces touch?

Continue Reading…

Every so often you read about an alleged industry analyst or investment company suggesting that Apple should buy this, that, or another company. Sometimes, when a tech company merges with someone else, Apple is blamed for missing out on such a huge opportunity.

Now before I go on, it’s true that Apple routinely acquires a couple of dozen or so small companies every year. These purchases, such as Siri in 2010, are largely about buying technology that will, over time, be incorporated into Apple’s products and services. The closest thing to acquiring a company just to add to the product portfolio was Beats Electronics. It gave Apple a line of higher-priced headphones — I’ll leave it to the reader to decide about the quality — but also the technology for the service that later became Apple Music.

Now spending a few hundred million here and here, and even a few billion, is chump change to Apple. With $237 billion on hand, mostly in overseas accounts, you wonder if there isn’t a long-term plan to use that cash. Or is it meant to just hang out until the time that the U.S. tax laws allow for it to be repatriated without a huge tax bill? Or maybe to help sustain the company if business goes bad.

Regardless, one thing that seems pretty certain is that Apple is not going to buy another company because people say so. At one time, there was even chatter about merging with Tesla Motors, which may also have seemed credible in light of Apple’s own interest in the car business.

While there hasn’t been much chatter about the so-called Project Titan of late, after the initial flurry of stories about hiring hundreds of people to explore the possibilities of an automotive  venture, the most recent rumors were about self-driving. So Apple might be looking into developing — and licensing — a CarPlay on steroids, which would make a vehicle capable of autonomous driving.

How such a technology would be marketed is one an open question mark. Would Apple attempt to license it to existing car makers, or build their own motor vehicle to compete with the likes of Tesla? Besides, the entire industry is working on adding self-driving features. Even if Apple’s technology beats the rest, would that be sufficient to tempt the likes of a GM or Daimler to buy a license?

I suppose, if they had difficulties perfecting their own versions of such technology, they might look into teaming up with another auto maker, or looking at some bright ideas from a third party, such as Apple or Google.

In the meantime, other possibilities have arisen for Apple to buy. So before AT&T got their claws into Time Warner, there were reports that Apple had shown interest.

I suppose on the surface, it might have made sense. Apple supposedly wants to get into the entertainment business, perhaps with a TV subscription service. But why buy a network, plus a bunch of subsidiary properties including theme parks, and how would that enhance the ability to negotiate with other networks? True, Comcast, who owns NBC/Universal, routinely licenses content from other networks, but that’s because they offer cable TV and the other companies need seats at the table.

But there are already several streaming services out there, and I wonder whether Apple can make much of a difference except perhaps with a spiffier user interface.

In keeping with that theory, however, RBC Capital Markets, a global investment bank, is now suggesting that Apple should acquire Disney?

Apple and Mickey Mouse? Apple and Marvel Comics? Apple and LucasFilm? Apple and Pixar? Apple and Disneyland?

I suppose there may be some sense to it, since Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Disney for $7.4 billion in 2006, thus making him the latter’s largest single stockholder. To be sure, Apple and Disney have had a close relationship over the years, so maybe it would seem logical, on the surface at any rate, for Apple to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to make this move? RBC says such a merger would result in a “tech/media juggernaut like no other.”

Perhaps.

This clearly wouldn’t be a casual investment. It’s estimated that Apple would have to pay $237 billion to cut a deal with Disney, which would mean using up all or most of its spare cash and then some. Such a transaction might involve a mixture of cash, debt and stock.

Would that even make sense?

RBC’s theory is that it would give Apple a revenue source that would reduce its dependence on the iPhone, boost services income, and provide the content to build out a huge streaming service to compete with Amazon, Hulu, Netflix and other companies. I will avoid references to benefiting stockholders, since that does nothing to enhance sales and profits.

While such prospects might seam peachy on paper, I hardly think Apple wants to risk all or most of its spare cash for such a deal, nor to take on billions of dollars of additional debt. Over the years, it’s clear that huge corporate mergers are rarely efficient affairs, and combined company rarely finds the synergies predicted when the move is announced.

More often than not, a merger is merely designed to kill a competitor. Take HP’s controversial acquisition of Compaq as a key example.

Even if an Apple/Disney tie-up occurred, it would take several years to combine the operations, during which time Apple would be distracted from its main mission of building insanely great products. If anything, this added bloat would only make the company far less efficient. It’s the polar opposite of the way Apple works, so why would they want to do it?

As it is, if it’s about content, Apple could certainly attempt to strike a deal with Disney to license its properties, just as it’s possible to license content from other networks. It hasn’t happened yet, but it would put the company at far less risk than assuming control of a global enterprise with over 180,000 employees, and squandering billions of dollars trying to somehow fit it together with its own operations.

While there many be legitimate reasons for an Apple/Disney marriage to happen, it’s just not Apple’s way. As with other merger predictions, I rate it as yet another “no way.”

After reading about Apple’s promises about commitment to Macs, I got to thinking about a politician caught with doing something unsavory. With their hands in the cookie jar, they might first deny they’ve done anything wrong. If you don’t believe the denial, it’ll become more emphatic.

But when confronted with the failure of their excuses to take hold, they might finally admit they did something wrong, sort of. Usually it’ll come in the form of a lame admission that, “mistakes were made.” Politicians rarely want to take the blame for anything. To quote Jim Carrey in “The Mask,” “it wasn’t me, it was the one armed man.”

Now after his first two statements about loving the Mac, Tim Cook clearly realized few believed his assurances. Apple had to do a lot more to persuade Mac users, especially pros, that they had the love. It required making an unlikely move, which was to summon several high-profile tech journalists to a roundtable at Apple’s headquarters; the original headquarters, not the new one.

The end result?

Well, the story has been published over and over again: Apple executives admitted they goofed when they designed the 2013 Mac Pro, although it evidently took over three years for that message to sink in. Instead, it needs to return to a more modular approach for a high-end computing workstation, and thus is working on a new model that will not arrive this year.

The promise of easy upgrading opens up loads of possibilities, and I’ve already seen one or two proposed prototypes. What they appear to offer is extra expandability in a more compact shape. Imagine a half-sized cheese grater Mac, but if that’s all that’s needed to right the ship, why is Apple taking so long to make it so?

It may be that Apple only got the message that something had to change recently, or was lost in indecision for several years while spending most of its time working on new iPhones.

So it makes sense that the critics are out in full force to blame Apple for its Mac indiscretions.

One of those articles warns that the Mac may become “Apple’s Achilles’ heel.” Why? Well, partly because the Mac is a legacy product and Apple is heavily focused on building forward-looking stuff. But don’t forget that we’re talking about 100 million Mac users, and a business that takes in over $20 billion a year.

Why is that bad? Well, I suppose, because that’s a fraction of the revenue brought in by the iPhone.

The article goes on to make some lame suggestions about how Apple can avoid falling into this trap. It brings up the MacBook Pro’s Touch Bar as something bad, although that has yet to be demonstrated. Other than the fact that it was one of the factors that made the new model cost several hundred dollars more than its predecessor, I felt rather encouraged watching the Touch Bar demonstrations at Apple’s Mac media event last October. If you can easily perform complicated workflows in Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Word and other apps, isn’t that a good thing?

It does seem that apps are adding Touch Bar support at a steady pace, although the key is the extent to which they improve your productivity. Just adding a few frills to the Touch Bar hardly exploits the feature. But it’s too early to see whether it’s a silly frill or something that will have long-term benefit. It does appear to be a superior alternative to the seldom-used function keypad. Apple is trying to make Macs do more, so what’s wrong with that?

The warnings in that article suggest that Apple needs to add multitouch support to the Mac, but the writer doesn’t seem to understand Apple’s reasons not to make that move. It’s suggested that up to 70% of Mac users might be able to migrate to the iPad Pro, but the writer doesn’t see the limitations that make that move impossible for now. Clearly iPad sales do not appear to be sufficient to demonstrate that lots of Mac users are switching over, but surely some are.

Over time, as the iPad improves, I do see it becoming a more credible notebook alternative than a Mac for many users. Imagine, the author says, being able to develop iOS software on an iPad, but it’s hardly a way to also build Mac software. Don’t forget that you can develop apps for MacOS, iOS, watchOS and tvOS on a single all-purpose personal computer, a Mac. This capability — plus all the other tasks you can perform on a Mac — provide the reasons for this platform to continue to exist for the foreseeable future.

Even when the time comes to retire the Mac, I hardly think Apple will have suffered from its long-term commitment to the platform. Achilles heel? Not at all.

Don’t forget that Apple still sells iPods, long after its basic features were assumed by the iPhone. There are still millions of people who are perfectly happy to buy them, and as long as sales make it worthwhile, the iPod won’t die. And even if Mac sales fell to a fraction of what they are now, so long as millions of people need them for their work, even if that audience is largely developers and other professional users, Apple can’t do wrong by building gear for them to buy.

Some day, it’ll be necessary to pull the plug on Macs. Some day the iPhone will be a relic of the past. But Apple is a forward looking company, and is no doubt planning for both — and similar — eventualities.