iPad gets an M4

There is a lot of speculation about Apple's forthcoming announcement. Much of it has to do with new models of the iPad and the use of a new M4 processor. Current models of iPad have M2 processors; Apple has not released an M3 iPad. People have tried to suss out the reason for Apple making such a jump.

Here's my guess: Apple is using the M4 processors because it has to. Or rather, using M3 processors in the new iPads has a cost that Apple doesn't want to pay.

I must say here that I am not employed by Apple, or connected with Apple, or with any of its suppliers. I have no contacts, no inside information. I'm looking at publicly available information and my experience with inventory management (which itself is quite limited).

My guess is based on the process of manufacturing processors. They are made in large batches, the larger the better ('better' as in 'lower unit costs').

Apple has a stock of M3 processors on hand. Possibly some outstanding orders for additional processors.

Apple also has projections for the sales of its various products, and therefore projections for the reduction of its inventory and the allocation of future orders. I'm pretty sure that Apple has gotten good at making these projections. It has projections for MacBooks, iMacs, iPhones, and iPads.

My guess is that Apple has enough M3 processors (on hand or in future orders) for the projected sales of MacBooks and iMacs, and that it does not have enough M3 processors for the sale of MacBooks, iMacs, and iPads.

Apple could increase its orders for M3 processors. But my second guess is that the minimum order quantity is much larger than the projected sales of iPads. (The iPad models have low sales numbers.) Therefore, ordering M3 processors for iPads means ordering a lot of M3 processors. Many more processors than are needed for iPad sales, and probably for the MacBook and iMac line. (The MacBooks and iMacs will switch to M4 processors soon, possibly in September.)

Apple doesn't want to over-order M3 processors and pay for processors that it will never use. Nor does it want to order a small batch, with the higher unit cost.

So instead, Apple puts M4 processors in iPads. The M4 production batches are just starting, and Apple can expect a number of future batches. Diverting a small number of M4 processors to the iPad is the least cost option here.

That's my idea for the reason of M4 processors in iPads. Not because Apple wants to use AI on the iPads, or make the iPad a platform suitable for development, or switch iPads to Mac OS. The decision is not driven by features, but instead by inventory costs.

Apple's Files App is an admission of imperfection

When Apple introduced the iPhone, they introduced not just a smart phone but a new approach to computing. The iPhone experience was a new, simpler experience for the user. The iPhone (and iOS) did away with much of the administrative work of PCs. It eliminated the notion of user accounts and administrator accounts. Updates were automatic and painless. Apps knew how to get their data. The phone "just worked".

The need for a Files app is an admission that the iPad experience does not meet those expectations. It raises the hood and allows the user to meddle with some of the innards of the iPhone. One explanation for its existence is that Apps cannot always find the needed files, and the Files App lets you (the user) find those files.

Does anyone see the irony in making the user do the work that the computer should do? Especially a computer from Apple?

To be fair, Android has had File Manager apps for years, so the Android experience does not meet those expectations either. Microsoft's Surface tablets, starting with the first one, have had Windows Explorer built in, so they are failing to provide the new, simpler experience too.

A curmudgeon might declare that the introduction of the Files App shows that even Apple cannot provide the desired user experience, and if Apple can't do it then no one can.

I'm not willing to go that far.

I will say that the original vision of a simple, easy-to-use, reliable computing device still holds. It may be that the major players have not delivered on that vision, but that doesn't mean the vision is unobtainable.

It may be that the iPhone (and Android) are steps in a larger process, one starting with the build-it-yourself microcomputers of the mid 1970s, passing through IBM PCs with DOS and later PC-compatibles with Windows, and currently with iPhones and tablets. Perhaps we will see a new concept in personal computing, one that improves upon the iPhone experience. It may be as different from iPhone and Android as those operating systems are from Windows and MacOS. It may be part of the "internet of things" and expand personal computing to household appliances.

I'm looking forward to it.

The great puzzle of Microsoft Office

What will Microsoft do with Office? Or, what should Microsoft do with Office?

Microsoft built an empire with Office. Office was the most powerful word processor and spreadsheet package. It used proprietary formats. It read files from other word processors and spreadsheets but did not write to those formats, making the trip for data one-way: into Microsoft Office. Through marketing, fierce competition, and the network effect, Microsoft convinced most businesses and most home users to use (and buy) Microsoft Office.

Those were the days.

The world is changing.

Large businesses still use Windows for their desktop environment. Small businesses, especially technology start-ups, are using Mac OS or Linux.

Large businesses still use Microsoft Office. Small businesses are looking at LibreOffice (an open source desktop package with word processing and spreadsheets) or Google Apps (an on-line office package with word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, calendaring, and other things).

The tablet world is dominated by iOS (on iPads) and Android (on just about everything else). Windows holds a tiny share. The same goes for smart phones.

These are the pieces of the great puzzle that Microsoft must solve. What is a software giant to do?

First, some observations.

Microsoft is the latecomer Microsoft is late to the market, but they have been in this position before and succeeded. They were late with C#/.NET after Java. They were late with Internet Explorer after Netscape Navigator. They were late with spreadsheets after Lotus 1-2-3. They were late with word processors after Wordstar and WordPerfect. They were late with databases after dBase and R:Base. Being a latecomer has not doomed Microsoft yet.

New hardware platforms Microsoft must live (and compete) in a world beyond the PC. Phones and tablets must be part of the solution. Tablets and phones are a very different arena for software design, due to the size of the screen, the touch interface, and intermittent connectivity. Any product on the tablet or phone is a different creature than it's PC counterpart.

Multiple software platforms Microsoft must live (and compete) in a fractured world of software, with multiple operating systems (some not of Microsoft's making or control). Offerings from Microsoft must work with iOS and Android as well as Windows.

The desktop software model doesn't work on mobile devices Microsoft's past technique of selling premium software and obtaining market share through marketing won't work on the mobile platform.

Giving these conditions, Microsoft needs a new approach. Here are some ideas:

Sell services, not software Microsoft will not focus on selling copies of Office for the mobile world. Instead, it will focus on subscribers to its services. The mobile versions of Word and Excel and Outlook will be offered at low prices -- perhaps at no cost -- but they will be useless without the service.

Cloud storage, not local files Microsoft Office will store data in the cloud (Microsoft's cloud).

Not documents and workbooks, but pieces assembled Instead of entire documents and complete spreadsheets, Microsoft services will stitch together fragments of documents and spreadsheets. Think of it as an advanced form of OLE. (Remember OLE and our excitement at embedding a spreadsheet in a document?)

Versioning and tracked changes Microsoft's cloud will keep track of the versions of each document (or document fragment), allowing us to see changes over time and the notes for each change.

Access control (for enterprise users) With all of these fragments floating in the cloud, enterprise users (businesses and their support teams) will want to control access by users.

Promotion and publication (also for enterprise) Users will be able to publish data to other users. Users will also be able to work on new versions of data, reviewing it with other members of their team, revising it, and eventually marking it as "available to everyone". Or maybe "available to selected users".

The idea of Office as a service seems a natural fit for mobile devices. Notice this this vision does not demand Windows tablets -- one can use it with iPads and Android devices. I expect Microsoft to move in this direction.

What is a PC?

It's a simple question -- "what is a PC?" -- yet the answer is complicated.

If we use Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine to travel to September 1981, the answer is simple. A "PC" (that is, a personal computer) is an IBM model 5150 with it's gray cover, detached keyboard (with 83 keys), and either an IBM Color Display (5153) or an IBM Monochrome Display (5151). It has an Intel 8088 processor, probably one or two floppy disk units, and a video adapter card.

At that time, that was a PC. Any other equipment was not. The PC name was strongly associated with IBM.

Over time, the concept of "PC" expanded. IBM introduced the IBM PC XT (model 5160), which meant that there were *two* models of IBM PC.

IBM introduced adapters for memory and ports. Other vendors did also. Compaq introduced their portable PC, fighting (and eventually winning) the battle for a compatible BIOS. Hercules made a video adapter that displayed graphics on monochrome displays (the IBM monochrome display adapter displayed only text).

In 1984 IBM introduced the IBM PC AT which used the Intel 80286 processor. Now there were three types of PCs from IBM, some with different processors, and bunches from other vendors. Some had more memory, some had different adapters. IBM introduced the Enhanced Graphics Adapter (EGA) with the IBM PC AT.

Through all of these changes, the two constants for PCs were this: they ran PC-DOS (or MS-DOS), and they ran Lotus 1-2-3. The operating system and that one application defined "PC". If the device ran PC-DOS and Lotus 1-2-3, it was a PC. If it did not, it was not. (And even this definition was not quite true, since several computers ran MS-DOS and special versions of Lotus 1-2-3, but were never considered to be "PC"s. The Zenith Z-100, for example.)

Moving forward to the early 1990s, our definition of PCs changed. It was no longer sufficient to run PC-DOS and Lotus 1-2-3. Instead, the criteria changed to Windows and Microsoft Office. Those were the defining characteristics of a PC. (Even in the late 1990s, when Compaq and Microsoft built the "Pocket PC", the device was considered a PC.)

Today, when we use the term "PC", we think of a set of devices. These include desktop computers, laptop computers, virtual computers running on servers, and now, with the Microsoft Surface, tablets. The operating system has expanded to include Linux (but not Mac OSX), and there is no definitive application. We use the phrases "Windows PC" and "Linux PC". Windows PCs must run Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office, but a Linux PC needs only a version of Linux.

We have the puzzle of an Apple MacBook running Linux -- do we call this a PC? I am tending to think not. Apple's advertising and branding has been strong.

The one characteristic is that all of these devices require the user to be an administrator. The user must install new software, ensure updates are installed, and diagnose problems. This action separates a PC from a tablet. Tablets do not require the user to "install" software -- beyond selecting the software from a menu. Tablets do not require the user to be an administrator. Updates are applied automatically, or perhaps after a prompt. Network adapters do not need to be configured.

Let's take the dividing line between PCs and tablets as administration. Some might call it "ease of use".

Yet even this definition is less than clear. Apple's OSX is better at installing applications: just drag the install package to the "Applications" folder. Linux has made improvements too, with Ubuntu's "Software Center" that lets one pick an application and install it. Microsoft's Windows RT is quite close to Apple's iOS for iPhones and iPads, which are clearly not PCs.

Despite the lack of a bright line in devices and implementations, I believe that we will look back and consider PCs to require administration, and non-PCs (tablets, smartphones, etc.) to allow use without the administrator role.

So that's my answer: If you need an administrator, it's a PC. If you don't, then it isn't.

Maybe the answer isn't so complicated.