Riccardo Mori

0.

Let’s mention Steve Jobs right away. Some time ago I said to myself, “Rick, stop with the comparisons between Jobs’s Apple and Cook’s Apple. Let it go. You have to come to terms with it.” But at some unspecified point halfway the event, I realised just how bored I was feeling. I had prepared myself with a good cup of coffee, and I was alert and in a good mood when the event started. Yes, the names of the new iPhones had leaked — even an image of the new XS and XS Max, and another of the new Apple Watch Series 4. I didn’t mind. Design is how it works. I was curious about the details, the features. Did they manage to get rid of the iPhone X notch? No, the promo image was a bit deceiving, leaving the notch hidden, a shadow camouflaged in darkness. But after the soothing Apple Watch segment presented by Jeff Williams, and at some point while Phil Schiller was rattling off the iPhone XS technical specifications, I was there, finding myself watching this event more because I felt I had to, than because I felt engaged and amazed by what was presented, and how it was presented. 

With Steve Jobs, everything was scripted and rehearsed, but there was a genuine energy coming from him, from his being thrilled and impatient to show us a new product, that everything felt lively and effortless. You saw he was the first to love and care about the product he was unveiling, and his excitement was contagious. These post-Jobs events are equally scripted and rehearsed, and… it shows. From start to finish. There was a moment in which Jeff Williams almost sounded tired of talking about the new Apple Watch. Schiller’s fast pace, more than showing excitement, makes him sound like someone who’s doing his part but really has an appointment elsewhere in half an hour and can’t wait to get in his car and hopefully skip some traffic. The last two things he felt really proud of were the 2013 Mac Pro design (LOL), and the removal of the headphone jack (sob!). What I perceived while watching the event was this: “These devices are going to sell themselves for their features alone and because we’re Apple, so let’s go through the motions and be done with it”. Sad!

0.5.

Related to the previous point, I miss seeing Jonathan Ive in the ‘Design videos’ of a product. He has a nice, friendly, polite/shy attitude when he explains the design choices and subtleties of a product, and that keeps you interested and engaged. By using just his voice for the narration, this virtual bond between designer and audience is broken, and you’re left with videos that are very well produced and executed, but aseptic. Ive’s voice and tone sound distant, detached. A narrator who just describes, without really conveying involvement. 

0.9.

For what it’s worth, I liked the intro video. Kevin Lynch was funny, and the expression on the girl’s face when she finally says “The Clicker!?” was priceless. (Also ironic: Tim doesn’t seem to have used The Clicker that much during the keynote.)

1.

The Apple Watch Series 4 looks great and Apple has done a good job here. If I cared about smartwatches at all, this is finally the one I’d buy. The new faces with a mix of complications look… complicated, and crowded. Perhaps it’s different when you’re wearing the watch. But still, if the UI looks crowded by glancing at a giant close-up of the watch face, how can it not be crowded when you’re looking at a ~40 mm display on your wrist? Apple Watch wearers seemed excited by these new complications so… maybe it’s just me.

2.

It’s great that the Apple Watch Series 4 is targeted more towards old people (more sophisticated heart monitoring features, fall detection, etc.). I don’t know about you, though, but most of the old people I know need at least smartphones with 6‑inch displays and enlarged UI text to read and interact with the device interface. Again, maybe they’ll find the Watch display to be denser and the text sharper and easier to read. I’m merely pointing this out because someone on Twitter said that people were dismissing the Apple Watch without thinking about how useful it is to older folks.

3.

The iPhone XS left me utterly underwhelmed, with the sole exception being the engineering feat that is the A12 Bionic SoC. As far as ‘S’ models go, I tend to agree with Mark Gurman; the iPhone XS is perhaps the least impactful upgrade compared with the previous regular model. Past ‘S’ models all came with distinguishing features that made them appealing even to people with the previous year’s phone. As Gurman reminds us, the iPhone 3GS had a better camera with video recording capabilities, and Voice Control; the iPhone 4S had a significantly better camera than the 4, a dual-core processor versus the single-core of the iPhone 4, and more importantly it featured Siri; the iPhone 5S had Touch ID, the 64-bit A7 processor and M7 coprocessor; the iPhone 6S featured 3D Touch and 4K video capabilities. As Gurman mentions, this year the feature that most stands out in the iPhone XS is depth control in photos. I don’t know if that’s enough to make an iPhone X owner want to upgrade. Hard to say: people become unfathomable when iPhones are involved.

4.

The iPhone XR, on the other hand, got my attention. I like the design, and while the final judgment is seeing them in person, those colours really look great (my favourite are blue, yellow and Product Red). But more importantly, it is an interesting iPhone from a strategic standpoint. Spec-wise, it’s not that worse compared to the XS, and I think that Apple has done a great job in calibrating its features. The XR has the same chip as the XS, so there’s no crippled performance on this front. The cost-saving, ‘lesser’ features — aluminium frame, single camera system, LCD display instead of OLED, lack of 3D Touch — are exactly the kind of things many regular, non-nerd iPhone users don’t obsess over; for them, these lesser features aren’t deal-breakers. For Apple, it’s a win-win scenario: all people who come from older phones (say, 6S and 7), and are looking to upgrade, can find the kind of flagship iPhone they want. There is the deluxe tier, XS and XS Max; and the ‘base’ X‑class iPhone, the XR, that costs less, comes in great attractive colours, but is no slouch performance-wise. What’s more, it doesn’t feel cheap.

5.

Another two very attractive phones are the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8, now starting from $449 and $599 respectively. They’re still great phones at very interesting prices, especially the 7.

6.

If it’s true that the iPhone SE has effectively been discontinued, I think that this is a mistake on Apple’s part. There are still a lot of people who find all these new iPhones simply too big to handle, and the 4‑inch display and hardware design of the iPhone SE to be just perfect for them. I know it’s a hassle to optimise the software for such a variety of display sizes (4″, 4.7″, 5.5″, 5.8″-notched, 6.1″-notched, and 6.5″-notched), but technology should adapt to users’ needs more often, instead of the other way round. In a short thread on Twitter, Zeynep Tufekci writes:

“Welcome to the big screens” says Apple and women like me with small hands who need the most secure phone for safety reasons are stuck with something they can’t hold and constantly risk dropping. […] Especially noteworthy that they now have these screens without edges. They could even —gasp— introduce a newer small phone. Take away whatever bells and whistles you want. Androids aren’t safe or secure, and the only maybe feasible alternative, Google Pixel, is also too big.

Another great feature of the iPhone SE was its true affordability. Down the thread Tufekci also remarks:

I’ve lost count of the encounters I’ve had with dissidents, investigative journalists and others around the world at great risk of being hacked and subjected to terrible consequences who know they should get an iPhone for security but cannot afford it.

The current line of flagship iPhones is made up of big phones. True, the 5.8‑inch iPhone XS isn’t physically that much bigger than the 4.7‑inch iPhone 8, but the extremely reduced bezels and almost-all-screen design make the XS (and X) more difficult to operate while you’re holding it, especially in one-hand operations:

And, just to have a chuckle, let’s put the iPhone XS Max and the iPhone SE side by side. Max is really short for massive:

Even putting the price factor aside, these can be uncomfortable phones to handle for many people. I currently have an iPhone 5, which has the same design and measurements of the iPhone SE, and it handles very nicely in my hand. Unlike Ms Tufekci, I can handle bigger iPhones, but — and I tested this extensively — anything above a 4.7‑inch display becomes awkward quickly. I can hold an iPhone X in my hand, doing nothing; but when I hold it and use it, my grasp struggles; handling the phone when putting it away and pulling it out of a pocket becomes a very self-conscious operation. Gestures lose fluidity on an interface that suddenly takes most of the front surface of the phone. I can only begin to imagine the problems people with smaller hands may face.

There is also this great, succinct remark by Rob Weychert: I want a smaller phone, not bigger. I want to do less with it, not more.

7.

Anyone knows exactly what the ‘R’ in iPhone XR stands for? (I expected an iPhone XC, given the colour options.)

8.

Another nitpick: it appears that Apple is no longer including the small Lightning-to‑3.5mm jack adapter in the new iPhones’ boxes. You pay thousands of [insert your currency here] for an iPhone, and Apple doesn’t even give you a complimentary $9 adapter, which probably costs them $3 or $4? Stay classy, Apple.

9.

Speaking of money, fun fact: a 512 GB iPhone XS Max costs €1,659 here. Which is more than what I paid for my base 21.5‑inch retina 4K iMac with the BTO option of having 16 GB RAM instead of the stock 8 GB.

10.

And speaking of adapters: as “Not Jony Ive” pointed out on Twitter, the new iPhones — like the old iPhones — come with a Lightning-to-USB‑A cable in the box, which I’m sure MacBook and MacBook Pro users will find super-useful… 

11.

During Schiller’s explanation of the camera features of the iPhone XS and XS Max, some of his claims sounded a bit off and/or exaggerated. At first I simply thought I was being too cynical, but then I found in my RSS feeds that Kirk McElhearn had noticed that, too, and he even points to an article on TechCrunch by Devin Coldewey who takes the time to expose and dissect: The 7 most egregious fibs Apple told about the iPhone XS camera. Some of the commenters don’t get it, and say that he’s splitting hairs, that he’s wrong, that even if Apple is not the first to implement certain features, it’s the first that gets them right, etc. That is often true, but that is also not the point. Coldewey, for instance, notes that stating “You can adjust the depth of field… this has not been possible in photography of any type of camera,” as Schiller did, is just not true. It has been done before. Is Apple the first to get this feature right? It’s quite likely. But then why not say exactly this? Why not say “No one before has implemented this feature so smoothly and intuitively”? It would still sound a bit hyperbolic or arrogant, but it wouldn’t be flat-out false.

12.

Overall, the device that most surprised me was the iPhone XR, hands down. I’d purchase one in blue or yellow, if I had the money. But it’s big, and still has a notch, and the all-screen design still does not fully convince me. Either from a hardware standpoint, or with regard to the graphical user interface design, interaction, usability.

Some days ago, John Gruber wrote a very interesting piece speculating about the possible low-cost laptop to replace the current MacBook Air, the subject being raised by a report from Mark Gurman and Debby Wu at Bloomberg. Gruber hypothesises three possible scenarios:

1. A mostly unchanged MacBook Air, but with a Retina display.
2. A new, slightly bigger version of the 12-inch MacBook.
3. The 13-inch MacBook Pro without Touch Bar drops to $999.

Regarding scenario 2, Gruber writes:

Apple could replace the Air with a new, slightly bigger version of the 12-inch MacBook. A 13- or 14-inch display, ultra thin and light, two USB‑C/Thunderbolt 3 ports, the new post-2015 butterfly-switch keyboard. That could be a very appealing machine — I’m sure many people would love a bigger portable display without paying 15-inch MacBook Pro prices. One problem with my years-long “Someday the 12-inch MacBook will drop to $999 and replace the Air” theory is that I suspect a lot of people think the 12-inch MacBook is too small. But a 13- or 14-inch big brother to the 12-inch MacBook would presumably cost more, not less, which would contradict Gurman’s description of it as a “new low-cost laptop to succeed MacBook Air”. Something like the 12-inch MacBook but bigger sounds to me like something Apple would do, but nothing like what Gurman has reported.

Of all the 3 scenarios outlined by Gruber, I tend to favour this one. And I also think Apple could manage to produce such a MacBook in a way that would make it cost less than the current 12-inch retina MacBook.

What makes a MacBook expensive? The first things off the top of my head are:

• The Retina display
• The building materials
• Some specific internal components and/or design choices (e.g. a high-quality SSD or a peculiar battery design)

So, what I’m thinking is that Apple could equip this purported low-cost MacBook Air successor with a ‘good enough’ Retina display, maybe a high-density display that’s not as full-featured as the one in the MacBook Pro line; it could lack wide colour gamut support, for example. 

Or, Apple could produce a MacBook using less premium materials, while maintaining the thin-and-light design. I’m insisting on this aspect because, firstly, I see a lot of competitors manufacture decent laptops that feel nice, are affordable, and retain a certain design quality without necessarily being assembled with costly materials. Secondly, looking at the current MacBook Air, which has a mediocre display but a good-quality aluminium unibody chassis, it clearly is the former what’s keeping the machine affordable. 

Therefore, a new laptop with a better display at a similar price point must skimp on something else, and building materials is the first thing coming to mind. It could also feature a lesser-quality SSD or a simpler battery design, but I don’t think Apple would want to introduce a MacBook Air successor with a shorter battery life (although, if it has a Retina display, it’s going to be hard to feature an equally long-lasting battery as the one in the current MacBook Air).

Another aspect Apple can adjust about this theoretical laptop to keep the price down is ports: maybe if this laptop is considered to be the rugged entry-level that can be targeted at students, Apple could retain the MagSafe port and give the laptop two additional USB‑C ports — like Gruber speculated — but without Thunderbolt support, and a regular HDMI port for video. (Again, I’m just brainstorming here, considering different angles.)

Should we keep treating Retina displays as a premium feature?

With Apple removing subpixel antialiasing from Mac OS 10.14 Mojave, it’s clear that Apple is reaching a ‘Retina everywhere’ point. Retina displays in Macs are six years old; in technology, that’s enough old for a feature to be less expensive to implement than it was at its inception. I honestly don’t know anything about the process and the costs involved in manufacturing Retina displays, and I don’t know anything about the agreements Apple has with their main suppliers (Samsung and LG), but I’m wondering — what if Apple has found a way to make a Retina display a less costly feature for the customer? When basically every Apple product has a Retina display today, it’s getting a bit hard to consider it a stand-out, premium feature.

‘Low cost’ — it’s all relative

Perhaps it’s just me, but Cook’s Apple looks a bit more self-conscious than Jobs’s Apple when it comes to company image and prestige. Under Jobs, Apple seemed to have less of a problem releasing truly affordable products, or trimming prices a bit for a certain product after a couple of iterations. Maybe for today’s Apple, a ‘low-cost’ MacBook means something like $1,199 or hopefully $1,099, so yes, we could end up with a new laptop that costs less than a base MacBook Pro model but eeeh not that much less. (By the way, if the rumours about the new Mac mini being aimed at ‘more pro’ users are true, it’s safe to expect another rise in prices for what once was a good, truly affordable desktop Mac.)

The bold move, I think, should be…

Getting rid of the 12-inch MacBook. Don’t jump at my throat just yet. The hypothetically affordable MacBook Air successor should reprise the role of the polycarbonate MacBook of eight years ago as the entry-level versatile Mac laptop for those who can’t afford or don’t need the performance of a MacBook Pro, but don’t want a laptop so petite as the current 12-inch MacBook either. The position left open by the discontinuation of the 12-inch MacBook could be filled (and it would be about time, I think) by the next-generation 12.9‑inch iPad Pro, which I daresay could potentially be a more versatile device than the 12-inch MacBook. Meanwhile, the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines would become a bit more streamlined with regard to models and pricing. There would be this new affordable entry-level 13-inch MacBook, then the 13-inch MacBook Pro without Touch Bar, then the 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pros with Touch Bar. With a bit of fine-tuning, this hypothetical line-up should satisfy a wider range of customers.