Secure your data before selling your iOS device or Mac

Before I listed my iPad for sale on craigslist.com last month, I thought I knew what to do. My number one concern was security. More specifically, ensuring that all personal data had been removed from the device and all links between the device and any cloud services had been severed.

To that end, I restored the iPad to its factory settings. I decided not to use the “Erase All Content and Settings” option (from the Settings>General>Reset screen on the iPad). Instead, I elected to use “Restore iPad…” from iTunes on my Mac. Somehow, it seemed superior, although both methods are supposedly sufficient to do the job. And that was basically it. I didn’t think there was anything else I needed to do.

In the end, I was probably right; a Restore (or Erase all) was all I needed to do. None of my data was ever at risk. However, subsequent to selling my iPad, I stumbled across several Apple support articles that made me a bit nervous on this count. It seemed there were recommended actions that I did not take. How critical were they? Did I need to do anything about this now? Could I do anything about this now? Or was I stuck trying to close the proverbial barn door after the horses have left?

Let’s find out…

The iPad

Apple’s key article is “What to do before selling or giving away your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch.” In general, the article confirmed my faith that restoring the iPad was all I needed to do. Major hassles only involved cases where you sell your device without erasing. In such cases, you can find yourself forced into taking progressively more and more desperate measures as you attempt to protect your data. In one worst case scenario, you may need to change your Apple ID password — to at least protect your cloud-based data, if not data on the device itself. But this was not my situation.

However, the article did list some things to consider doing before erasing/restoring the device.

First, turn off Find My iPhone, if enabled. Fortunately, at least in my experience, you can’t erase/restore an iOS device until this is done. So it’s hard to skip this step. I certainly didn’t.

Second, if you are selling an iPhone and you have an Apple Watch, unpair the Watch before erasing the iPhone. This ensures that Activation Lock has been disabled for the Apple Watch. As I had sold an iPad, not an iPhone, this didn’t concern me.

Third, sign out of iCloud and delete the iCloud account from your device before erasing it. This was the most worrisome for me, as I had not done this. Unfortunately, the article did not make clear the consequences of omitting this step or whether my restore was sufficient to make it OK that I had bypassed it (I think it was).

This led me to delve further into the status of my iCloud account. I logged in to icloud.com on my Mac and checked Find iPhone. I was mildly dismayed to see that my iPad was still listed in the All Devices list. Without the new owner having access to my Apple ID, I didn’t think I was in any danger. Regardless, I selected “Remove from Account” for the device — and was pleased to see the item vanish from the list. I next went to iCloud’s Settings>My Devices. Happily, the device was not listed here.

I was beginning to feel a lot more comfortable. And I made a mental note for the future: check these items prior to selling my next Mac or iOS device.

iTunes

As it turned out, I was not yet at the end of the road. Another Apple support article, titled “View and remove associated devices in iTunes,” warned that, before selling my iPad, I should go to my Account settings in iTunes and click “Manage Devices” from the iTunes in the Cloud section. From here, check to see if my iPad is listed. If it is, click its Remove button. I hadn’t done this beforehand. So I checked it now.

Uh-oh. My now-sold iPad remained on the list. Worse, its Remove button was grayed out…so I could not delete it. [Note: this is not just a matter of not waiting the 30 days mentioned in the article; there were devices in list that I had not accessed for way more than 30 days and their Remove button was still gray.] From what I subsequently read elsewhere, the only way to get the device off the list now was either (a) sign out of iCloud on the iPad itself (too late, given that the iPad was already erased and sold) or (b) wait and hope for Apple’s servers to automatically remove the item from the list after some unspecified period of time. Otherwise, the item may stay on the list forever.

Once again, I doubt I am in any real danger here. Without my iTunes account password, the new owner should have no access to my data. But it’s still irritating to have the iPad stuck on the list — especially because there is a maximum of 10 devices that you can maintain here. If devices continue to accumulate and remain stuck, I might eventually reach that maximum. There should be some escape hatch here.

By the way, if you’re selling a Mac (rather than an iOS device), also remember to “Deauthorize This Computer…” from the Store menu in iTunes of the computer before you erase the device and part ways with the computer. Even erasing the Mac’s hard drive is not sufficient to break this link. If you forget to do this, there is no way you can individually deauthorize it from any of your remaining devices — not even after logging into your iTunes account. Your only option is to go your iTunes account settings and select the “Deauthorize All…” button (which you can do only once a year, for reasons I do not entirely get).

I made another mental note for the future: definitely check these items prior to selling my next Mac or iOS device.

My request to Apple…

I’m an experienced Apple user…very experienced. Yet I still wound up a bit dazed and confused here, anxious that I had failed to do something critical before I sold my iPad. Apple can and should do better at keeping users calm. Here are two suggestions:

• Revise the Apple Support articles so there is one clearly written article that goes over all the matters I’ve covered here. If erasing a device eliminates the need to do most (or all) of the other actions, make that especially clear. Users should not have to guess or go hunting to find the relevant information.

• Even better, provide software that assists users in preparing a device for sale. I can think of two ways to go here:

First, when you select to Restore/Erase a device to its factory settings, the software should inquire if you are doing this in preparation for selling the device. If you answer yes, it walks you through all needed steps.

Second, Apple could develop a utility (akin to Migration Assistant on a Mac, maybe call it Sell My Device Assistant) that performs all the needed actions “automatically,” prompting for your permission as appropriate.

Either way, you can then be confident that you have taken all necessary steps to secure your data before you part with your device.

Waiting for Apple’s “next big thing”

The next big thing.

It’s what we are all waiting for. Well, at least most of us are. If you’re Samsung, there’s no need to wait; the “next big thing is already here.” Just kidding. Either way, the next big thing is a big deal.

Time was, Apple delivered the next big thing on a regular basis. Now, not so much. Inevitably, there are grumblings that Apple has lost its mojo and that we won’t be seeing a “next big thing” from them anytime soon — if ever. Last week’s media event added (or should I say “subtracted”?) fuel to that fire. The only two product announcements were a retro 4-inch iPhone and a downsized iPad Pro — hardly groundbreaking.

Personally, I found the smaller iPad Pro to be a compelling product: faster, brighter, louder, worthy new software features. It was certainly good enough for me to order one and dump my 3-year-old iPad Air. Still, it’s obviously not equal to the excitement surrounding the introduction of the original iPad.

This got me thinking: What exactly are the minimum requirements for a product to be justifiably labelled a “next big thing”? And when can we expect Apple to deliver the next one?

As today is the 40th anniversary of the founding of Apple (yes, April Fools day, but it’s no joke), it seemed worth pausing to reflect on this.

My definition of the “next big thing” dates back to the arrival of the original iPod in 2001.

There were already several MP3 players on the market, such as the Archos Jukebox and the Diamond Rio. As I recall,  Sony (trying to capitalize on the success of its Walkman products) also had some sort of proprietary mini-disc device. Most had limited internal storage — relying on discs to supply the music rather than a built-in hard drive. Their user interfaces were clunky; their battery life was poor (some used standard AA batteries). I don’t recall any non-iPod that allowed you to scroll through the device’s entire music library and play individually selected songs.

Then came the iPod: a thousand songs in your pocket, a revolutionary scroll wheel interface for navigation, easy syncing and custom playlists via iTunes on your Mac (or later Windows PC). It was, as they say, a game-changer. Today, no one remembers the MP3 players that came before the iPod. Every one remembers the iPod (heck, almost every one owned one at some point).

As I see it, the reason for the iPod’s breakout success was that Apple attacked the problem from a different angle than its competitors (“Think Different”?). Everybody else tended to be satisfied with eking out an incremental edge in features or quality — however small. Having a marginally better variation of  your top competitor (or at least being able to claim you did) was more than good enough.

In contrast, Apple was willing to throw out the playbook and, if necessary, start over with an entirely new design. Their premise was: “Let’s build a product that consumers will love, one that’s not limited by what’s on the market now. Let’s not be satisfied with being 1% better than our competitors. Let’s blow the competition out of the water.” And that’s what they did. The iPod became the “next big thing” and — probably more than the iMac — was the turn-around product for Apple’s financial recovery.

Even if you feel I’m exaggerating a bit here, you cannot make that claim for the iPhone. It could well rank as #1 on a list of most ground-breaking product introductions. You can divide the history of mobile technology into “before the iPhone” and “after the iPhone.”

Again, prior to the iPhone, companies struggled to come up with a winning concept. I am always reminded here of the ROKR — Motorola and Cingular’s Frankenstein phone. This disastrous attempt to meld a mobile phone and an iPod was so poorly conceived that it smelled like two-week-old fish before it even hit the shelves.

It was only after Steve Jobs and Apple maintained complete control over the end result that the iPhone emerged two years later. With its touchscreen keyboard, iOS app-based interface, visual voicemail, a full-featured web browser, and an MP3 player better than Apple’s own iPod — it was unlike any previous mobile device.

Back in 2007, the smartphone market was dominated by RIM’s Blackberry. According to the book Losing the Signal, RIM executives didn’t understand (or didn’t want to understand) what the eventual impact of the iPhone would be. They were certain the iPhone would fail. They were wrong of course. Today, the Blackberry is effectively dead. And every smartphone on the planet is either an iPhone or something that looks and acts like one.

Although the arc is longer, the story is the same for the Mac. Back in 1984, it was the first mass-market computer to feature a bit-mapped screen with a graphical user interface navigated by a mouse. PC users scoffed and called it a toy, doomed to fail. And yet today, MS-DOS is dead — and virtually every desktop or laptop computer uses either OS X or Windows (which began as Microsoft’s unabashed copy of the then Mac OS).

Sometimes, I wonder: Where would the computer and smartphone markets would be today if Apple never existed. Very different, and far less enjoyable, I am sure. My nightmare vision is that the market would be typified by ROKRs instead of iPhones.

The next “next big thing”

So…a “next big thing” has two primary attributes: (1) it derives from a “ground-up rethinking” of  a product (or even the invention of an entirely new product category), rather than relying on incremental improvements to an existing category and (2) the resulting product becomes so successful that all competitors either imitate it or die — leaving the “next big thing” as the primary or sole survivor.

The Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. With some small degree of stretching, they all fit within this definition.

What, if any, more recent Apple products similarly qualify as a “next big thing”?

I would definitely include the Apple Watch — even if current sales aren’t as great as Apple might have hoped. I remain optimistic that the Apple Watch will continue to improve with each update and that, within a few years, the device (and its imitators) will represent the entire digital watch market.

The Apple TV comes close. It was groundbreaking when it first came out; it preceded Roku and Chromecast and all similar competitors. What started out as a “hobby” has become a big success and an important piece of Apple’s product lineup. Still, I am uncertain about its future. Is it the prototype for all televisions going forward or will it get left behind by a competing vision? It’s very possible that some entirely different approach — from Sony or Samsung or Vizio or TiVo or (heaven forbid!) Comcast or even a new as yet unknown company — will emerge as the winner. How we use and control our televisions in still very much in flux.

So where does that leave us going forward? Is there another “next big thing” on Apple’s horizon?

An Apple Car could become the next big thing. But that’s still several years away. In the nearer term, Apple may be secretly planning to release a potential “thing” as soon as later this year. But I doubt it. If that were true, I believe there would at least be vague rumors by this point.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume Apple has no potential “next big thing” in its immediate pipeline. Does this mean Apple is in trouble? Is it even something we should worry about?

Probably not. Coming up with a “next big thing” is rare almost by definition. You can’t manufacture “next big things” on demand. It’s not like ordering pizza. Apple has had a remarkable run. But all runs come to an end.

Perhaps, as the company matures, its approach needs to change. This doesn’t necessarily imply a descent into complacency or mediocrity. It certainly doesn’t mean Apple is “doomed.” Apple can still strive to maximally improve its existing products as well as venture into new categories. And all the while, it can remain open to finding the “next big thing.” Even if one doesn’t come along, Apple can remain a very successful company.

Think about it. Many (probably most) successful companies never have even one “next big thing.” Certainly not more than one. When was the last “next big thing” from Toyota? Or Cuisinart? Or even Samsung?

And yet…there’s always the risk that some other company will come out with an unexpected “next big thing” — a product that could do to Apple what Apple did to RIM. Apple has become so huge and profitable that this no longer seems very likely. Apple can absorb damage and deal with it with less permanent harm that it could have in decades past. Still, companies like Amazon and Google certainly are not resting on their respective laurels. Dangers to Apple lurk on all sides.

In the end, I’m confident that Apple has a bright future. We’ll be seeing many exciting new products in the years ahead — regardless whether or not one of them qualifies as a “next big thing.” But it’s just as certain that Apple’s top competitors will be aiming to do the same. So keep your seat belts fastened. This ride is far from over.

Welcome to Apple’s next forty years!

Flash vs. Fusion: What’s the best choice for an iMac?

Recently, I bid adieu to my 7-year-old Mac Pro and replaced it with a 27-inch 5K Retina display iMac. Overall, I couldn’t be more pleased. The display alone has been enough to justify the upgrade.

However, my indecision over one sticking point almost wound up derailing the move. It’s the reason it took me several months from the announcement of the new iMacs last October to finally make the purchase a few weeks ago. Even after the iMac arrived, my uncertainty remained. So much so, that I almost returned the machine. The dilemma? Whether to get a Fusion Drive or Flash (SSD) Storage? And, especially if the latter, what size drive?

While I believe there is no single best choice that applies to everyone, after much internal debate, I found the right one for me.

Internal

At first, it seemed so simple. I planned to get the 3TB Fusion drive. While I could have gotten by with a 2TB drive, it was worth a $100 to have the roominess of an extra TB. I figured I’d be buying a new Mac before I outgrew that much space.

My wife already had an iMac with 3TB Fusion Drive. So I knew that the drive was adequately fast and very quiet. Done deal.

Except…my inner geek was not satisfied.

True, a Fusion Drive is fast. But an SSD is even faster. In fact, thanks to design improvements in the 2015 iMacs, Apple claims the iMac’s Flash Storage is “up to 2.5 times faster” than the SSD in 2014 iMacs.

A Fusion Drive is quiet, but an SSD is not only quieter, it’s completely silent. Plus, SSDs are the future. Within a few years, I expect HDDs (hard disk drives) to be history. Even the Fusion Drive (which is a combination of SSD and HDD) will likely be gone. I wanted to go with the future.

Further, Flash Storage, because it has no moving parts, is more reliable than a Fusion Drive. Of special note, the technology that “melds” the SSD and HDD components of a Fusion Drive can fail, even if the separate components are otherwise fine, leaving you with an inaccessible drive. This will require Apple to fix it. While not common, this has happened to a few friends of mine.

The HDD component of a Fusion Drive spins at 5400 RPM. Most internal drives sold today are 7200 RPM. Obviously, I would prefer the faster RPM speed. I also don’t like that, with a Fusion Drive, I have no control over what files are shunted to the SSD portion; it is all determined by Apple’s software. While such matters might not significantly impact the performance of a Fusion Drive, they still irked me.

On the other hand, the biggest problem with pure SSDs is that they are much more expensive than Fusion Drives. The largest capacity Flash Storage you can get preinstalled in an iMac is only 1TB — and it costs $700 more than a 2TB Fusion Drive.

The result? Indecision! After mulling things over for a couple of months…and changing my mind numerous times, I finally settled on the Flash Storage.

I was not quite done. I still had to decide which size to get. The 512GB option, at only $100 more than a 3TB Fusion, quickly emerged as my preferred choice. The lesser, 256GB drive, although twice the size of the SSD portion of the Fusion Drive, was too small to hold my essential files (System and Home Libraries, Applications and Documents). At the other extreme, the 1TB Flash Storage still wasn’t large enough to hold all my files; not worth the extra cost.

External

With the main dilemma decided, I had one more problem to resolve: What sort of external storage would I use?

The 512GB SSD was 1/6 the size of the 3TB Fusion Drive I had initially planned to get. To accommodate all my data, external storage was now a requirement. Even if I could fit all my data on the internal SSD, I would still need external storage for mirrored backups. In other words, I would need at least 2 external drives.

Initially, I decided to buy an OWC ThunderBay 4 ($400). With this unit, I could transfer the three drives that had previously lived in my Mac Pro, saving the cost of having to purchase new drives. In addition, the ThunderBay provided the fastest possible transfer speeds (Thunderbolt 2) with the greatest capacity for future expansion, all via a single compact box that needed only one connection to the iMac.

This was a fine, albeit still expensive, solution. I would have stuck with this setup except for one thing: noise. Don’t get me wrong. The ThunderBay is quiet overall. Depending on your sensitivity, it may not bother you at all. But it is far from silent.

For starters, the ThunderBay has a constantly running fan. While not a noisy fan, the sound is definitely noticeable, even with the unit placed under my desk. Compared to my wife’s Fusion Drive iMac, I could instantly hear the difference.

Second, the 3.5-inch HDDs inside the ThunderBay made significant noise during read and write access. The noise was not annoyingly loud, but, once again, it was much more noticeable than similar sounds from my wife’s iMac Fusion Drive.

While all of this was tolerable, I wanted better. Better than even the Fusion Drive. I wanted to maintain the near total silence afforded by my iMac’s Flash Storage. So I looked for another solution.

Eventually, I settled on Seagate portable drives. These USB 3 drives are essentially noiseless. At least I can’t hear them. They are also about as small and unobtrusive as a drive can get. And, as they get their power from the iMac’s USB port, there are no power cords or bulky adapters to worry about.

As a bonus, they are a cheaper alternative to the ThunderBay. The two drives I got (1 2TB and 1 4TB) cost about $200: half the price of an empty ThunderBay. You could save even more money if you could fit all your data on the iMac’s internal Flash Storage (perhaps needing only a 256GB SSD?) and thus could get by with only one external drive.

The one downside is that transfer speeds via USB 3 are distinctly slower than via Thunderbolt 2. If you need maximum speed, the ThunderBay remains the preferred solution. In my case, as I use the external drives only to hold my media libraries (iTunes and Photos), archival data and backups, I didn’t think the speed difference would matter at a practical level. Most of the time, the drives would not be in use at all.

[By the way, overall, I prefer to keep my media libraries on a separate drive from my System and other Home directory files; it makes the media files less likely to become collateral damage in the event of a disaster with the startup drive.

I do have some concern regarding the long-term reliability of keeping fan-less portable drives connected to a Mac 24/7. However, my past experience doing this with other Seagate portable drives has been excellent, so I am willing to take the risk. Still, I have my data backed up elsewhere — via the cloud-based BackBlaze as well as a separate networked Time Machine drive.]

Wrapping up

So here I am typing on my new iMac. With its 512GB Flash Storage, it is both superfast and completely silent. The external portable Seagate drives provide the extra space I need without adding noise or detracting from the iMac’s curb appeal.

If your requirements are at all similar to mine, I highly recommend this solution.

The almost death of the telephoto/zoom lens

This column started out as a eulogy — marking the anticipated end for a long-time friend. But, even as the grave was being readied, word came that my friend was showing signs of a remarkable recovery.

Who is this friend? How did things get so dire? And what’s behind the potential recovery? Read on…

The story begins decades ago, as unboxed my first SLR (single lens reflex) camera: an Olympus OM-1. It was a big step up from the point-and-shoot cameras I had been using. For the first time, whatever I saw in the camera’s viewfinder was the same thing the lens was seeing. Further, I could adjust f-stops, shutter speeds, white balance, and much more. And, perhaps most critically, I could swap lenses.

Not wasting any time, I purchased my first accessory lens the same day I bought the camera: a 28-150mm zoom lens. With it mounted, I could easily shift from a decent wide-angle shot to 3X telephoto. Yes, the lens was bulkier than the standard 50mm one that came with the camera, but it was worth the bulk. By far, the most useful aspect of the zoom lens was its telephoto range. Until then, the most common frustration I had when taking photos was an inability to get close enough to the subject. Instead of capturing that gorgeous bird I saw in a nearby tree, all I got was a photo of a tree, albeit one that contained a barely perceptible blob of color that I presumed was the bird. A telephoto zoom lens changed all that. It not only got me closer but allowed me to experiment for the exact optimal magnification, without having to keep changing my position. Fantastic!

Flash forward to today. The telephoto lens is on its deathbed, as are zoom lenses in general. Hold on. Before you jump in to contradict me, allow me to elaborate.

Yes, there are still SLR cameras (now digital) that offer the same options as my old Olympus. But, back in the “old days,” every budding amateur photographer bought an SLR. These days, they are primarily the domain of the most serious hobbyists and professionals. Far fewer people use them.

It’s also true that a zoom capability remains in today’s consumer-focused compact fixed-lens cameras. In fact, the capabilities here are incredible. My wife, for example, owns a Canon SX700. This pocket-sized camera has a 30X zoom lens — and yet the entire camera is smaller and lighter than the 3X zoom lens alone for my old Olympus! Even so, sales of these cameras are also in a steady decline.

So what are people using to take photos these days? Their smartphones of course. Recent studies have estimated that well over 90% of the photos taken today are taken with smartphones. The trouble is that smartphones, including the iPhone, have no telephoto or optical zoom options. You can buy an add-on lens to get a 2X zoom; but it’s not practical; the lenses are too much trouble for too little gain. Very few people go this route.

My wife and I fit the typical demographic. Most of the time, our Canon sits on a shelf. The only time it gets any use is when we anticipate that a telephoto capability will be critical. And sometimes not even then. That’s because our iPhone 6 and 6S take photos (and video) that equal or exceed the quality of the Canon — at least to our eyes. Further, the iPhone is far superior to the Canon for any sort of media sharing. And we always have our iPhones with us, even if we have no intent to use a camera. If we don’t expect to need a telephoto lens, there’s no reason to carry around an extra piece of equipment.

So, here I am, decades later, back to the same inability to get an unplanned shot of that bird up a tree. Ironic. Most of the time, I’m okay with this. It’s the sort of trade-off that often comes with technological advances. You lose something worthwhile from the “good old days” in order to get a myriad of desirable new features that were unimaginable years ago.

Overall, if telephoto/zoom lenses were animals, they would be on the endangered species list. It was thinking about this that led me to pen my intended eulogy. Except a funny thing happened. The telephoto/zoom lens may not be as near death as I anticipated. The latest rumors (which seem increasingly solid) suggest that Apple is preparing a dual-lens version of the iPhone 7 Plus (due out this fall) — a set-up that would include a true optical zoom. At last! Other rumors indicate that single-lens zoom technologies may be arriving in Apple’s more distant future.

For now, if the iPhone 7 Plus camera turns out to be as good as the rumors suggest, it will be a happy day for me. It will also assuredly hasten the demise of most, if not all, consumer stand-alone cameras. Perhaps there’s a eulogy to write after all.