The Mac Sucks!

The desktop computer world changed a lot in the past year. Apple released Snow Leopard, “the world’s most advanced operating system”, and by all accounts sales are good. Microsoft is on the verge of releasing Windows 7, generally gets very positive reviews and generated lots of pre-orders. The open source community grew and improved Linux, with versions like Ubuntu 9.04 touting faster boot times, better performance, and an improved user experience. Meanwhile, for the last few months, I’ve been silent. Why?

To be honest, I needed a break. I needed to think. There’s still more I need to think about, including whether or not this site is going to continue… or if it will continue in a different form, or under a different name.

When I started this site several years ago, I had an axe to grind. At that time, we began to implement OS X on the Macs at the office. I developed backup and recovery procedures, patch deployment methods, configurations, and every other piece of infrastructure around daily Mac support and administration. While working all that out, I can’t tell you how many kernel panics, application crashes, and other bizarre Mac OS X behaviors I saw. All the while, the Mac users at my company were extremely demanding. They expected every document and font ported over from OS 9 to open, look, and print exactly (pixel for pixel) the same as it did before. If they weren’t happy with my answers or how fast I resolved a problem, they went to our division vice president to complain. It rolled downhill from there. In those days, it felt like every work-related problem or frustration I had came with the Apple logo. I went from a die-hard Apple fan (since about 1977) to someone who no longer wanted to even look at a Mac. When a well-meaning friend called to chat with me about how wonderful the Mac was, I’d had enough. This site went up the next day. I poured my anger and frustration into it.

Since then, a lot has changed. Some of what has changed is external. I’m no longer a Mac administrator, so Macs no longer figure into my workplace frustrations. Even so, Apple has made some improvements in OS X that eliminated many (though not all) of the things that have frustrated me about it. Apple’s pricing has come down some. The open source world has come up with some Linux distros that are very polished, stable, and easy to use. Microsoft has done a nice job with Windows 7 (and unlike many, I didn’t find Vista to be so terrible.) It’s a very different desktop world than it was 10 years ago. I think on balance it’s a better desktop, too.

Some of what has changed in the last 10 years is within me. I realized a while ago that the desktop landscape isn’t a battlefield where Microsoft, Apple, or open source has to “win” and the others “lose”. I also came to realize that there isn’t a single “best” computing platform for everyone, any more than there is a single best automobile for everyone. For example, a young, single person in a suburb may find the Toyota Prius or Honda Civic an ideal choice. That same vehicle would be a poor choice for a family living in a very rural area with dirt roads and six children aged between 8 and 18. The vehicle that works for the family, likewise, would probably be overkill for the single person. In the end, as long as the car (or computer) you are using meets your needs and fits in your budget, it’s not the “wrong” one for you, no matter what anyone else thinks.

So here I sit in September 2009, looking at a web site I named “The Mac Sucks” and wondering if I really believe that anymore. There is a Mac Mini sitting (virtually unused) on my desk and an iPod Touch (used daily) not far from it. I clearly don’t hate Apple enough anymore to ban its products from the house. But I am definitely not an Apple fan. I don’t like the control Apple is exerting over the iPhone/Touch platform. I don’t like the Apple advertising. I don’t like a lot about the way the company does business these days. I wouldn’t tolerate the behavior from Microsoft, and I see no reason to tolerate it from Apple, either. And don’t get me started about that Jobs guy. I respect what he’s accomplished, but there is nothing else about him I like or respect.

Perhaps the more relevant question for me with regard to this site is, “Am I making a difference here?” Would anything I say here cause someone in power at Apple to “think different” and reconsider their business practices? Would anything I say here cause a “rabid Mac fan” to back off a bit and realize that it’s OK if someone else doesn’t want a Mac? I don’t know. As I said, I have a lot to think about. In the meantime, I’m going to continue sharing with you the news stories about desktop computing that interest me, and tell you why I think they’re interesting and relevant. If you like what you’re reading, share a link to the article here with a friend or two. If not, the lack of hits will convince me to pull the plug and invest my time elsewhere.

Glyn Moody posted “The Huge Hidden Cost of Microsoft Software” on June 30, 2009, on Computeworld UK’s web site, and a similar article on Slashdot. In the post, Moody discusses how various UK government organizations had to spend a great deal of money cleaning up the Conficker worm. Moody explains how this is a “hidden cost” of running Microsoft software in your environment, much as Microsoft and others have tried to claim there are “hidden costs” in running free open source software and Macs.

There are certain of Moody’s points I agree with. More malware exists for Windows than for Mac OS X and Linux combined. That’s just a fact. If the PCs in your organization become infected with malware like the Conficker worm, it can be extremely time-consuming and costly to clean up the mess. Again, it’s a fact. If you ran Linux or Mac OS X throughout your organization instead of Windows, a Windows worm like Conficker would be stopped dead because it can’t infect those operating systems. Fact. But the conclusion that this is a “hidden cost of using Windows” may be true to some degree, it’s not quite on target. Allow me to explain.

I work in a company with approximately 2,000 Windows PCs, maybe 50 Macs, a small number of Sun Solaris workstations, and a data center including Linux, Windows, Solaris, and mainframe operating systems. In an environment like this, with so many Windows desktops, you might be thinking I’ve had to clean up some massive infections.

Ironically, in my 20+ year career, the biggest malware mess I ever had to clean up didn’t affect Windows at all, and it wasn’t at the shop where I work now. The culprit was a little Classic Mac OS virus code-named “WDEF“. Infection via WDEF was very Mac-like. It “just worked”. If an infected disk was inserted into a Mac, it instantly infected the Mac’s hard drive. You didn’t have to run any programs or do anything. If you inserted a clean disk into an infected Mac, that disk became infected. The WDEF virus managed to find its way onto every Mac in our company and on to most of the floppy disks. I was able to trace it back to a disk a single employee (yeah, it was me) brought into the office from home. I can’t tell you how many hours I spent cleaning up that mess (we had only a dozen Macs but literally hundreds of floppies to scan). I only found it because I was showing a co-worker how Macs didn’t really need antivirus software by running a scan with a free tool called Disinfectant. It was very humbling to see it detect WDEF, in addition to being painfully ironic.

It was also a valuable lesson. Over the 10+ years I was a Mac user, I had downloaded lots of free Mac software. When I ripped the shrinkwrap off my first antivirus package (bought after the WDEF incident), I was shocked to see how many viruses had already infected my supposedly “superior” system. During my time as a Classic Mac OS user, I saw more viruses than I’ve seen since… even though I’ve primarily been a Windows user, and still download lots of free programs. Mine may not be the typical experience, but it’s a true story.

Moody’s stories and mine share a common theme – and it’s obviously not Microsoft software. Take proper security precautions, no matter what computer you’re using, or you will pay a price eventually. I’m willing to bet if you investigate any of those very expensive cleanup deals mentioned in Moody’s article you’ll find that certain basic security precautions were ignored that would have cost FAR less than the cleanup effort for Conficker eventually did. Maybe they merely needed a cheap hardware firewall to keep the worm from getting in, or a cheap antivirus package to detect and clean it, or just to deny administrator access to their employees. As far as I’m concerned, Microsoft may share some of the blame but the bulk of it lies with the organizations themselves. I can say that with confidence because our 2,000-machine Windows environment didn’t see a single Conficker infection. Not one. (And no, I wouldn’t be so bold or stupid as to say that we “never will”… only that we’ve made all reasonable precautions to prevent such an occurrence. That’s about as much as you can ever really say about your security.)

While Mac users have been relatively free of malware, viruses have existed for OS X, Mac malware has made it into the wild, and it has resulted in the creation of a Mac-only botnet. I’ll bet if you could find the owners of the Macs whose systems are part of that botnet, they’d tell you they don’t need antivirus software because they’ve got a Mac, and Macs are immune to that stuff…

Linux has been relatively immune as well, but it too has seen Trojans, viruses, and other malware. The threat to Linux is nothing compared to the situation on Windows, but that doesn’t mean there is “no” threat.

If you go through life with the assumption that your platform of choice is totally secure, completely immune to malware, and impervious to hackers, the odds are good that you’re going to find yourself very sadly mistaken one day… just like I did when I ran that disinfecting program on my Mac those many years ago. Good security is a “hidden cost” of owning a computer, no matter whose logo is on the box or whose is displayed when you start it up.

A while back, we discussed how Apple likes to market its products using “absolute” statements. For example, it talks about Mac OS X Leopard as “the world’s most advanced operating system“, iTunes as “the world’s most popular digital media player“, and the MacBook line as “the world’s greenest lineup of notebooks“. Their competitor Dell didn’t sit idly by and let Apple make that last claim without taking them to task.

Dell, which has been making what is described as “one of the most substantial efforts in the industry to produce more environmentally sound products and shrink its carbon footprint”, approached the Council of Better Business Bureaus’ National Advertising Division (NAD) to complain that Apple has no right to make such a bold statement. After examining the situation, the NAD claims that while Apple can legitimately claim that the MacBook line is greener than product lines from a specific competitor, their claim that the MacBook line is the “world’s greenest” has “potential for overstatement”. (This sounds like a nice way of saying “Come on, Apple, aren’t you exaggerating a bit? You’ve done some good work but don’t let it go to your head.”)

Later in the report, the NAD suggests that while Apple does have a very “green” product line, that it should adjust its advertising to make clearer that it’s comparing its products to a specific competitor or competitors, and it should avoid the reference to “world’s greenest” in the future. In typical Apple style, they interpreted this as a “clear victory” and thanked the NAD for “confirming that its MacBooks, as compared to all of the notebooks made by any given manufacturer, are the world’s greenest notebook computers”. Put more simply, Apple is going to go right on claiming its products are the “world’s greenest” even though the NAD has advised against making such a bold claim.

None of this negates any of Dell’s other points about Apple’s “green credibility”. Dell’s CEO Bob Pearson posted a statement about this back in December 2008. In that post, Pearson says that Apple isn’t taking part in any conferences or blogosphere activity on environmental issues and that Apple doesn’t seem to be doing much more than making “wild claims” and advertising, while companies like Dell are making a genuine effort to reduce emissions, eliminate unnecessary packaging, become carbon-neutral (which it did in 2008), and focus on energy efficiency. One example of Dell’s efforts is that it topped the TBR Corporate Sustainability Index Benchmark Report in May 2009. Apple, it should be noted, apparently didn’t make the top 10 on that report. Oh well, maybe next year…

Steve Jobs isn’t the nicest guy in the world. I think we all know that. He snubbed fan “Violet Blue” who only wanted a picture. He is sometimes described as “a risk-taking, short-tempered tyrant“. He banned the sale (in Apple stores) of all books by the publisher of one that critcized him. Once, he described an employee’s work as a “really lovely cake” with dog excrement for frosting. There are plenty more examples if you look for them.

While I respect Steve’s professional accomplishments (turning Apple around, getting Pixar going, etc.), I have very little respect for the man himself – largely because of his treatment of others. Regardless of that, I wish Jobs no ill will. I do NOT want to see him sick, injured, or dead. It was with a bit of mixed emotion, however, that I read yesterday’s CNET post indicating that Jobs received a liver transplant in Tennessee.

On the one hand, I am pleased to see that Steve is getting the treatment he needs. But there was something in that article that really upset me, and it ought to upset you too. CNET notes that “Steve Jobs, who has been on medical leave from Apple for the past six months, received a liver transplant in Tennessee two months ago, according to a report Friday in the Wall Street Journal. Earlier this year, Apple’s CEO was reported to be relocating from California to Tennessee, which has a shorter waiting list for patients seeking organs, the report noted.”

In other words, Jobs packed up some of his belongings, hopped a plane to Tennessee, and moved into a residence there. He stayed there long enough to qualify as a resident, and receive a transplant. He wasn’t retiring there, relocating Apple there, or planning to stay there permanently. He was there to get an organ.

What Jobs did, as far as I know, is not illegal. People move from state to state all the time, for any reason (or none at all). There’s nothing at all wrong with relocating.

Admittedly, what Jobs did wasn’t as unethical as paying off a third-world person to get a liver. And it wasn’t as bad as paying off the doctors in California to be moved up on the transplant list ahead of other worthy and compatible patients. I realize that. But the net effect of what Jobs did was the same as if he HAD paid off the officials in California. Instead of being at the end of the much-longer California transplant list, he paid money to move himself to Tennessee in order to be on a much shorter list. Someone without his billions wouldn’t have been able to do that. They’d have had to wait their turn and take the chance that they might die before the liver was found. That happens all the time. (Just read the comments on that CNET article.)

To be clear, even though I don’t like the guy, it doesn’t matter that it’s Steve Jobs doing this. I’d be upset if it was William Shatner, Bill Gates, Angelina Jolie, Heidi Klum, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or any other public figure doing it.

According to a post on The Register, four U.S. Senators have asked the acting FCC chairman to review whether mobile phone makers should be allowed to enter into exclusive contracts with wireless service providers. The senators’ thinking is that exclusivity agreements may “unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition in the commercial wireless marketplace.”

Even though The Register reports that this is “a direct shot across Apple and AT&T’s shared bow”, I have to wonder if Apple itself isn’t behind this. At the recent Apple Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC), Apple indicated that it was AT&T’s fault that they wouldn’t have MMS support in the iPhone until late in the summer, and that tethering support was not likely to be coming from AT&T soon. It’s even said that “AT&T’s network has been commonly regarded as the iPhone’s weakest link for as long as there have been iPhones (especially 3G ones).”

There was talk a couple of months ago about Apple inking a deal in the U.S. with Verizon to distribute the iPhone. The problem with those rumors is that it would imply that Apple had a way out of its deal with AT&T. But sources in the USA Today article linked above indicate that the Apple/AT&T agreement is good until some time in 2010. To get out of that deal early, it’s likely that Apple would have to pay through the proverbial nose to get AT&T to let go.

But let’s imagine a completely hypothetical scenario. Let’s assume that Apple really is fed up with AT&T, and wants out of its agreement now. And let’s assume AT&T is unwilling to play along. At the same time, Apple would really like to hurt the Palm Pre and Sprint, arguably its closest iPhone competitor right now. How might it do that? In this entirely hypothetical scenario, Apple could approach some lobbyists to pressure the FCC into ruling that handset exclusivity deals are anti-competitive. How does this accomplish all of Apple’s goals?

If such deals were ruled illegal, suddenly the Apple/AT&T agreement is null and void. Apple wins. It can start selling iPhones to any carrier whose networks its device supports. AT&T might be hopping mad about this, but Apple would be free to sell the iPhone through any carrier, just like it theoretically wants to do. Not entirely coincidentally (I suspect) that DOESN’T include Sprint with its CDMA based network. Having dealt with carriers on multiple continents, Apple already has experience adjusting the iPhone to work with carriers other than AT&T, so adapting it for other U.S. carriers would probably be relatively trivial.

At the same time, killing handset exclusivity deals in general also kills the deal between Palm and Sprint. Instead of focusing its development resources on improving the Pre and making it more competitive with the iPhone, Palm will have to expend effort adjusting the Pre to work with other carriers (something it would have done eventually, but is now being forced to do sooner). This would be an unplanned change to Palm’s Pre business plan. This sudden shift in focus would likely set the development of new features for the Pre back by several months, giving Apple even more time to improve the iPhone (relative to itself and the Palm Pre) and market the iPhone to other carriers. Given that many feel the Palm Pre is what will save Sprint as a company, the timing of this senatorial interest in handset exclusivity certainly seems very suspicious. It would potentially leave Sprint with a handset stuck at today’s functionality level (which, while quite good, is not yet superior to the iPhone in many areas) and a handset which is no longer exclusively a Sprint offering.

Outside the U.S., the proposed FCC ruling would not affect Apple (since the FCC has no control outside the U.S.). Apple can continue having exclusive deals with foreign carriers as long as it likes, at least where such deals are legal. Again, Apple wins.

There really isn’t a down-side for Apple in this scenario… at least none that I can see. If the agreements stand, Apple keeps selling iPhones through AT&T until the agreement runs out next year. If they’re struck down, Apple can sell iPhones through any carrier it wants to work with, and the Palm Pre (and Sprint – who couldn’t sell the iPhone anyway) takes a hit in the process.

Remember, the scenario I’m describing above is entirely fictional as far as I know. I have absolutely no knowledge or evidence that Apple has anything to do with this sudden interest by the U.S. Senate in cellphone handset exclusivity. This is entirely speculation on my part… it just happens to be speculation that meshes well with known facts and observations.

Apple still wants its day in court with clone maker Psystar, even though their opponent has filed for bankruptch. Perhaps this is because Psystar is reportedly still selling Mac clones through their web site. Perhaps Apple simply wants to use them as an warning to others, like California based Quo Computer or the Russian and German companies selling Mac clones.

While digging through my backlog of articles to discuss here, I ran across Computerworld’s March 25, 2009, article entitled “10 operating systems the world left behind“. In the article, Computerworld looks at 10 operating systems once greatly loved, now largely left behind and forgotten. What made the list? See below:

1. CP/M
2. Microsoft MS-DOS
3. Apple’s “Classic” Mac OS
4. Amiga
5. GEOS
6. IBM’s OS/2
7. NeXT
8. BeOS
9. Windows 95
10. X Window System (not technically an OS)

Calling some of these “left behind” seems a bit extreme.

Admittedly, I haven’t see anyone using or talking about CP/M, GEOS, or NeXT in a long time. However, I’ve seen MS-DOS driving a number of point-of-sale devices and diagnostic tools in places like the automotive industry. There are still some Classic Mac OS users out there – mostly in schools. And the X Window System, in the form of X11, is still a part of most UNIX and Linux distributions. It’s also an optional install in Mac OS X. That doesn’t seem “left behind” to me. Perhaps it was added to round out the list to “10″ instead of “9″?

I think my own “left behind” list would be slightly different:

1. TRS-80 DOS: This was once one of the most popular desktop operating systems on the planet, but today you don’t find a lot of people who even recognize the phrase “TRS-80″ much less have actually used it.
2. Apple II DOS: This was the de-facto standard back in the late 1970s through the early 1980s. It was widely used in business and at home. Today, there are still some hobbyists who use it but I haven’t seen it used in a “serious” business or home context for at least a decade.
3. CP/M: I remember when it was all the rage to run CP/M on your Apple II, TRS-80 Color Computer, or whatever device you had. It was a relatively UNIX-like OS at a time when desktop operating systems weren’t that UNIX-like.
4. GEOS: This Mac Classic style OS was a big hit with many users, but died out in favor of other GUI-based OSes including the Mac OS, Amiga OS, and others.
5. NeXT: I actually attended a NeXT demonstration by Steve Jobs in Pittsburgh back in the platform’s heyday. I remember being really impressed with its ability to multitask and handle media applications with ease. It made the Mac (Classic OS) system I was using feel dated and clunky. Unfortunately, NeXT boxes were priced at astronomical levels for desktop computers of the day and this, perhaps more than anything else, killed the NeXT in the marketplace.
6. Microsoft Windows 9x and Below: While these are still in use in many places, they’re no longer the dominant desktop platform. The “9x and below” category has virtually been eliminated in favor of Windows 2000, XP, and later.
7. IBM OS/2: While I still know one person who uses this, it no longer has any real “mindshare” anymore. It was superior to Windows in a number of ways, but never seemed to really take hold in the market.
8. Commodore Amiga: I’ve read about efforts to rekindle an interest in this OS, but it’s nowhere near as popular as it once was. There was a time when it was the gold standard in the television industry, providing a lot of special effects and title graphics for shows. Today, it’s largely a niche hobbyist OS.
9. Disk-based Copy Protection OSes: Back in the early Apple II days, it was extremely easy to copy software. Buy a couple of inexpensive floppy drives, a stack of blank disks, and you were ready to pirate anything. Manufacturers struck back by using some very tricky hacks to make disks difficult to copy, such as changing the rotation speed of the drive to write more information to the disk, using a laser to burn a spot on the media and make it unreliable, writing information to tracks spaced out of line with normal tracks, etc. Some even went so far as to build their software on disks that ran alternative and modified versions of operating systems that specifically attempted to combat piracy. This is something you don’t see these days. Oh, there is plenty of copy protection technology or “digital rights management” out there, but it’s usually part of the application or the operating system, rather than a whole new OS intended to thwart piracy.
10. Modified System ROMs: Decades ago, the equivalent to the BIOS was stored in a ROM chip. Hackers found that there were electrically-programmable ROM chips that could be substituted for the factory ROMs. This allowed them to modify how the system booted, how it responded to the reset button, etc. This was useful for things as trivial as adding your name to the boot-up screen, and as high-end as allowing you to take control of a system and analyze what a copy-protection scheme was doing. While not technically operating systems in their own right, they did bring you to a command prompt and allow you to perform some basic functions without loading a full OS.

How about you? What would you come up with?

According to a recent article, Apple was ordered to pay $19 million in damages for infringing on patents held by Opti, a technology holding company. The patents center around a cache memory technology called “Predictive Snooping” that Opti claims to have invented. Apple acknowledged that it used the technology but argued that the patents were invalid because the technology existed before Opti claimed to have invented it. Opti settled out of court with Nvidia over the same patents. A similar lawsuit has already been filed against AMD.

According to an article on CNET, Apple has laid off 1,600 of its Apple Store employees as a cost-saving measure. Like many companies, Apple is feeling the effects of the economic downturn. While revenue is up from the same period last year, unit sales of Macs are down by approximately 70,000 during the same period. Apple’s retail division lost about a million dollars of revenue per store on average last year, a decline of approximately 14% (from $7.1 million per store to $5.9 million).

The article also reports that Apple “plans to ease back on the number of stores it opens in 2009.” One would hope so. I’d hate to be one of those people who lost their job at an Apple Store watching on the news that the company opened several new stores in other states without offering me a job there.

There is an interesting post today on the jkontherun.com site about Apple and netbooks. What’s interesting about it is that it shows Apple’s very “elitist” stance on notebooks and netbooks. This stance is showcased in a comment by Apple COO Tim Cook: “When I’m looking at what’s sold in the Netbook market, I see cramped keyboards, junky hardware, very small screens, bad software. Not a consumer experience that we would put the Mac brand on.”

Cook’s comment shows both Apple’s elitism and its inability to “get” the netbook consumer. Cook is quoted as saying in the jkontherun.com article, and elsewhere in the press (and I’m paraphrasing a bit here), that consumers should look to the MacBook Air or an iPhone or iPod Touch instead of a netbook. And I’m sure he believes that, but it shows that Apple really doesn’t understand why netbooks are popular.

Let’s look at the iPhone/iPod idea first. Yes, the browsing experience in the iPhone or iPod Touch is one of the (if not the) best mobile browsing experiences available at the moment. It’s better than the Mobile Internet Explorer version on Windows Mobile devices. It’s arguably comparable (better or worse, depending on your criteria) to the Opera browser in the Nokia Internet Tablets. But for activities that require lengthy text input or decent screen real estate, the iPhone/iPod is no substitute for a real keyboard and decent-sized screen. (At least, I don’t enjoy text entry on my iPod Touch.) If all you want is to be able to pull a device out of your pocket, bring up a web page, read it, and go on about your business, the iPod Touch or iPhone is a great little device. No question about that. But netbooks allow you to do things that an iPhone can’t (for example: download an MP3 from the web and copy it to a USB drive for a friend, or copy files off your digital camera’s SD card for a friend).

If you want to do some serious writing, interact with Adobe Flash sites, run Java apps, etc., you really need a notebook or netbook computer. Enter the MacBook Air. It’s thin, it’s light, it has a “real” keyboard, a decent-sized display, reasonable battery life, and a sturdy aluminum case. But it also has a sticker price starting at $1,799 (as of this writing) and up. Even the 13″ MacBook is priced at $1,299. You can argue that those are fair prices for what you’re getting (or not), but for most of us that is a significant investment of funds. Few of us have the kind of money to drop $1300+ on a device that we might lose or drop.

At $200 to $400 (a typical netbook price range), you expect to make compromises. You don’t expect the screen real estate of a full laptop, the speed of a full laptop, a full-size laptop keyboard, etc. In return for those compromises, you’ve got a small, inexpensive computer that does the basics (or more) and that you’re going to be a lot less worried about losing, dropping, or even replacing. If you give your kid a netbook and she drops it down the stairs, destroying its screen, you’ll be upset but not devastated. Now, imagine that $1800 MacBook dropping down the steps and smashing its screen. Ouch!

While I know some will disagree, I haven’t found netbooks to be, on balance, “junky” hardware. My original netbook, an Asus Eee PC 701, wasn’t bad. It was very light, sturdy, and usable. It allowed me to surf the web, compose emails, write blog posts, etc. It never crashed, battery life was good, and was everything I expected from a device in its price range (and more). It even fit in my winter coat pocket. I only upgraded to the Asus Eee PC 1000H because the blogging software I used at that time was designed for a larger screen and critical buttons (like “save” and “ok”) had an annoying tendency to be off the bottom of its 7″ 800×480 screen. If it’d had an 8″ 800×600 screen and a larger SSD, I might never have upgraded.

My EeePC 1000H has served me quite well for the past year. The screen size is large enough that I’m able to use it for anything I’ve wanted to do away from home. The keyboard is large enough for comfortably type long passages of text. The PC is powerful enough to run all the applications I want to run away from home. I currently have it triple-booting Windows 7, Windows XP, and Ubuntu Linux. (If I was willing to incur the wrath of Apple, there are guides on the web for installing Leopard on it, too… which should eliminate Cook’s comment about “bad software” on it.) It’s small enough that I can put it on my lunch tray at work and still have room for my lunch. It’s light enough that I lug it around many places I wouldn’t bother to take my full-size laptop. And (this is a key point), it’s an inexpensive enough device that I’m comfortable leaving it places that I’d be nervous leaving a more-expensive machine. I’d be bummed if it was lost, stolen, or damaged, but at the street price of around $350 (minus my upgrades), I wouldn’t be financially devastated. I could replace it fairly quickly. If I owned a MacBook Air, losing or damaging it would be a lot more upsetting to me. It might take me a few months to replace it. Netbooks, by comparison, are almost disposable computers. That’s part of their appeal.

I’m not saying my netbook is perfect. It’s heavier than I’d like, but that weight is mostly in the battery, which delivers excellent life by my standards. The placement and size of the right-hand shift key isn’t ideal, but I’m getting used to it. But that’s about all that bothers me about it.

I’m not the only one who thinks netbooks fill a genuine need. Have a look at the comments under the jkontherun.com article. Several people made comments like these:

• “I have an iPhone and still need a netbook to function”
• “I purchased a netbook about a month ago and love it…I never think twice about throwing my 2 lb. Mini 9 in my bag when I travel.”
• “Netbooks can do a lot of what most people who bought the Air do with them and have more USB ports, have a user replaceable battery, do not require a bag big enough to carry a 13 or 15″ laptop…”
• “With respect to the ‘junky’ comment, Apple products are not completely free of criticism either.”
• “I like the Apple OS, but their computers are too expensive for my taste. A cheap netbook from Apple would be a reason for people like me to say ‘I WANT’.”
• “That comment about netbooks being ‘junky’ is exemplary of how pathetic and out-of-touch Apple is. HP rolled out a no-compromise netbook exactly 1 year ago with the 2133 mininote.”

Back in October, Steve Jobs said “We don’t know how to make a $500 computer that’s not a piece of junk; our DNA will not let us do that.” I think he’s probably right, and that’s unfortunate. I think the main reason Apple hasn’t entered the netbook market already is its “elitist” approach to hardware. I suspect that if Apple sat down to design a netbook, they’d start with a unibody aluminum case, MagSafe power adapter, high-end display, dual-core processor, accelerometer, etc., and wind up with a device that can’t be manufactured for under $600-700. When you tack a profit margin on to that, you wind up with something in the price range of a 13″ MacBook. I’m sure it would be a decent device, but why would a consumer pay $900 for a 9-10″ Apple netbook when for about the same price they could get the full-blown 13″ MacBook? I don’t think they would.

Because Apple’s “DNA” won’t let them make an inexpensive Mac netbook, at least some number of Mac fans are buying inexpensive netbooks like the Dell Inspiron Mini 9 and hacking OS X onto it. I have no idea how many sales Apple is potentially losing here (or if they care, though I think they should), but it wouldn’t surprise me to find that the number is fairly significant. I also have no idea if those people are buying an OS X license to install on the machines, or if they’re pirating one. If so, Apple is again losing potential revenue.

While I think netbooks enjoy advantages over full notebooks in battery life, weight, size, and price, their days may be numbered. As “green computing” interest grows, processors, motherboards, video chipsets, and displays are all being engineered to be more power efficient, so the netbook battery life advantage may become less significant. As components continue to get more powerful and cheaper, the price advantage of the netbook may erode as well. On the other hand, many people still lament the passing of the HP Jornada so perhaps there will always be a market for a computer to fill the space between PDA and notebook. Time will tell.

A Taiwanese firm, Elan Microelectronics, is suing Apple over its multi-touch technology. Elan alleges that Apple is using its technology without permission. Why sue Apple now? According to The Register, “An Elan spokesperson told the New York Times that licensing talks between the two firms have been going on for two years, but that it ‘couldn’t find a common viewpoint with Apple’ and so ‘we decided we had to take action’.”

Before you dismiss the Elan claim out of hand, consider that they previously won a preliminary court injunction against Synaptics in a dispute that may involve “at least one of the patents mentioned in Elan’s case against Apple”. Elan and Synaptics eventually reached a cross-licensing agreement. It remains to be seen if Apple and Elan will do the same.

Malware (malicious software) is nothing new. Viruses, worms, Trojans, adware, and spyware have existed for decades. While Windows users are generally on the lookout for potential malware infections, this has been generally unheard-of in Macintosh and Linux circles. In fact, the relative lack of malware for the Macintosh platform has led many Mac fans to believe that Mac OS X is impervious to malware. This is, of course, a mistaken assumption.

As security expert Charlie Miller proved recently, it’s possible to break into a Mac remotely by directing users to a specially-crafted web page that exploits vulnerabilities in Mac OS X and Safari. Miller used an undisclosed weakness in Safari and OS X to take control of (and win) a MacBook at the CanSecWest conference. In other interviews, Miller has been quoted as saying that it’s relatively easy to break OS X and Safari. It should be noted that Miller has managed to break into and win a MacBook two years in a row at the conference.

Recently, a group of security researchers identified an all-Macintosh botnet. A botnet is a collection of computers that is (usually) built by compromising the security of those systems and installing software that gives the creator remote control of those systems. The botnet operator (who generally does not own any of the systems involved) can use the machines in the botnet to send spam email, conduct “denial of service” attacks against web sites, or perform other malicious or illegal activity… all without the knowledge or consent of the PC owner.

Some time ago, it was learned that malware had been slipped inside of pirated copies of Apple iLife ‘09 placed on popular torrent sites. It was later found in some other pirated software. Users who downloaded and installed this pirated software unknowingly also installed botnet software onto their Macs. It’s now known that the botnet software installed onto these machines is being used to conduct denial of service attacks, making this the first Mac-only botnet found “in the wild” by researchers.

It’s important to note, if for no other reason than to stem off a flood of hate mail, several things. This particular botnet software only affected a machine if its owner installed a pirated copy of software infected with the malware. So, in a sense, these users took a risk installing the pirated software and are now (probably unknowingly) paying the price. It should also be noted that, as currently designed, this botnet doesn’t attempt to spread to other uninfected machines. That makes it different from a virus or worm.

What’s significant about this is that it shows Mac users are just as vulnerable to “social engineering” attacks as users of any other computing platform. Users in this case thought they were getting a free copy of a commercial software product, and they did, but they also installed the malware right along with it and didn’t realize it. Would antivirus software have protected these users from the infection? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on whether their antivirus tool is aware of this particular malware.

If you’ve downloaded any pirated software for your Mac recently, you might want to learn more about this software and find out if you’ve been compromised.

If you think all the really cool technologies these days come out of Cupertino, Computerworld’s got a story that might change your mind. In John Brandon’s article “Inside HP Labs: 8 Cool Projects” you’ll learn about some of the neat things researchers are working on there. Included in the article are:

• Flexible Displays: Computer displays as crisp and readable as today’s LCD panels but capable of being rolled up and tucked into a backpack.
• Color Thesaurus: A way to identify a desired color by name or similarity to a known color.
• Snapfish Pet Eye: A tool for removing the equivalent of “red eye” in photos of family pets, just as red-eye reduction in cameras and digital photo tools removes it from photos of human beings.
• Sustainable Data Center: A low-environmental-impact way to run a corporate data center.
• Photonics: The use of light for data communication and networking, even within chips and other system components.
• BookPrep: On-demand printing of out-of-print books.
• MagCloud.com: Allows anyone to become a print magazine publisher by submitting a PDF of the magazine to MagCloud and letting HP print it as the orders come in.
• CloudPrint: Print a document “to the cloud” on the Internet and retrieve it later.

Given Apple’s traditional dominance in media creation, it surprises me that they haven’t created something similar to MagCloud or BookPrep for Macintosh users. On the other hand, perhaps the more-critical piece is the printing and binding side of the equation, which HP is in a much better position to deliver.

I’ve seen Mac users claim in online debates that all the “important” innovations in personal computing technology started at Apple. They point to things like the floppy drives of the Apple II, the GUI in the Mac, the mouse, etc., as innovations that Apple brought to the world. If you look at the history of these things, you’ll see that there were entrants into the market before Apple. Apple merely had the distinction of being successfull with these technologies. It’s good to see companies like HP and Microsoft showing off the products of their research, helping to dispel any myth that only Apple invents the “cool” technologies.

While fiddling around a bit with the Safari 4 Beta for Windows (more on this in the future), I found myself on the Apple home page. There I saw a piece of “Hot News” from Apple, inviting teachers to bring their students on a field trip to the Apple Store for “an unforgettable learning experience”. When I read the page on their site about these “field trips” I was first appalled at the nerve, then amazed that I seem to be the only one outraged by it. I haven’t seen a single mention of this in the mainstream media.

Let’s look at the mechanics of how the “field trip” works. Teachers arrange in advance to bring up to 25 students into the Apple Store. For one hour, Apple will have “trainers and experts” there to “answer questions and give expert, on-the-spot advice”. Kids get a free T-shirt. Apple will also “share” their work with others in the store.

The kids will spend something less than an hour using the iLife apps to create something. Maybe they’ll use iWeb to produce a web page. Maybe iPhoto to build a photo album. Given the time constraints, it’s unlikely they’ll be doing much more than dropping some little thing they’ve created into one of the canned templates built into the Apple applications. Then, they’ll show it to the Apple Store employees, who will no doubt act suitably impressed. They’ll show it to their teachers, who of course will also “ooh” and “ahh” over it. Then comes the hidden sales pitch that Apple’s banking on…

The kid shows this cookie-cutter creation to the parents. The parents, who probably aren’t Mac-savvy (given that the odds are greater than 90% that they’re Windows users), will walk away thinking their little offspring created not only the badly-spelled words in their iWeb page, but probably also all the fancy graphics around the outside (which were only part of the template supplied by Apple and not modified by the child). They walk away thinking something like, “Junior can’t spell very well, but he can make a pretty web page. Maybe I should get him a Mac so he can become a great web designer instead of slinging fries at the local burger joint.”

Even if parents don’t walk away thinking they need a Mac, Apple still wins because there are 25 cute little moppets running around wearing T-shirts that cleverly depict an iMac and a couple of iPods among images of an astronaut, space shuttle, book, globe, etc. The kiddies are now walking, talking, bright orange Apple ads.

On the one hand, I have to admire Apple’s marketing genius here. Appeal to teachers, who are probably Mac fans because of Apple’s traditional presence in K-12 education. (Though, as we’ve discussed recently, this may be changing as school technology budgets decrease.) These teachers bring in 25 kids, who walk out thinking they’re great artists because of the Mac’s built-in templates, and proudly go home showing their parents their creations. Some number of parents are impressed enough to get the kid a Mac. Either way, the kids become walking, talking, bright-orange Apple billboards. I can’t think of any marketing opportunity Apple missed in the design of these field trips. It’s kind of amazing.

At the same time, though, it’s pretty galling.

What’s the educational value here? How much computer skill can be developed in an hour, especially since that hour also appears to include passing out t-shirts and taking a tour of the store? As I’ve said before, I’m all in favor of exposing kids to computer technology, whether it’s Apple’s, Microsoft’s, or anyone else’s. I just question the percentage of learning that will go on versus “marketing and sales”… Kids are already exposed to a lot of advertising in the television they watch, the web sites they visit, etc. Do we really need to take time away from reading, writing, and math to expose them to an Apple sales pitch, however well-intentioned it might be? (And yes, if this was a field trip to a “Microsoft Store” or “Best Buy” it would be just as obnoxious.)

I’d rather see the money Apple’s spending bringing in the “trainers and experts” and printing the t-shirts spent on deeper educational discounts on Mac hardware. That would have to have a much deeper and longer-lasting impact on the kids’ education than a one-hour sales pitch at their nearest Apple Store.

ZDNet’s Ryan Naraine posted the text of an interview with computer security researcher Charlie Miller, the guy who broke into a fully-patched Apple MacBook using a Safari exploit at the CanSecWest security conference during its “Pwn2Own” challenge.

When asked about the vulnerability used at CanSecWest, Miller indicated that he was under a non-disclosure agreement and couldn’t say much, but that “It was an exploit against Safari 4 and it also works on Safari 3.” Miller doesn’t know if it works on Safari for Windows.

Underscoring the fact that security exploitation, including the writing of viruses, worms, Trojans, etc., is much more a business now than ever before, Miller says that he never gives the bugs he finds away free. “I have a new campaign,” he says, “It’s called NO MORE FREE BUGS. Vulnerabilities have a market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an exploit and then give it away. Apple pays people to do the same job so we know there’s value to this work. No more free bugs.“

When asked why he didn’t go after Internet Explorer or Firefox, Miller said “It’s really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don’t do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don’t have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you’d find in Windows. It’s more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn’t have anti-exploit stuff built into it.”

When asked about the relative ease of exploiting a system, Miller said that “For all the browsers on operating systems, the hardest target is Firefox on Windows. With Firefox on Mac OS X, you can do whatever you want. There’s nothing in the Mac operating system that will stop you.”

Regardless, every browser and every operating system has flaws. Most Windows users recognize this and employ firewalls, antivirus software, etc., to help mitigate the threat. Linux users also typically employ tools to protect themselves from attack. Mac users, by and large, seem to have bought into an idea that OS X is virtually impenetrable to attack and for the most part do not take extra steps to protect themselves. Are they right, or are they inviting an inevitable attack? Only time will tell.

PC Magazine published a very thought-provoking article by Neil J. Rubenking entitled “OpenDNS: ‘Conficker’ Barely Scratched U.S.” in which we learn that the much-publicized Conficker worm didn’t hit very many personal computers in the United States. The free OpenDNS service which handles domain name service (DNS) lookups for its customers was in a unique position to monitor and track the number of machines infected by the worm based on their DNS activity.

As Rubenking reports, “Around five percent of all OpenDNS customers evidenced infection by the Conficker worm. Despite the fact that roughly half of OpenDNS’s users are in the United States, the vast majority of infections came from elsewhere. Under 5 percent of infected systems came from the U.S.; it’s not even in the top five of countries affected by the worm, which are: Vietnam (13 percent), Brazil (12 percent), Philippines (11 percent), Indonesia (10 percent), and Algeria (7 percent).”

Elsewhere, it’s been speculated that the areas hardest hit by the Conficker worm are nations where Microsoft Windows is widely pirated. Since pirated copies of Windows have a much harder time getting security patches and updates from Microsoft, they are much more vulnerable to malware like the Conficker worm. In countries like the United States, where Windows isn’t pirated as widely, infection rates are much lower.

Within the Mac fanbase, a widely held perception is that Windows PCs “constantly” get viruses, worms, and other malware. Apple likes to perpetuate this myth in its advertising (remember the commercial where “poor PC” is sneezing and falling over because of a virus infection?). The reality for most Windows users, especially those here in the United States, is that we’re fairly well protected against malware. Am I suggesting PC users in the U.S. never see a virus infection? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that the prevailing image in the Mac community of Windows users suffering from “constant” malware infection is exaggerated, at least in the U.S. and other areas where pirated software is less widely used. (Pirated software, even for the Mac, is often used to sneak malware onto the systems of unsuspecting users.)

Clayton Lai of theAppleBlog reported what appears to be a MacBook Pro design flaw yesterday in his article entitled “The Curious Case of the Missing MacBook Pro Keyboard and Trackpad“. Lai reports that about three weeks ago his keyboard and trackpad began to fail “randomly for no apparent reason” and that sometimes not even a reboot would resolve the problem.

The symptoms are described as the keyboard and trackpad becoming unresponsive after waking from sleep, the keyboard becoming unusable at the login screen, the keyboard being sometimes active at boot and sometimes not, external keyboards and mice working fine even when the internal ones don’t, and the keyboard/trackpad becoming unresponsive while OS X is running.

Lai provides evidence indicating that the issue is associated with the ribbon cable (located under the battery) used to connect the keyboard and trackpad with the laptop’s motherboard. “I suspect that the jostling of the MacBook Pro, specifically its batter, against my body over time has weakened the connection of the ribbon cable to the trackpad.

A solution is provided in the article: “Simply take a small piece of paper, such as a Post-It, and fold it in half. Stick it over the spot on the ribbon cable. Then reinstall the removable battery. The battery should exert enough pressure on the piece of paper to keep the ribbon cable working. If your MacBook Pro is still under warranty, take it to an Apple service center. While Apple has not officially acknowledged that this is a widespread problem, it’s afflicted the machines of many owners, so surely it’s not unknown to them.”

According to The Globe and Mail, Toronto DJ Alan Cross recently interviewed U2’s Bono after a concert in Boston. After Bono finished the “secret” concert, Cross encountered him at a reception. Cross told Bono he had friends who worked for Research in Motion (RIM, the makers of the Blackberry). He asked Bono about a new relationship between U2 and RIM. “I’m very excited about this,” Bono said, “Research in Motion is going to give us what Apple wouldn’t – access to their labs and their people so we can do something really spectacular.”

We’ve discussed before how Apple’s penchant for extreme secrecy surrounding its product plans often hurts the company. It hurts Apple in the enterprise marketplace. It sometimes hurts them with consumers. And, apparently, it also stops them from making potentially lucrative business deals.

Will U2’s “secret” Blackberry application topple the iPhone from its “media darling” perch? Probably not, but it may help keep a number of Blackberry fans loyal to their favorite phones. Provided, of course, that they’re U2 fans, too.

Earlier this year, I received about $150 in cash for my birthday. Recently, I read an article indicating that the Micro Center computer stores were blowing out the previous-generation Mac Mini (brand new) for $549 with an extra $50 discount. To sweeten the deal, they were offering a $100 mail in rebate, bringing the effective price down to about $400. Factor in the $150 I still hadn’t figured out how to spend, and it would mean I’d effectively pay $250 for the machine (plus tax, etc.). Even as low-end as the Mac Mini is, it’s not a bad deal at $250. So, after some pondering as to whether or not I really wanted to do this, I ended up buying it. It’s still sitting, sealed, in the box in my den. I haven’t yet brought myself around to opening it up.

I’ve said before that I wouldn’t buy a Mac until there was something I wanted to do with it that only a Mac could do. Recently, I decided that I wanted to do some benchmarking that compares Mac OS X Leopard, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Linux. The ideal way to do that and get as close to an “Apples to apples” (pun intended) comparison was to actually do the benchmarking on a Mac.

I could try it on a “Hackintosh” (non-Apple hardware running a hacked OS X) but that could invalidate the results. After all, it’s hard to know what effect the changes to the “official” Leopard build might have on performance. Perhaps the Hackintosh build would be faster, because it lacked some of the protection checks Apple makes in the software. Perhaps it would be slower, because it would be running on hardware that OS X wasn’t optimized to use. Regardless, the best answer would be to load a “real” Mac with the various OSes and do the benchmarking. That was my main justification for buying the machine. Beyond that, it would be good to be able to verify any Mac-related comments I may make in the future against the actual machine.

So, when I finally unpack the thing and hook it up, I’ll be in possession of the first Mac I’ve owned since 1998. How much I’ll actually USE it (for anything not related to this site) is yet to be seen. As I’ve said many times before, I haven’t found a computing task in 11 years that I’ve wanted to do that required a Mac. Other than the aforementioned benchmarking (which only requires a Mac for comparative purposes) that’s still true.

CNET’s David Carnoy asked the question “Is it uncool to be a Mac user in these tough times?” on March 27, 2009. The article was sparked by a recent Microsoft ad which takes aim at the price of Mac laptops. In the ad, a woman is told that if she can find a 17″ laptop for under $1,000 she can have it. She goes shopping, first at the Apple Store, where of course there’s no laptop in that price range. She then goes to a consumer electronics store where she finds a 17″ HP laptop in the right price range. At this point, she declares “I’m just not cool enough to be a Mac person.“

As Carnoy points out, Mac fans are quick to jump to the company’s defense when a point like this is made. They discuss the build quality of Apple units, their design, the bundled software, and various other features that a mere price comparison doesn’t bring to light.

Windows fans are pleased to see Microsoft striking back at Apple in an area where it’s traditionally been weak. Apple may (or may not, depending on your perspective) make good products but they are definitely not cheap. This is an area where Linux and Windows have an advantage over Apple and OS X. You can in fact buy a 17″ Windows laptop for under $700… a new laptop with good specifications and features. Last time I checked, there isn’t a new laptop in Apple’s product line of any size or specification priced at under $700.

The point Carnoy is trying to highlight in his article, however, isn’t whether that $699 HP laptop is in fact “better” or “worse” than a MacBook. His point is that with the economy in the shape it’s in, with people looking to save money where they can, attempting to avoid any appearance of ostentatiousness or luxury, is it “uncool” to be a Mac user? Macs are seen as “high-end” products, even Apple’s web site implies as much. Macs are also seen as expensive relative to PCs (and I know, there are reasons why this can be a mistaken perception). So, given this state of affairs, is it uncool to be seen carrying around a luxury, “designer” laptop? Maybe. It all depends on your point of view.

Personally, if you’ve just purchased (for example) a new MacBook Air and in your next breath tell me that you’re having trouble making your car payments, or that you’re worried about losing your job, or that you can’t afford to get your car repaired, I’m probably going to secretly question your sanity… without any thought about your “coolness”. On the other hand, if your finances are in order, you prefer the Mac for reasons that mean something to you, and your family isn’t suffering because of your purchase, I’ve got no problem with you having the latest, greatest Mac. It’s your money, it’s your life, and you should do with both as you please.

As we’ve discussed here before, each person’s “value” proposition is different. To me, it’s not worth a premium to have Apple’s “unibody” cases, MagSafe power cords, and other MacBook features. I’m sure they’re nice, but they wouldn’t add anything at all to my use or enjoyment of a laptop. So paying extra to get a MacBook when I can find the same hardware specs from an HP, Dell, Gateway, Lenovo, etc., seems frivilous to me. But that’s my point of view, yours could be very different (and I wouldn’t say it was “wrong” just because we disagreed).

I guess what I’m saying is that it’s not “uncool” to be a Mac user any more than it’s uncool to use Windows, Linux, or any other OS. The “uncool” Mac users I’ve met are uncool not because of the hardware or OS they use but for the way they treat other computer users. It’s OK to promote the Mac if you find it superior for your needs, and it’s fine to provide objective criticism of other platforms. Technical criticism is good, provided it is in fact “technical” and not emotional. Technical “evangelism” is also (generally) good. It invites debate and analysis. But, it’s decidedly very “uncool” to attack the person using the other platform, or disparage their choices and opinions, simply because your views differ. Mac users who “hate” Windows users or Linux users merely because they’re not Mac users, are very uncool… at least, that’s my opinion. (And yes, Windows or Linux users who hate other computer users merely for their choice of OS are uncool, too.)

According to Macworld, Apple and AT&T are being sued for “over-promising and under-delivering on their claims of fast Internet access of the iPhone 3G.” Plaintiff Damone Dickerson claims that Apple misrepresented the speed, strength, and performance of the 3G network. Dickerson claims he could only connect to the 3G network a fraction of the time and that it didn’t provide “full and continual service”. He says that most of the time he receives no 3G connectivity at all. He is seeking to force Apple and AT&T to correct iPhone 3G labeling and advertising in addition to paying financial damages.

As Macworld reports, “This isn’t the first lawsuit claiming Apple and AT&T misrepresented the speed of the 3G network. The companies were sued in San Jose, San Diego, Alabama, Florida, and Texas. Apple has asked that a similar case in New York be dismissed.”

The popularity of the iPhone appears to be something of a double-edged sword for Apple. On the one hand, they’re gaining lots of new customers who previously hadn’t owned an Apple product, which is no doubt good for their bottom line and sales of other Apple products. On the other hand, many of these people are unfamiliar with Apple and how it tends to advertise its products, which leads to misinterpretation and disappointment. Apple likes to describe its products using “absolutes” like these:

“The first…”

“The most powerful…”

“The most advanced…”

“The fastest…”

While all companies tout the benefits of their products in their advertising and downplay the negatives, Apple has a tendency to deliver the positives as “absolutes” (as evidenced above, the “fastest” or “most powerful” or “most advanced”) and ignore the negatives completely. This sets the company up for lawsuits from people who are new to Apple’s way of advertising its products.

Apple fans tend to take these somewhat-arrogant phrases as typical Apple “spin” and don’t get too upset if they prove not to be true 100% of the time, in all circumstances. For example, an Apple fan won’t get too bent out of shape when they travel from New York City to a tiny Midwestern town and don’t find 3G network access there. They’ll be disappointed, of course, but they won’t likely rush to find an attorney.

Consider the following statement taken directly from Apple’s web site for the iPhone (as of this writing on March 21, 2009):

A person unfamiliar with Apple could easily read the above blurb and interpret it to say “Wherever I go in the world, I will have 3G speed available to my iPhone 3G.” After all, that’s exactly what Apple says, and there aren’t any phrases qualifying where and how that access is affected. If you look on the same page, way down at the bottom, in very small type, in a very light color against a white background, you’ll see Apple has a little more to say about the subject:

(Highlighting provided to make the text easier to read.)

It’s not that Apple hasn’t warned consumers that iPhone 3G speed “depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, 3G/EDGE connectivity, feature configuration, usage, the Internet, and many other factors” and that “actual results may vary”. Clearly, they have. But how many consumers will read that first statement “3G speed. Worldwide.” and decide that’s just what they need, without bothering to scroll way down the page and pick out that hard-to-read type implying that the speed and availability aren’t always available everywhere under all conditions?

I’m not saying this is entirely Apple’s fault. It isn’t. After all, they ARE explaining on the page where the claim is made that it depends on a lot of factors. If consumers don’t read that text, well, it’s their mistake to assume that all the marketing speak is absolutely true, in all cases. On the other hand, a little wordsmithing to Apple’s “3G speed. Worldwide.” blurb above would clarify the situation without taking anything away from the phone or AT&T’s service. For example, it could have read:

3G speed. Worldwide.
When you travel around the world with your iPhone 3G, you’ll have Internet access wherever compatible 3G networks exist, and it will be as fast as circumstances allow. iPhone 3G also makes it possible…

Potential iPhone 3G customers would have a harder time misinterpreting that blurb to mean that 3G access is always available, everywhere, at full speed. Sure, this version doesn’t deliver the punch of “fast access to the Internet… around the world” but it’s more truthful, more accurate, and less likely to result in a lawsuit. Can you imagine trying to convince a judge or jury that the above blurb convinced you that your iPhone would always deliver fast access everywhere you went? Try it again with Apple’s version. It’s easy to imagine an attorney saying to the judge and/or jury, “Apple tells you that you’ll have 3G speed, worldwide, right there in the big bold type. Right below it, they reiterate that the iPhone 3G has ‘fast access to the Internet and email over cellular networks around the world.’ It’s only far down the page, in tiny little type, in a color that almost blends into the background, that they bother to say that access isn’t really worldwide and isn’t always fast. This kind of ‘deception’ is why you should award my client $X in damages.” Would a judge or jury buy it? Maybe. Maybe not.

The problem with claims like “the most powerful operating system” is that they’re really subjective. There is no way to conclusively prove that Mac OS X is (or isn’t) the most “powerful” operating system because there is no single definition of “powerful” that we can universally agree on. Maybe “powerful” to me implies the ability to run on the largest set of hardware available in the marketplace (i.e., I have the “power” to run it anywhere). If that’s my definition, then Windows is more powerful than OS X (since OS X only runs on a specific set of Apple hardware and Windows runs on a lot more), and Linux is probably more powerful than both. Your definition might focus on something else, like how fast it renders video or copies files. And you know what? We’re both right… because we both define “more powerful” differently.

I respect and admire the fact that Apple is proud of its products. I respect that they go to great lengths to make their products fast, easy to use, and attractive to look at. I respect the fact that many people around the world (including me, once upon a time) covet their Apple products and believe that they’re the best at whatever it is that they do. It’s good that Apple and its customers take that kind of pride in the products (at least, I think it is). But absolutes like “the fastest”, “the best”, “the most powerful”, “the best looking”, etc., are subjective, hard to prove, and tend to come across as arrogant. Apple could save itself a lot of trouble, and probably not affect its sales a bit, by just dialing back on the absolutes a little (e.g., calling OS X “one of the most powerful operating systems” or just “a powerful operating system”). But as Dennis Miller often says, “that’s my opinion… I could be wrong.”

The staff over at The Tech Report did a great job of analyzing the “value” of most shipping desktop PC processors on its web site. In the article, they try to illustrate the price/performance characteristics of various Intel-based CPU chips based on their price and performance under certain benchmark scenarios. While it’s not intended to be an exhaustive guide to every possible processor and performance scenario, they seem to have selected a good mix of possible personal computer uses and explaining how some CPUs can be a better choice than others depending on what you’re doing with them.

For instance, in video rendering work using Cinebench, the Intel Core i7 920 seemed to provide a good mix of price and performance characteristics. However, for the Crysis Warhead game, the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 was among the better-placed solutions. The E8400 also did well for Far Cry 2. For Unreal Tournament 3, the AMD Phenom II X 720 did well.

While the information provided in The Tech Report’s article should be taken as “law” it does provide a good look at processor price/performance for a range of potential uses. In the conclusion, they say that “Generally speaking, AMD’s Phenom II X4 processors appear to be slightly better deals than the Intel Core 2 Quad equivalents.” The Intel Core i7 920 “really distances itself from other processors in multithreaded tasks, but without giving much ground to dual-core chips in other tasks. Pricey X58 motherboards and DDR3 memory make the i7 920 an expensive step up, but clearly, you’re not throwing your money out the window.”

In any case, it’s an interesting article. Though the tests may focus on Windows-based benchmarking, the numbers may have some relevance to Mac users attempting to select the right model from Apple’s lineup. (Unfortunately, it doesn’t include an analysis of the price/performance of the Xeon chips Apple uses in the Mac Pro because those are considered “server” chips – or perhaps because they weren’t available for testing.)

Security researcher Charlie Miller made good on his threat that Apple’s Safari web browser would fall first in this year’s CanSecWest Pwn2Own security challenge. This is the second year in a row that Miller has hacked into a fully-patched MacBook by exploiting a security weakness in Safari. Later in the conference, Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox also fell to attackers, proving that none of the web browsers is particularly more secure than the others. All of them have flaws which can be exploited.

Naturally, the folks at AppleInsider spun the story to imply that Apple’s security (while falling first) is nonetheless vastly superior to everyone else’s. In spite of their inherent bias toward Apple’s products, AppleInsider makes some interesting points. Their article is worth reading. Some of their commentary elicits a response, however.

AppleInsider argues that OS X looks more vulnerable than Linux in security contests because fewer researchers target Linux because it’s “hard work” to find a usable Linux exploit. AppleInsider then goes on to claim that Apple’s use of open source components is what makes OS X appear vulnerable. At first blush, this is a contradiction. If it’s hard work to find an exploit in open source Linux, why would Apple’s use of open source make it easier to exploit OS X? The answer is something AppleInsider conveniently omits: Apple takes longer to update its open source components than typical Linux distributions. Because of this delay, vulnerable versions of open source components remain part of Mac OS X for a while. Known, documented exploits for those components are recorded in bug databases for those open source projects (typically on the Internet where anyone can get to them). Finding a “Mac exploit”, then, is as simple as finding an open source component Apple hasn’t updated yet.

AppleInsider also reports that a study showed there were 678 patches released by Microsoft between 2002 and 2007, while Apple released 815. AppleInsider says that the use of open source enables Apple to “issue more security patches and operating system updates than Microsoft does”, implying that this is a good thing. It’s not necessarily indicative of better security. A counter argument would be that this shows far more bugs in Apple’s products than Microsoft’s, implying more security weaknesses in total, and overall weaker security. That’s not necessarily true, it’s just another way to spin the same data.

AppleInsider did take the opportunity to quote Jeff Jones, the director of Microsoft’s security group, who claimed that contests like Pwn2Own just show security experts what they already know, which is that “any machine can be broken under the right circumstances” and that it’s not worth reading too much into the Pwn2Own results. It’s interesting to see Mac fans quote Microsoft security guys as experts while trashing Microsoft’s product security.

At the end of its post, AppleInsider implies that because Apple didn’t write the open source components of Mac OS X, it’s not fair to count bugs in those components as OS X bugs. It would only be fair, they argue, if you counted bugs in the Windows versions of those same components in Microsoft’s totals. At first glance, this is reasonable, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Apple leverages open source software to get OS X functionality to market without the associated development effort and cost. There’s nothing wrong with that. But by including open source software as part of the OS X distribution, they effectively assume responsibility for the bugs in that code just as if they’d written it themselves. If there are any open source components in Windows (none come to mind), then it’s just as appropriate to count bugs in those components as Windows bugs.

A perfect example of a situation where an open source component’s bugs should be included in OS X bug totals and not in Windows bug totals is the Apache web server software. Apple uses Apache in Mac OS X Server. It ships as part of OS X. While there is an Apache for Windows, Microsoft does not include that in Windows distributions, instead bundling its own Internet Information Services (or “IIS”). In this situation, it’s fair to count Apache bugs as Mac OS X Server bugs. Apple had access to the source code, after all, and could in theory have taken the time to comb over it and fix the bugs before releasing Apache as part of OS X. It’s not fair to count Apache bugs as Windows bugs in this case, because Microsoft didn’t include Apache in Windows. (Yes, it may run on Windows and have the same bugs there, but it’s not PART of Windows like it’s part of OS X.) It’s similarly fair to count IIS bugs as Windows bugs (and naturally not as Mac bugs), because that’s part of the Windows distribution as Microsoft shipped it.

In any case, this article is straying from its intended point, which is to say that the CanSecWest Pwn2Own contest should not be taken as an indication that (because Safari on OS X fell first) Apple’s products are “less secure” than Windows or Linux. However, the contest results should serve to Mac fans as a sobering reminder that Mac OS X and Safari are not bulletproof. The products have weaknesses, those weaknesses can be exploited, and while Mac users may have had less historic reason to worry about malware than Windows users, that doesn’t mean they’re immune to it. As Microsoft’s Jeff Jones said, any machine can be broken… even a Mac.

Macintosh sales slid even further in February than in January, according to NPD Group statistics quoted in Macworld. Overall, Mac sales dropped 16% in February. Unit sales of MacBooks dropped 7% while unit sales of Mac desktops dropped 36%. During the same timeframe, PC sales increased by 22% based on strong netbook PC sales.

There are lots of comments on the Macworld page explaining why Apple’s sales numbers declined in February, including a lack of new model introductions, people holding on to older Macs longer, etc. Regardless, it does show that Apple’s customers are sensitive to economic conditions, more so than the larger personal computer market (which showed a sales increase).

The Apple rumor mill says that the company recently placed an order for 10″ multi-touch displays which will reportedly be used to build some kind of Apple-branded netbook. Apple, of course, has not confirmed any of these rumors. Perhaps the brisk sales of netbook PCs has convinced Apple that it’s time to try its hand at those “interesting ideas” Steve Jobs hinted at before taking his leave of absence. What remains to be seen, in this writer’s opinion, is whether Apple can provide a device that competes in the netbook space not just functionally but in terms of price as well. While I’m sure Apple fans would line up for a thin, lite, 10-inch Mac netbook of some type, I’m not convinced Apple will capture any share of the market unless its device compares favorably in price as well. For instance, if their “netbook” debuts at a price like $850, it’s going to have a hard time matching up with devices in the $250-450 range no matter how impressive its feature set (at least as long as the economy continues as it has been lately).

I hate reality shows. (Actually, I hate a lot of commercial television.) I don’t enjoy dancing, or watching people dance. So it takes something pretty special to get me to intentionally sit down and watch a reality TV show about dancing celebrities. It just so happens that Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak (”Woz”) is the kind of “special” that made me want to do it. Had it been Steve Jobs, I wouldn’t have even bothered to figure out what night the show was on.

I watched Woz take his first tentative dance steps in the “pre-competition” part of the show, reminding me of a dancing hippo in a cartoon. (That wasn’t meant to be a cheap shot at your weight, Woz… I was more talking about the way the show made you seem ungraceful at the start.) When it came time for the competition, there was a well-dressed Woz sporting a bright pink feather boa. I knew I was in for a treat at that point.

Over the next few minutes, Woz danced with his partner. While she was graceful and fluid, Woz…. well, not so much. But he did a much better job than my wife thought he would, and a lot better than I think I would have done under the circumstances. Unfortunately, Woz’s score was the lowest of the night, and he took quite a ribbing from the judges. Still, he kept his sense of humor and did his best.

While I’m no longer a fan of Apple (nor do I hate it), and am no fan of Steve Jobs, I have long been (and still am) a big fan of Woz. I actually wish I knew him personally. He’s incredibly intelligent. He has a great sense of humor. And although he’s a billionaire, he’s very down to earth. I think he’d be a great friend.

So Woz, if you’re listening, just know that I’m pulling for you and I’ll watch all your performances for as long as you remain on the show. Good luck, guy. I’d love to see you win.