The Mac Sucks!

According to theappleblog.com, there is some indication that Apple has downgraded the SATA disk interface found in the latest generation of MacBooks relative to the previous generation. The new interfaces reportedly top out at 1.5 Gbit/sec versus the 3.0 Gbit/sec of the previous generation machines. To be fair, it would be hard to tell the difference in speed using today’s mechanical laptop hard drives or low-end solid-state disks (SSDs), but if you are the type of user who typically likes to upgrade to the latest and fastest technology, this may concern you. The highest-end SSDs today deliver better performance than these MacBooks would appear to support.

For many users, this alleged downgrade won’t be noticeable and probably saves Apple some money. Those who use their laptops for activities that are highly dependent on disk speed (such as video editing and photographic manipulation) may notice the decrease. Those who have had an eye toward replacing their physical hard disks with SSDs when the prices decline may also have a reason to be concerned (as this won’t allow those devices to deliver their best possible performance).

As theappleeblog’s Charles Jade reports, “Those considering a long-term purchase of a MacBook Pro, with the intent of upgrading to an SSD in the future, would do well to wait until more is known. As for those like myself who own unibody MacBooks bought before last week, this news puts a little salve on the burn of being without FireWire.”

According to The Register, Apple’s MagSafe power adapter “may be mag(netic), safe it ain’t” according to three plaintiffs who have filed a class-action suit against the company. The suit alleges that the 60-watt and 850-watt MagSafe adapters have been “negligently designed and manufactured” which can lead to the cable fraying and the power supply failing to work. The plaintiffs allege that even in normal use the power adapter’s cord becoes damaged where it attaches to the magnetic plug. Anecdotes are reported, including one user whose adapter’s cable began to melt, shorted out, and stopped working.

The complaint says that over 1,000 reviews of the adapter have been posted on Apple’s web store, with the “vast majority” reportedly being negative and warning Apple about the hazards of the adapter. The plaintiffs are asking Apple to either produce an adapter that doesn’t have the problems or refund the full purchase price of their laptops.

The Register points out that Apple had a similar issue with Powerbook G3 adapters back in 2001, and asks “is it that hard for the wizards of Cupertino to design and manufacture a laptop power adapter that doesn’t come back and bite them in the legal bum?”

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.

According to an April 8 report on CNET, “Apple has apparently begun to acknowledge the existence of small white cracks in older plastic MacBooks, according to a report.” Apparently, users of the 13-inch MacBooks began noticing cracks in their devices in four different spots. The company is now telling its service agents to inspect for the cracks and service any notebooks found to have them.

While it’s good that Apple is taking care of its customers, even those for whom the warranty has expired, this stands as evidence that Apple’s hardware products are not entirely trouble-free as its advertisements and proponents would like to claim.

As CNET’s Tom Krazit reported recently, it’s been a year since a then-unknown company called Psystar began offering computers with Apple’s Mac OS X preinstalled on them. Since then, the company has become entangled in a legal battle with Apple over Psystar’s right (or lack of it) to sell computers with Mac OS X on them. Psystar recently introduced a new “Open Computer” in its product line.

As Krazit reports, “Apple’s stance is pretty clear: the end-user licensing agreement that comes with Leopard forbids the user from installing that operating system on anything other than an Apple-labeled computer. Psystar, on the other hand, is attempting to argue that Apple is abusing its copyright on Mac OS X in requiring the operating system to run on Apple hardware…”

Psystsar claims that sales have exceeded their expectations, and that they still plan to release a notebook running Mac OS X at some point. “What Psystar has accomplished is to prove that a Mac OS computer that was not designed by Apple can deliver a satisfactory experience. CNET was one of the first to order an Open Computer in April 2008, and I’ve been using that machine as my primary work system ever since with few issues,” says Krazit. He mentions that while he’s been able to download every update to Leopard released since last April, he hasn’t always been able to download and install updates for Apple application software such as iTunes and iLife.

In terms of the user experience, Krazit reports that “the Open Computer is otherwise an almost identical Mac experience to the MacBook Pro I use at home. When it comes to reliability and service, Psystar may not be able to compete with Apple, but for people who know their way around a computer, the Open Computer is a Mac.”

One of Microsoft’s recent arguments against the Mac has been its notion of an “Apple Tax” that buyers of Apple products pay. Recently, Microsoft went on the offensive against Apple by distributing a (visually) clever fake tax return outlining the details of the “Apple Tax” as presented to them by a researcher they paid to calculate it. The problem with this advertisement as presented by Microsoft and its researcher is that it makes too many assumptions. Then again, it’s only intended as an “example” and not necessarily reflective of what most potential “switchers” would see.

Mac fans: I’m about to say something that’s probably going to make you light up your flamethrowers. But if you wait a moment before you pull the trigger, you might just agree with my “endgame”…

It’s appropriate for Microsoft or Linux advocates to make a comparison between the sticker price of a Macintosh and the sticker price of a PC with comparable hardware specifications. And if you compare the hardware specifications, you’re probably going to find in the majority of cases that the Mac is a little-to-a-lot more expensive than a PC built to match those specifications. However, calling that price difference an “Apple Tax” is fair only to a certain extent.

Since I have a Mac Mini sitting here on my desk, let’s use that Mac model as an example of what I mean. Suppose I live where space is at a premium. To me, it might be worth more to have a computer that is as small as possible. The Mini is, without question, very small. A low-end PC with the same specifications is probably, in most cases, going to be larger. Perhaps I’m willing to pay more to regain some desk or floor space. If so, at least some part of the price difference between a Mini and a standard PC is reflected in that added value to me.

Similarly, the Mini ships with a remote control. If that’s a feature I’m going to use, I need to factor into the price of a comparable PC the hardware (and perhaps software) needed to use that remote (unless the PC happens to include one, which most do not).

The Mini also (at least in my iteration) ships with iLife. If that’s software I will use, then the value of that software should be counted at least at the price I’d pay for Windows (or Linux as appropiate) software to do the same thing. On the other hand, if I don’t use that software (or already have a license to a Windows package that’s equivalent to me), its net value is zero.

Other aspects of the Mini need to be factored into the equation as well. Is it worth a little more to have a slot-loading optical drive? Do I place a value on the “pulsing” power light and similar little touches? Is UNIX compatibility important to me? And so on. Some of these things (like that pulsing power light) are difficult to place a specific monetary value on .

But there situations where, without question, there is an “Apple Tax”. Consider a lifelong Windows user who decides to switch over to the Mac and ditch the PC in the process. In this situation, the user plans to switch completely, and terminate all use of Windows and its applications (i.e., no Parallels, Boot Camp, etc.). The user probably relies on certain software, such as Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, or Nero Burning ROM. The user will need the same, or very comparable, software on the Mac. Thus, the price of Mac OS X licenses for Office, Creative Suite, and a CD/DVD burning application should be considered part of the equation. (I know there are free applications that do similar functions, but let’s assume these aren’t suitable for this particular user because they weren’t suitable on Windows, either.) The cost of switching to a Mac, now, is substantially higher than switching to another PC. Not only does the user have to pay more for the Mac than a standard PC, but the user also has to shell out cash for software that probably would not be necessary for a new PC.

Similarly, there are situations with zero “Apple Tax”. If those little Mac “touches” above are worth something to me and I don’t need to buy any new software or peripherals to switch to the Mac, then the “Apple Tax” is essentially zero. I’m getting something for any extra money I’m paying and I’m not losing anything I care about.

By the same token, there is a “Microsoft Tax” associated with switching from the Mac to Windows, and even a “Linux Tax” associated with going from the Mac to Linux… or not, depending on your personal values, needs, and situation. I think it’s fair for Microsoft to talk about an “Apple Tax” because there is validity to the concept, but it’s equally fair to realize that switches in the other direction have a “tax” on them as well.

Even switching from one Windows PC to another can include a “tax” of sorts. For example, if I switch from a Windows 98 PC to a Windows Vista PC, it’s likely that at least some of my software isn’t going to work. (I personally am surprised at just how much of the older software still works, but not all of it does.) Thus, this software becomes a “tax” associated with the new machine. And if you don’t build your own PCs as I do (and technically even if you do), Microsoft has tried to tie the OS license to the physical hardware, meaning you’re supposed to buy a new license anytime you get a “new” PC. (Though what constitutes a “new” PC is a point for debate… If I keep the same case and some of the components, is that a “new” PC or merely an “upgrade”? If I move all the components to a new case, is that a “new” PC?)

For me personally, a switch from a PC to the Mac entails a level of “Apple Tax” I am unwilling to bear. Having switched from the Mac in the late 1990s, I’ve come to love the fact that I can replace just a few parts of my PC each year at a relatively low cost, and still be using the latest (or near-latest) technology. I may spend $200-600 to do an upgrade, in the process getting a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM that effectively make the existing box as fast as a brand-new off-the-shelf machine. If I decide to scrap the entire system and start over, my typical budget is in the $1200 range. For that price, a Mac Pro is way out of my league, leaving me with a MacBook, iMac, or Mac Mini as options. The MacBook isn’t very upgradeable compared to a desktop PC, so I’d rule that out. The iMac and Mini are also “minimally upgradeable” by my definition. (For example, I can’t go buy a new off-the-shelf motherboard and CPU to drop in the iMac or Mini’s case to bump up the speed like I can for a typical PC.) The Mac Pro would mean doubling or tripling my initial budget (though I might be able to put off an upgrade longer with it), and still isn’t quite as upgradeable as the PC. And for me, Apple’s little touches like the slot-loading optical drive, pulsing power light, case designs, etc., carry little to no value. None of this even addresses software or peripherals, some or all of which I’d need to replace. Thus, for me, the “Apple Tax” is too unbearably high and not justified by any difference in “build quality”, style, or other features. The PCs I build all contain carefully-chosen and high-quality parts, so I don’t see a Mac’s build as superior at all. Your situation, however, is probably different from mine. Thus, your “tax” could be lower (or higher).

When I considered my recent Mac Mini purchase, I thought about it a lot. I use Windows probably 95% of the time and Linux the rest. In 11 years, I haven’t needed a Mac for anything other than the work I’ve done on this site, and until very recently I could get what I needed for that from a Mac at work. (When my job responsibilities changed in 2006, I no longer had as much access to Macs.) In the end, I weighed the factors involved and came to the conclusion that the $250 out of pocket was justified by the material I’d gain for this site during the Mini’s lifetime. The Mini’s lack of upgrade options was of minimal importance as it would not be a machine I used a majority of the time. I’d still have and use my Windows PCs, so there’d be little to no software “tax”. I could use my existing keyboard, mouse, monitor, and KVM switch. In short, there was little loss and a decent potential gain, so I bought it.

TG Daily recently reported that Intel has come under attack for claiming that its new Nehalem Xeon 5500 CPUs are “green” chips. Those of you who follow Apple know that the Xeon 5500 is incorporated into the new Mac Pro desktop computers, so this story should be of interest to Mac fans.

A company named SiCortex (can’t say I’ve heard of them before now) claims that depending on how you define “efficiency” the new Intel CPUs are not efficient. SiCortex claims that under some circumstances, the Nehalem CPUs actually use more power than their predecessors. SiCortex also claims that rather than replacing existing Xeon systems one for one with new Nehalem boxes, companies should use the increased processing power to decrease the number of CPUs in use, and thus more dramatically affect power usage.

SiCortex’s claims should be taken with a certain amount of skepticism, however, as the company happens to produce CPUs that compete with Intel’s. It also likes to position its products as “greener” than the competition, so it’s in their best interests to portray Intel in a bad light.

In Intel’s response to these claims, the company suggests that the most power-efficient CPU is probably one used in a cellular phone, but such CPUs wouldn’t be of much value in a data center environment due to their low performance. When designing the Nehalem chip, Intel focused on features that improved power/performance efficiency. They claim to have avoided features that didn’t have good power/performance ratios in the design. Their suggestion is that companies consider whether it’s better to get more performance in the same amount of power, or choose a lower power-usage CPU that delivers the same performance they’re getting today (pocketing the power savings).

This brings to mind an interesting side-point to “green” computing. Is there a point at which we should consider our system’s performance “good enough” and seek out lower-power-consuming parts that deliver the same performance? Will computer makers step in and provide a range of computers that deliver (over a period of years) a roughly similar performance level but a decreasing need for power? Would consumers invest in such machines in favor of “bigger, better, faster” designs for which power consumption is an afterthought?

According to his March 5, 2009, column on Computerworld, Eric Lai says that nothing will start an argument in a bar full of technical people quicker than asking “Which hardware gives you more bang for the buck, Mac or PC?” Lai reports that “A decade ago, it would’ve been hard for anyone but loyalists to argue in favor of the Mac… [snip] Back then, ‘for every dollar you spent on a PC, you had to pay about $1.60 to get the same-performing Mac hardware,’ said Ian Lao, an analyst at In-Stat Inc.” Since the switch to Intel, Lai reports, this situation has changed somewhat. Still, he says:

Despite a tottering economy and slowing Mac sales, Apple only cut the entry-level price of its Mac Pro workstation, leaving the prices of Mac Minis and iMacs untouched.

With most PC makers slashing prices or embracing cheaper models such as netbooks, Apple could be dangerously out of step.

“You would think [Apple] would be a little more reactive,” said Richard Shim, an analyst at market research firm IDC. “You can’t discount the value of the Mac experience and the software. At the same time, the market is getting a lot more price aggressive.”

“I would love to see Apple cut their prices to be in line with everyone else, but it goes against the grain of the whole cachet thing they like to sustain,” Lao said.

Without significant price cuts, Macs continue to cost between 25% and 40% more than PC hardware of equivalent specs, say both Shim and Lao.

Computerworld then goes on to compare the three main Mac desktop product lines to comparably-equipped Windows PCs.

• The Mac Mini is compared to the Asus Nova P22 Mini-PC. The Mini offers a slightly faster CPU, faster video, and faster (but not more) RAM. However, it’s 40% more than the Asus.
• The 24″ iMac is compared to the Dell XPS One. The Dell has a Core 2 Quad CPU to Apple’s Core 2 Duo, JBL speakers, and an HD-capable TV tuner. The Mac has faster (but not more) RAM, and a larger hard drive. The Dell costs $100 more (but it’s also buying more).
• The Mac Pro is compared to a Gateway FX6800-05. The Gateway offers a faster video card, an 80GB SSD in addition to the 1TB drive both share, and weighs 9 pounds less than the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro offers a slightly faster quad-core CPU (the Gateway uses the Core i7-940 while the Mac Pro uses the Xeon quad-core). The Mac Pro costs $450 more than the Gateway.

The article concludes by saying that “Two mainstream analysts polled by Computerworld said that looking at the hardware alone, Apple continues to charge about 30% more than Windows PC makers. A quick analysis by Computerworld of Apple’s refreshed products with their closest equivalents in the Windows world supports the contention that Apple products generally remain pricier, though not consistently in the same range.”

It also says that, “Mac fans argue that ’speeds and feeds’ mean little because they don’t take Mac OS X’s performance or the Mac’s looks into account. But that’s a topic for another barroom argument.”

Larry Dignan of ZDNET posted his analysis of the recent Apple hardware releases in “Apple refreshes desktop lineup: Is the Mac mini irrelevant?” In the blog post, Dignan says that “Apple seems to be pushing for value hard [with respect to the Mac Pro] – a fact that isn’t surprising given the economy… It’s a similar story on Apple’s consumer line-up where Apple touts its 24-inch iMac starting at the same price as its 20-inch predecessor.” He goes on to say that “The afterthought in this equation is the Mac mini, which doesn’t line up with better performance and seems priced out of its niche” and quotes another ZDNET writer who says that “The Mac mini update is really little more than the bare minimum Apple could have done.”

Dignan suggests that the “value proposition” of the mini is questionable because netbooks are cheaper and have screens, non-apple laptops cost about the same as the mini, you still have to account for a monitor, and it’s unclear what niche the mini fills. “In other words,” Dignan writes, “I have no idea what would convince me to buy a Mac mini even if I loved Apple. There are too many options that offer better value – even on Apple’s own store. If I really wanted a Mac I’d buy something other than the Mac mini. Hell, I’d even get an AppleTV over a Mac mini.”

Commenters suggested a few potential uses for the Mac mini, including using it as a server for digital media, as an inexpensive alternative to XServe for home users, a replacement for obsolete PCs (for use with the PCs’ old keyboards, mice, and monitors), and as a sort of WebTV replacement. I have to agree with Dignan when he says that these are “good points made by all, but these markets still sound nichey.”

According to theAppleBlog.com, “it seems like some graphics issues is more of a ‘coming of age’ thing for a new Mac product than something that surprises or worries us” but users are reporting that recently-shipped 17″ MacBook pros are displaying green lines and “ugly screen artifacts” that seem to be tied to the new NVIDIA GeForce 9400M video cards in the machines.

TheAppleBlog went on to say that “it’s hard to believe that a machine so expensive, after such a long delay, could have such serious and quickly apparent problems. I suppose you could excuse Apple and just chalk this up as another NVIDIA screw up, but Apple must do some serious testing with these machines before they release them to the public. The alternative, of course, is that they were well aware of the problem but opted to stick to internal deadlines and deal with the problem down the road…[snip]…Whatever the issue, Apple seriously needs to stop shipping significantly flawed products, or their reputation for quality isn’t going to last.”

Just as they looked at the Mac Mini, the folks at CNET also reviewed the 24-inch 2.66GHz Apple iMac. While crowning it “One of, if not the, most affordable 24-inch all-in-one PCs” they also found a number of things wrong with it:

• “Apple’s latest update to the iMac line mostly serves to keep it competitive with its Windows-based competition.”
• “You can also find a few all-in-ones from the Windows world with functionality the iMac can’t match.”
• “…anyone with an existing 30-inch [display] will like cringe at having to pay an additional $99 for the necessary dual-link adapter.”
• “…the iMac’s specs are now more or less in line with Windows-based all-in-ones in the same price range.”
• “Apple hasn’t evolved the iMac to match other all-in-ones, particularly Sony’s 24-inch Vaio LV line.”
• “The iMac also has no touch screen, as with HP’s TouchSmart series… and even the highest end of the new iMacs lacks a quad-core CPU option.”
• (In a Quake 4 game test) “The results weren’t 100 percent smooth, but it was certainly playable. You can expect to sacrifice image quality on more recent games like Call of Duty 4.
• “Apple offers an upgrade to 8GB of RAM for an extra $1,000 (an amazing rip-off)”
• “…the once standard Apple Remote will also cost you an extra $20.”
• “Apple’s service and support policies remain one of its disadvantages, however. The one-year parts and labor policy fits in line with the rest of the industry. The 90-day phone support limit, as always, is subpar.”

In benchmarks, the iMac was soundly beaten in Adobe Photoshop CS3 image processing, Apple iTunes encoding, and Cinebench. The iMac did beat the competition in “Multimedia multitasking”, which CNET claims is a good match for how most people work.

On Wednesday, CNET posted its review of Apple’s updated entry-level Mac Mini. The $599 computer includes improved Nvidia graphics, a 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU, a larger hard drive, and some port changes. Below are a few of CNET’s observations about the Mac Mini:

• “We still take issue with the Mac Mini’s overall value…[snip]… We can easily imagine it in a light-duty work role. But if your goal for a lower-cost desktop is core hardware bang for the buck, you’re better off with a more well-rounded Windows system.”
• “At the moment, Apple’s 24-inch LED Cinema Display is the only monitor that will connect to a Mini DisplayPort input without an adapter… Apple sells a variety of other adapters for both inputs, with prices ranging from $19 to $99.”
• “…[T]he less expensive Acer [has] more flexibility as either an office or a living room PC, with the potential to add features down the road. In comparison, Apple’s traditional closed-box system looks decidedly rigid.”
• “We have mixed feelings about the Mac Mini’s benchmark performance. On the one hand, it came in behind the Acer system on three of our four application tests. That’s hard to forgive, considering the Mac Mini’s higher price tag.”
• “Our gameplay experience wasn’t entirely seamless, and more recent games will surely provide a larger challenge.”
• “Even though we have questions about the Mac Mini’s hardware value, Apple helps close the gap by including its iLife ‘09 application suite with every new Mac Mini. We’re also glad to see the mini DVI-to-single-DVI dongle…but as usual with the Mac Mini, there’s no mouse or keyboard.”
• “We’re also disappointed that Apple left off the tiny Apple Remote this time around. You can add an Apple keyboard and mouse set for $98, and the remote for an extra $20.”

While the Mini got good marks for multitasking benchmarks and power consumption, overall CNET seemed to be disappointed with it. Their chart comparing the Mac Mini features with the Acer Aspire X1700-U37000A showed that the $480 Acer PC beat the Mac Mini specs almost across the board. The Acer had a faster CPU, 4x the RAM, and almost 5x the hard disk space (and at 7200rpm versus 5400rpm in the Mini). The Mini offered Gigabit Ethernet to the Acer’s 10/100 Megabit, 802.11n wireless, and Bluetooth. The Mini was also $119 more.

An article by Stewart Meagher on the Australian PC Authority web site that “It turns out Apple’s new 17in MacBook Pro is easier to pull apart, and possibly even replace the battery, then first thought”. Before you rush out and buy one thinking that this means you’ll be able to easily swap the battery out on a cross-country plane flight, consider their description of “easily accessible”:

“…remove just 13 Philips screws which hold the bottom cover in place, and the three tri-win security screws which hold the battery in place.”

This is not something you’re going to be doing in a regular basis, or on the tray table of your next long plane flight. While it’s good that (it appears) an “average Joe/Jane” can probably replace the battery in the device if it wears out, this still doesn’t solve the issue of swapping a discharged battery out for a fresh one while traveling. Or do MacBook users never take long trips with their laptops?

According to CNET, Apple’s Mac sales are expected to decline in the second quarter of 2009, showing that the company’s product line isn’t recession-proof. Piper Jaffray, usually optimistic about Apple, reported Tuesday that Mac sales are on a pace to drop on a year-to-year basis for the first time in six years. Perhaps declining sales will give Apple some incentive to rethink its fat profit margins and consider introducing some lower-cost products later in the year.

While cleaning up some old email, I came across a link to The Register’s November 20, 2008, article “MacBook buyers bite Apple over copy protection cock-up“. According to the article, Apple’s decision to adopt the DisplayPort digital monitor connector is upsetting its customers due to the incorporation of a copy protection mechanism.

DisplayPort enforces the HDCP content protection technology which requires displays to include technology to prevent unauthorized taping of content. The Register says “That’s what the latest Macs are doing. MacBook owners are hooking up old displays, none of which support HDCP, and the computers are flashing up a message warning users that they can’t play HDCP-protected content without a suitable screen.”

Even content legitimately acquired via iTunes won’t work in these situations, which naturally upsets some customers.

As the Register indicates, “Had Apple’s engineers and designers thought about this, they’d do what other notebook makers do and include a VGA or DVI port on the new MacBooks. Pretty much every graphics chip and integrated chipset out there currently includes HDCP technology. What stops it bothering owners of other vendors’ computers is that those machines have multiple monitor ports.”

While cleaning up some old email, I came across a link to a December 6 article on The Register’s Hardware page entitled “MacBook Air Owners Get Laid” which reports that some MacBook Air owners are discovering horizontal lines in the displays of their “precious-but-pricey lightweight laptops”.

The article cites posts on the Apple Discussions forum, MacRumors, and AppleWatch as a source for the reports about allegedly faulty Air displays. The Register says that “On the bright side, a number of posters have reported that they’ve received no-argument replacements from their local Apple stores. On the less-bright side, our email and phone inquiries to Apple about the problem have gone unanswered, as have those of multiple posters.”

This, of course, isn’t the first issue seen with the Air. The article confirms this at the end, saying “And so the laid-paper display now joins the missing four-finger swipe reported on non-US units and occasional trackpad malfunctions among reported MacBook Air maladies. Perhaps the old adage of ‘Never buy version 1.0 of anything’ may be holding true yet again.”

According to a December 3 post on The Register, Apple filed a patent for a liquid-cooled laptop back in May 2008. The Register suggests that this technology might first be seen in a quad-core MacBook Pro. It will be interesting to see what kind of price point they’d set for a laptop like that, and whether anyone in the current economic climate will be willing to fork over the money to get it.

According to The Register, Apple may be reconsidering its practice of building non-user-replaceable batteries into its products. Recent patent applications by Apple describe a series of possible technologies that revolve around user-serviceable batteries.

The first patent describes a personal computer with battery charging slots built into its body.

The second describes how the personal computer could communicate wirelessly with battery-powered devices to determine the state of their batteries and notify users when a charge is needed.

The third discusses intelligent batteries that allow the “chemicals” to be swapped out when they wear out.

The Register’s article includes images from the patent filings and more details if you’re interested to see what Apple’s thinking about.

CNet’s Brooke Crothers published “The MacBook Air’s fatal wireless flaw” on December 14.  Crothers begins by pointing out that Apple advertises the MacBook Air on its site with marketing statements like the following:

• MacBook Air takes full advantage of the wireless world.
• …unprecedented wireless capabilities…
• …MacBook Air is built for the wireless world
• The innovative now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t port hatch flips down to reveal (and closes to hide) all the ports you really need
• Like everything on MacBook Air, the battery doesn’t compromise power for portability. You can access the web wirelessly for 4.5 hours
• “without wires, you’re free to go anywhere”

Given Apple’s statements above, we should expect that it has provisions for “taking full advantage” of wireless technologies like 3G and WiMax, that the few ports it has built in are “necessary” and therefore easy to access, and that battery life on wireless should be good.

Crothers’ main point is that in the design of a laptop with “unprecedented wireless capabilities” the lack of a built-in 3G wireless networking option is a significant oversight.  Further, the recessed ports on the MacBook Air make it difficult to use the machine with the many USB 3G modems available without also using an extension cable of some sort, which goes against the device’s “you don’t need all those wires” philosophy.  By not recessing the USB ports or by including an ExpressPort so you could add an inexpensive 3G card, the Air could more effectively live up to the “takes full advantage of the wireless world” hype.  But as it is, that’s not the case.

It should be noted that aside from the lack of 3G, Crothers likes the MacBook Air, saying “I got one in February as soon as it was available at retail and have been pleased with the performance, screen, keyboard, build, and, until recently, the battery life (which has dwindled to under an hour).”  What really brought the point home that the lack of 3G support is a flaw in the air occurred at a Qualcomm press event. When he looked around the room, “Sitting there in the nerve center of one of greatest wireless companies in the world, I couldn’t get a wireless connection. Everyone else in the room had 3G connections of one kind or another. The Air instantly became the proverbial doorstop (or paper weight–choose your simile, or maybe it’s more apropos to say it was a dinosaur.)”

Naturally, the comments below the article instantly became a Mac vs. PC flame war.  If you try to read the statements objectively and read past the rhetoric, emotion, and hype on both sides of the battle, the arguments make some interesting observations:

In defense of the MacBook Air, these points were made:

• 3G support is common in Europe, parts of Asia, but can only be found in parts of the USA.  Built-in 3G support wouldn’t be useful in much of the world, or the US.
• 3G is still slow for things like Flash or streaming video at high quality
• The Air includes BlueTooth, so it could be tethered to a 3G cellphone without the need for wires or a USB dongle
• The Air does include a USB port, and pretty much any 3G or EVDO network offers a compatible USB device that could be attached to the Air
• If a 3G card slot was included inside the Air, that might reduce battery life (another of Crothers’ complaints) even further
• Apple tends to stay with standards that are globally deployable to leaves them out (though that doesn’t explain the lack of an Express Card slot)
• Between BlueTooth enabled phones and free WiFi access in many areas, built-in 3G support isn’t necessarily needed in the Air
• MacBook Air sales aren’t exactly low, so lack of built-in 3G hasn’t stopped many people from buying the device
• “…the underlying problem isn’t what manufacturer includes/excludes from machines but rather the multitude of formats, protocols, connections. You have 3G, EVDO, WiFi, WiMac, and probably others.”

In support of other laptop computers or against the MacBook Air, these points were made:

• HP and Dell laptops can be ordered with 3G built-in or you can easily add it with an Express Card, giving you more options than the Air
• Although USB devices can be used to add 3G to the Air, the recessed ports on the Air make that difficult, and take up one of the few ports available in the device that you might want for something else like a USB flash drive
• The iPhone doesn’t (yet) support tethering (though this has been rumored to be coming in the future)
• Lack of built-in 3G is “why netbooks won’t beat the iPhone…once you’ve experienced always being connected, it’s difficult going back”
• The Cradlepoint PHS-300 Portable Personal Router is cited as an option that allows a laptop user to have a broadband card external to the computer without draining the built-in battery.
• One commenter noted that “I have traveled through the US quite a bit and stop at many of their airports. I have not found an airport where I could not get a 3G connection.”
• Several commenters noted that Crothers should have read the machine’s specifications more carefully before purchasing it, and he might not have expected 3G built-in.

Some good points are made on both sides of the argument.  In the end, if you can afford the MacBook Air, it has the features you need, and doesn’t lack the ones you do need (e.g., 3G), there’s no reason you shouldn’t consider it.  On the other hand, if you need multiple USB ports, an ExpressCard port for 3G or EVDO connectivity, etc., then look at other Apple and Windows laptops that have what you need.  Personally, I like having more connectivity and expansion options than fewer, and I don’t really care about unused ports “cluttering up” my computer’s appearance, so the Air probably isn’t a great fit for me.  But I’m not “everyone else”.

It is interesting to note, however, that Crothers claims that his battery life has dropped to about an hour of real use.  As some of the commenters noted, it would be enlightening to learn whether this is a fault of the battery itself, a symptom of overuse, or simply poor power management on his part.

A company called EFi-X USA has, for some time, offered a device which can be plugged into a USB port on a standard PC motherboard which “fools” an unmodified Mac OS X DVD into thinking that it’s being booted on a “real” Apple Macintosh.  According to their web site earlier this week, customers of the approximately $200 device were having trouble finding PC hardware that was compatible with both the device and OS X.  The company decided to help resolve the problem by offering pre-built high-end PCs including the device that could boot an off-the-shelf, unmodified Mac OS X DVD so that OS X could be installed on it.  Then very shortly afterward, it pulled the announcement from its web site.

On the one hand, I think EFi-X USA made the right move in pulling the announcement.  Given the issues being faced by another would-be Mac cloner, Psystar, they would simply be opening themselves up even more for a lawsuit than the device they already sell could be doing.  On the other hand, it’s unfortunate for Psystar that they did, as this would have perhaps added a little weight to Psystar’s argument that there is an untapped market for machines which offer an alternative platform on which to run Mac OS X.  That probably would not have helped them win their case, but might have mitigated some of the potential damage by showing that other companies perceive the same marketplace to exist and want to serve it with Mac clones.

According to Fox News, three of the largest makers of LCD screens pleaded guilty to price-fixing and will be forced to pay fines totaling $585 million.

The products affected by the price-fixing included Apple iPods, Motorola Razr phones, as well as laptops and monitors sold by Dell (and presumably lots of other companies).

The official quoted in the article said that “the termination of the conspiracies should lead to lower prices.”  Perhaps that means iMacs and iPods will come down a little in price soon?

If you have one of the new aluminum MacBooks and you really wish you had a tablet Mac instead, Other World Computing will be happy to oblige you. Send your MacBook and an additional $1299, and they’ll convert your MacBook into what they’re calling the “Axiotron Modbook“. You can also buy one outright for $2199 (and up). They claim to do the same for older plastic MacBooks as well.

According to Computerworld, a New York man has sued Apple in federal court over alleged flaws in the PowerBook G4 and has requested class-action status.

The man claims that Apple refused to repair his PowerBook G4, which had a defective memory slot that prevented it from recognizing additional memory. He claims Apple’s refusal is “particularly galling because the company had previously acknowledged problems with PowerBook G4 memory slots and had set up a free-of-charge repair program for a limited number of systems.”

Computerworld notes at the end of the article that “The PowerBook G4 has had a checkered history. In August 2006, for instance, Apple recalled 1.8 million batteries sold with the PowerBook G4 and iBook G4 laptops.

CNet’s Tom Krazit presented a very thoughtful article on the Apple Mac Mini and why it may not be dropped from Apple’s product line, despite rumors to the contrary. According to the article, “One Las Vegas-based source who runs a collocation service based on the Mac Mini told AppleInsider that there are about 10,000 Mac Minis in use in Sin City. He believes that Apple is planning to release an updated Mac Mini in the near future that takes a few cues from the recent notebook launch, such as the addition of a Mini DisplayPort connection and the ability to address 4GBs of RAM.”

There are a couple of things that are interesting to note about Krazit’s article, aside from the belief that the Mini will be given a new lease on life. Specifically, nowhere in the article does Krazit mention Microsoft or Windows. Nowhere does he mention Linux. In the reader comments below, however, are all the typical flame war comments one can expect on any board where an Apple product is discussed. A few of the more notable comments (either interesting, funny, or informative):

• Reader “megustansalchicas” says: “make it cheaper!!!! quit gouging people and make this a true mass market computer. I can’t believe they’re still charging $600 bucks for a 1/80 configuration. I can get a good laptop for that price and have the advantage of portability. boost it up to 2/160 or even better 2/250 and drop the price to $499. it doesn’t even come with a mouse for xrysakes.”


• “pjhenry1216″ tries to appeal to reason: “Why can’t people keep the ignorant bashing to themselves? I would like to see the mini updated because I want one, however, I use multiple computers through a kvm switch so an iMac is useless to me. I want a mac without a screen, but i also don’t need a mac pro. However, i don’t want one because I think windows vista is crap. Windows is just as stable as an Apple if Apple actually cared about flexibility. If Vista isn’t running well, its the user’s fault. Apple can only run one way: its own way. It won’t run the way you want it. Windows does a little bit more, but not completely. Linux goes all the way, its just not as user friendly. Apple sacrified flexibility for user friendliness, Linux sacrificed user friendliness for flexibility, and Windows is sorta in the middle, not great at either, but not terrible. So stop bashing Windows Vista because you don’t know how to use a computer. If you just like a Mac interface more, then thats fine. But there’s no reason to think that anything you don’t like automatically sucks.”


• “dragonbite” says: “That didn’t take long for somebody to come along and bash Microsoft when the article is about Apple.”


• “Mr. Dee” comments that: “Apple needs to drop the price on this thing, for something that talks about BYOKM, it’s too darn expensive. The Mini is worth no more than $300. Steve Jobs is talking horse radish when he says that his Company cannot build a $500 computer. I think all those years of being a billionaire, loving Mercedes has gone to his head. The Apple Tax is ridiculous!”

The “pjhenry1216″ post caught my attention, not because it tried to bring some calmness and reason into the discussion (which was a good thing), but for the comments about KVM (keyboard, video, mouse) switches. This would definitely be a weak spot in Apple’s product line if you wanted multiple systems (even multiple Macs) to share a single keyboard, monitor, and mouse. The iMac design, with its built-in monitor, doesn’t really fit into that equation well. If Apple dropped the Mini, it would have nothing to fill in that space with except a laptop (which would be more expensive) or a Mac Pro (which is even more expensive).

We speculated a while back that one thing Apple could do to destroy the lawsuit filed against them by Psystar would be to release a “full” OS X license that could be installed on third-party hardware, at a price above the current $129 licenses and (ideally) in line with Microsoft Windows licensing at the higher end.  There’s some talk in the media that Apple might do away with the Mac Mini at its upcoming desktop product launch. 

How does the demise of the Mac Mini imply the possibility of licensing the Mac OS for non-Apple hardware?  Consider what CNet.com says was the point of the Mini in Apple’s product line: “The Mac Mini was an experiment in affordability and minimalism on Apple’s part back in 2005. The small desktop was initially a hit with critics and consumers, but as the world’s PC preferences tilted strongly in favor of notebooks over the last several years, Apple spent more time updating and promoting the MacBook and iMac all-in-one desktops than the cute little cube…[snip]… It would, however, eliminate the cheapest Mac from Apple’s arsenal, raising the starting price of (officially, at least) entering the Mac OS X universe to $999. Analysts have been a little worried that the Mac is expensive in the midst of this year’s economic turmoil”.

So, by dropping the Mini, Apple raises a barrier to entry for potential Mac switchers.  Instead of being able to acquire a Mini for $600 and use existing peripherals to enter the Mac world cheaply, users would have to move to the $999 MacBooks.  If Apple wants to still be able to service those folks who can’t spend the $999 for a MacBook, releasing a “full” OS X license for use on third party hardware (at say, $299) is one way they could fill the void they’re leaving by dropping the Mini.  If a Psystar-type company wants to produce Mac clones, Apple can let them do so, while sitting back and collecting $299 on each one sold without having to do more than burn a CD and stuff it into a box.  If Apple makes it clear that they’ll only provide tech support for items on a pre-defined compatibility list, they can minimize the support costs this might generate while increasing revenue.

Thus, instead of the barrier to “Mac ownership” being a $599 Mac Mini, it would now be “the hardware you probably already have” plus only $299.  It might be worth $299 to me to have a machine at the house that is able to legally run OS X… and it just might to others, too.  In any case, it will be interesting to see if they do dump the Mini as predicted, and what they do about filling the void (if anything).

I can already see the commercial…

“Hi, I’m a Mac.”

“And I’m a PC. Say, what do you have there, Mac?”

“It’s a full license for OS X. I got it as a present for you.”

“For me? You shouldn’t have… I didn’t get you anything.”

“Go ahead, try it on.”

[screen fades, comes back, PC and Mac are either both the same guy, or both dressed alike]

“Hello, I’m a Mac.”

“…and so am I…”

[this would be followed by information about how you can now buy Mac OS X and legally use it on non-Apple hardware. to see if yours is compatible, go to xxx web address..]

Imagine the uproar in Redmond after seeing that commercial.  Even I am forced to admit it would definitely trump anything I can imagine Microsoft coming up with, and in time for the holidays, no less…  I think I’d pay to see that.  And it could explain why Apple has never really gone after the OSx86 site for running OS X on non-Apple hardware… they were using them as market research and a source for their compatibility list…