By Jared Newman
January 25, 2009

By Ian Paul
January 14, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO - Now that this year’s Consumer Electronics Show is history, gadget hounds are turning their attention to a rumored Apple event on January 27, when it is widely believed Apple will announce its mythical tablet device. With just over two weeks until the supposed event, rumors surrounding the Apple tablet are reaching a fever pitch.

On Monday, France Telecom deputy chief executive Stéphane Richard supposedly confirmed the existence of a tablet only to have the company later deny that he’d confirmed anything. One day later, several rumors surrounding multitouch and the worldwide supply of 10.1-inch screens are being added to the mix.

Here’s what’s going on:

Fingerworks No More

In 2005, Apple bought a small company called Fingerworks that was doing innovative work on touch-based devices. The company’s work was likely folded into the multitouch gestures that Apple used on the iPhone and MacBook trackpads. Despite purchasing the company five years ago, however, Apple left the Fingerworks.com Web site online to serve as a self-help guide for former Fingerworks customers.

But that all changed on Monday, when Macrumors discovered the Fingerworks Web site had been shut down. Macrumors speculates that Apple pulled the site offline in anticipation of the Apple tablet launch since the still-rumored tablet device could use some of the advanced gestures developed by Fingerworks. Of course, another possibility is that Apple just decided they’d left the site up long enough and were just cleaning house.
Hey Steve, can you spare a screen?

TG Daily is reporting that Apple has bought up all available supplies of 10.1-inch LCD and OLED screens. The news is according to an anonymous product designer who said it was impossible to purchase 10-inch screens right now, because Apple had bought out the supplies from all component suppliers in Asia. If true, this rumor adds credence to earlier claims that Apple plans on producing a whole lot of tablets in the product’s first year, perhaps as many as 10 million. Of course it’s important to remember that two complementary rumors, while compelling, don’t make a fact.

Fake Screen

You can expect to see many blurry cam images as we get closer to the rumored date of Apple’s announcement, and today’s image comes from The Mac Observer. The blog has posted an image from an anonymous source that is purportedly the glass and frame for Apple’s tablet. The glass reportedly measures 10-inches diagonal, and the frame basically looks like a stretched out iPhone right down to the home button at the bottom and the slot for the earpiece at the top. It’s doubtful this image is the real deal since it mimics the iPhone far too closely and lacks a practical location for a Webcam.

There are also many other rumors about the tablet including a Reuters piece suggesting the tablet would launch this spring, and an anonymous source who last week told Silicon Alley Insider that he’d seen the tablet’s user interface and it was “pretty.” I’m sure tomorrow’s tablet rumors will be just as shocking and insightful.

By Dan Moren
December 10, 2009

As promised, the Google Chrome for Mac beta has just made it in under the wire for a 2009 release. Of course, it’s still just a beta, not a first release-and, as we know, it’s missing some features-but it’s a step beyond what we’ve seen so far.
Available for Windows for more than a year, Chrome’s stated purpose is to provide a slim, fast, secure browser. Developer builds of Chrome first appeared for OS X last June, though they were plagued with bugs and missing features.

Based on WebKit, the same technology that underlies Safari, Chrome boasts a sandboxed security mode that aims to mean the crash of one tab won’t take down the entire browser. There’s also a location field that doubles as a search box and an incognito mode for when you don’t want your browsing history retained.

The 17.6MB download requires Mac OS X 10.5 or later and an Intel processor, and while it might lack features from its Windows counterpart such as a Bookmark Manager, support for Google Gears, and a full extension architecture, it does at least hope to deliver on its core promises of speed and stability. We’ll have an in-depth first look at Chrome later on Tuesday.

By David Coursey
November 24, 2009

Art by Luis Anthony G. Oliveros

Now, I am as much against smoking as anyone. I also do not want workers needlessly exposed to hazardous substances. Still, for Apple to deny warranty claims on Macs exposed to cigarette smoke seems way over the line.

Yet, that is what The Consumerist says Apple has done on at least two occasions in recent months.

Apple is apparently telling at least some customers that the amount of cigarette smoke residue inside their computers makes it unsafe for the company to perform warranty service on them, despite the lack of such a clause in the company’s warranty agreement.

The Consumerist says the complaint as been raised as far as Steve Jobs’ office, with no relief for the customers involved.

The story was reported on Friday, though the Consumerist said it had sought, but failed to receive, any explanation from Apple HQ over a period of months. (The site is part of the Consumers Union/Consumer Reports organization, so I deem the report credible).

Now, if this were Dell, I would send Michael an e-mail and expect to hear back. At HP, I would send e-mail to my PR contacts, likewise at most other hardware companies. I would ask first, expect the company to say a mistake had been made, and get on with my life. You would not need to read about it. Mistakes happen.

Two things about the story amaze me.

First, that Apple–presuming they are not merely trying to avoid warranty claims, which seems far-fetched–would not send the customers a refurbished Mac as a replacement for the smokehouse Macs.

Heck, they could return the smoked-up machine along with a refurb and instructions on how to put the old hard drive into the “new” machine.

Second, my hazardous materials training has taught me that however dangerous smoke residue may be, there is a way to deal with it.

With its billions, Apple could buy a containment chamber where work could be done in a completely different atmosphere from where the technician stood.

Imagine one of those chambers that lab workers use, inserting their hands through holes in the box into permanently attached gloves. Only the gloves and a set of tools from inside the box touch the computer.

If something along this line is good enough for smallpox and Ebola, it will probably protect someone from a smoky Mac.

Alternately, a self-contained breathing apparatus, such as firefighters wear, would prevent inhalation of the cigarette residue.

I suspect many wearable air filters or respirators would do the same thing. That, plus gloves and protective gown, would seem to assure safety. (Ask an expert to be sure).

Apple could also open up the smoky computers and set them outside for a while to air out.

Further, if Apple sent someone who already smokes to do the work, it is hard to say how much worse they would be for the slight additional exposure. I’ll bet a smoker would even volunteer for the assignment, if only as a means of helping fellow smokers get their computers fixed.

My hope is Apple will read the stories that have begun to appear and stop this nonsense immediately. I suspect the stories about these incidents will encourage some money-hungry lawyer to find the aggrieved customers and get to the bottom of this.

I would like to say I expect to write a follow-up in which Apple has a very good explanation that makes its actions seem reasonable. I would be happy to write a story in which Apple challenges the facts, or apologizes and promises to do better.

What I expect, however, is for Apple, the company that approved the “Baby Shaker” iPhone app, to remain silent and try to wait the whole thing out.

Maybe Apple will try to dodge this issue the way they tried to dodge overheating iPhones and Snow Leopard data loss?

By adding my voice to the chorus asking Apple to explain, I hope the wait will be a little shorter.

By Tony Bradley
November 13, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO - It is the statement that has re-ignited the near-religious debate about whether the Windows user interface was copied from Mac. Define ‘copied’. Adopting features that work is not new to Windows 7 or unique to the Windows / Mac debate–its just the way the world works.

Microsoft partner group manager Simon Aldous was quoted saying “What we’ve tried to do with Windows 7 - whether it’s traditional format or in a touch format - is to create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics.”

That statement is likely made up of equal parts heresy and truth. Brandon LeBlanc later rejected that claim on the official Windows 7 blog: “Unfortunately this came from a Microsoft employee who was not involved in any aspect of designing Windows 7. I hate to say this about one of our own, but his comments were inaccurate and uninformed.”

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but in this case Apple shouldn’t flatter itself. LeBlanc points to some resources that have a more in-depth look at how Microsoft developed Windows 7 and the Windows 7 user interface such as Fast Company and an AP Story in the Washington Times.
The legions of Apple devotees and the general anti-Microsoft crowd are predictably foaming at the mouth over Aldous’ statement. The pseudo-mea culpa vindicates what they have known for decades and gives them an entitled sense of ‘I told you so’.

That debate though has always been more about the rivalry between Apple and Microsoft than any real concern about imitation (copying, borrowing, stealing) of features between operating systems. Both the IBM OS/2 and Commodore Amiga operating systems had ‘Mac-like’ graphical user interfaces as well. Both of those operating systems were also arguably superior to the Mac at the time, but they weren’t from Microsoft so they didn’t draw the fury of the Apple faithful.

Before we drive off too far into the woods with the debate about whether or not Microsoft attempted to mimic the Mac OS X interface in Windows 7, let’s take a deeper look at where Apple got the ‘inspiration’ for Mac OS X.
When Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple he started a new venture called NeXT. One of the products of NeXT was the NeXTSTEP operating system–an object-oriented, graphic interface, multitasking operating system built on a foundation of BSD Unix. When Jobs rejoined Apple, Mac development had a sudden shift in direction and Mac OS X was essentially borne out of porting the NeXTSTEP operating system to work on an Intel CPU architecture and rebranding it with the Apple logo.

So, perhaps we should be debating whether or not Microsoft borrowed its interface design from NeXT? Not really though. Because here is the thing–its not ‘copying’. It is the natural progression of innovation. It is not new to operating systems and it is certainly not unique to the Windows vs. Mac debate.

The root of portable music players is the Sony Walkman. Does that imply that Apple ‘copied’ Sony when it created the iPod? No. What Apple did was create and innovate a new device that is built on the combined foundation of what portable music devices have become as they have evolved from the Walkman. That is just the way the world works.

There is a difference between copying and adapting. The line is blurry and open to (very heated) debate, but its just the way business is done. It is the process of evolution adapted for technology. New traits are developed. The ones that fail fade away. The ones that work are incorporated into the DNA of subsequent generations. Over time it becomes difficult–and more than a little pointless–to engage in a debate about who copied who when.

When you buy an Apple device, you’re often locked in to buying other Apple products that are compatible with it. Here are five examples, and some advice on what to do. Oh, wait–there’s nothing you can do.

By Dan Tynan
November 4, 2009

4. Installed Software and Extra, Unwanted Apps
Apple has a history of taking advantage of its iTunes-iPod/iPhone headlock to promote its other products and services. For example, in March 2008 many Windows users were surprised to find Apple’s Safari browser installed on their systems–a little gift left by the latest iTunes update.

At the time, Mozilla CEO John Lilly lit into Apple for the practice. “It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that’s bad–not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web,” Lilly wrote.

After enough people complained, Apple made an infinitesimal change, creating a “new software” category in its update app but leaving installation as the default.

In July 2008 Apple’s iTunes update began quietly installing the company’s MobileMe online data-sync service without any notification to the user.

In September of this year, Windows blogger Ed Bott noted that again Apple tried to use updates to an existing software program (Boot Camp) to install an iPhone Configuration Utility, even though he had never used an iPhone. Apple subsequently removed that program from its Windows Update utility. To this day, if you update the QuickTime video player, it will also look to install iTunes, regardless of whether you’ve ever owned an Apple device.

With the exception of MobileMe, none of these software programs generate revenue for Apple. But they do serve to pull users further into Apple’s ecosystem.

4. Shoes and Spies
In March 2007, Apple applied for a patent on technology that allowed it to pair a garment with an electronic sensor, as it had done with the Nike iPod Sport Kit. That kit allowed owners of Nike shoes to track their speed, mileage, and other data on their iPods. Apple’s objective in the patent: to prevent users from removing the sensor from the Nike shoe and putting it into shoes from a different manufacturer–what New Scientist’s Paul Marks called “DRM for your wardrobe.”

Two months later the company filed for a patent on technology that would prevent Apple devices from accepting a charge during certain circumstances. This tech would prevent a thief from recharging your iPhone or iPod, but it could also keep you from charging the device if you tried to sync it with an “unauthorized” PC. And last August the company filed for a patent on sensors that would record “customer abuse events” on Apple products; the data from these sensors would presumably be used to deny warranty repair claims by documenting damage that was the customer’s fault.

Apple is certainly within its rights to patent such technologies; what these applications show, though, is that there is seemingly no limit to what the company wants to control.

Many such lock-in examples exist, to be sure, and we’d like to hear yours, in the comments below.

The question is, do Apple fans care? Widman, for one, says, “Choice is overrated. As a consumer, I’m more interested in something that works.”

It’s a reasonable argument–but also a costly one. Is it really worth it?

When you buy an Apple device, you’re often locked in to buying other Apple products that are compatible with it. Here are five examples, and some advice on what to do. Oh, wait–there’s nothing you can do.

By Dan Tynan
November 4, 2009

2. iPhone and the App Store
It’s sad but inescapable: if you want a sexy iPhone in the US, you also have to make do with AT&T (or Globe Telecom here in the Philippines — ed). Your alternatives? Take your chances with iPhone unlocking software (and hope that Apple doesn’t release an OS update that turns the phone into a brick), or move to Europe, where you have a somewhat broader choice of carriers. Locked (though heavily subsidized) phones are an unfortunate fact of life in this country, a situation not unique to the iPhone.

The iPhone’s software shop, on the other hand, is a dictatorship. Apps for the iPhone are available only from the App Store in iTunes. And North Korea’s Kim Jong-il has nothing on the people who run the App Store, whose decisions about what apps may be sold seem more capricious as time goes on. Apps that duplicate (or improve upon) features available from Apple or AT&T are strictly forbidden–hence the ongoing controversy over Google Voice, an application that would allow VoIP calls over the iPhone, if only Apple would approve it.

iPhone owners have had the option of jailbreaking the handset, which allows them to install apps not approved by Apple while voiding the warranty (see the dangers of unlocking, above). With changes that Apple has made to the iPhone 3GS, however, jailbreaking may no longer be possible.

Apple claims that jailbreaking the iPhone violates its copyrights and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Digital-rights organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation beg to differ.

The EFF’s Fred von Lohman argues that iPhone owners should be free to tinker with their phones, especially when they can add capabilities that App Store programs don’t yet provide. He notes that “the courts have long recognized that copying software while reverse-engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software, a body of law that Apple conveniently fails to mention.”

By comparison, things are slightly different for the open-source mobile OS Google Android, whose owners can buy apps from multiple online stores (including AppVee, Handango, and MobiHand). Android apps also undergo an approval process; Google says about 1 percent of apps are rejected. Still, according to Wired, several iPhone developers booted from the App Store are opting for the friendlier environs of Google’s mobile OS, which some say allow them to be freer with both the OS code and the phone features when they’re creating apps.

With each major mobile platform developing its own app stores, more differences may emerge. As its competitors grow in popularity, the iPhone App Store may have to relax some of its restrictions or risk driving away more developers.

3. Mac Computers and the Mac OS
Ever since the Second Coming (aka the return of Steve Jobs to Apple in 1997), the Mac has been a tightly controlled, closed system. The result? High prices and limits on the options you can get with Mac hardware.

For example, you still can’t buy an Apple machine with support for Blu-ray drives. And although Apple has cut prices–in part due to some aggressive Microsoft marketing–the average Mac still costs more than the average Windows PC, according to the latest figures from The NPD Group’s retail tracking service.

“The Mac showcases the traditional lock-in method of tying software to hardware,” says Rob Enderle, principal analyst with The Enderle Group. “This is the act of making the OS and certain core software inexpensive or free, and subsidizing it by high-margin hardware. It’s a classic misdirection, and it works as long as there isn’t a third party who can compete with a more reasonably priced package (which is what Psystar is trying to do).”

Psystar’s attempts to market hardware capable of running the Mac OS have resulted in an ongoing legal battle between it and Apple; few observers give Psystar much chance of winning that fight.

The main advantage to the marriage of Apple hardware and software is “a unified source of service,” notes Jake Widman, who has written about Apple for two decades, most recently for bMighty’s blogs. “You made everything in this box; you fix it.”

Reopening the Mac OS to third-party manufacturers, as Apple did in the mid-1990s, might lower prices but increase support pain, Widman adds. “I recently compared the cost of a Psystar with that of a Mini (and the old Mini, before the recent bump), and ended up wondering how much hassle one was willing to put up with in order to save $120.”

Has the closed Apple ecosystem resulted in more-reliable, better-supported systems? Apple has traditionally fared well in consumer hardware-reliability surveys (including PC World’s). This year, however, Apple fell to a distant second behind netbook maker Asus in reliability data collected by Rescuecom, an independent customer-support vendor. Recent glitches with the Snow Leopard OS and performance problems with the newly introduced iMacs also suggest that the Mac platform could be losing its purported quality advantage.

When you buy an Apple device, you’re often locked in to buying other Apple products that are compatible with it. Here are five examples, and some advice on what to do. Oh, wait–there’s nothing you can do.

By Dan Tynan

November 4, 2009

Art by Luis Anthony Oliveros

Once you enter the Big Tent of Apple, it’s exceedingly hard to find the exit.

Over its 33-year history, Apple has consistently elected to limit consumer choice, creating a situation known as “lock in.” As soon as you start buying stuff from Apple, you’ll find it difficult to move to products made by someone else without losing everything you’ve already paid for.

Of course, many people don’t want to leave Apple’s tent. After all, it’s filled with iPhones and MacBooks and other cool stuff. And Apple is hardly the only business that tries to lock in customers–wireless carriers are probably the worst offenders. Nor is Apple the only vendor to use one product as leverage to push others onto consumers (let’s declare Microsoft the champion there).

But no other technology company exercises the same amount of control over what its customers can and can’t do with the things they bought. Part of this approach is due to Apple’s deep belief that a closed digital ecosystem with limited options benefits both Apple and its customers. Part of it is due to an all-consuming desire for control on the part of the ringmaster, otherwise known as Steve Jobs.

The bottom line: Apple makes great products, but its marketing practices limit your choices and cost you more money. Here are five classic examples of how the company has done it.

1. iPod and iTunes

When the iPod arrived in fall 2001, followed by the iTunes Music Store in spring 2003, few early adopters realized the commitment they were making by buying their media player and their media from the same source.

Due to Apple’s digital rights management setup, until April 2007 any music you bought from iTunes could play in only three places: on an iPod, within registered iTunes software on a limited number of computers, or on certain Motorola phones (that nobody bought).

If you wanted to move the songs you bought at a buck apiece to a cheaper player from a competing manufacturer, you had two options: an onerous process in which you burned your songs to a CD and then reripped them as MP3s, or quasilegal software that essentially did the same thing using your hard drive instead of a disc.

The last vestiges of DRM-protected music vanished from iTunes two years later. Apple offered to remove the DRM from the music that iPod owners had already bought, as well as to bump up the sound quality, for an additional 30 cents a track. (Gee, thanks, Apple.) Of course, movies and TV shows sold on iTunes are still copy-protected and cannot be legally converted to a DRM-free format.

Locking content to hardware cost consumers money–especially when first-, second-, and third-generation iPod batteries began failing. Consumers could either shell out the cash for a new iPod or pay Apple as much as $100 (plus shipping) to put a new battery in their existing device. In June 2005 Apple settled a class-action suit filed by iPod battery victims, offering a $50 voucher toward future Apple purchases (excluding downloads) and another year of warranty support.

Over the last three years, consumers have filed multiple antitrust suits against Apple alleging that the tight connection between the iPod and iTunes constitutes a monopoly; these have been consolidated in a federal class-action suit currently under way in Northern California [PDF].

Daring Fireball blogger John Gruber acknowledges Apple’s lock-in advantage with iTunes, but echoes what many Apple supporters often claim: The company’s hands are tied by content providers.

“When you buy a movie through your Apple TV, and the movie is in a DRM-protected format that will not work on home theater systems from other companies, it makes you less likely to switch,” he says. “But what choice does Apple have? They can sell DRM-protected movies, or they can sell no movies at all.”

Actually, Apple has at least two other choices. It could license its Fairplay DRM technology to other hardware manufacturers and allow multiple devices to play media purchased on iTunes, as Amazon does with its video-on-demand service. Or it could use its market power to push for one of the industry-wide DRM schemes proposed by Disney, Sony, and other parties. (Given the close ties between Steve Jobs and Disney, though, Apple might eventually endorse the digital rights scheme that the Mouse House favors.)

By Jonathan Seff
Macworld
October 28, 2009

Apple released software updates for Leopard and Snow Leopard to support the new Magic Mouse.

The 64MB Wireless Mouse Software Update 1.0 for Snow Leopard requires OS X 10.6.1, while the 36MB Wireless Mouse Software Update 1.0 for Leopard requires OS X 10.5.8. Apple’s release notes simply state, “Install this software to take advantage of your Magic Mouse special features.”
The Magic Mouse features Apple’s Multi-Touch technology, and ships with the latest iMac models, released on October 20. Apple now sells it separately as well for $69.

The Magic Mouse replaced the Mighty Mouse, the name of which Apple was forced to change recently for trademark reasons.

By Carolyn Duffy Marsan
Network World
October 9, 2009

Web Browser Milestones

The Web browser turns 15 on Oct. 13, 2009 - a key milestone in the history of the Internet. That’s when the first commercial Web browser - eventually called Netscape Navigator - was released as beta code. While researchers including World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and a team at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications created Unix browsers between 1991 and 1994, Netscape Navigator made this small piece of desktop software a household name. By allowing average users to view text and images posted on Web sites, Netscape Navigator helped launch the Internet era along with multiple browser wars, government-led lawsuits and many software innovations. Here are 15 highlights in the history of the Web browser.

September 2, 2008

Google Chrome introduces
Google announced the beta release of its open source Chrome browser for Microsoft Windows systems. Google offered a developer’s version that supports Linux and Apple Macintosh systems in June 2009. Now, Google is on Version 3 of Chrome, which aims at being speedier than competitors with a cleaner layout and design. So far, Google has attracted more press than users with Chrome. Currently, Chrome has 3.7% browser market share, according to Janco Associates.

March 19, 2009

Microsoft responds to rivals, enhances IE
Responding to innovations in Firefox, Safari, Opera and Chrome, Microsoft released Version 8 of Internet Explorer. Microsoft said it was the company’s fastest, most stable and secure Web browser. One innovation is Web slices, which notify users when a favorite site is updated. Another improvement makes it easier for users to refer to multiple tabs. IE also offers InPrivate browsing, which has the nickname “porn mode.” Microsoft was prompted to improve its Web browser by shrinking market share, which is down to 68%, according to Janco Associates.

June 30, 2009

Mozilla ships faster Firefox
Mozilla released the latest version of Firefox, which offers several performance enhancements, particularly for Web developers. Though not the fastest browser, Firefox 3.5 is more competitive against Chrome and Safari in this area. Firefox 3.5 features location-aware browsing so it’s easier for users to find nearby retailers or restaurants. This version also supports private browsing, which was already available in Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer. Mozilla says more than 300 million people around the world use Firefox.

August 13, 2009

Netscape founder discloses browser start-up
Marc Andreessen, leader of the NCSA Mosaic project and founder of Netscape, admits to the New York Times that he is backing a browser start-up called RockMelt . The article caused much speculation in the tech press about what RockMelt will be, with many believing that the new venture will create a browser customized for social networking sites such as Facebook.

For more information about enterprise networking, go to NetworkWorld.
Story copyright 2008 Network World Inc.
All rights reserved.