I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that a company would like to get on the inside track of a new technology. If they come up with a new idea that seems to have commercial possibilities, they will patent that development in the U.S. or another country. It’s also common practice among people who care about such things to explore the various applications that were filed in search of something new and different, since this information has to be made public.

The mistake begins when you attempt to tie that invention to a real product. Take the iPhone, which is perhaps Apple’s most famous unannounced vaporware gadget. Folks attempt to analyze every single phrase in an Apple statement, particularly when it meets with financial analysts, to find evidence that the iPhone is in their future. Sometimes they find such evidence, although it seems, in retrospect, that they are grasping for straws.

Continue Reading...

Related Articles:

• In Search of a Story About Apple
• So Where’s the Next Apple Killer?
• Newsletter #459 Preview: The iPhone 2.1 Update: Did Apple Finally Get it Right?
• Apple’s Best Quarter Ever, But the Sky is Falling
• Expo Update #2: Everything is Not Coming Up Roses!

I suppose that I shouldn’t take all the stuff I read online or in the newspapers seriously, particularly when it comes to technology. While there are lots of dedicated journalists plying their trade, some of those tech pundits seem to write about things not to provide factual information, but to drive an agenda that might be something else again.

Take Apple’s switch to Intel processors. That, and the use of industry-standard components, has surely made a Mac closely resemble a PC inside, so where’s the difference these days? That’s the theory explored in an article on the subject entitled “Apple’s switch to Intel puts it in a tough spot.”

Why should this be? Well, the article posits that Apple is now forced to follow Intel’s product cycles to remain competitive. That means that, when Intel comes out with a new processor, Apple has no choice but to put them inside its computers as soon as sufficient supplies are available. If it fails to do so, it falls behind the curve, and power users who immerse themselves in product specifications may look elsewhere to satisfy their cravings.

Continue Reading...

Related Articles:

• Newsletter #401 Preview: Lies, Lies and More Lies
• Newsletter #398 Preview: When is the Best Time to Buy a New Mac?
• Newsletter #434 Preview: Welcome Once Again to the Crazy World of Misconceptions
• Newsletter #397 Preview: Is Apple Getting a Fair Shake From the Press?
• Newsletter #366 Preview: Parallels Desktop Becomes More Cohesive

All right, some 125,000 movies were downloaded from iTunes the first week the service was available. Since then, things have been fairly silent on that front. That only one studio is participating certainly limits your choices, but there’s a larger question, which is whether it makes any sense at all to buy a movie from any download service except as a novelty. Or maybe you’re stuck in a hotel with nothing to do.

True, Amazon has more studios on board, just about all except Disney in fact, but the situation is little better, and Mac users aren’t allowed right now.

Both services have severe restrictions, even though the prices are barely less than what you’d pay for a physical DVD from a discount retailer. You can copy the downloaded file to a DVD, but only for backup. You can’t take that disc and play it on a regular DVD deck. Foolish, but true. The movie studios also make a big deal of all those extras on the DVD versions of your favorite movies. You have a regular cut, a director’s cut, deleted scenes, background information, and lots more.

Continue Reading...

Related Articles:

• Newsletter #476 Preview: Apple Confronts Yellow Journalism
• The Expo Report #2: A DRM-Free iTunes Music Library — Should Microsoft Thank Apple?
• Should Apple Remove the Gloves?
• The WWDC Report: No New Hardware Folks!
• The Apple Music Report: Are You Ready to Live Without DRM?

The other day, I got a letter from a long-time reader that, in part, disputed my contention that Macs were now priced similar to comparably-equipped Windows PCs. Why? Not because of any factual information, but because Consumer Reports magazine said so.

This reaction is understandable, since Consumer Reports is supposed to be incorruptible. After all, it’s run by a non-profit organization, it buys all the products it tests and takes no advertising. However, that doesn’t mean its editors don’t have an agenda, and clearly they do when it comes to reviewing computers. Sure, Macs get high ratings, but there are always little nits in the articles that reflect myths rather than facts.

Take, for example, the alleged higher price of a Mac, a real irritant in my book, since it’s so not true. Yes, I realize that the big box PC makers build cheap products that are often considered loss leaders, since they provide little or no profit. Those low prices, however, are just come-ons, designed to entice you to check out an online or brick and mortar store. Once you’re curious, they want to upsell you to something that’ll provide more profit opportunities. Click the Customize button at a PC store or manufacturer’s ordering center and get ready to get lost in option heaven, which is the real profit source.

Continue Reading...

Related Articles:

• Assuming Facts Not in Evidence
• Welcome to the Silly Season: Has Apple’s Creativity Left?
• Can We Just Stop Talking About Steve Jobs?
• Can Apple Blow It Before Microsoft Self Destructs?
• Apple and the Enterprise: A New Focus?