The Macalope: An Apple blog

Someone in Apple marketing deserves a gold star for advertising a free seminar on OS X Client Management on InfoWorld's email newsletter.

It's possible this ad buy was simply the product of thinking "Oh, InfoWorld = enterprise, let's advertise there", but InfoWorld has also become the online champion of the SAVE XP!!! campaign, also known as "OMFG, who could have possibly foreseen that Microsoft would kick its clients in the nuts like this?!" or Vista Affectedness Disorder (VAD) for short. This leads to the serendipitous confluence in today's email blast of an ad for how to smooth deployment of Macs in your enterprise followed by the top story which is Last Call for Windows XP is mid-June.

Michael Gartenberg rightly notes that the important thing coming out of Monday isn't going to be hardware, it's going to be the iPhone as a platform for development. The horny one may have prematurely poo-pooed (and we all know how unfortunate prematurely poo-pooing can be) the impact of the iPhone on greasing Apple's skids into the business market a few weeks ago. He's since heard it really is opening doors that were previously shut.

So, the Macalope would not at all be surprised to see more details of Apple's enterprise strategy revealed on Monday and it's why he's bullish on the "Snow Leopard" rumors. After all, there's gold in them thar cubes.

David Card on Microsoft's plans for Windows 7.

So, apparently, the 2009-2010 version of Windows will still not have the next-gen file system I was writing about more than 10 years ago -- when "Cairo" was the lead codename -- let alone a microkernel with modules for OS "personalities" and compatibility.

You're gonna fend off Google and cloud computing with a touch screen?? Good luck. I do hope there's a skunkworks Plan B in the labs. No wonder buying Yahoo "isn't strategic."

Also amusing is the Microsoft reaction to Tiger's search capabilities.

There's been some confusion about how Apple expects to get to its stated goal of having sold 10 million iPhones in 2008.

Some have said that it's 10 million by the end of 2008 and therefore should include the 3.7 million phones sold in 2007 while other have said it's 10 million sold in calendar 2008.

Turns out it's the latter.

Google it up and you'll see that this has been confirmed by many an analyst and, to be honest, it is not what the Macalope thought -- he thought it included 2007. It doesn't, however, and the brown and furry one apologizes for the error.

And, really, he should have known better. 10 million by the end of 2008 would have made iPhone sales completely flat or down for calendar 2008 as 3.7 represents about 6 months of sales and 3.7 X 3 = 11.1.

Regardless, Macworld's Jason Snell has already detailed how Apple will likely beat the 10 million mark for calendar 2008. So the question really is just by how much.

Rik Myslewski takes a look back at Apple's experience with cloning in the mid-1990s. It's an important lesson as some are once again calling for the company to license OS X for non-Apple hardware. Either these people weren't around in the mid-1990s or they've suffered some severe head trauma or they really just want Apple to do something monstrously stupid.

An ancient Zen koan reads, "Who is the more jacktastic? The jackass, or the jackass who quotes him?"

Which brings us to this Information Week piece by Eric Zeman: Analyst: Don't Buy iPhone 2.0.

No guesses as to who the "analyst" is. Yep, it's Rob.

It's hard to argue with some of the advice given by Rob Enderle, principal analyst with Enderle Group, about iPhone 2.0.

Rob Enderle, in regards to anything Apple, is not an "analyst", Eric. He is a quote machine. And, thus, the horny one will not be linking to or bothering to dissect the source of Zeman's piece.

The Macalope, amongst others, has explained this ad nauseam, but when literally everything that comes out of your mouth is anti-Apple, it's clear there's no analysis going on, just cynical attempts to get quoted. That's Rob's shtick. That's his business model. Anyone who quotes him, therefore, is either lazy, ill-informed or willfully bashing Apple for no reason other than to bash Apple.

This is not to say that all Apple-bashers or Apple-bashing is wrong. It's to say that if you have a point to make about Apple, quoting Rob Enderle is simply detrimental to your case.

Not that Zeman has a case to be made. It's really just another spin on the "Why would you get the iPhone 2.0 when someone else might deliver something better months later?!" Zeman claims Enderle's sterling "analysis" indicates there's something different about the iPhone versus other smart phones.

So why the cautionary advice about the iPhone? Because it is more computer than phone. Computers bring with them more complexity, more issues, more places for things to go "wrong".

This is absurdly over-simplistic. And Enderle's complaints about the problems with the launch of the original iPhone are overwrought. Sure, there might be issues with the next iPhone when it first comes out. If you're risk-averse, if you use your phone for mission-critical purposes, if you're currently running for president, you might want to wait a little while. The amount of time being proportional to you level of risk aversion and/or the number of delegates you have.

What's more important here is process. Yes, Apple -- like all technology companies -- is willing to live with a certain amount of bugs in order to ship product. But its track record of shipping something with a high signal to noise ratio is solid.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes points to piece that all too well demonstrates the tendency to take unfortunate events and draw irrational conclusions. In this case, the implication is that the death of a British Columbia man who was hit by a falling helicopter could have been averted if he hadn't been wearing his iPod.

Kingley-Hughes says

Now, I don't know about you, but iPod or no iPod, I really don't expect to be crushed horribly from above by a wildly flailing helicopter when picking up my mail. On top of that, I really don't fancy my chances of dodging an inbound chopper whether I was wearing earphones or not.

Indeed.

It's not exactly as if earphones were invented with the iPod. Old people have been railing against the evils of "that damned racket" since before the Sony Walkman was introduced.

There are certainly good personal health reasons to keep the audio piped into your ears to a reasonable volume, but retaining your ability to dive, John McClane-style, out of the path of an incoming helicopter is not one of them.

Rest easy, dear reader. They've found the major cause of global warming. It's Apple.

Thanks to the perspicacity of Climate Counts (double entendre intended!), we now know that Apple is

A choice to avoid for the climate-conscious consumer. This company is not yet taking meaningful action on climate change.

Now, before we get into this, the Macalope would like to stress that he really has no idea if Apple is bad for the environment.

But, hey, guess what?! Neither does Climate Counts! That's right, for every category where information was not available, Apple was simply given a zero. And in Apple's case, that basically explains the entirety of the low score.

Of course, it's perfectly possible that Apple doesn't give out this information because the secret ingredient in iPhones is ground-up puppies that are rendered in a floating complex in the Indian Ocean that's powered by huge coal furnaces and wood stoves.

It's also possible that these scorecards are cynical attempts to gin up publicity for an environmental concern nobody's ever heard of before that's funded by yogurt pushers (who knows what their insidious agenda might be!) by dinging the famous fruity company that sells that thing that you like. Pillorying Apple may or may not be valid, but it sure does generate a lot of free PR.

Climate Counts says:

The higher the score, the greater the company's commitment to fighting global warming.

Well, that's not exactly right. Click through to Apple's page and you'll see the following ratings.

Review: 0/22 points. Climate Counts found no publicly available information on Apple's efforts to measure its companywide impact on global warming (i.e., its greenhouse gas emissions or climate footprint).

"No publicly available information."

Reduce: 8/56 points. Climate Counts has found that Apple has completed analysis of the impact that many of its products have on global warming while being used by consumers and has engaged with its employees and other companies on climate-related issues.

The horny one was scratching his furry head at the low rating here based on the favorable-sounding text, so he downloaded the detailed Apple scorecard (PDF) and, again, it's all because of the paucity of information.

Policy Stance: 0/10 points. Climate Counts found no public information to suggest that Apple supports public policy that addresses climate change.

"No public information."

Report: 3/12 points. Climate Counts has found that Apple has made some public information available on its efforts to address global warming.

Again, a rating based on the level of information available. The Macalope doesn't know about you, but when he hears Apple is to be avoided for its poor environmental record, he wants to see some pictures of indigenous people being forced to eat old iPod batteries. He doesn't want to see spreadsheet columns full of "information not available".

Apple certainly has a PR problem and it does seem the company is not as concerned about environmental issues as it could or should be. The Macalope makes his home in the woods and high mountain plains where he romps naked, so he's very concerned about the environment and would like to see Apple take whatever steps are possible to make itself a better global citizen.

But Climate Counts' score cards are the kind of thing that would make Edward Tufte go postal. The low score really bears no relation to Apple's environment performance but rather its lack of transparency. There's simply no basis to Climate Counts' assertion that the next best technology company's environmental record is 200% better than Apple's.

Would the Macalope like to see more transparency from Apple on this issue? Absolutely. He'd also like to see Climate Counts be more up front about what its real beef is.

The Macalope had to do a double take at this piece on eWEEK that argues that a well-rounded IT background should include knowledge of the Mac.

An article on Macs in business that reasonably lays out the pro case?

A quote about religion that is about Microsoft instead of Apple?

A reporter who didn't get a quote from Rob Enderle?

A planet where apes evolved from man?!

"There is almost a religious belief by existing IT staff in the Windows religion, and it's a symbiotic relationship: They keep getting Microsoft certifications and they keep telling their bosses to continue buying Windows," Technology Business Research analyst Ezra Gottheil told eWEEK.

Ezra, you're lucky you're not in the same room as the Macalope right now, because he wants to sweep you up and give you a great big hug and that would be embarrassing for both of us.

Probably more so for you.

Definitely for you.

But it's true. Mac home users are constantly derided as some kind of "cult", completely in thrall to Steve Jobs. But it's Microsoft that has created an entire church, with priests, acolytes and altar boys (also known as "Access developers").

Though consumer and enterprise technologies function in largely separate universes guided by wildly different demands, the uptick in Mac use puts pressure on enterprises to allow employees to use what they're used to.

Well, the Macalope doesn't know about that. Since when does corporate IT care about your needs?

Since never, that's when.

What does make a difference is when the IT professionals themselves get sick and tired of Microsoft's licensing requirements or Dell's build quality and try using the Mac. You know this guy, right? After years of dismissing the Mac, he's all, "Boy, it turns out Macs aren't so bad after all! Boy, if it hadn't been for those obnoxious Mac users who keep saying how great they are, I would have converted years ago! It's obviously their fault and not because I'm a pig-headed ignoramus!"

Mmm-hmm.

Well, whatever these people tell themselves in the mirror, the horny one has seen an increasing number of these once-straight IT professionals who are now taking a walk on the wild side.

OK, that may not have been the best analogy.

"I've spoken to IT directors who have liked many things about Macs, but the rarity of Mac technicians and the commonness of Windows skills was an issue for them," said Kay.

For "issue" you may feel free to read "excuse".

Until Microsoft refuses to give companies loopholes that allow them to use XP and Microsoft to claim it as a Vista sale, there's probably going to be little movement toward the Mac. It's a down economy, so corporations aren't exactly chomping at the bit to undertake a big software and/or hardware conversion. They're content to sit on XP.

Again, the Macalope's not sure he necessarily agrees with the entire premise. Sure, there's little doubt that some companies are going to give the Mac a try, but it's not going to be a wholesale switching. There's too much investment and cultural bias to overcome for substantial movement to happen. Still, this piece was a pleasant change from the usual claptrap we've been forced to endure.

So often when deconstructing a work of silly punditry, the Macalope will log on later to see that there is a response, a comeback, a retort.

And he will sigh.

Because they're always really lame.

Can't the brown and furry one just let the air out of a piece without having to spend an entire week on it?

Well, such was his initial reaction upon finding that ZDNet's Jason Perlow had posted a response to his piece from Monday. But to his delight, he found this response was different. This was saucy, with a piquant flavor and none of the usual bitter aftertaste so many of the Macalope's other sparring partners have left him.

The Macalope's frown? Turned upside down.

In response to the pointy one's point that the legs of the Mac cloning biz might be short and stumpy, Perlow replies:

What, amputees aren't entitled to have fun? You got a problem with veterans who had half their limbs blown off in the OS wars?

See what he did there? He riffed on the Macalope's bit. It's almost unheard of. A tip o' the antlers to you, sir!

But I guess Macalope likes to get his point across using inflammatory and tasteless metaphors.

Inflammatory, yes, but as a gourmand such as yourself should know, taste is subjective.

I believe the good Macalope is again confusing harmless PC hobbyists doing things in the privacy of their own homes with the activities of a struggling upstart computer manufacturer, whose business practices are under very close examination. Not once have I advocated people actually go out and buy systems from companies like Psystar. Yet.

Fair enough. Whatever freaky hermaphroditic PC action people are into at home is their own business.

But I have said, continuously, that Apple could significantly expand its market share by allowing Mac OS X to run legally on other hardware platforms, particularly to leverage and entice the efforts of the Open Source community working on Linux and similar systems.

The horny one would argue with you about how significantly cloning would expand market share. But, more importantly, market share is not the most important metric. If it comes at the cost of profit, it's not much of a prize. As a matter of fact, it's the kind of "prize" that can put you out of business. Remember, we have precedent.

The Macalope was there, Jason, and maybe he remembers it a little differently than you. In his recollection, it went down like this:

1. Technology pundits say Apple must license or die.
2. Apple licenses and has its lunch eaten.
3. Steve Jobs returns, kills licensing and returns the company to profitability.

OK, there are some details left out, but that's the Reader's Digest version and the Macalope's seen nothing other than your unsupported assertions to the contrary that would belie this historical truism.

But, who knows? Maybe you're right. Clearly Apple's doing something wrong, huh?

Not everyone thinks the Apple industrial design ethos fits their ideal of cool or sexy, mister smart antlers.

The Macalope doesn't argue that you and many others want more choice -- everyone loves choice -- but our fundamental disagreement is over whether it's in Apple's interests.

Oh, and "mister smart antlers"? Awesome.

Don't you know anything about Godwin's Law?

That was actually the Macalope's point -- that you were flirting with it.

Incidentally, the most hysterical example evah of Godwin's Law was executed by a former ZDNet blogger you might have heard of.

Well, Jason, the Macalope can't say it hasn't been fun because it has. He looks forward to our next bout.