Apple

Michael Tchao

(Credit: CC Michell Zappa/Flickr)

Those expecting Apple to introduce a new tablet computer soon may have another clue to the device's imminent arrival.

Apple has rehired Michael Tchao, one of the original developers of Apple's Newton personal digital assistant, according to a report Monday in The New York Times.

Tchao, who rejoined Apple on Monday as vice president of product marketing, most recently served as general manager for Nike Techlab, where he oversaw creation of new digital products and services for fitness enthusiasts. Tchao spent 10 years at Apple, overseeing product marketing for the Newton and reportedly persuading former Apple CEO John Scully to include the company's handwriting-recognition technology into what would become Apple's first consumer device.

Introduced in 1993 as the brainchild of Sculley, the handheld was plagued by poor reviews that pointed to the difficulty in its handwriting recognition capabilities. Beyond the initial snags, the Newton and other Apple handheld technologies never seemed to catch on, and Apple announced in 1998 that it would discontinue development of the Newton operating system and Newton-related products.

Rumors of an Apple tablet have been swirling for a couple of years, but speculation has ramped up in recent months, including reports that Apple CEO Steve Jobs has been focusing intensely on a tablet device since returning to work in June after a liver transplant.

Apple representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening, but Apple has apparently been laying the groundwork for a tablet PC for years. The company was granted a patent in 2005 for tablet PC design, and the company was granted a patent last year for a tablet-like device that incorporated a touchscreen. Apple has also long had some of the key technologies for a tablet computer with Inkwell--a handwriting recognition feature having been in Mac OS X for some time.

OS X 10.6 includes Boot Camp 3.0, a new collection of software drivers that make Windows run much better on Mac hardware.

(Credit: Screenshot by Dong Ngo/CNET)

Every time I see the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" ads on TV, I can't help but wonder, "Why not both?" And it has never been a better time for that.

Overall, personally, I found that while the new Mac OS doesn't warrant a "wow," it's still definitely worth the $29 upgrade price. Snow Leopard offers an even more streamlined Mac experience than Leopard and noticeably faster interface responsiveness. The application performance, however, is slightly slower than it is with Leopard, at least on the MacBook Pro we used as our test machine. As the OS is now a pure 64-bit operating system, expect the application performance to improve over Leopard as you add RAM or use it with a high-end desktop.

Mac users can read more about Snow Leopard in my colleague Jason Parker's full review. On the other hand, for Windows users, especially Windows 7, the release of Snow Leopard is straight-on great news.

Boot Camp 3.0 enables Windows to read files from OS X's partition.

(Credit: Screenshot by Dong Ngo/CNET)

I recently blogged about running Windows 7 on a 15-inch Unibody Macbook Pro, which required some tweaking with Boot Camp 2.1. Snow Leopard comes with Boot Camp 3.0, which makes installing and running Windows on a laptop a much more pleasant experience.

First of all, the new Boot Camp includes all the drivers necessary to run both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows 7 smoothly on the Mac hardware.

(Note that you only need to run the Boot Camp Assistant, BCA, if you want to dual-boot OS X and Windows on the same machine. The utility will then create a new partition for the installation of Windows. In this case, make sure you run the BCA first when the computer boots up to avoid file errors. If you want to run just Windows and skip OS X altogether, you can boot from the Windows 7 install DVD and start the installation the way you would install the OS on any PC from scratch.)

After the installation is done, Boot Camp 3.0 can be installed from the Snow Leopard DVD. Then, without further ado, you got yourself a great Windows computer.

With three genuine installments on the Web, it's naturally time for the parodies of Microsoft's "laptop hunter" ads to start rolling in.

The first one I've seen is from LandlineTV. It features Frank, a homeless guy with $1,000 to spend on a laptop.

Frank's first stop is the Apple store.

"These are beautiful," he says, spotting a MacBook Air that is "so thin" but costs $1,700.

"What can I get for $1,000?" Frank asks. Eventually, he winds up in front of a Windows PC.

"Windows Vista Home Premium...This is (BS)," Frank says.

"Is this plastic?" he asks, before noting that the computer has "second-rate Korean components."

In the end, he uses the Windows laptop to cover his face while sleeping on the street. I've embedded the video below, but you should click play only if you don't mind some coarse language, partial nudity, and complete PC bashing.

Microsoft, for its part, declined to comment on the parody. As for Landline, it is a three-person outfit that has been doing Web video since September. Among its earlier videos was one called "Hockey Moms for Truth."

"We're sort of a Saturday Night Live meets the Twitter Age," CEO Jared Neumark said in an e-mail interview. Neumark said the company aims to crank out about two videos per week.

Microsoft and technology analyst Roger Kay have made a couple of changes to their charts outlining the "Apple Tax," but the update does little to address broader critiques of their math.

On Monday, Microsoft noted that it has updated both Kay's white paper and the accompanying blog post and chart to reflect the fact that both failed to take into account Apple's latest hardware specifications. The new paper and chart use slightly different models on the PC side.

However, the main points I (and others) made last week regarding Microsoft's bad math haven't changed. Kay's report (and Microsoft's accompanying tax return) still put charges in the Mac column that they fail to account for on the PC side when it comes to both software and services.

Suggesting that users can just bring their old copy of Office and Quicken--and that they won't need to upgrade over the five-year life of their new PC--assumes a lot. It's particularly laughable as Kay and Microsoft add in a charge for updating iLife on the Mac side.

On the services side, Microsoft had a fair point of AppleCare being more than Dell's basic three-year warranty. But then it threw in all kinds of other services, such as in-store training and the optional MobileMe service to again lose credibility.

I mean, really, one could have added (as several readers suggested) the five-year cost of antivirus software only to the PC side as well as a one-time charge for removing crapware from the PC. Personally, I'd recommend antivirus software for both the Mac and the PC, although clearly Windows users have had greater need of it to date.

Microsoft puts forth a 'tax return' showing the cost difference between a Windows PC or Mac purchase. However, CNET News' Ina Fried suggests auditors take a close look at the itemized deductions.

(Credit: Microsoft)

Microsoft is back touting the "Apple Tax" that it says Mac buyers are paying, this time filling out a fake tax return listing all of what it claims are the extra costs of opting for Windows' leading rival. But I'd argue that this time Microsoft is in danger of being audited.

The document, posted on Microsoft's Windows Blog on Thursday, compares the cost of a PC and Mac purchase, making the case that buyers can save more than $3,000 in buying two Windows PCs as opposed to two Macs. The "tax return" is based on a Microsoft-paid-for white paper (PDF) from technology analyst Roger Kay.

While I don't take issue with Microsoft's basic point that Macs can be more expensive, the assumptions in the white paper and the blog strike me as suspect.

Kay looks at the five-year cost of buying the two machines and making a series of upgrades along the way, as well as buying certain software and services.

The paper assumes we are talking about Windows switchers who already have two licenses to Quicken and Microsoft Office, so Kay adds $70 and $149 for the Mac side and assumes zero cost on the PC side. Even if that were true, that makes the assumption that users would not want to upgrade their software.

But Kay makes a different assessment when it comes to Apple's iLife, which is included in the cost of a new Mac. In his five-year cost analysis, Kay adds a $99 upgrade of iLife in year three, something that is optional, rather than mandatory.

On the services side, Kay adds a three-year warranty to the PC and AppleCare on the Mac side. AppleCare is somewhat more than Dell's warranty. Fair enough.

Then, Kay also includes Apple's one-on-one, in-store consulting service, for which there is no PC parallel. One could even argue that the PC buyer should have to add in a cost for the Geek Squad service that removes crapware from a Windows machine.

The analysis also includes Apple's definitely pricey, but also totally optional MobileMe service. Although Microsoft has its free Windows Live services on the Windows side, cost-conscious Mac users can also use a variety of free services from Google, Yahoo, or even Microsoft itself.

I talked to Roger Kay about the analysis he did, which was commissioned by Microsoft. Kay said he had already shaved from his analysis some of the costs that were presented to him by Microsoft.

"If there's a couple more in there, I wouldn't be surprised," he said, referring to my quibbles. "If I found another $500 (in savings) it wouldn't change things much."

On the hardware side, Microsoft has its clearest case of being cheaper, but again, Kay and Microsoft overplay their hand. For a desktop on the Mac side, Kay goes with Apple's professional Mac Pro desktop. Now, to be fair, there aren't a lot of Mac models to choose from, but the far less costly iMac is really the company's only consumer desktop line.

"You could have chosen another machine," Kay said. But with PCs, he said, you get to shop around. "That particular piece of the economics seems to hold up pretty well."

Microsoft first started touting this idea of an Apple Tax in an interview last October. I'd argue, as I have, that the tax exists, but it is one that the average buyer knowingly pays for what they perceive as the differences between the PC and Mac experiences. In any case, the economic differences, while large, aren't as big as Kay and Microsoft make them out to be in this study.

What's the difference between a Mac and a PC?

According to comments reportedly made by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer: $500 and a logo.

Ballmer, according to a report in TechFlash, issued his fighting words during his keynote speech at Media Summit 2009 in New York.

When asked about Apple's market share growth in computers, Ballmer reportedly responded with a barb to his competitor, according to TechFlash:

Apple gained about one point, but now I think the tide has really turned back the other direction.

The economy is helpful. Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment - same piece of hardware - paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be.

Although Apple had a 6 percent drop in retail sales in January, compared with year-ago figures, PC makers encountered even greater difficulty.

Ballmer, however, has also been known to throw cold water on his own company. When discussing Microsoft's ranking in online advertising and search, he's quick to note his company lags far behind Google.

Apple has fired back in the latest round of the Mac versus PC ad wars with two commercials tweaking Microsoft's marketing strategies.

One nice thing about having a sick girlfriend is a guilt-free weekend in front of a dozen or so college and pro football games. Apple released two new Mac vs. PC ads for that sedentary audience to ponder in between kickoffs this weekend, though both ads seemed to be tailored more for the tech industry than NFL fans.

Both commercials poke fun at Microsoft's recent massive ad campaign to "redefine" itself in the face of two years of clever Mac vs. PC ads that have helped Apple increase sales of the Mac. One commercial has John Hodgman in his now-familiar role as PC allocating stacks of bills toward either "advertising" or "fix Vista." Guess which pile gets more stacks.

The other commercial is also about Vista: Hodgman has developed a buzzer that bleeps out "Vista" whenever that word is uttered, so that people will start using the term "Windows" instead of Vista. This is actually funny, given that Microsoft was recently awarded a patent for similar technology, even if that wasn't the point of the ad.

Apple is trying to do two things with the ads: get under Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's skin, and continue to define Vista as a glitch-ridden operating system. Vista's early problems with application and driver compatibility are well-documented, and while most of those problems are in the rear-view mirror, Microsoft is spending more time these days talking about stereotypes, Windows 7 and the "Apple tax" than it is about Vista.

Apple, on the other hand, is quite content to keep Vista in the firing line.

The fact is that the negative impressions of Vista have stuck, as Microsoft itself had to admit with the Mojave Experiment. Whether that's Apple's fault or your IT department's fault isn't really the point; Apple took the early reluctance of people to try out Vista and ran with it, while Microsoft sat on its hands for two years then vacillated between saying "Vista isn't so bad," "we've been unfairly stereotyped," and "yeah, you might want to wait for Windows 7."

Still, negative advertising, while effective in an election year, grows old. And it plays into the sorely outdated fanboy us vs. them mentality that the vast majority of consumers couldn't care less about; most people in America do not define themselves by the computer that they use, as hard as Apple and Microsoft are trying to make that happen.

The new ads will get a chuckle out of most viewers, as the polished comedy team of Hodgman and Justin Long could teach Seinfeld and Gates a thing or two. But God forbid that Apple should ever stumble with the rollout of a new operating system; they've taught Microsoft just how to respond.

Apple's shares fell 17.5 percent in early trading Monday, as two noted brokerage firms scaled back their recommendations to a "hold" from a "buy."

Apple fell as low as $105.77 a share in intraday trading, down substantially from its close of $128.24 on Friday. Apple's shares sold off sharply after Morgan Stanley and RBC Capital Markets downgraded the stock.

Morgan Stanley not only revised its recommendation for the stock, but also lowered its fiscal 2009 earnings estimate to $5.47 a share from $5.91 a share.

In listing its reasons for its revisions, Morgan Stanley said in a research note:

First, PC unit growth is decelerating and the remaining source of growth is increasingly in the sub-$1,000 market where Apple does not play. Second, even in the best of scenarios, Apple's earnings per share growth will decelerate meaningfully from June quarter levels. A combination of tough compares (with the previous years figures) and investments in iPhone growth drive our December quarter earnings per share to a decline of 8 percent year over year, down from +29 percent growth June.

Morgan added that it expects Apple to offer a more conservative guide to Wall Street and investors for the three-month period ending in December.

RBC Capital, meanwhile, downgraded Apple's stock based on "elevated risks" from a slowdown in consumer spending.

According to RBC's research note:

In a worsening consumer spending environment we are downgrading from outperform to sector perform on: 1) reduced visibility growth, margins. 2) elevated risks to valuation.

RBC noted in its report that its September data showed the number of those intending to purchase a Mac laptop within the next 90 days has dropped to 29 percent, compared with 34 percent in August, and those expecting to purchase a Mac desktop fell to 26 percent from 30 percent in the same period.

Apple appears to be working on the concept of a Mac tablet again, based on a recent patent application.

(Credit: U.S. PTO (via AppleInsider))

Rumors of Apple working on a touch-screen Mac have been circulating for years, and will only grow with the revelation that the company is hoping to patent similar technology.

A number of Mac sites on Thursday are pointing to a U.S. patent application granted for what would appear to be the mythical Mac tablet. AppleInsider has a description of the device discussed in the application, which appears to bring a lot of the iPhone's multitouch functionality to a slate-like tablet computer.

Given Apple' focus on multitouch user interfaces over the past year, there has been a fair amount of speculation that the company wants to do something similar with a larger, more powerful computer than the iPhone or iPod Touch.

The thing is, Apple's explored this territory before: I found one patent reference dating back to 2005, and other sites are reporting that the current application is similar to technology Apple patented two years ago.

Tablet PCs in the Windows world haven't sold very well, and the concept has almost completely fallen off the radar screen of the PC industry. That reluctance may be the result of software that isn't quite advanced enough to match the hardware, but few people seem to want a handheld computer the size of a piece of paper and the weight of a regular laptop.