The Macalope: An Apple blog

The Macalope has assiduously avoided the "issue" of Steve Jobs' health to date simply because he finds the armchair diagnoses of people who aren't doctors but play them on the Internet to be repugnant. Today, Michael Gartenberg sums up his feelings perfectly:

Steve Jobs health is no one's business except his. That's my last word on this topic.

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.

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.

ZDNet's Larry Dignan provides a great counterpoint to the recent "angst" over Apple.

Despite the year to date stock chart (right) Apple's business isn't exactly limping along. Sure you can worry about the iPhone not selling 10 million units, or iPod profit margins and even whether the MacBook Air is that big of a deal. But what's the point? Until proven otherwise most of us would love to have Apple's business.

The Macalope has given Dignan a hard time in the past, but this piece is eminently reasonable, raising the issues and providing a retort to each. As they say, read the whole thing.

Shorter Gartner (tip o' the antlers to Daring Fireball):

Oh, man, we were so high when we wrote that!

Sven Rafferty provides us the Skinny on Why the iPhone Update Lacked Cut-n-Paste and Exchange Support... if you dare to read it!

Macworld was a great time last week even if nothing ground breaking happened other than a very thin and a very expensive laptop was released.

That's an interesting perspective on it. As in, oh, isn't that guy in the leotard shouting about the "gubbermint" on the street corner interesting?

In my book...

Is your book by any chance this book?

... Apple TVs update and HD movie rentals was the big news.

Uh, didn't you just say nothing groundbreaking happened other than...

You know what? Never mind. Just continue.

But what bugged me more than anything was the lack of something and that something was the missing feature of Cut-n-Paste in the iPhone.

Behold my mighty pet peeve! Bow down before it! Worship it as your one true god as I do!

I can't understand why there isn't more of an uproar about this must-have option in such a versatile device.

Make love to it! Become one with it! Belong to it in a way that it owns your very soul! Let it keep you up at night! Waste vast reams of paper writing your cut-and-paste manifesto! Let your beard grow out!

You know what? It would be cool if the iPhone had cut-and-paste. But it's not exactly the debilitating flaw Sven makes it out to be.

But, shhh. Sven's about to tell us how many Bothans died to bring us this information.

Well, I hunted someone down at Macworld to give me the answers and after a long search and pass off after pass off from Apple employee to Apple employee, I finally got an answer.

And that answer was "Please go away crazy cut-and-paste man."

The deal is, Apple is aware of the desire for this option and it is working on it in the labs as we speak. The trouble it is having is implementation.

Hey, wait a minute! That's the same thing the cold fusion guys said!

The answer Sven got for Exchange integration was equally exacting in it's detail:

"Apple's aware of the Exchange need."

He's a regular Carl Bernstein, isn't he?

While there is a slew of other unanswered features many have called for since day one, such as voice dialing, these two were my main concern and I was glad to at least get some kind of answer.

No matter how obvious and non-committal it was.

It gets even funnier in the comments where Sven ominously notes:

With recent posts from former Apple employees whom speak of the 'Fear of Steve' from leaking any information, even after leaving the company, I'm not even going to reveal my source.

"Even after leaving the company"? Is Sven suggesting Steve has had people whacked?

Yes, I can understand the difficulty in believing all of this...

Sven, we believe it, we just don't care.

... however, other sites have been sued and shutdown by Apple with little more than I've revealed.

Tell us about the people Steve Jobs had whacked, crazy cut-and-paste guy!

I stand by what I have stated here and those that know me know I would not make up anything printed here.

Right. Well, except for that last bit.

The Macalope's gracious and enormously well-endowed readers know he frequently gives ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes a hard time. They also know that it's genuinely deserved each and every time and is administered not out of anger, but out of love.

Well, no, not love.

Compassion?

Concern?

Eh.

How about obligation?

No. That's not it, either.

Annoyance?

Hmm.

Wait, maybe it is anger.

Well, whatever the case, because he gives him such a hard time when he gets something wrong, he feels compelled to give him some credit when he gets something right about Apple.

Plus, it's easy because, as far as the horny one knows, this is the first time it's happened.

But Kingsley-Hughes does have a pretty good recap of Apple's quarterly results. He rightly notes that it's the outlook for next quarter that seems to be the only real bad news and says:

Looking at these numbers it's hard to see why analysts are disappointed. In the weird fairytale land that most analysts seem to inhabit the idea of rolling growth is one that now expected [sic] of a company such as Apple. But in the real world it's hard for Apple, or any other company for that matter, to come out with hit products such as the iPhone all the time.

Indeed.

Now, the Macalope has some close ties to the financial industry, but (or maybe "therefore") he's often critical of it. All too often the market seems to operate on the "frightened deer" school of analytical thought.

The issue here, though, is not so much the current "panic" as it was the "irrational exuberance" of last year. It's quite likely that a lot of nitwits did buy Apple expecting it would produce iPhones and tablets and sub-$100 notebooks and free candy and magical ponies for ever and ever and ever. Apple was the closest thing they had to the supposed "no-brainer" dot-com days.

"They pick up your groceries and deliver them to you! It can't lose!"

Well, maybe these clowns are out now. So it might be a good time to buy.

Or not. Personally, other than a number of Apple shares you can literally count on one hand, the Macalope doesn't play the ponies.

Most of his money is in gold and jewels. And it's being guarded by a dragon.

Which is a pretty good system until you try to cash out.

[Disclosure: the Macalope holds an insignificant number of Apple shares. In case you missed that part.]

If the Macalope were Steve Jobs, he'd be sending big-assed fruit baskets to each of the striking writers (tip o' the antlers to BoingBoing).

As Alex Lindsey has noted several times on MacBreak Weekly, Apple is about one step away from offering an end-to-end solution for video development and distribution for independent producers. Even if it's not ready to pull the trigger for technological or political reasons, it's a great time to make some friends.

Sometimes it seems that ZDNet drives around in big vans, catches those prone to willful obtuseness with nets and takes them immediately to its headquarters where they're each given a blog.

This time ZDNet's David Berlind is hot on the trail of the hideous secret behind Apple's requirement that iPhones be purchased with a credit card.

And he's got a camera. The Macalope just bets Apple sales associates and holiday shoppers alike were just thrilled to see him coming.

"Oh, hell, Mabel, it's another one o' them ZDNet bloggers. Maybe we should head over to the food court until he clears out."

In fairness to Berlind, it does appear that he was sensitive to the length of the line behind him. But does he really need a camera crew for this? This isn't exactly and episode of To Catch A Predator. He hasn't even posted the video and the Macalope is perfectly willing to concede that everything he says happened did, in fact, happen. Do we really need to see all the annoyed glares and exasperated sighs of those around him?

As you can see in the video, I asked the clerk as well as a manager for some explanation of the policy and all they would tell me is that it's just the company's policy. There was no explanation.

It is truly shocking that Apple retail sales associates are somewhat reticent to accuse walk-in customers -- particularly ones with video cameras pointed at them -- of wanting to resell its products for a markup. Or get into an argument with well-gelled ZDNet bloggers over it.

Berlind then grandly comes to the realization that, well, the rest of us came to over a month ago. [UPDATE: The Macalope mistakenly thought this was a recent piece as it was included in one of ZDNet's daily emails, however it was written in early November. So, Berlind was only a week behind the curve instead of over a month.]

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots. Apple has relationships that its contractually bound to protect and must do whatever it can to eliminate the gray market.

No, you certainly don't have to be a rocket scientist. You just have to have a fourth grade reading level and access to teh Googles because back in October Engadget quoted an Apple spokesperson saying the reason was "to discourage unauthorized resellers".

What really has Berlind's stylish taupe suit pants in a bind is the insinuation by an Apple retail associate that the company could use your name and credit card number to determine how many iPhones you'd purchased.

When I went back (we don't have this part on video), I asked for the same manager. But this time, a woman came out and I told her that the first manager I was dealing with had offered to look something up. Before I could finish, she said "Your name." She went on to explain that I was only allowed to buy a maximum of two iPhones and that, if they could determine with some confidence that I had not already reached that quota, that they could sell me one for cash.

Why is this a problem according to Berlind? After talking to some Visa contacts, he believes Apple may be in violation of the PCI DSS, a credit card industry standard for maintaining data security.

Berlind describes the PCI DSS thusly:

As far as I can tell, the standard policy potentially yields two important results. First, it protects the privacy of cardholders. Second, it helps merchants and card issuers manage risk. It does this by spelling out in fairly detailed terms what can and can't be done with the information that's retrieved off a credit card's magnetic stripe and the lengths to which IT systems must go to protect data (eg: it talks about firewalls, encyrption, etc.).

The Macalope is not a lawyer or an information security expert (although he has dealt with information security issues in the financial industry), but he read through the PCI DSS (you can click through the summary to get a PDF of the detail -- it's riveting) and he thinks Berlind's reading (assuming he read it and didn't just rely solely on the summary he got from someone at Visa) is off here. From the brown and furry one's reading, the PCI DSS is almost solely concerned with physical and logical security and restricting access to "those with a need to know". It tells companies what they must do to protect customer data, but says almost nothing about what the company itself can do with the data.

There may very well be other legislation and requirements that restrict the types of lookups Berlind is concerned with, but the PCI DSS doesn't appear to be one of them.

Berlind's point is that Apple has to tie a customer name to a credit card number to get a valid key to figuring out whether or not someone has previously purchased an iPhone. It's also possible, however, to do that with just the last four digits of the credit card number. That may not be any better from the perspective of someone concerned about Steve Jobs sitting in his super-secret lair beneath an island volcano and poring over customers' purchases -- "Aha! He has an iPhone and likes Pushing Daisies! I have you now!" -- but it might be enough to obviate the credit card companies' concerns over storing personal account numbers.

Heck, they print that much on your receipt when you buy a pecan log roll at Stuckey's.

While the PCI DSS documentation is vague about what data can be retained by a merchant and for how long, the explanation I got made it clear that if Apple is using credit card numbers for reasons other than completing monetary transactions ? in other words, if Apple is using credit card numbers for the purpose of tracking (as seems to be the case here) ? that Apple might not only be in violation of PCI DSS, it could also be breaking some laws (some of which are based on PCI DSS) as well as breaching the terms of its agreements with card issuers and credit card companies such as Visa, MasterCard, and American express (who, as you can see by the fines that Visa levied against TJX for the "worst data breach in the payment industry's history," guard the privacy of cardholders with relatively bloodthirsty lawyers).

It's funny that Berlind would mention the TJX case as it involves data security lapses by the company that led to hackers acquiring card numbers. It doesn't allege that the company itself was misusing customer data, but that it allowed others access to it.

[UPDATE: it's even funnier considering it looks like the TJX case just fizzled.]

My educated guess is that Apple's practices have kicked off a shitstorm of an inquisition in the credit card industry that has lawyers on both sides poring through the PCI DSS documentation, merchant contracts, and state/federal laws and that this isn't the last we will hear of this.

Again, from the Macalope's inexpert (but also educated) reading, Apple could satisfy every one of the PCI DSS requirements and still allow someone with the proper access controls -- like a store manager -- to view your purchase history. Maybe there's some other requirement Apple's in violation of here, but Berlind seems to be barking up a stump rather than a tree.

ADDENDUM: Commenter qengho points out:

You forgot to point out that he has no evidence that they've retained his CC number in the first place. The manager retrieved his info by asking for his name, and he goes on to say "But then comes the question of whether they are retaining your credit card number as well. How could they not?"

In other words, he pulled that supposition out of his ass and THEN went a rampage.

Including calling Visa and throwing around loose charges of violating laws he doesn't actually cite. Remember, you can't spell "supposition" without many of the same letters it takes to spell "suppository".