Yeah, okay, you're probably sick about hearing us talk about the iMac's success by now; after all, it's been the hot topic since they first leapt off the shelves in August. But we're not the only ones harping on Apple's blue-and-white home run; ever since the sales numbers came pouring in, stories about the iMac's consumer appeal started to eclipse the widespread media rants about how the lack of a built-in floppy drive was the kiss of death. And these days, people are looking at the bigger picture; take the runaway success of the iMac, sprinkle it on top of a newly-focused and profitable Apple run "temporarily" by Steve Jobs, garnish with a stock price over twice what it was a year ago, and voilà! It's the recipe for an increasing (and, we suspect, a grudging) media admission that Apple is back from the brink and increasingly kicking butt.
Case in point? Steve Jobs may not have been named Time's "Man of the Year" (yeah, okay, we'll admit that Starr and Clinton had a bigger impact around the water cooler, but Steve and the iMac are cuter than both of them by a long shot), but Time still acknowledged Apple's achievements in 1998. Apple's comeback is Time's number one tech story of the year. And while it would be remiss of them not to note that there's still lots of work to be done-- overcoming the disparity between the selections of Windows and Mac software, for instance-- it's nice to see a big, well-respected publication give some credit where credit is due.
That said, what'll it take for Steve Jobs to secure the Man of the Year slot for next year? If it involves any indiscretions in the Oval Office, our advice would be to forget about the whole thing...
Maclennium Countdown (12/15/98)
We at AtAT have been stating for a long time that Apple should capitalize upon the relative insignificance of the Y2K bug in Macintosh systems by starting a heavy-hitting ad blitz that harps on the subject. Yes, of course Macs are susceptible to Y2K problems depending on what software they run, but it's a much-reduced concern, and the system itself won't blink an eye when 2000 comes around. Anyway, right at the end of a MacWEEK article about all kinds of upcoming Apple stuff, Apple's Mac OS product manager Peter Lowe reveals that Apple will indeed be "pushing hard" to market the Mac as a Y2K-proof computer in 1999. (Thankfully, Apple's testing that claim strenuously before they start the ads and open themselves up for a very embarrassing New Year's Day, 2000.)
Mac OS Rumors claims to have some more details on the Y2K advertising blitz (though the information is thrown in with so many marginally believable details about QuickTime 5 and PC-compatible "Red Box" technology that we're more than a little wary of the integrity of the source). Apparently the new TV commercials will start to air on February 2nd, and Rumors even has a transcript of one of the ads, which features the "president of a large corporation" fielding a call from a representative of "Data Protection Systems" who is hawking Y2K preparation services; the president calmly states that he doesn't have to worry because he has a Macintosh. Mmm, too simple and lacks punch. We've received a ton of better Y2K ad suggestions from AtAT viewers over the course of the past year, so we hope that the example over at Rumors isn't genuine. Still, we welcome the advent of Y2K-centric Mac ads, even though they should have started a long time ago.
So how extensive will the system failures be once the calendar flips over to 2000? We won't know until we get there, but here's our personal prediction: in PC-based companies all over the world, the only departments left standing will be the graphics folks and their Macs, who will rise to take over the companies and build a new Golden Era of peace and prosperity. Blessed are the Graphics Geeks, for they shall inherit the payroll department...
Lawsuits All Around (12/15/98)
We all know about Imatec's $1.1 billion lawsuit against Apple for allegedly infringing upon Imatec patents in the ColorSync color management technology. Since it was first announced, we've been hard-pressed to name another high-tech suit with such a high price tag-- but that's all just changed. Enter Goldtouch Technologies, Inc., a maker of ergonomic input devices who has just sued Microsoft for $1 billion in damages, alleging "patent infringement, fraud, and theft of trade secrets." Read all about it in PC Week Online.
Goldtouch's suit alleges some pretty nasty behavior on Microsoft's part. According to the suit, Microsoft buddied up to Goldtouch and stated that they were interested in licensing some technology to use in a new Microsoft mouse. A meeting was scheduled between the two companies, at which Microsoft representatives asked "detailed questions" about Goldtouch's ergonomic designs and technologies, which Goldtouch answered with the belief that a licensing deal was imminent. Shortly thereafter, Microsoft told Goldtouch that they were no longer interested-- and a year later, the Microsoft Intellimouse Pro hit the market. According to Goldtouch, Microsoft used the information gathered at the meeting to design its new mouse. It was a slimy move, if it indeed happened that way-- Imatec's suit against Apple doesn't allege nearly the same degree of icky behavior, even though it asks for more money. (Both suits claim full intent to ignore the patents that were supposedly violated, and are asking for treble damages. That's over $6 billion, all told.)
So the billion-dollar-question is this: Is it a good sign or a bad sign that Apple faces lawsuits of similar size and type as ones filed against the monolithic Microsoft? On the one hand, it's a big distraction for Apple during this time of rebuilding, but on the other, does this officially put them back in the big leagues? If it does, it's a heck of a way to get there...
Resourcefulness Redone (12/16/98)
Wanna know why we're not running Apple? We mean, aside from the obvious reasons like we have no formal business training, we'd hire all our friends regardless of their skills, we'd institute a policy that every new Mac made should have a one-of-a-kind swirled two-tone translucent case even if it added $200 to the price, etc. It's because we never would have thought of raising money by using Amazon.com's associate program within Sherlock.
You're probably aware of these associate programs; several e-commerce web sites have deals where you can sign up with them, and put links to their site on your site. Then, if somebody viewing your site clicks through to, say, Vacuum Cleaners Online ("The Web Site That Really Sucks!") and orders a new Electro-Suck 3000‚Ñ¢, you would get a small chunk of the profits. Well, according to MacWEEK, Apple's hit upon a cool variation of the idea: the Mac OS 8.5.1 Sherlock plug-ins for Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble include the tags for Apple's associate contract with those organizations. The upshot is, if you use Sherlock to search Amazon.com for a book title, and then click on the found link and buy that book, Apple gets a little bit of cash at the end of the month. Smart! It costs Apple nothing to set up, Sherlock users have the same ease of use they would have without the associate's program stuff embedded, and everybody lives happily ever after.
So if you're a dyed-in-the-wool Apple booster and you like to buy your books online, remember-- using Mac OS 8.5.1's Sherlock to find your latest picks costs you nothing extra, but it kicks a little extra pocket change to Apple. We can't imagine that it's a lot of money, or anything, since the associate's cut seems to be anywhere up to 15% of the profit on each sale, but we're still impressed with the sheer resourcefulness of the idea.
•As the Apple Turns• <jackm@infoXczar.com>
Websites mentioned:
<http://www.infoxczar.com/atat>
 
<http://www.macstuff.net>
My Mac Magazine ® 1999 As the Apple Turns. All Rights Reserved.
