SuperSite Blog

Nice.  Awesome.  Just Awesome

all those 70+ comments before for nothing ??? well nevermind...

What about Pogue ? how come he didn't write an article about this ? *** !

It's the typical Apple freak attitude that the Jobs empire can do no wrong.  Hypocrites!

The editors of Infoworld are probably tripping over themselves trying to get a scathing article criticizing Apple for this...

I got in this morning, but not now.  This morning it was slow, but not as slow a Vista file copy:)

My website, mail (local), gallery all work, just not the webmail.

Its sort of like Xbox Live over this last Xmas, you know when all those people got new 360's and new gamesfor Xmas, and it took down Xbox Live for about 4 weeks.

Ever notice people who put the Mac Logo on their cars?  :-)

You know what's even funnier..  

I was listening to Macbreak Weekly this morning and hearing Leo et al. talking about some of their mac experiencing and regaling each other of stories of kernel panics and OS re-installs with OS X.

I just find it hilarious that mac afficionados are so quick to bash MS/Windows yet don't really bother to look in their own back yard to note that things aren't really better..

(Just so we're clear, I love Leo's podcasts and the Twit network.   They're great to listen for the 90 minutes I spend in the car each day.)

This is kinda lame.  I don't know why they couldn't maintain .mac's web front-end while perform the switch-over so that we don't have to endure a "maintenance" page.  I'm not happy that the website is down... however, iDisk, email, and syncing all seem to be working properly within OSX directly.  My .mac-hosted website is up and working fine.  Same with the online calendars I've posted from ical.

So in reality, it's ONLY the website component of .mac that's down.  Not great.  But also not a big deal, as you say here Paul.  It's probably an understandable thing for a full-fledged replacement of the web front-end.  But I don't know the tech, so I can't really comment on the complexity.

Still, I think the question is being posed incorrectly.  There shouldn't be outrage for either case.  And the fact that there's misplaced outrage for some beta Vista site that no-one knows about doesn't mean two wrongs need to make a right.

In fact, the thing that would make the most sense, Paul, is for you to ignore such a trivial moment of downtime.  That's what you wanted the pundits to do with this Vista page.  Aren't you being a bit hypocritical?  Or is this just meta-criticism?  Just honest questions.  Not jabs.

This is kind of a big deal, especially if you use the thing.  I don't think it's worthy of outrage, but it's clearly a bigger deal than the Microsoft site that no one knows about and no one is using not being ready.

"I don't think it's worthy of outrage, but it's clearly a bigger deal than the Microsoft site that no one knows about and no one is using"

Which was mentioned three times - and by the same person. An outrage!

John, Paul said in his last sentence that this isn't a big deal.  "But seriously folks. This isn't a big deal. Just like the delays in a beta Vista compatibility Web site are not a big deal."  And it truly isn't  If we were to complain about every web site outage and problem, we wouldn't have time to post here, let alone work or sleep.

The only reason he mentioned it, is because of Ina's article posted about MS having the exact same problem.  Outrage and wide reporting for the MS issue, not so much here.

Paul is not saying he wants there to be outrage, he's just wondering why the double standard.  Fair enough question.

@Raskin

You know what's even sadder .. ?

People selectively quoting a podcast to fabricate a point.

"... and regaling each other of stories of kernel panics and OS re-installs with OS X. I just find it hilarious that mac afficionados  ..blah blah ..."

Yes. One guy was  experiencing problems with his notebook. Diagnososis; Dodgy graphics chip.

Bad hardware. It happens. Nothing to to with Mac OS X or any other software. The only reason he was talking about it was to praise the excellent service he got from the guys at an Apple store.

I politely call it "fabrication". Translate that into Thurrott and you get .... lying.

I think MS was swift-boated by Ina and company.  It part of the grand conspiracy brought to you by the anti MS site www.moveonnothingheretoseewithvista.com

Seriously neither is a big deal, each for their own reasons.  I am pretty sure no one knew about the Vista upgrade advisor, and even less cared about it.  People that want to actually go to Vista on their own, all 8 of them, have went already.  Millions of people that bought new PC's and dont have a geek friend to take them back to XP, well they are stuck.  The rest that have a choice will never go there.

The MobileMe deal, well I thought they said it would be ready on the 11th to use, in fact they sent me an email, its been posted on the .Mac site as well.  Its a huge transition, and millions of people want to get to it, so while I can see why it may be getting more attention it should not unless its not working well into the 11th and not working at all.  Most of its working now, including sending and receiving email from a @me.com account from Mail or Outlook (I have tested).

Neither should be a big deal.  MobileMe should be and will be a big deal if it does not come up on the 11th.  If the Vista site never comes up, I doubt it will be missed.  I mean everyone got over WinFS didn't they?

And, to top it off, according to Sean Alexander's blog, if you DO manage to get into MobileMe using a Windows machine you'll find that Apple decided they didn't need to support IE7 and the setup offers to have you download Firefox or Safari.

Only Apple would have the arrogance to tell 80% of the users of a platform to stop using one of their key products for the chance of paying for a limited sync app.

blog.seanalexander.com/.../ApplesMobileMeDoesntFullySupportPopularBrowsers.aspx

@mikegalos  um it has not hurt them yet, and I would imagine until this realease 95+% of .Mac users were on a Mac.

Besides I just read that IE is now down to 73% market share.....

marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx

Add to that IE will work most of it.

@mikegalos so they say IE 7 is not supported in the app but on the web site it is...... good job job's

Mobile Me Requirments for PC's

"For PC: Windows Vista or Windows XP Home or Professional (SP2) or later; Internet Explorer 7, Safari 3, Firefox 2, or later; Microsoft Outlook 2003 or later recommended"

store.apple.com/.../A

Well It is a BIG deal when you use .Mac for your website. I have a few friends that I warn them about using a .Mac as the main server for their website not it is down.

My website hosted on .Mac is not down, in fact it seems faster if anything.

@dipsht,

Oh I know Paul doesn't think it's a big deal.  And I do think it SUCKS that .mac webmail access was offline all day (so much for me checking my personal mail at work today with my iphone fried).

My question was more of a philosophical one.  Ina's article is idiotic.  That stands on it's own.  But I do understand his point here and I agree.  Apple gets a pass on things that Microsoft doesn't.  No question.  Apple doesn't get off scott free by any stretch, but mainstream people aren't as harsh on them overall.

Then again... Microsoft has made an enormous fortune as a monopoly and theoretically should be held to a higher standard as the industry leader.  At least in theory.

I'm not sure Paul is the best person to point out "inconsistency."  For example when apple stretches things in its marketing, it's always a LIE.  When MS does the same, Paul simply disagrees and never uses the L word.  

"I'm not sure Paul is the best person to point out "inconsistency."  For example when apple stretches things in its marketing, it's always a LIE.  When MS does the same, Paul simply disagrees and never uses the L word. "

Actually, I remember times where he did say that. When MS said that current Windows versions were built for the internet he called it a lie because it was still based on NT which was made before the internet was around. I can't find the link, but it coulda been a podcast...

And at the same time, the Webkinz website is also down for maintenance. It must be a conspiracy:)

Hey Mike,

Welcome to the rest of the world, maybe MS should support some f-ing standards.  Your outrage is completely laughable, MS has been trying to use its market share to control the internet for the last decade.  Thanks to Firefox and the fact that MS thought the browser war was over and sent their developers to develop something else, IE market share is now below 75%.  As a result ALL web developers have to develop for ALL browsers.  

From what I understand since Firefox has been kicking IE's ass lately MS has decided to be more supportive of standards.  Gee a standards based internet, what a novel concept.

As for web mail being down, that simply is unforgivable.  Email, for better or worse is a vital communication tool.  Apple should have planned this transition and executed it better.  

Regards

Joe Dokes

Maybe there was no outrage from Ina Fried or May Jo Foley, the only 2 journalists that criticized Microsoft is because... hmmm.. they only cover Microsoft? They are known "Microsoft Watchers"?

Funny how 10 seconds of research will answer such questions.

Steve75228:

Then what "Apple Watchers" do this time? Last time I checked our iFriends seem very happy with what Ina Fried reported. So why so mad with Paul on the similar issue?

And the Webkinz site is still down. Why didn't Ina and MJ cover that too! There are tens of thousands, if not millions of kids crying as we type! Three are right here with me.

Apple is the most standards-driven company of the large software houses.  No question.  Between them, Adobe and Microsoft... it's basically no content.

All Apple apps use open XML-based file formats with full schema's (iWork, Final Cut and the pro-apps, the OS itself and it's resources).  QuickTime is built entirely around pushing the open h.264 and MPEG4 standards (which are in fact based on QuickTime's format to begin with).  Safari is built on the open, Apple-lead webkit platform which is the MOST standards-compliant browsing engine on the market... and is in use by Adobe AIR, Google Android, Nokia's platform and others.

Apple's graphics system is built on-top of Open GL.  Hell, the OS's underlying core is open source.

Apple's strategy has been and remains using software as a differentiator to drive a total solution product with hardware and make their money on the whole thing.  So Final Cut is very open, but it only runs on Macs.

If you want to get into  "Apple is closed!  DRM!  Blah" save it.  That's not Apple's fault or in their core DNA.  Their core DNA is total product solutions and integration driven by great software.

Sorry if that sounds like shill Apple apologetics... but I think its very accurate.

Where they irk many is that their 80% solution that works so well for most people, feels very restrictive for those who aren't served.  Want vorbis on your iPhone?  Sorry.  What DivX on your Apple TV?  Gonna need to hack it.

This is the price they're willing to pay for usability and more appliance-like user experience.  You can't make everyone happy and trying to do so generally causes more problems than Apple's approach of strong vision-driven design.

All of you are very much like sports team fans, defending the team. If you're in a bar and someone tries to convince you that your team has flaws, and you disagree, you will both be defending your positions. I guess that the only difference is that for you geeks, MS or Apple is your team. If it's allowable for sports, and no blood is shed, then I see no problem with technology on a blog. Heck, people do it with all kinds of stuff, from politics to cars. Let the games continue! No back to the beach.

Peace,

Doc

@ Johnpapola,

Taking your defense of Apple's lack of support of other standards like FLAC, Ogg, DivX etc on their products,

[tounge in cheek]

The fact that Microsoft owns 90% desktop marketshare and almost 80% of browser marketshare, the standard that they choose to implement [be it ActiveX, DirectX, or IE] should be the defacto standard. It is the silly Unix junkies who are foisting their separatist standards on the rest of the world.

In Apple-speak, the rest of the companies are the ones breaking the defacto standard of Microsoft's "strong vision-driven design." ;)

[/tongue in cheek]

@Raaj is that why IE8 finally caves to standards, as MS continues to loose browser market share???

Software problems bug Apple's launch of new iPhone

news.yahoo.com/.../apple_iphone

Here's some outrage....

www.computerworld.com/.../article.do

Doc's got a few good points there...

@ SnakeDoctor1:

Find the tongue in cheek. Find the jest.

Anyway, Microsoft is doing a favor to people by coming down from their stance to accommodate other "standards". No shame in that.

RaaJ,

With all due respect, you've got some logistic and linguistic problems with this post.  I realize it was a half-baked "tongue in cheek" post.  But, I'll rant anyway...

"other standards like FLAC, Ogg, DivX"

Those aren't standards.  They're formats.  I could come up with a new, open-sourced format tomorrow, but that wouldn't make it worth anything.  I suppose you could say that DivX is the standard for video piracy.  That's fair enough.

My point is quite simply that Apple today is employing open standards across their entire software product line (aside from DRM) which enable zero lock-in and aren't burdened with any strategic competitive issues that may incentivize Apple to break them for other platforms.  h.264 is h.264.  There's nothing to hide or prevent Avid from importing your Final Cut XML project file.  There's no cost or platform-lockin to using webkit.

"should be the defacto standard"

First of all, "should" is not the right way to put that.  Maybe they DO become defacto standards... but whether they "should" be the standard is a matter of serious debate over the merit of the tech.  And, of course... it hasn't played out every time.  iTunes and AAC, not WMP and WMA are the defacto standard for online music distribution by virtue of marketshare.  MP3 is the overall digital music standard.  H.264 is emerging as the high-quality video standard with Flash as the defacto standard for video on the web.  Why do you think Zune and Xbox now support h.264?

As for the tongue in cheek bit... a joke, I guess.  Still, do you really want one corporation to control the formats in which all of your personal work and information stored?  Do you really think a competitive, innovative marketplace can function if Microsoft can literally dictate the standard?  What prevents them from just wiping every profitable company off the PC map (they've done a pretty good job of laying much of the business to waste as it is)? If you do, then you and I have very deep disagreements.  Honestly, I hope you're just playing devils' advocate.

All that said, I'm not sure you've actually rebutted my core point, which is that Apple is the most standard-compliant large software company.

Oh, and it looks like the iPhone launch isn't going so smoothly.  ABC is calling it the "iPocalypse".  Heh.  Pretty funny wordplay.  And macsurfer.com has that headline at the top of the page.

So much for the "iCabal".  Once again, Apple criticism from the Apple community... like always.

"QuickTime is built entirely around pushing the open h.264 and MPEG4 standards (which are in fact based on QuickTime's format to begin with)"

'scuze me??!

That's the biggest load of bullshyte I've read all day for two reasons:  

a)  Apple would have you believe that H.264 and MPEG-4 is their own format because they use a custom file container which they don't license out.  There are numerous other container formats too such as Divx and Nero Digital, which all CONTAIN MPEG-4 streams, but they still require the respective player.  They are NOT raw MPEG-4 streams though.  If it were "open" and "standards-based" as you so happily like to throw around, they wouldn't use the Quicktime container format at all, and only use the MPEG video or program stream container, which is truly "open" and "standards-based".

b)  The second part of your statement (in paratheses) is absolutely, unequivocably 100% wrong.  Quicktime isn't a format, it's a container.  The codecs used previously in Quicktime were made by Sorenson.  You sir, are a LIAR!

"Safari is built on the open, Apple-lead webkit platform which is the MOST standards-compliant browsing engine on the market"

AHAHAHAHA!  You're the biggest fool I've seen write on here.  In no way is Safari the most standards-compliant - Opera is.  Just because Webkit is excelling, doesn't mean Apple is implementing it into Safari updates.  Opera is the browser that has the highest scores in Acid3 than any other shipping product.  It doesn't matter though.  Corporations running IE-based websites - the REAL web standard - will still not function 100% on either browser.

"Where they irk many is that their 80% solution that works so well for most people, feels very restrictive for those who aren't served."

There goes your whole "open" argument down the tubes....

"Sorry if that sounds like shill Apple apologetics... but I think its very accurate."

You're right.  That doesn't *sound* like Apple apologetics - it just is!

"Apple today is employing open standards across their entire software product line (aside from DRM) which enable zero lock-in and aren't burdened with any strategic competitive issues that may incentivize Apple to break them for other platforms.  h.264 is h.264."

LIAR!

Quicktime != H.264.

@johnpapola  Not going well because of crazy high overall demand, is the kind of "not going well" every business wants.  

In two weeks or less, they massive surge and load on their infrastructure will calm down as people get activated, download their initial fill of apps, get MobileMe tweaked to their liking and Apple adds a few more servers.  

Then they can tackle their next problem, how to count all that money?

Welcome to the real "Live Mesh".

Weetorn, all that LIAR stuff, you related to Paul or is that a WindowsFanGirl battle cry?

Details aside, Apple supports open computing standards about 1000% more than MS does.  As the goverments of the world move to open standards more and more, including state and federal governments in the US, MS will either open up (like their openxml) or loose market share.

It looks as if the press and web are certainly making up for the 'lack of outrage' by the iPhone activation articles. My 3 buddies updated and are back on line, as are many, but only after a wait and some panic. This is just what I expected, same as last year. Either way, this should satify this site . I still like the Centro, now in 'Electric Blue'. Wae likes the HTC, so maybe for me. And now Blackberry's can use Documents-to-Go. It was easier to pick a phone when they were in big bags.

Apple really screwed up this launch good.  Man, what a disaster.  I'm glad I didn't wait in any lines for this mess.  I'll buy one this weekend after the dust settles (if it does by then).

In other news... PC World find that Apple's entire line of laptops are cheaper than their nearest comparable competition among the major PC makers:

www.macobserver.com/.../09.7.shtml

I guess "PC World" is now part of the iCabal.

Being that Mobile Me is a part redo of .mac and most of all adding tons of new functionality to the web, it is to be expected that glitches will happen. Launching any kind of revolutionary service such as Mobile Me always has its hiccups in the wild. Notice that most of the Windows guys have not raised the red flag and have been playing it cool about it. We are used to problems on the Windows side.

However, the iPhone launch was definitely mangled. Apple should have known that thousands upon thousands of people would try to activate the phone today. Preparation is always the big rule in business  and Apple's lack of preparation needs to be highlighted here.

Snakedoctor1 said:

In two weeks or less, they massive surge and load on their infrastructure will calm down as people get activated, download their initial fill of apps, get MobileMe tweaked to their liking and Apple adds a few more servers.  

There is no way it should take two weeks for Apple to straighten this mess. If they had anticipated the popularity of this launch, they should have had more servers activated PRIOR to launch. This kind of bungle would have lost my business.

If you look across the press spectrum from CNN and MSNBC to G4, this was not a good day for the iPhone 3G or Apple. As many say on here, perception is reality. To those who I've spoke to, their perception was that Apple and AT&T blew the launch. Yes, they'll make huge sales and it will be considered a success. However, part of good customer service is to plan for the worse and hope for the best. Trust me, the loss in having additional server costs, would have been made up for in positive press and happy customers.

IPhone 3G Delays Ease as Day Goes on

news.yahoo.com/.../148314

"I guess "PC World" is now part of the iCabal."

www.engadget.com/.../macbook-pro-really-was-pc-worlds-fastest-tested-laptop-until

Actually, reading the guy's blog that they picked that story up from, it looks like PC World not only faked the entire thing, but they also had the balls to try to cover it up.  Luckily a sharp fellow Canuck noticed it.  Have a look at the story here too:

joes-blog-canada.spaces.live.com/.../cns!DA2B394806986D5D!250.entry

joes-blog-canada.spaces.live.com/.../cns!DA2B394806986D5D!271.entry

Ok... Here's the way I see it...

First off, both of these are non-issues.  A delay in a website that is only a day or two at the most really doesn't matter.  However, I think everybody here knows that, the real question here was why is there a double standard?

Well... I  think that it basically comes down to market share.  When you have a huge company like MS controlling the market the way that they do everything that they do is going to be scrutinized.  Apple on the other hand has less market share and therefore less coverage in the press and so they don't get jumped all over.  And yes... I do know that there are a lot of Apple reporters out there... but the simple fact is that a lot of the reporters for Apple are also fans of Apple and therefore do not criticize them, especially on something as insignificant as this.  Many MS reporters aren't really a fan of MS, it's just their job, and so since Vista when they see the words MS and delay together they think STORY, even when there isn't one there.

So, bottom line... was MS treated unfairly here? YES.  Is there a double standard? YES.  However that's the price that MS will pay as long as it is as dominate as it is, which will probably be forever.

tristanh, I disagree. The iPhone activation problem is FRONT PAGE NEWS EVERYWHERE. It's even wrongly called a software bug. Also, it was only between an hour or two of the problem, then all was fine again. Yet it's every where and pretty much titled a national catastrophy. That's quite over the top. Yet, I do beleive in the David vs Goliath analogy posted previously. Now, Newsweek had an article siting several Apple haters, that write that Apple can do no right, claiming some of theri view are 'slanted' [that's polite for lying, deception, etc...]

Waethorn,

Regarding A.

I'm not sure how "Apple would have you believe that h.264 and MPEG4 is their own format".  Where are you coming up with this idea?  

A quick look at Apple's page regarding H.264 reveals that they make perfectly clear where H.264 comes from and where it's used.

www.apple.com/.../h264

I don't believe that Windows Media Player can even natively read mp4 or h.264-encoded media with third party plugins.  This was the point of comparison.  Microsoft has alway ignored the industry standards in order to leverage their monopoly to force their formats on the market.

Still, I believe that the .mp4 files you create in quicktime are readable and on other platforms and players in a standard way.  And I know that QuickTime can read all of the standard formats, unlike WMP or Windows itself out of the box.  That sure makes Apple's QuickTime way more open than Microsoft or Adobe... which was my point.

Regarding B.

It is quite clearly you who are 100% wrong, here.  QuickTime is a format, just as Word is a format and .AVI is a format.   The name QuickTime also refers to the media architecture and the player app that sits on top of that architecture.  You're right that it's a container file format.  But it is MOST CERTAINLY A FILE FORMAT.

Please refer to the ISO ratification of the QuickTime File Format as the basis for the MPEG-4 standard.  Microsoft submitted ASF and was turned down.

findarticles.com/.../ai_20331478

Notice the use of the term "format" regarding QuickTime by everyone involved.

I just gotta love how you're calling me a "LIAR!" for referring to quicktime as a format while being 100% wrong.  Again, I invite you to come down to New York and conduct yourself this way to my face.  It sure is easy to attack people when you're just typing away in your basement.  So, come down and call me a "LIAR!" to my face, sir.  Maybe I'm ignorant on some of the semantics of the ISO and their file structures.  But lying means knowing and deception and I don't accept that libelous accusation.

I'd be happy to show you around New York City and all the networks, ad agencies and film and tv production companies relying on QuickTime for their entire production pipeline... you know... most of them... since Final Cut Pro has 70%+ of the ENTIRE VIDEO EDITING MARKET WORLDWIDE.  So regardless of all of your nonsense, QuickTime is the defacto standard for video production.  Period.

Regarding Webkit...

"AHAHAHAHA!  You're the biggest fool I've seen write on here.  In no way is Safari the most standards-compliant - Opera is.  Just because Webkit is excelling, doesn't mean Apple is implementing it into Safari updates."

Can you even read english, sir?  Seriously.  Did I not clearly write that webkit itself is the most standards compliant browsing engine?  Now, perhaps I'm wrong as of today and Opera has inched ahead for the moment.  Even if that's true, Webkit supports more of the web standards than IE or Firefox and is AN OPEN PLATFORM... which again, was my point.  Hence it's use in Android, Nokia and even Adobe's AIR.

As for "Corporations running IE-based websites - the REAL web standard - will still not function 100% on either browser."

Oh.. that's right.  You're a partisan WinCabal shill.  So whatever Microsoft does is the "REAL web standard".  What about the fact that IE8 will default to the ACTUAL REAL WEB STANDARDS mode that breaks most of those sites?  Why are they doing that, Waethorn?  WHY?  Because the corporate intranet legacy garbage is "the REAL web standard"?  I don't think so.

Given, IE8 will have the legacy engine to keep these sites from breaking.  But I think the point is pretty damn clear.

Apple is quite demonstrably the most standards-compliant of the major software houses in the business.  You've rebutted nothing in that statement.

I'll end on this little nugget from Jon Kannegaard, a VP Sun in 1998 when QuickTime was chosen for the ISO MPEG4 standard:

""The people from Apple are being too modest." Aside from technical issues, he said, the committee was swayed by QuickTime's success throughout the industry."

Apple being modest.  Now there's something.

As for your pathetic, redirection on PC World's article.  Why are you such a hack, sir?  What does a 6 month old article about the speed of macbooks have to do with PC World's current price comparison?  So it looks like a $5200 PC was able to marginally outperform a Macbook Pro at $3000.  I see that you're simply trying to negate a story that doesn't fit into your worldview by smearing the legitimacy of the source.  Good work.  Why debate merit when you can plug your ears and smear the other side.  You are the worst partisan Apple-hater I have ever seen on the internet (that's clearly smart enough to know better).

@Snake & Subzero.

Well... at least in the NYC area, it looks like the problem was overblown in the press and now every single store seems to be sold out.  I wonder how the Rob Enderle's of the world will call this something other than a massive success.  I can't wait for the Apple press release announcing 10 million iPhones sold... well in advance of December.  I'll keep the crow nice and warm for you Waethorn.  No sense in eating it cold.

[...] an interesting post was made today on this site [...]...

I invite anyone else to open up a quicktime movie in quicktime pro... go to "Export" and choose "Export to MPEG-4".  You'll get options to use either MPEG-4 basic, MPEG-4 Improved or H.264 as the codec and have settings that show their conformance with the standard.  The resulting .mp4 file, if the dialog box says it conforms... should be a 100% conforming, cross-platform file.

Oh.. and I believe mr. Paul Thurrott actually concluded that H.264 is the defacto standard for video as well as the real ISO standard in his "Digital Media Core: Video" article..

@sub subzero, in two weeks 98% of 3G iPhone owners wont care about launch day it will be behind them.  Serves most of them right trying to get it day one.  I have tried once to get into me.com and it was slow, since I rarely used mac.com because I use the phat clients, I will just wait until later this week to check it out.

The problems brought even more press attention to Apple, unless they dont fix the problem in a week, that press, reporting of launch problems, will end up being good for them overall.

@johnpapola nice retort.  I cant wait to hear what, if anything Weathorn has to say:)

Does anyone know how to remove the Mobile Me craplet from the Control Panel after installing iTunes 7.7?

I have not purchased Mobile Me, nor would I ever want to.

I meant to say that WMP can't read MPEG-4 standards WITHOUT a third party plugin... though I know that the Zune and Xbox can... because they are now the real standard, no matter how much MS wants it to be their own.

Also... the Apple stores appear to have stock, but the lines are still hours long.  AT&T stores are all sold out.

Surprise, surprise.  Radio silence from Waethorn as his libelous accusations and attacks are destroyed by the actual facts.

"I meant to say that WMP can't read MPEG-4 standards WITHOUT a third party plugin... "

That's not even close to what you said though.  It was:

"I don't believe that Windows Media Player can even natively read mp4 or h.264-encoded media with third party plugins."

....which is completely wrong.  There are numerous DirectShow plugins that support H.264 in Windows Media Player, the best of which is probably CoreAVC, which actually does the decode processing on a GPU.  It's faster than EVERY other codec on the market, including NVIDIA's own PureVideo codec.

"That sure makes Apple's QuickTime way more open than Microsoft"

???

How exactly is preventing third parties from licensing the Quicktime file container format "more open" than Microsoft???  Apple even threatened to sue the company that created Quicktime Alternative.

"I believe that the .mp4 files you create in quicktime are readable and on other platforms and players in a standard way."

That is only a half truth at best.  Apple favours the Quicktime container format, and any MPEG-4 or H.264 stream in that container format will indeed NOT play on anything other than Quicktime.

"Please refer to the ISO ratification of the QuickTime File Format as the basis for the MPEG-4 standard."

Quoting an article from 1998 is the best you can do?

Try quoting any kind of article about H.264 that states that Quicktime is somehow the defacto baseline for it and I'll consider that a valid argument.  MPEG-4 levels 1-3 were a joke, sorry to say.  Microsoft supported those early on too.

"Final Cut Pro has 70%+ of the ENTIRE VIDEO EDITING MARKET WORLDWIDE"

Previous to that you stated different figures of 90+% and then 80%.  Until you actually provide some proof of that statement, I'll take my estimate of 0% to be just as accurate.  Besides that, since when all of a sudden are you relying on market share as an example?  After all, according to you, market share means nothing.

"So whatever Microsoft does is the "REAL web standard"."

When IE is preloaded on Windows machines, and those machines command 95% of the worlds market share and the vast majority of businesses worldwide develop for that platform, then YES, that is the real standard.  What the W3 says is just the *proposed* web standard.  Companies like Microsoft don't have to abide by them.  Likewise, Apple doesn't have to utilize Fraunhofer's proposed MPEG standards in the Quicktime file container (and they don't - there are additional options that the compressor offers for MPEG-4/H.264 streams that are not part of the spec, just like DivX, just like Nero Digital).

"So it looks like a $5200 PC was able to marginally outperform a Macbook Pro at $3000."

The only thing "marginal" was your assessment of the system performance.  That was a desktop quad-core processor, and it STOMPED the MacBook Pro.

"I see that you're simply trying to negate a story that doesn't fit into your worldview by smearing the legitimacy of the source."

Smear or not, it's entirely the truth.  PC World lied.  They were caught with their pants down.  Then they tried to cover it up.  At the time, Apple was also one of their prime sponsers.  Coincidence?!  (I think not!)

"Good work."

Thanks.  I accept your apology.

"I wonder how the Rob Enderle's of the world will call this something other than a massive success.  I can't wait for the Apple press release announcing 10 million iPhones sold... well in advance of December.  I'll keep the crow nice and warm for you Waethorn."

I don't like to take it away from you prematurely.  In Canada, the iPhone 3G is a massive failure.  High data rates and minimal stock, along with the rest of the issues (activation problems, and very VERY poor 3G coverage, coupled with poor international MobileMe support, bad PR) are turning into a general disappointment.  Then there's the fact that Apple isn't supporting it.  They're turning over support to Rogers for end-user issues.  Rogers never wanted the iPhone in the first place - that's why they played hardball with Apple over data rates and contract lock-in.  Apple wouldn't back down, so now Rogers is on their own.

Nice company you're defending there.

"I invite anyone else to open up a quicktime movie in quicktime pro... go to "Export" and choose "Export to MPEG-4".  You'll get options to use either MPEG-4 basic, MPEG-4 Improved or H.264 as the codec and have settings that show their conformance with the standard.  The resulting .mp4 file, if the dialog box says it conforms... should be a 100% conforming, cross-platform file."

Funny how you have to go through all of those steps to get a non-conformant file to work properly with an "open" standard (only as open as Fraunhofer wants to make it - it still must be licensed), while the default is a proprietary format, and at the same time, while IE8 defaults to the open standard by default, and must be tweaked for backwards compatibility, you slam Microsoft's stance.

LOL!

Pick those black feathers out from between your teeth.

"Final Cut Pro has 70%+ of the ENTIRE VIDEO EDITING MARKET WORLDWIDE.  So regardless of all of your nonsense, QuickTime is the defacto standard for video production.  Period."

Looking back at this statement, and your other silly arguments, I have to say:  This unequivocally counters every argument you make about Apple's "openness".

1)  Final Cut Pro is only on Mac OS X

2)  Final Cut Pro is not open source

3)  Quicktime is not open source

4)  The Quicktime file container is not licensed out (3rd parties aren't allowed to create their own Quicktime file routines - they have to use Apple's)

5)  If Quicktime is the "defacto standard" (again, provide proof, otherwise I'll file this under "iLies"), then it is absolutely 100% not open or interoperable.

(If you made a case that H.264 was the defacto standard of video editing - which it isn't, since you've already stated that before - then Quicktime wouldn't play into the argument at all)

Period.

Um... the "with" instead of "without" was a typo.  Obviously.  You really can't read english, can you?  Maybe you're French Canadian.

And 1998 is when the ISO chose QuickTime as the basis for the MPEG-4, so that article was perfectly relevant.  It also utterly debunks your insane tired about calling QuickTime a "format" being a "LIE" and therefor making me a "LIAR".  But sure, use the date as a way to dodge the facts.  You called me a liar for referring to QuickTime as a "format", and now you are cowardly dodging the proof to the contrary.

And I love your dodge regarding IE.  So explain why IE8 is defaulting to a more WC3-standards mode that won't render these horribly coded intranet apps if it's the "standard".  Huh?  Why?  Explain Why?  Oh wait, you're just dodge the question again.  You called IE's proprietary engine "the REAL WEB STANDARD".  Except that it's not... which is why Microsoft themselves is calling IE8's new default the "standards mode".  Bravo to Microsoft for being forced to adopt the standards now that they're browser share is on the verge of dropping below 70%.  How admirable.

As for PC World.  You're right.  The performance difference was more than "marginal".  That was incorrect of me.  I looked at the wrong numbers.  Regardless, the machine that beat the Macbook was nearly DOUBLE the price... and barely even a "laptop", given its weight...  which was 11lbs.  That's right.  imagine that.  A 11lbs, quad-core $5200 "laptop" beat out the 5lb, $3000, dual core Macbook Pro.  Amazing.

Oh, wait... aren't you the guy that is CONSTANTLY droning on and on about how EXPENSIVE macs are?  Oh, and wasn't my link about how PC World found COMPARABLE PC laptops more expensive than Apple's lineup?  And doesn't every single logical approach to this information reveal that you're a partisan hack?

11lbs is not a laptop worth comparing anything to if you have any shred of honesty at all.  Hell, for the pricing and weight, you could buy TWO or THREE macbooks, run your apps in a cluster and STILL be LIGHTER AND CHEAPER than the "Phantom-X" that you're claiming to have forever destroyed the credibility of PC World.

So, PC World found Mac laptops cheaper than their PC competitors.  You come back with "yeah, but the $5200 phantom-X "laptop" beat the $3000 Macbook pro 6 months ago and PC World lied".  Awesome.  I wonder how many 11lb "laptops" get sold every year.  

I'll admit that I'm working off of marketshare numbers from an NAB seminar regarding Final Cut and I can't find them at the moment.  I can't recall claiming that FCP had 80% or 90% share, so I think you're lying on that one.  But go ahead and believe whatever you want in your delusional mind.  You make whitebox PCs for a living.  I work in the TV business that uses editing as it's principal tool.  I'll let the audience decide who has more credibility.

As for all the problems you're having with Rogers in Canada... sucks for you.  Rogers is a horrible, abusive monopolist that makes AT&T and Verizon look customer-friendly.  Not sure how that's Apple's fault.  If nobody wanted the iPhone in canada, and Rogers "didn't even want it"... then why did they take it?  Please.  And how is it Apple's fault that Rogers tried to gouge the living hell out of Canadians with their pricing?  HOW?  You are ridiculous.  You're actually DEFENDING Rogers just to bash Apple.  I bet you'd defend the devil himself if you thought if could bash Apple. What a ludicrous hack.  Every honest Canadian seems to be saying that Rogers sucks... but you.  

Of course, Roger's 8 million subscribers in Canada is pretty inconsequential compared to the iPhone's overall addressable market and it's ability to exceed their 10 million phone projection.  That was my point, again.  They're going to beat that number and all the naysayers like you will be left to recoil.

Oh... and I'm impressed how quickly the iPhone became "a massive failure" in Canada.  After being on the market for 2 days?  You're pathetic.  Honestly.

iPhone debuts big in BlackBerry country:

sify.com/.../fullstory.php

"Apple's iPhone 3G debuted in the country of BlackBerry Friday with an unprecedented response.

In cities across Canada, people started making lines at stores as early as 2 a.m. to lap up the magic wireless device. Rogers Communications, the exclusive carrier of iPhone in Canada, had a tough time controlling the crowds as supplies sold out quickly at its stores."

Yeah.. that sure sounds like a "massive failure".  Clearly there were some serious problems with activation... you know, because of the ENORMOUS WORLDWIDE DEMAND.  Yep... that's the kind of "failure" that I'd love to have.

As for Final Cut debunking my core argument... you're just out to lunch.  

1.) Final Cut Pro is only on Mac OS X

- And most of Microsoft's software, like Access, Exchange Server, Windows Media Player, etc only run on windows.  QuickTime and iTunes are both cross-platform and have feature parity on both platforms.... unlike anything Microsoft makes (beside silverlight... for now).

2.) Final Cut Pro is not open source

- no, and neither is office or many apps.  But Final Cut Pro's file format is XML-based and fully readable by their parties with no license required.  So are all of Apple's other file formats outside of the iTunes DRM.  Oh.. and OSX's darwin core and Webkit ARE open source... which are far bigger and more important core products than FCP... so you lose the open source argument anyway.

3.) QuickTime is not open source

Again.  It reads and rights open formats natively.  The open formats are based on it as well.  And Apple produces feature-complete players for the Mac AND Windows.  It also reads and rights proprietary formats, including some amazing Apple formats like Prores that provide 4:2:2 10bit HD at mastering quality in SD bitrates. How is that NOT more open that Windows Media Format?  I don't see Windows Media Player on the Mac.  Or Zune.  Or Windows DRM.

4.)  Quicktime licensing...

I can't speak to this as I'm really not educated on it.  I know that on Windows and Mac, third party applications can use QuickTime to access it's entire architecture in their application and I know there are SDK's for doing so.  Not sure what it is you want them do beyond that.

5.)  QuickTime is the profession standard. Period. Come to New York or LA and see what format is used for most video editing workflows.  It's QuickTime.  Anyone that attended NAB knows that.  But this isn't your business, so you don't know.  You know your tiny bubble world of self-selecting customers.  Your customers may not use quicktime.  They may work in Vegas (a toy).. or premiere (fine, but not in use by pros).

H.264 is becoming the true web and consumer video standard, but it's obviously not an editing standard and never will be... because it's not an editing codec. If you want

Again, you've proved nothing.  Apple is more open on the software from than Microsoft or Adobe.  They have more open source projects of real value to them.  They have more open file formats underpinning their applications.  They don't use onerous activation on any of their products (unlike Microsoft and Adobe... with Adobe's being increasingly horribly done).

Microsoft is making strides in the right direction, but I stand by my point and think any fair-minded third party would agree that you haven't rebutted it effectively.

I apologize to the rest of the community for the rathole we've taken this thread down.  In other news... the appstore is friggin awesome.  As a former Palm user, there are already more high-quality apps available on the appstore for free that I could see getting daily use than just about anything I had for my treo... though the crashiness that third party apps brought to my treo killed my exploration of that market pretty quick.

I know what you mean about 3rd prty apps for Palm Treo causing it to crash. I had to delete as much as I could to save my Treo, including the mobile PDR. Again, I figured that I could look up anything that I needed on line. That's pretty pathetic if you think about it, but it's what I had to do to keep it running without having to reset it every ho