Ramblings of an Interesting Nature: mac

Showing posts with label mac. Show all posts

Friday, June 15, 2007

Interesting, Yet Disappointing: Part II

Onward we go, with my third post about WWDC 2007. In this article, I'm going to finish up my random tidbits and observations about the keynote. The next one will discuss each of the ten Leopard features covered in the keynote.

For anyone tuning in late, my first WWDC 2007 article talked about the gigapixel image of the Library of Congress used during the 64-bit demo, which turns out to have been created on Windows. My second article covered some other miscellaneous observations, including some thoughts on the iPhone as a Blackberry competitor.

Steve mentioned Apple's "famous column view" during his discussion of the "New" Finder (24:42 or so into the keynote). Famous? Um, OK... Did I miss Apple's press release about the coveted File Browser View of the Year Award?

Remember the "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" ad from a year or so ago when PC makes up an award after hearing about Mac's glowing review in the Wall Street Journal? It's not up on Apple's site anymore, but here's a YouTube version. Steve's comment somehow reminds me of that.

I can see the new ad now:

[Upbeat music plays. We see Mac looking at a bunch of classy Romanesque columns]

Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac.

PC: And I'm a PC.

PC: So Mac, what are you looking at?

Mac: Oh, just a bunch of my columns. Pretty nice, huh?

PC: I guess. They look kinda old.

Mac: Well, they're actually my Dad's, NeXT. Have you met him before?

PC: Uh, no, don't think so.

Mac: Well anyway, they're really famous.

PC: They are?

Mac: Oh yeah. Everyone's talking about them.

PC: They are? [pauses] Like who?

Mac: Er.. The umm.. [hesitantly] The Awesome ... Computer ... Review ... Weekly ... Journal?

PC: [reassuringly] Oh, right right. Yeah, I read that one alright. Yep.

PC: [stage whisper to the camera] Don't tell him, but I made that one up. It feels great to find out I'm not the only one who makes up accolades to feel better about himself!

Mac: What was that PC?

PC: Nothing.

Mac: Oh. Well, they sure are nice columns, aren't they?

PC: Sure, why not.

Apple decided to heavily promote Yahoo! in both the keynote and on the Safari 3 web site. I counted at least seven references:

1) At the top of the Safari page.

2) In the "Elegant User Interface" bullet point on that page.

3) In the "Easy Bookmarks" bullet point on that page. (I'm not sure if that really counts, since it's just showing the default Yahoo! link in the Bookmarks Bar, but I'm including it for completeness sake.)

4) In the "Tabbed Browsing" bullet point on that page.

5) At the top of the Safari download page.

6) At the top of the Leopard Safari page.

7) During the keynote, it's the first web page he goes to in the Windows version of Safari (at about 1:10:25).

I really don't get why this is. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against Yahoo!. However, Google would seem to be a more natural fit with Apple, and Yahoo! is one of Google's direct competitors. Aside from the fact that Apple is heavily promoting the Google Maps application on the iPhone, Dr. Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO sits on Apple's Board of Directors.

I also talked about this strange partnership with Yahoo! a bit in my write-up of Macworld 2007 keynote, when Apple announced that "push email" (the kind of email that notifies you as soon as it comes in, aka the thing that makes the Blackberry so popular) would only be supported with Yahoo! Mail, and not its own .Mac service or Google's Gmail.

Why did Steve have World of Warcraft running on his demo machine? He didn't use it at all (except in the Spaces demo, which didn't explicitly mention the game but showed it running in its own Space). I would have thought that the less a beta release of an OS was asked to do during a big demo, the better (i.e., the less you're doing with it, the less likely something is to go wrong and have it crash). And in fact World of Warcraft did crash during the demo. If you blinked, you might have missed it, since Steve dismissed the crash notification dialog very, very quickly.

You get a good look at Steve's notes at several points during the keynote (I'm referring the physical paper notes he uses during his demos). Other demoers¹ could learn a lot from them. They're quite large, and appear to be on a hefty, laminated stock. But, more to the point, they're in a spiral bound notebook that opens vertically. This makes it easy to change through them, and the cards you're finished with don't get in your way. They also have a tab for each section of the demo, so it's easy to change to any specific part of the notes.

During his intro to Core Animation (starting at around 39:15), Steve says:

As you know, we've provided you Core Audio, Core Image, Core Video, over time. Core Animation, uh, completes that suite. It's automatic animation.

I find the phrase "completes that suite" to be interesting. To be honest, I'm not sure what else Apple could provide (sound, pictures, movies, and animation seem to cover just about every type of multimedia), but I found it interesting nonetheless.

At 44:10 or so, there's an rare bad edit in the webcast where they don't show the screen when Steve is talking about something on it that needs to be seen.

At 1:05:05 or so, everyone applauds when they're told that they'll be getting a copy of Leopard that day, right after the keynote. I don't understand why they seemed to be so surprised by that. Every year, we've gotten the new Developer Preview immediately after the keynote. Not to mention the fact that Apple has been explicitly advertising that you should come to WWDC to get your copy of Leopard.

Immediately after that, when Steve talked about having a "Basic" version for $129, he actually had me going for a few seconds. This part was very nicely delivered.

By the way, if you didn't get the joke here, it's a jab at Vista, which has a rather confusing myriad of versions that all differ from each other in some subtle (and not so subtle) ways.

Apple already poked fun at this in one of their "I'm a Mac" ads, Choose a Vista.

Steve's user name under Windows XP (for the Safari demo) was "Administrator", as opposed to something like "Steve Jobs". A reasonably subtle jab at the inelegance of the Windows security model, perhaps?

The webcast video didn't have a smooth ending. Rather than fading out to black (or to an Apple logo), it simply cut off abruptly. That's a bit uncharacteristic given Apple's normal production values.

Apple has finally updated the look of the top row of tabs on their web site. Tiger changed the default look of Aqua tabs more than two years ago, but the Apple site was never changed. This resulted in the somewhat silly situation of having the interface on the Apple website looking like an old copy of Mac OS X.

When Steve first demos Safari for Windows, he makes an off-hand comment that "I'm obviously going to have to change computers here".

Uh, Steve, you spent several minutes (and one of your ten Leopard features) talking about how you can run Windows on your Mac. Now, he wouldn't want to use Boot Camp for the demo, since rebooting would take too long, but he could have used Parallels or VMWare. Perhaps he didn't want to be seen as plugging one over the other?

At any rate, I found this a bit amusing.

I'm not sure why id software was presented as a "new Mac developer", since they've had titles on the Mac for years. I know that some of the older ones were ported by third parties (e.g., MacSoft), but Doom 3 and Quake 3 were both released on the Mac by id themselves.

That being said, John Carmack (the main tech guy behind id, and the guy who was on stage at WWDC) is a genius, and it is always a pleasure to see what he can do with the latest advances in hardware.

Finally, let's score my predictions:

1) Boot Camp Supports Virtualization in Leopard.

No.

2) ZFS will not be the default file system in Leopard.

Yes

3) More Core Animation eye candy. Mostly gratuitous, but a few useful ones.

I'm going to say yes (the 3D effect for the Dock would be a gratuitous example).

4) Cinema Displays get built-in iSight cameras.

No.

5) No multi-touch on MacBooks or MacBook Pros. No touchscreens, no gestures on the trackpad (other than two fingered scrolling), no tablet Mac.

Yes

6) No major revision in Aqua (nor a replacement for it). No "Illuminous".

Tough call. Brushed Metal was indeed taken down to the basement and shot, but from what I can tell, there are no revisions to the basic controls and widgets. So I'm going to say yes.

7) No iPhone SDK. Yet.

Yes. More on this in a future posting.

8) Adobe CS3 and Office 2008 Demos. A no brainer, to me.

This was one of the ones that I was almost certain about, and it turns out to be wrong. All we got was a not-so-subtle jab at Adobe and Microsoft for taking so long to get Universal binaries out.

9) .Mac Backup meets Time Machine. .Mac disk space usable as storage for Time Machine, or at least the .Mac Backup functionality gets merged into Time Machine.

Not really. The "Back to my Mac" file sharing leverages .Mac, but not as a backup. So that's a no.

10) Subnotebook (MacBook mini?). This one's more of a long shot, but I'm still expecting to see a replacement for the 12 inch PowerBook. I'm defining this one as a laptop that's notably smaller (in all dimensions) that an existing model.

Long shot it was. That would be a no.

So, that makes 5/10. Not exactly stellar.

That's a word, right? No? Well, it should be.² ↩
Edna: Embiggens? I never heard that word before I moved to Springfield.

Ms. Hoover: I don't know why. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Episode 3F13 Lisa the Iconoclast ↩

Interesting, Yet Disappointing: Part I

I've got quite a bit to say about the WWDC Keynote, so I'm going to break up my commentary into several articles. The first one, A Gigapixel of Irony was a bit of digging I did into the gigapixel image of the Library of Congress that Steve used during his 64-bit demo. As it turns out, the image was actually created by a photographer who does all of his work on Windows. As I concluded in that article, it seems a wee bit ironic to me that the image used to show off the power of 64-bit Macs wasn't actually created on one.

This article will cover some of my more general observations about the keynote (and related info gleaned from Apple's site). I'll follow that up with a few more random observations that aren't really all that relevant, but I thought were interesting nonetheless.

[Update: It's up.]

Next, I'll post a commentary that briefly touches on each of the ten Leopard features demonstrated in the keynote. Finally, I'll go into three areas in more depth: the "sweet" iPhone SDK, Safari for Windows, and the "New" Finder.

Overall, I thought that this keynote was a bit disappointing. We really didn't see much in the way of the "Top Secret" features that were promised last year. The few things that qualify as new are really more of incremental improvements, as opposed to the actually new features that were presented last year (Time Machine and Core Animation, in particular). The biggest one is, in my mind, Stacks. I'll talk about this in my forthcoming article on the Leopard Finder.

Here are some other random observations, in no particular order:

Let's begin by covering one thing that I forgot to mention back in my WWDC 2007 Predictions article. It's something that I first talked about in my write-up of Macworld 2007 keynote.

But, what I think is even more surprising is that there does not appear to be support for Mac OS X Server and "push" support. If Apple wants business customers to replace their Blackberries with iPhones (not an unreasonable assumption, given that Steve directly contrasted the iPhone with a RIM smartphone, and given the iPhone's price), they need to allow those customers to integrate with their own mail servers (as they currently do using software from RIM). A law firm is not exactly going to be sending out their emails from a yahoo.com address (unless they're from Nigeria with untold millions, I suppose). Apple even has the foundations in place for this, inasmuch that they already have industry-class hardware and software (Xserves and Mac OS X Server) that can (and do) run enterprise mail services. All they need is a new module in Leopard Server, and they've got a platform to compete directly with RIM, and a great opportunity to get a Mac into the door of corporate data center. A company that never considered Macs might be motivated to do so when a senior executive insists on replacing his "ancient" Blackberry with a shiny new iPhone.

So this one's officially on my prediction list for Leopard. You heard it here first, unless someone else has said it, at which point you heard it here sometime after that.

We didn't see any public announcement about it (it's times like this that I really miss being at WWDC and being able to ask Apple engineers things), but I did notice a little tidbit on one of the Leopard Server pages:

Mail services

For fast email access while on the go, Leopard Server supports IMAP IDLE to notify Leopard users immediately when new email arrives.

Hmmmmm....

Being the curious type, I took a look at the contents of the Mac Safari 3 installer before installing it (using the excellent utility Pacifist). Surprisingly, the beta of Safari 3 overwrites your existing version of Safari. That's right; if you install the beta, you lose the supported version of your browser.

Now, to be fair, the installer does archive your existing version of Safari prior to the new installation, and Apple does provide an uninstaller that restores your original Safari. However, while the beta is installed, you have no way to access the original version.

This is a terrible, terrible idea, and has the capability to cause some other system problems as well. Because parts of Safari (particularly something called WebKit) are used in other application (like Mail or Dashboard), installing the beta might adversely impact them as well.

MacFixIt (the premiere Mac troubleshooting site), is, rather predictably, filled with horror stories of the beta breaking all kinds of widgets and other apps.

Installing a beta version of an OS (i.e., doing what a bunch of developers at WWDC are doing to their laptops this week) is one thing, and users should expect things to not work correctly. After all, that's what a beta is. However, installing a beta version of a single application should not affect the entire system.

This is particularly frustrating because Safari already has a mechanism in place to install a standalone version that doesn't impact the system. It's part of WebKit the aforementioned Open Source project that is the foundation of Safari. If you download a beta version of WebKit, you get a version to play with that is entirely self-contained.

I'm going to play around with the Safari 3 beta and see if I can make a standalone version, based on the WebKit install. I'll let you know if I get anything working.

Interesting aside: the archiving and restoring of your original Safari is handled in a rather ad-hoc manner by a series of shell and perl scripts. Most of it is written in shell, but there is also one perl script. However, the script is very straightforward (consisting of a single foreach loop), and I don't understand why they bothered writing it in perl. Or, put another way, I don't understand why they bothered writing the other scripts in shell; there isn't a reason to mix the two. The only reason I can come up with is that this installer was put together rather quickly by several different people, or at least was copied and pasted from work by various people.

This highlights one of the standing problems with Mac OS X, which is the lack of a proper package management system. I'll write an article in the future on what this means (something else for my todo list!), but in short a package manager is a program that tracks what files get installed by what application. Mac OS X doesn't have a very powerful package manager, so developers are forced to manually perform the kinds of housekeeping that the Safari beta installer does. There is a new PackageMaker (part of Apple's Installer application) coming in Leopard, and although I can't talk about in detail, it does start to fix some of these shortcomings.

Back in September, Apple released a version of their Software Update application for Windows. At the time, it seemed a bit odd to me, since the only software they had on Windows were iTunes and QuickTime, and both already had their own built-in updating mechanisms. So I couldn't figure out why they were bothering to port Software Update.

However, now that Safari is out, it makes a bit more sense. iTunes has its own updating mechanism built-in to the Mac version, so the Windows port would have gotten it "for free", so to speak. QuickTime on Windows long predates iTunes, and it's had its own updating mechanism on Windows for years.

However, Safari doesn't have any updating mechanism built-in, since it makes use of Mac OS X's Software Update. So, if you are going to port Safari to Windows, you need to write a new updating mechanism for it. And if you need to do that, you might as well save some work and just port your entire Software Update application, and then use it for the rest of your Windows software as well.

So that's evidence, to me at least, that the Windows version of Safari has been in the works (or at least in the planning stages) since at least August of last year. (Software Update for Windows was released in September 2006.)

An aside, which started off as a footnote and became too long:

As a Computer Scientist, I dislike applications having their own built-in updating mechanism. From a technical point of view, it makes sense for there to be a central updating mechanism shared by the whole system. In fact, this is what many Linux systems do. However, this brings in all sorts of political issues. For example, how does the OS vendor (say Apple) decide which third parties get to show up in Software Update? The vendor has to make that decision, since they need to put the updates on their server. But, once they do that, is there any guarantee, implicit or explicit, about the quality of that update? Is the vendor then expected to test the third party software to ensure that is works correctly?

One solution to this is to have each company create their own software updating mechanism. So Microsoft has one program that updates all of its software, Adobe has one that does all of its software, etc. This is now what Apple is doing on Windows. However, they still have the built-in functionality in several of their applications. For instance, each of the iLife apps will independently tell you about updates. From a Computer Science point of view, this duplication of effort is a terrible idea, since it creates additional software that doesn't really serve any useful purpose. In addition to wasting man-hours doing the same thing over and over again, we have the problem of dealing with bugs.

Remember MoAB Madness Part 1? We talked about how all software has bugs, period. Death, taxes, and bugs in software. So the more software you have, the more bugs there are. And if you get two people to write different pieces of software that do the same thing (in this case update a program), you have more of an opportunity for bugs.

It's also aesthetically unpleasing. And that has to count for something, right?

Steve talked about how 67% of the 22 million Mac OS X users are using Tiger. I'd be curious how many of those users bought a new Mac that already had Tiger installed, versus how many of those actually went out and purchased Tiger to upgrade from Panther.

In some ways, this figure is the critical number when it comes to OS adoption rates. Think of it this way: it says less about how compelling your OS is if people "upgrade" by buying a new computer, rather than "upgrading" by actually going out and buying an upgrade. This is the classic problem that Microsoft has; comparatively few people actually purchase new versions of Windows to install on their old PCs. This means that it's very hard to grow the installed base of your new OS (i.e., Vista) at a higher rate than the rate of new computer sales.

So, my question boils down to this: how many of the 67% of users running Tiger are simply due to the fact that the Mac has become increasingly popular in the last 26 months (the amount of time that Tiger has been out), resulting in a higher rate of new Mac purchases, which just so happen to have Tiger installed.

This is significant because developers can't make use of the new features of an OS (e.g., Core Animation in Leopard) if there aren't a large number of people using it. And if a majority of the 22 million Mac users have shown a propensity to shell out $129 for an OS upgrade in the past, it makes it more likely that they will do so again in the future. And if that's the case, then we will likely see a faster adoption of Leopard-only features.

The other option is that Apple needs to continue to increase the rate of growth of the Mac, which is also fine by me.

A little more market share math:

At 1:07 in to the keynote, Steve talks about Safari's market share, and he tells us that there are 18.6 million Safari users. That's presumably counting all versions of Safari. Let's see what kind of market share that is.

Now, the oldest release of Mac OS X capable of running Safari is Jaguar (10.2), which could run Safari 1.0.

Earlier in the keynote, Steve told us that 90% of the 22 million Macs are running either Tiger or Panther, with the remaining 10% running something older. He didn't break that 10% down, but let's be unrealistic for the sake of being generous to Safari's market share, and say that all of those computers are running 10.1 or earlier, so they can't run Safari at all.

90% of 22 million is 19.8 million. So, 18.6/19.8 = 94% of Mac users are using Safari.

This isn't too surprising given that Safari is the only browser that ships by default on Mac OS X, but I'm still a bit surprised by how high this figure is. Recall that Internet Explorer shares the same status on Windows, and yet Firefox has considerably more than 6% market share. Although I suppose that Firefox doesn't have the same security advantages over Safari on the Mac as it does against Internet Explorer on Windows, and thus there is less motivation to use it.

And a final thought on market share numbers:

When Steve talked about growing Safari's market share, he showed a pie chart with the percent shares of Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari. This starts at about 1:07:15 or so.

There is a 78% slice for IE, a 15% slice for Firefox, a 5% slice next to it for Safari, and then a 2% slice for "other".

Then, when he says "well, we dream big, we would love for Safari's market share to grow substantially", the chart changes to only show Safari and IE (and drops the text showing the numerical percentages). But here's the thing. The IE slice doesn't change in shape at all. All that happens is that the Safari slice subsumes the Firefox slice and the "other" slice.

In other words, in Steve's vision, he sees IE's market share remaining the same, and Safari replacing Firefox and other assorted minor browsers.

Now, this can't actually be what Steve wants, but I found it rather strange that he would choose to present it in this way.

It's interesting how Apple is breaking down the versions of Safari 3.

Steve explicitly said (at 1:12:45 in to the keynote) that there will be "three different versions of Safari 3. One that runs on Leopard, one that runs on XP, and Vista".

Counting the Vista version and the XP version as separate releases is a bit odd. By this logic, there should be four releases, since Tiger and Leopard should be counted separately.

Or is this a subtle hint that the final version of Safari 3 won't be available for Tiger?

[2 minutes later]

As it turns out, the Safari download page only lists two versions, not three¹. One for the Mac, and one for Windows (XP or Vista).

Not sure what to make of this.

Although I'm not much of a gamer myself, I'm always happy to see more games on the Mac. So it was welcome news to see that EA is porting several of their A-list titles, even if Bing Gordon's (the exec from EA with the pretty cool title of Chief Creative Officer) jokes fell a bit flat.

I assume that EA's games will be Intel only, since doing a port to Intel Macs is trivial compared to a complete Mac port. And given the fact that Apple is now only selling Intel machines, I can't see EA doing that extra work. There isn't any specific mention of system requirements on the EA site, so we don't know for sure, but I won't be surprised when they do announce it.

Another nail in the coffin for us PPC lovers.

Death lies on her like an untimely frost [u]pon the sweetest flower of all the field.²

Or something.

It's also not an auspicious sign that EA misspells the name of the platform on their press release. The call it "Apple MAC OS X", rather than "Mac OS X". Yes, this truly is a minor nit to pick, but I somehow think that this sums up the situation well.

That's it for this post. Next, I'll put up the remainder of my random thoughts on the keynote.

OK, technically there are three options, but only because one of them is a bundle of Safari and QuickTime for Windows. ↩
Romeo and Juliet, Act IV, scene v³ ↩
We started out like Romeo and Juliet, but it ended up in tragedy. Episode 8F22 Bart's Friend Falls in Love ↩

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

A Gigapixel of Irony

I've got quite a bit coming regarding Steve's Keynote. However, since this was a small, self-contained post, I thought I'd get it online now.

[Update: My second article is up. Among other things, it talks about the iPhone as a competitor to the Blackberry.]

[Update: My third article is up. Among other things, it proposes a new "I'm a Mac" ad to highlight what Steve called the Finder's "famous column view".]

The gigapixel image of the Library of Congress image used in the 64-bit demo was referenced in the legal boilerplate at the beginning of the webcast.

Gigapixel image provided courtesy of Max Lyons

This seemed kind of odd to me, since I don't recall any previous Keynote featuring an image (or video, for that matter) credit in that particular location.

But, more to the point, it means that we can look up the creator of the image, Max Lyons. Google points us to his personal site, and to a site for his company, TawbaWare, which sells shareware digital photography applications. Both have links to several galleries of images, which are all quite stunning. All of the images are created through a process known as "stitching", which involves taking a series of overlapping pictures of a scene and combining them together to form a single image.

The Library of Congress image that Steve used appears to be one of Mr. Lyons' favorite pictures. It's on the front page of his personal site, and different views of it appear on his Technical and Bio pages as well.

But here's the funny part. Although Mr. Lyons does not discuss the computer hardware he uses, it is quite clear that all of his work is done on Windows.

The actual stitching is performed using an Open Source package called Panorama Tools, which is available for all three major platforms (Mac, Windows, and Linux). However, Mr. Lyons also uses some of his own software, including a helper tool called PTAssembler. All of this software is Windows only. In fact, PTAssembler is written in Visual Basic 6.

It seems a wee bit ironic to me that the image used to show off the power of 64-bit Macs wasn't actually created on one.

Bart: [chuckles] Lisa's in trouble. Ha! The ironing is delicious.

Lisa: The word is "irony".

Bart: Huh? ¹

Episode BABF07 Grift of the Magi ↩

Monday, June 11, 2007

WWDC 2007 Predictions

Before we begin, I'd like to apologize for the recent lack of postings. I've got several articles that are 80% done, and I hope to have them up sooner rather than later. That includes the next installment in the increasingly inaccurately named QoAB (Quarter of Apple Bug Articles) series, MoAB Madness.

This WWDC¹ marks the first time in a few years that I won't be there in person. Since I can't gossip with thousands of people waiting in line for the keynote to start, I figured I'd post a few of my keynote-related thoughts here.

However, as the hours wane and the keynote draws near, I come to the realization that I haven't finished writing this article. Part of the problem is that I've been trying to write a good chunk of background material on some of the predictions. For example, there are at least two of them that I've already written 500 words about. And, if I wait to finish up my long winded (er, I mean "detailed") summary of each, I won't have this done before the keynote actually takes place. And that would seem to somehow defeat the point of a predictions article.

So, I've decided to make this a very short list. Or, more accurately, I've decided to make each entry rather short. I'll then follow up with a second article with all of the background content that didn't make the cut². So, my apologies to my less technologically-oriented readers -- the stuff I'm writing for you will be up soon.

Several of these predictions are anti-predictions, in that I'm predicting that something won't happen. These are all things that I've seen others mention as possibilities.

1) Boot Camp Supports Virtualization in Leopard.

2) ZFS will not be the default file system in Leopard.

3) More Core Animation eye candy. Mostly gratuitous, but a few useful ones.

4) Cinema Displays get built-in iSight cameras.

5) No multi-touch on MacBooks or MacBook Pros. No touchscreens, no gestures on the trackpad (other than two fingered scrolling), no tablet Mac.

6) No major revision in Aqua (nor a replacement for it). No "Illuminous".

7) No iPhone SDK. Yet.

8) Adobe CS3 and Office 2008 Demoes. A no brainer, to me.

9) .Mac Backup meets Time Machine. .Mac disk space usable as storage for Time Machine, or at least the .Mac Backup functionality gets merged into Time Machine.

10) Subnotebook (MacBook mini?). This one's more of a long shot, but I'm still expecting to see a replacement for the 12 inch PowerBook. I'm defining this one as a laptop that's notably smaller (in all dimensions) that an existing model.

And there you go, ten predictions for tomorrow's keynote.

I'll have a post-keynote commentary as well.

Apple's World Wide Developer Conference, the annual week-long show where Apple shows off the future of Mac OS X. ↩
You're cut too, shusshy!

Episode 5F03 Bart Star ↩

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

MoAB Madness 1: Entomology

January 2007 was home to a project known as the "Month of Apple Bugs", aka MoAB. This is the first article in MoAB Madness, a multi-part series about the project. I had intended to run some of these articles in January, during MoAB, rather than in the weeks following it. It was supposed to be a MoABA (Month of Apple Bugs Articles). But, note to self, I've discovered that it's a good idea to start writing something in January if you intend to post it in January. Since I'm not exactly on schedule, I think that this is going to have to be a QoABA (Quarter of Apple Bugs Articles).

At any rate, MoAB received a fair amount of press, albeit mostly in the tech community. So what am I hoping to add to this, especially at this late date? Well, I think that a lot of the coverage didn't cater to the audience that I hope to reach, namely the educated layperson. Many of the computer literate yet non-technical people I've spoken to hadn't heard about the project, or didn't understand what it was about. So, what I hope to do in MoAB Madness is provide both a big picture view of the computer security landscape, as well as a non-technical discussion of the bugs themselves.

We'll start MoAB Madness with this installment, which will talk about what the project is, and start to give some background on the principles at play. Part 2 will talk about the people who look for bugs, and how they disclose them once they find them.

Additional articles will look at the bugs themselves. Part 3 will give a brief overview (in non-technical terms) of each of the bugs revealed in January. Parts 4, 5, and 6 (and possibly more, if I need them) will look at some of the bugs in greater detail. From a technical perspective, many of the bugs can be grouped together. So, each of these articles will examine one class of bugs, and, in layperson's terms, discuss what makes them tick. Each of these classes are textbook examples of extraordinarily common programming mistakes, and I hope to use the MoAB bugs to explain some Computer Science principles.

Finally, the last article will look at the lessons learned from the project.

It should be noted that I'm not going to link to the actual MoAB website. Call me paranoid¹, but I never visited the MoAB site in a normal web browser², and I don't want my readers to either. My rationale was that I didn't want to visit a website of a project dedicated to (flamboyantly) pointing out security problems in Mac software using software on my Mac. As it turns out, my gut instinct turned out to be right, since on Day 29 the MoAB entry contained an image that locked up Safari. Anyway, if you really, really want to visit the actual site, it's a simple Google search away.

So what was the Month of Apple Bugs? I'll give a brief synopsis here, and leave most of the commentary and editorializing to future articles.

Back in December, before the project got off the ground, we had a fair bit of info from the MoAB website:

This initiative aims to serve as an effort to improve Mac OS X, uncovering and finding security flaws in different Apple software and third-party applications designed for this operating system. A positive side-effect, probably, will be a more concerned (security-wise) user-base and better practices from the management side of Apple. Also, we want to develop and provide tools and documented techniques to aid security research in this platform. If nothing else, we had fun working on it and hope people out there will enjoy the results. (LMH and Kevin Finisterre, 2006).

So what's the initiative they're referring to? It's pretty simple, really. Every day in January (that's 31 days, for those without access to a calendar), the MoAB project was going to release details about a previously undisclosed bug in Apple software. Well, it wasn't all going to be Apple software. From their FAQ:

Are Apple products the only one target of this initiative?

Not at all, but they are the main focus. We'll be looking over popular OS X applications as well.

Why were they doing this? Well, they tell us that it isn't out of malice:

Is this an attack, revenge, conspiracy or some kind of evil plot against Apple and the users of Apple products?

Not at all, some of us use OS X on a daily basis. Getting problems solved makes that use a bit more safe each day, for everyone else. Flaws exist, with and without people disclosing them. If we wanted to make business out of this we would be selling the issues and the proper exploit for each one. Thus, business-wise, we are wasting a good cake with this project (although software by Apple isn't really of interest in these terms, except iTunes and other high-profile applications).

A tiny bit of editorializing: I will grant them that if they were really "out for evil" they would have been selling the information about the security bugs to the highest bidder. However, their actions were still somewhat irresponsible. We will talk about about this in detail in Part 2.

At the beginning of the month, a developer (and a former Apple employee) Landon Fuller launched a "Month of Apple Bugs Fixes" project where he hoped to provide unofficial patches to fix the previous day's bug. After a few days he set up a Google Group to coordinate his efforts with other volunteers. On Day 6 the MoAB organizers contacted Landon (note that this link contains a link to a MoAB page, which I don't recommend following) proposing that they give him early access to the bugs in order to expedite his repairs. After some deliberation, he declined due to a possible perception of conflict of interest. In the end, this group did indeed provide unofficial patches to many of the bugs.

Finally, it should be noted that Apple never made any formal comment on the MoAB project. I'll have a lot more to say about that in the final article of MoAB Madness. To date, they have released two security updates (Security Update 2007-001 and Security Update 2007-002) that give credit to the MoAB project for discovering the bugs, and fix a total five bugs.

As mentioned in the introduction, before we get to the bugs themselves, we're going to talk about some basic principles of computer security. But before we do that, we need to figure out exactly what we mean when we say "computer bug"?

That one's easy, right? Ask someone on the street, and you'll likely get an answer along the lines of "a bug is when that stupid computer doesn't do what I told it to". Or maybe "a bug is a computer glitch". But, to a Computer Scientist, neither of those answers is quite correct.

In order to understand what a bug actually is, we need to look at what I've termed Deber's First Law of Computer Science:

Deber's First Law of Computer Science

Computers do exactly what you tell them. No more, no less.

At a glance, that might seem at odds with our intuitive definition of a bug. After all, a bug is when something you didn't intend to happen actually does, right? Well, the answer lies in the meaning of you. In most cases, you is the developer who wrote the computer software that you (the user) are using. In other words, the computer is doing exactly what the programmers told it to do; the problem is that the programmers screwed up.

It's important to recognize that all computer software has bugs³. Period. Full stop. Death, taxes, and bugs in software. Software is simply too complicated for us imperfect humans to write correctly; modern software can contain tens of millions of lines of computer code. But, more to the point, computers are literal entities, while we humans are not. We know how to interpret the world around us and extract meaning when our information (or instructions) are fuzzy or unclear. Computer do not. Take a household example:

Apply to hair, lather, rinse, repeat.

A person reading those instructions knows that the shampoo manufacturer intended that you use two applications of their product. A computer reading those instructions would keep applying the shampoo until the bottle ran out, and then crash since there was nothing left to "apply to hair". Furthermore, the instructions don't specify all sorts of details that we humans automatically interpret, but would need to be explicitly stated for a computer. Do you have to wet your hair first? How wet? What temperature water? How much shampoo? How do you "lather"? How long do you lather for? How do you know when you've "rinsed" enough? And on and on and on. If a programmer doesn't specify each of these things correctly, the program might crash.

Finally, it should be noted that working on software is a Sisyphean task. Every time you add a new feature, you add new bugs. In fact, sometimes when you fix one bug, you add several new ones.

Some bugs are minor and insignificant (maybe some text is displayed 1 mm too far to the right), and some are major and potentially disastrous (maybe all of your files get deleted). It's some of the bugs in this second category that we're concerned with today. Or, more specifically, it's one type of major bug that we're concerned with today: the security bug. Security bugs are bugs that, in plain English, let nefarious evildoers do bad things to your computer. Best case, the bug can simply let them crash your computer and cause you to lose whatever you were doing at the moment. Worst case, the bug can let them take full control of your computer, and do anything from stealing your credit card numbers to deleting all of your files.

Terminology wise, we say that a security bug causes a security flaw, also known as a vulnerability, or a security hole. The computer code crafted to exploit these vulnerabilities are called, unsurprisingly, exploits.

We can further divide security bugs into three categories, depending on the amount of user interaction necessary to enable an attacker to exploit the security hole.

The least severe are those that require what I like to call active user interaction. In other words, an evildoer sends you an application of some sort (or gets you to download an application of his choosing), and you have to do something explicit (like double clicking on it) in order for the bug to be exploited. The key here is that the file in question is of a type that is known to be potentially risky (e.g., an application, not a picture or music file).

Some would argue that these types of security bugs aren't an issue at all, since once an adversary convinces you to run a program he sent you, all bets are off. Remember Deber's First Law of Computer Science? If you are running an application, your computer is doing exactly what someone else (the developer of the application) told it to. Is it a bug if the things that this developer told your computer to do are evil? Consider an example where an evildoer sends you an email message saying "Please delete all of your files immediately!". Would it be considered a security flaw in your email program if you followed these instructions and deleted all of your files? Think of it this way: any time you run an application, you are placing your trust in the fact that the authors of the application did not have malicious intent. Most of the time that's true, but when it's not, you can be in real trouble.

In some cases, I feel that bugs in this category are actually security problems (particularly those involving "privilege escalation", as we will see later on in the series), but in many cases they are not. But, call them what you want, these types of security problems are the most common in the wild. Most of the "email viruses" (e.g., classics like ILoveYou, MyDoom, etc) are in this category.

The second type of security flaw are those which requires passive user interaction. These are flaws where the user still needs to do something, but that something is an apparently innocuous action. In most cases, that action is visiting a web page. In other words, bugs in this class can cause something bad to happen to your computer if you go to an evildoer's webpage (or a webpage an evildoer has hacked and taken control of). Other paths of exploitation are viewing email messages (note that we're talking about viewing the email message, not opening any attachments) or opening "harmless" files such as Microsoft Word or Excel documents. Recent examples are the WMF image exploit or the recent spate of vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products.

The astute reader might notice an ambiguous gray area between the aforementioned opening of a "harmless" file, and the opening of a "known risky" file mentioned in the first category. And that astute reader would be quite correct. The division isn't always clear, especially when security flaws are discovered in previously "harmless" formats, such as Microsoft Office documents. So yes, the division between these two categories can be hazy. But the point is that some actions (e.g., opening an application) clearly fall into the first category, while some (e.g., viewing a webpage) fall into the second.

That very same astute reader might also point out that they've been told that viewing a "cute picture" or a "funny video" that they get via email is a risky activity that might get them infected with a virus (an example was the Anna Kournikova virus that promised pictures of the tennis star). And doesn't that contradict what I've just said about "harmless" files? Well, not really. Almost every case of a virus appearing in a "cute picture" is actually a case of an application masquerading as a picture. In other words, the user might think that they are opening a picture, but they are actually opening an application. There is a security flaw in play here, but it's not a vulnerability in the way the image file is displayed. Instead, it's a poor (one might even say stupid) design decision in the Operating System that allows an application to masquerade as a "harmless" picture.

The final category is the worst. Those are bugs that require no user interaction. In other words, an evildoer can wreak havoc on your computer simply by virtue of it being turned on (and connected to the Internet). These are obviously the worst, since a user can behave perfectly and still be attacked. Evil programs that exploit these types of bugs are often called worms, and can spread themselves without user interaction (once a computer is infected, it automatically seeks out other computers to infect, thus perpetuating the infection). An example is the vulnerabilities used for the Code Red virus a few years back.

There is one final criterion that we have to consider, which is the idea of a default configuration. The meaning of the word "default" in this case is a relatively new usage coined by the Computer Science community, and not the more common "due to the exclusion of other candidates"⁴. In Computer Science parlance, it means the "standard way" or the "preset setting". So, a default configuration is a configuration that ships with the software from the manufacturer, and the configuration that will remain in place if a user doesn't explicitly change it. For example, the default configuration in many Word Processors is to use a 12 point Times New Roman font.

When it comes to computers, many users (especially less technical ones) will never change those default settings. So, a vulnerability that exists in a default configuration is far, far more significant than ones that exists in a configuration that a user has to explicitly set up.

With that, we're at the end of the probably-too-lengthy Part One of MoAB Madness. Part Two will talk about the people who look for security bugs, and the methods they use to disclose them once a bug is found.

You're paranoid. ↩
I used a web browser called lynx, a text-only browser than runs on the command line. ↩
The etymology of the term "bug" isn't particular clear. (Do I get bonus points for using both entomology and etymology in the same article?) It certainly predates WWII, although at the time it referred to problems with electronic gear (e.g., radio equipment), rather than computers (since computers didn't really exist yet). A famous story (and one that is often incorrectly cited as being the genesis of the word) relates to Grace Hopper, one of the early greats of Computer Science (and one of the very few women in the field in that era). While trouble shooting a problem in the vacuum tube equipment, she determined that it was caused by a moth that had gotten into the components and met an untimely demise. The log book entry read "First actual case of bug being found", and had the moth taped to the book. This page is now in the Smithsonian. More info about the history of the word can be found here, if you're interested. ↩
Scientist: [resigned] Well, Homer, I guess you're the winner by default.

Homer: Default? Woo hoo! The two sweetest words in the English language: de-fault! De-fault! De-fault!

[assistant clubs him]

Scientist: Where'd you get that, anyway?

Assistant: Sent away.⁵

↩
Episode 1F13 Deep Space Homer ↩

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Big Brother to Saviour, and a Fall from Grace

Yesterday I blogged briefly about the 23rd birthday of the Mac. I had a few thoughts about the famous "1984" Super Bowl ad that I didn't get to yesterday, so here they are now.

To recap, Apple aired this ad a single time¹, during the 1984 Super Bowl. A link to a video of the ad, and a bit of a summary, were in yesterday's post.

In the ad, "Big Brother" represents IBM, whose PCs (and mainframes) were the norm among "mindless" business users. (IBM's semi-official nickname is "Big Blue", a fact I'm sure was not lost on the writers of the ad²).

In retrospect, this ad is made rather ironic by subsequent events. Apple and IBM became close allies less than ten years later, as part of the "AIM" (Apple/IBM/Motorola) alliance that created the PowerPC processor. (They had other partnerships in that time frame, but none that were as significant). The PowerPC, in one incarnation or another, powered every Mac from 1994 through the Intel transition in 2005. Motorola initially played the largest role in the alliance from Apple's perspective, and supplied the processors (the PowerPC 601, 603, 604, G3, and G4) that Apple was using. But, by 2002 or so, Motorola was having a great deal of trouble developing newer and faster chips; the G4 had stagnated for quite some. IBM came to the rescue with the PowerPC G5, a processor that trounced its competitors, and put Apple back in the performance game. So, we have IBM going from "evil Big Brother" to ally to saviour of Apple in nineteen years.

However, IBM was unable to improve the G5 quickly enough for Apple's (or, more accurately, Steve's) liking. IBM had privately promised Steve that the chip would go from 2 GHz to 3 GHz within one year, and Steve passed along that promise during the WWDC 2003 Keynote, when he introduced the G5. There was much fanfare and cheering in the audience at the time, since the clock speed of Motorola's PowerPC G4 had stagnated for years, and this rapid increase in speed would be a welcome change. Furthermore, 3 GHz would compare quite favorably with the Intel camp.

However, a year later at WWDC 2004, IBM had only been able to deliver a "modest" 500 MHz increase to 2.5 GHz. I put "modest" in quotes not only because a 25% increase in speed is not insignificant, but because rivals Intel and AMD had been having similar troubles ramping their clock speeds. By the next WWDC, in 2005, clock speeds had only gone to 2.7 GHz. In was partially in response to this perceived lack of increasing speed that Apple announced the Intel transition at that conference. (Some might note that it was only this past year, at WWDC 2006, that Intel was able to cross the 3 GHz threshold, with the Xeon processors in the Mac Pro. As previously mentioned, it was not only IBM that was having trouble ramping clock speeds.)

So, within two years, we have IBM falling from their role as "saviour", and being tossed aside as second class. At this point, to the best of my knowledge, Apple and IBM don't have any meaningful collaborations going on.

It's been an interesting 23 years for the two companies.

Actually, it aired a second time in order to satisfy eligibility requirements for the 1983 advertising awards. Viewers of a small town station in Idaho (all two of them) got to see it during the night of December 15. I can't find the reference for this at the moment, but Wikipedia (I know, I know) cites the book Apple Confidential, which is believe where I read it. ↩
When I was a summer intern at IBM, one of the events we had during orientation week was a "rubber ducky race" in the creek that run through the Lab's property. Each intern got a yellow plastic duck (with a unique number written on the bottom) that we were supposed to decorate. They got released en masse in the creek, and the person's whose duck finished first won some sort of prize. Gotta love team building exercises, eh? So what's the point of this story?³ Well, we all had to name our ducks. Mine was called "Big Yellow". ↩
Homer: You know, when I was a boy, I really wanted a catcher's mitt, but my dad wouldn't get it for me. So I held my breath until I passed out and banged my head on the coffee table.

[cheerily] The doctor thought I might have brain damage.

Bart: Dad, what's the point of this story?

Homer: [cheerily] I like stories.⁴

↩
Episode 9F03 Itchy and Scratchy: The Movie ↩

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Happy Birthday

I just wanted to raise a quick toast to the birthday guest.

Today, January 24th, is the 23rd birthday of the Mac. The iconic "1984" ad introducing the Mac aired during the Super Bowl, exactly 23 years ago.

I was writing a longer post about the anniversary, but I haven't had a chance to finish it. It should be up soon. But, I wanted to post something today, what with it being the actual day and all.

If you've never seen the add, it's worth watching. A female athlete runs into a theatre occupied by mindless, monochromatic automatons watching their beloved "Big Brother" talking on a giant screen. Pursued by police in riot gear, she throws a large hammer into the screen, shattering it. The ad ends with a voice over telling us that Apple is introducing the Mac, and that "1984 won't be like 1984".

I started to write some commentary on the ad, and, wouldn't you know it, it started to turn into a longer entry. I don't have time to finish it right now, but it should go up soon. Which means that my other commentary on the birthday itself might get pushed back. Coupled with a few other ideas for articles I have percolating, I'm getting quite the backlog.

Anyway, here's a birthday Simpsons reference¹ :

[At Mr. Burns birthday party:]
Smithers: Here are several fine young men who I'm sure are gonna go far. Ladies and gentlemen, the Ramones!
Burns: Ah, these minstrels will soothe my jangled nerves.
Ramone 1: I'd just like to say this gig sucks!
Ramone 2: Hey, up yours, Springfield.
Ramone 1: One, two, three, four!
[Abrasive guitar music begins]
Happy Birthday to you! (Happy Birthday!)
Happy Birthday to you! (Happy Birthday!)
Happy Birthday, Burnsey,
Happy Birthday to you!
Ramone 3: Go to hell, you old bastard.
[The curtain falls]
Ramone 4: Hey, I think they liked us!
Burns: [toward the Ramones] Have the Rolling Stones killed.
Smithers: Sir, those aren't --
Burns: Do as I say!

[Updated 2007/02/02: Fixed footnote formatting.]

Episode 1F01 Rosebud ↩

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Apple ConsumerElectronicsWorld 2007 Keynote

So I, like many others, watched Steve's "Apple ConsumerElectronicsWorld" 2007 Keynote yesterday. No wait, that should read "Macworld". Sorry about the typo. At any rate, there was a great deal that was quite interesting, and a great deal that was interesting in its absence.

Let's deal with that last one first. I was awfully surprised how little time was devoted to everyone's (or at least 5% of everyone's) favorite platform. I understand where the emphasis needed to be, but I was expecting at least a brief review of Leopard's features (including the noticeable absence of an announcement a firm ship date¹). I had also expected the new Quad-Core Mac Pros that most prognosticators had predicted, along with a Intel-native Photoshop demo. I'd be interested as to why none of these made the cut. I can only imagine that Steve didn't want to take any of the spotlight away from the stuff he did announce.

So, why don't we take a look at what it was he did actually announce in the Keynote. In my mind, one of the most interesting pieces to come out of the Keynote ended with an exclamation point, and not because it was exciting. I'm referring to the partnership with Yahoo! First off, it's the first time (that I can recall) that the two companies have worked together. But more importantly, Apple has chosen to work with Yahoo! not only at the expense of an ally (Google), but at its own.

According to yesterday's news, the iPhone only supports "push" IMAP with Yahoo!'s mail service. In English, "push" IMAP is what makes the Blackberry special. Basically, it sends out a notification whenever you get an email, meaning that you don't have to explicitly check for new messages. So, we have Apple taking aim at one of its major competitors (RIM, the makers of the Blackberry), but requiring the use of Yahoo!'s services to due so. Furthermore, Apple is not supporting Google's Gmail, despite the fact that Dr. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) recently joined Apple's Board of Directors, and despite all of the other Google tie-ins in Apple's other products (search in Safari, maps on the iPhone, etc). (From a technical perspective, it's possible that Gmail support doesn't yet exist because Gmail doesn't support IMAP²; that's a guess, but if that's the case Gmail support may be some time away.)

But, more to the point, Apple is not supporting its own services. They're not supporting .Mac (Apple's email and other online services product), which would seem to be a bit of a no-brainer (e.g., "Take your mail anywhere, and stay connected with .Mac"). John Sircusa recently wrote about the decline of .Mac. I generally disagree with his argument to abandon Sync Services (the data synchronization services that third party applications can use, and which makes use of .Mac), but the lack of .Mac "push" support seems to fit with his argument that .Mac is in trouble.

But, what I think is even more surprising is that there does not appear to be support for Mac OS X Server and "push" support. If Apple wants business customers to replace their Blackberries with iPhones (not an unreasonable assumption, given that Steve directly contrasted the iPhone with a RIM smartphone, and given the iPhone's price), they need to allow those customers to integrate with their own mail servers (as they currently do using software from RIM). A law firm is not exactly going to be sending out their emails from a yahoo.com address (unless they're from Nigeria with untold millions, I suppose). Apple even has the foundations in place for this, inasmuch that they already have industry-class hardware and software (Xserves and Mac OS X Server) that can (and do) run enterprise mail services. All they need is a new module in Leopard Server, and they've got a platform to compete directly with RIM, and a great opportunity to get a Mac into the door of corporate data center. A company that never considered Macs might be motivated to do so when a senior executive insists on replacing his "ancient" Blackberry with a shiny new iPhone.

So this one's officially on my prediction list for Leopard. You heard it here first, unless someone else has said it, at which point you heard it here sometime after that.

Some other random thoughts about the iPhone, in no particular order:

Did you notice that the slides, as well as the specs at http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/specs.html, refer to the Operating System as "OS X", without any mention of the word Mac? That's the first time I've seen Apple do that. It makes sense, I suppose, since the iPhone isn't really a Mac, but it's odd nonetheless. Let the idle rumors about this implying that Apple is getting out of the Mac business begin! ³

What are the hardware specs in the iPhone? We know it's running Mac OS X (or, OS X, I suppose), and we know it's got an Intel processor, which isn't exactly surprising [Update: Actually, it's the Apple TV that's got an Intel processor. The iPhone appears to be using an ARM variant]. I'll leave it to the Intel junkies to figure out what chip it might be. But I'm more confused by the graphics chip, and, to a lesser extent, the system bus. It was explicitly mentioned (and featured on a slide) that the iPhone supports Core Animation, a new system Framework in Leopard that makes it easy to create gratuitous eye candy. But it requires a fairly hefty GPU, and a decent system bus to keep that GPU fed. I don't see how they can possibly put that beefy a chip into something the size (and with the cooling and power requirements) of the iPhone.

In fact, the Core Animation system requirements state that "Core Animation runs on any Core Image-capable Mac (including most Macs shipped in the past two years)." If we take a look at http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/, we see eleven cards listed that work with Core Animation, all of which are physically larger (in some cases significantly) than the iPhone. In fact, some of them probably have heat sinks that are larger than the iPhone.

What's my point here? Good question. I guess it's that they either must be using some new GPU that's extraordinarily efficient (i.e., a chip that requires very little power (in terms of electricity), and yet is very powerful (in terms of processing capability); this is also called "performance per Watt"), or they don't mean that the iPhone fully supports Core Animation. Conspiracy theorists can note that the slide in question called the feature "Core animation", not "Core Animation" as is the case in all of Apple's other documentation. I'm leaning towards the latter (something that supports a subset of Core Animation's functionality), but the former would be pretty cool!

Gestures! Gestures (on a touch screen, and especially multi-finger gestures) are one of those things that have been in the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) academic research community for years (or decades) but never made it into any real commercial products. It's great to see them turning up here. Same for tilt sensing.

If anyone actually reads this (which I doubt), and cares (which I doubt a heck of a lot more), I'll dig up some references.

As an aside, Apple is doing another one of the "been in the research community for decades but never in a mainstream shipping product" things with Time Machine. So-called "temporal filesystems" are not new (although the Core Animation based effects are), but it's nice to see them actually being used.

160 ppi screen? That's incredibly high, and should make small text (on, say, web sites) actually readable. As a comparison, my 23-inch Cinema Display is a little under 100, and Apple's high-end monster, the 30-inch, is just over 100.

I thought it was a little odd that Steve claimed that Safari on the iPhone was the first "real" browser on a cell phone when WebKit (the rendering engine used for Safari) is already being used for a mobile browser. Nokia has a browser called the S60 that's based on WebKit, and is semi-sanctioned by Apple. They think it's a bit odd too. Mobile Safari is still a great product, though.

I don't get how they are using the name "iPhone". It's a great name, but Linksys/Cisco already released a product with that name. And it's not something like the Tiger Direct (the company) vs Tiger (the Mac OS)⁴ trademark dispute. In this case, the two actually are comparable products. I could understand if Linksys had preannounced the product and then Apple drove a dump truck full of money up to their house⁵, causing Linksys to change the product name. But the Linksys iPhone is an actual shipping product. And, as John Gruber points out on his Linked List, iphone.com doesn't point at either product.

Strange.

Obvious iPhone feature tweak: a "mail to the person I'm talking to" option. In the demo, when Steve wanted to send that Hawaii photo (he really gets around, doesn't he? I guess owning a private jet helps) to Phil, he had to manually enter Phil's email address into the mail client. There should be an option to pull the email for the current caller from the address book. Already filed this one on Radar (Apple's bug reporting system).

Did you notice the "cingular" at the top of the iPhone display during the demos, but before any announcement was made about carriers? An uncharacteristic "leak".

So far I haven't talked about the Apple TV. So, here's a few thoughts:

I don't get the "stream up to five computers to the Apple TV" thing. I can see the motivations for only letting one Mac sync with it. It simplifies the syncing problem (from a technical point of view), and placates the Copyright Holders(tm) (I don't recall his exact wording, but Steve put it something like "Note that we're streaming this, not making a copy, since that would be Verboten" when he introduced the library sharing feature back in iTunes 4.) But I don't even understand what they mean by "up to five computers".

I see two possibilities. First, it could mean that you can only authorize five computers to stream to it at any given time, much in the same way that only five computers can be authorized to play your protected iTunes content at a single time. But I'm not sure that I see any rationale for this restriction. It doesn't make sense from a copyright prospective, since the content in question is already on the computer trying to do the streaming. In other words, you are trying to get the content off of the device (contrast this to the case where you need to authorize computers to play protected iTunes content, where the goal is to bring the content on to the device).

Second, it could mean that you can "only" connect five computers at one time. That doesn't really make sense to me either, since I don't see why you'd want to connect more than one computer at any given time. By definition, you're only watching (or listening) to one thing at a time, so you only need to connect to one shared library at a time. I suppose that you could have a feature where you merged several shared libraries together to view them at once (e.g., a feature that allowed you to view all of your pictures from any computer in the house). But why would you want to limit that to five?

I'm very clearly missing something here.

Stupid nitpick: Is it "Apple TV" or "Apple tv"? The product name would seem to be "[apple logo] tv", but Apple's site keeps referring to it as the "Apple TV". John Gruber would appreciate this one.

And finally, a few miscellaneous thoughts:

Lots of Beatles coverage (Sgt. Pepper had primo placement in Cover Flow and got some airtime, while Abby Road's cover had a cameo too), but no announcements about the two Apples settling anything, and no announcement of the Beatles catalog on iTunes. After Sgt. Pepper showed up, I thought it was a given, but apparently no. (This had actually been a pre-Macworld prediction of mine, so I got that one wrong).

In another anticlimactic "leak" (along with the Cingular one mentioned above), Dr. Schmidt from Google referred to "others [i.e., companies] represented that are coming up in a bit" (1:18:15 or so). That seemed at first to be an "ATI moment", but nothing really materialized - what others, other than Cingular, was he referring to? Or was he talking about other partners who are going to be bringing services to the iPhone in the future?

Please don't let a guest on to the stage that has a set of index cards with notes on them. Pretty please?

And guests that plug unrelated products is also a bit out of place. Example: Someone from Adobe coming on and plugging Photoshop = good. Someone coming on from, say, Yahoo! (to pick a hypothetical example completely at random) and plugging their new search features = bad.

Steve mentioned that Apple has had two milestones in its past, the original Mac in 1984, and the original iPod in 2001. I really couldn't help but notice one really important omission: the Apple II. That computer was just as significant to the history of the PC as the Mac. Heck, Apple's press release boilerplate mentions all three:

Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning desktop and notebook computers, OS X operating system, and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital music revolution with its iPod portable music players and iTunes online store

Apple had even been (unintentionally, I presume) playing up its pre-Mac days with the teaser on its home page. The tagline "The first 30 years were just the beginning. Welcome to 2007" takes you back to the company's roots in 1977, and I would have hoped, for Apple's sake, that it had done something significant in the seven years prior to 1984.

It's not like this is a big deal in the slightest, but I've got a soft spot for the Apple II, I guess. My family's Apple IIe was the very first computer I ever used.

And on that note, I'm going to wrap this up. I'm a bit surprised that I've gotten more than 2000 words out of this. Not bad for a first post, I suppose. We'll see how this whole "blog" thing goes.

[Updated 2007/01/16: Fixed a few minor typos.]

[Updated 2007/02/02: Fixed footnote and link formatting.]

I've only been able to really play with the WWDC seed (we student developers don't get updated builds after the conference), but from what I've seen of 9A321 (at a Leopard Tech Talk), I would place my bets on late "spring", rather than early in the season. It's getting there, but (quite understandably) needs a bit more polish. ↩
My guess as to why Gmail doesn't support IMAP is that they want to make it harder for people to use their Gmail accounts as large hard drives. IMAP support would make it easier to read and write arbitrary files to and from your Gmail account. ↩
The opinions expressed in this sentence are those of a sarcastic comment, and do not necessarily represent those of Jonathan. ↩
Short version: There is a computer reseller called Tiger Direct that, shortly before the release of Mac OS X Tiger (but after a lengthy beta period where the name was widely known), decided to sue Apple for trademark infringement. The suit was thrown out, on the principle that something is not trademark infringement if a reasonable man would not confuse the two entities. So, Apple could release an OS called "Tiger" without issue, but might get into trouble if, for some bizarre yet socratic reason, they renamed their retail stores "Tiger Stores". The lawsuit also accomplished the job of earning Tiger Direct a place on Jonathan's list of stores he boycotts. ↩
Episode 8F24 Kamp Krusty ↩

Ramblings of an Interesting Nature