Reader Comments

Paul, Powermac sales are way up with the new G5, even if there was a slight decline in the fourth quarter of calendar 2003 (probably because everyone knows a speedbump is on the way and the holidays are for buying stuff for your faminly, e.g. iPods and iBooks, not a powermac for yourself). Here's the figures: 2002Q3 167 2002Q4 176 2003Q1 157 2003Q2 157 2003Q3 133 2003Q4 221 <-- G5 2004Q1 206

Paul Is there a link you can refer us to that shows WMA is superior to AAC?????????

Paul, I am sure it's not pleasant to be called all sorts of names. But it kinda comes with the territory - you've got a lot of strong opinions. And rude and ignnorant people are unavoidable (esp. on the internet). But us Mac advocates that don't call you names, also don't like to be lumped together with people who do. And sometimes it seems like you do that, when you start launching into a sermon on how "credible" we are or how we're doing poorly on "winning over" people. Seriously, how are we going to "improve" here - chase down every idiot and rude person out there that uses a mac and prowls the internet? What you've identified as a problem is unfixable. My advice? Resist the temptation to make generalizations about the "state of mac advocacy." It's a side issue, not THE issue. If you focus too much on "mac advocacy" and whether it's good or bad or nutty, we will have to conclude that you are just using this as a smear tactic. I don't think you've reached that point, but you're close. Editor's note: Well, when you're on the receiving end of it, it becomes the issue. My point was just to show how silly and inefectual these people can be, though that would be obvious to anyone reading the feedback. If Mac advocates are truly serious about rallying people around their cause, they need to be less antagonistic and more open to a wider world of computing that isn't necesarily as technical as they are. That's not "all Mac advocates." But be serious. Have you ever met a Saab fan that was that rabid about their car of choice? It's funny what technology does to smart people. --Paul

You have mentioned Itanium several time, but hardly ever AMD 64 bit processors, which are available now, run 32 and 64 bit OS versions at performance far exceeding Itanium's, are far more affordable, and apparently will have far more 64 bit software ready for it than Itanium will in the next year (or possibly ever). Cheers! - dave

I just wanted to thank you for putting out the news you do. I think you are an excelent writer and you give out good information. I look foward to reading your articles at lunch every day. I've made a good impression on some top level people by giving them information, then them hearing about it a couple of days later. Thanks Again, John Dombrowski

I read with interest the responses to your controversial article about HP's move to support the Apples's iTunes store and DRM'd AAC files. While I would agree that some of the responses were knee-jerk, and, some just to insult you. I think most reactions were to not so much what you said, but how you said it. I think what most were trying to say was that you seemed to contrdict yourself in that piece. HP, AOL and Apple, in many's opinion, has added choice to the rapidly growing bevy of on-line music stores. HP (and AOL) decided to join with Apple's on-line music solution, and I'm sure they thought it through carefully. Yes, if you choose to download DRM'd AAC files from iTunes, you are limited to the players offered by Apple and HP (and, HP could easily now upgrade all their other products to be DRM'd AAC compatible now such as the iPAQ). And, if you choose to download you music from Musicmatch, Wal-mart or Napster, you are limited to players that can play DRM'd WMA. It's all the same. You seemed to imply that because more players currently offer DRM'd WMA support - consumers who opted for iTunes would somehow limit their compatibility in the Windows PC marketplace. While saying that, you mention that Real's store also offers files in their own protected AAC format and write the following 'To its credit, however, RealNetworks is offering higher-quality AAC files than the iTunes Music Store offers because most customers will likely want to convert the RealNetworks' AAC files to the more compatible MP3 format for the short term' - yes, and so can consumers that choose iTunes! Also, I think most consumers that delve into on-line music stores are not interested in Microsoft's opinion of a competitor's choice of format delivery as they are apt to be biased, a point in the responses that seemed to go over your head, of course they will politely think it's 'interesting'. You only quoted responses from MS which is not directly involved in the on-line music business, but only interested in WMA (and now WMV) becoming the audio codec standard. I don't think many are comfortable with just having a Microsoft choice in digital media. Consumers who choose iTunes AAC actually do not need to be compatible with all the other current players and playback software, they are most likely to use an iPod or HP iPod compatible and iTunes as a jukebox. Why? because it is the best working combination right now in most consumers opinions, and this is reflected in sales. And, if they choose to convert thier protected AAC tracks to MP3 in the short term to be as you say 'more compatible' they have the means and most have the knowledge to do so, they just choose not to right now. This market is not really the PC market, it's portable digital audio (media), most people don't sit at their computers to listen to music, they want to take it with them. The PC is simply a tool to obtain, convert and transfer files to a portable player. No matter which on-line store you buy from, it's quite easy to make the track 'compatible' with every player if you want to and many know this already. And, as we'll see this year, more and more consumer products will support AAC as well, there are currently more WMA DRM compatible consumer items, yes, but MS has been promoting WMA longer! During this year there will be many more AAC compatible products anounced (i.e. Alpine's iPod ready car stereos). In the end, excluding the Mac zealots, most people who resonded simply disagreed with your opinion, and were maybe a little insulted. After all, most consumers would see HP's move as offering a solid choice in the ever crowded on-line music store market. In the end, HP users aren't going to be confused in a world of incoimpatibility as you say (as they can easily convert their WMA files to AAC if they wish to) and use iTunes or Real as their preferred audio player on their PC. And, I'm sure more products to come. In the end, Apple and HP are interested in standing out and offering a complete digital media package. The other on-line stores offering WMA DRM'd tunes don't stand out, they are all the same, it dosn't matter which one you use you get the same thing. That is why they are not doing as well as Apple right now.

I regret that some members of the Mac community resorted to childish and vulgar commentary regarding your reporting on the iTunes/HP deal, however I have to question a few of your comments: 1) By what standard do you base your claim of WMA being "superior" to the AAC format? a) sound quality b) DRM c) cross-platform issues 2) The MPEG-4 format is available to all. All Apple has done is add "Fairplay" DRM to it. RealNetworks has added "Helix" DRM to AAC for their new music store. WMA is the PROPERTY of Microsoft, and anyone who uses it will have to give MS a "cut" for use of their format. The real issue is Microsoft sticking thier long, greedy arms into yet another area of the information age. They have shown repeatedly that they will not comepte in an open and fair marketplace, having a preference for using their control of the dominant desktop to hinder, cripple or "break" applications/formats supplied by others. The whole format war was started when Microsoft decided to push WMA/WMV over MPEG-4 after it was rejected for the new standard. The problem is not Apple, RealNetworks or the MPEG alliance, it is Microsoft. They will not be happy until they get their "tribute" money for ANYTHING done ANYWHERE on ANY computer. HP, to their credit, has seen the direction Microsoft is moving and has made a strategic move to blunt the Wintel Cartel. I applaud HP for making this bold move just as I do IBM for their support of LINUX. I do not see a Microsoft hegemony as a plus for the IT world, I see it as highly detrimental.

first off, i am a Mac user and fan, but not a fanatic. thereare a lot of issues and opinions that i disagree with you, and that's fine. personally, i feel that the Mac platform is superior to Windows. i have used both in my professional career and i get better performance from my Mac. is the Mac and the Mac OS perfect? no, neither is Windows for that matter. but these are my opinions. i am entitled to mine as you are yours. secondly, i wish the media (including you sometimes) would get on the same page when reviewing Apple technologies, products and services when compred to Microsoft and Windows. is WMA a standard? no. is Windows a standard? no. is AAC proprietary? no. is AAC fairplay proprietary? yes. when talking about standards, please label standards correctly and apply them evenly. you have defacto "standards" when a technolgy or platform is dominant in its industry. does that make it a certified standard? not necessarily so. WMA is not a certified standard. in fact it is arguably (barely) a defacto standard (which i don't think it can be called that either). AAC is not proprietary, it was developed by a consortium via the MPEG-4 project. it is an open source standard, certified if i recall correctly. iTMS uses Fairplay DRM which it licensed from a third party to mamange AAC content, meaning anyone else can license it also. Apple does not own fairplay, just has rights to a license. i can burn a CD to AAC files just as i can MP3. AAC is open source. WMA is not. WMA is proprietary to Microsoft. it burns my nuggets when the media (in general) says AAC is proprietary to Apple (incorrect) and WMA is a standard (also incorrect). as far as OS X, well, i believe it is the most superior OS on the market. M$ has bloated windows to a point where it is to slow to grow as far as intergating technology. IE as part of the core OS? Media player as part of the core OS? give me a break. an OS is an operating system. it is meant to run the computer, nothing more, nothing less. everything on top of that are simple apps to help you get things done and perform certain tasks and functions (i think i just repeated myself). Windows is extremely insecure - it tries to do and be too much as an OS and thus is unstable at times and feels clunky in operation. is OS X perfect? no, it has flaws like ALL software on the market, but it hits cloder to the mark than windows. OS X is more secure (and not by obscurity either) than windows. the kernel is tighter, the core of the OS (Darwin) is open source and thus comes under the scrutiny of the entire developer community where holes can be identified quickly and plugged. can the Mac be hacked? hell yes, like all systems. nothing is 100% secure. but it is much more difficult to write a virus, worm or trojan horse for the Mac because the OS architecture is more stable and secure and streamlined. you cannot create a virus on the mac that can have the same impact as it does in windows. because M$ ties so many services into the OS, its is extemely easy to exploit a hole and create massive havoc. everything is exposed in Windows. OS X is more modular and thus viruses and the like are more isolated and cannot create respective havoc. for once, Apple did something right in an OS. Microsoft has yet to learn. we could go on from there, but i have rambled long enough. i get tired when the media refers to the Mac community as a cult, but then again, we do act like one (obviously you know from experience). we just like computers and platofrms to work, not break down. to be secure, and not suffer bugs and viruses. to enable and empower us to do things we can only dream of. we do act over-zealous at times (and far too often unfortunately), but the media also does not give Apple its fair shake. where would the industry be today without Apple. who would force Microsoft to provide the OS platform that 95% "enjoy"? who dorive the GUI interface of the OS? who retired the floppy disk when it needed to go? who developed firewire? who intiated and pushed the adoption of wireless technologies and networking? who developed and pushed SCSI to market? who developed a viable music downloading service model to provide an alternative to piracy? who developed the PDA? who pushed handwriting recognition software first? who brough the mouse to market first? who brought the laser printer to market first? who empowered desktop publishing first? who liberated the masses from DOS? Apple, Apple Apple, Apple. does Apple need to be in double digit in market? does the lack of that make Apple and Mac OS irrelevant? is Mercedes irrelevant? is BMW? is the Mac for everyone? probably not, but if more people open their minds to it, they may be surprised. just a thought, and thanks for listening (and yourpatience). Corey

Assuming that the vitriol comes from every corner of the Mac community is an insult to the vast majority of ordinary folks who may quietly agree or disagree with any particular set of comments. This whole business of ardent attack and defense of a computer platform is silly to the point of absurdity. It is equally absurd to believe that the loud voices are the entire community. Vitriol over these issues comes from adolescents of all ages. To take up so much space in your column to respond to these "children" implies that you are casting slurs on all of those who choose to use the Mac platform. If this is your intent, so be it. Editor's note: Just so we're clear, that group I'm "slurring" includes me. --Paul

How can a guy who runs a site called supersite for windows talk about credibility and advocacy with a straight face. This guy makes his living saying nice things about microsoft and windows. What a hypocrite. How about this name for Longhorn: vaporware. Editor's note: No I don't. I make a living writing about technology. The SuperSite is about future Windows technologies, not about "saying nice things about Microsoft and Windows." I'm writing for the users, not Microsoft. --Paul

Paul, you should not ever utter the terms AAC or WMA in the same paragraph as 'audiophile.' No matter how good your PC sound card or speakers, you will not hear audiophile quality sound. A very few DVD Audio or SACD recordings provide the possibility of great sound on a fine home stereo system (not played by remote control through your PC). As a result, the continued comparisons of supposed 'flat sound' from AAC compared with WMA at the same resolution is the equivalent of audio masturbation: an approximation only that is not worth the bandwidth. Editor's note: Cute, but that doesn't describe WMA Lossless very well. --Paul

"From a reporting standpoint, using anonymous sources often presents problems, and reporters have to go with their gut feelings." *LOL* Reading the MS marketing brochures does not make someone a reporter. Concerning gut feelings, you should consider an amputation.. Editor's note: Again, just the sort of friendly feedback I was talking about. Thanks. --Paul

Paul, I'm a WinXP using iPod owner and even I thought your WMA report was nonsense. Frankly, since buying the iPod I've begun to understand a little why Mac users get so upset by Windows users. Your comments about Apple ARE biased. Take for instance your claim that Macheads didn't read HP's rebuttal about adding WMA to their version of the iPod. You clearly take that spokesperson's report to mean WMA will eventually appear on the iPod but that isn't the message I get at all. I read HP's adoption of the iPod as an intent to ride Apple's coat tails - AAC and all - but in the event that WMA becomes THE standard then the iPod will support it. Your bias is that Microsoft and its standards should be the world's standards and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. As to what do you gain by misreporting the facts or taking the musings of a single HP representative and reporting them as fact - why you get the same thing that all Apple bashers get. You get traffic to your site. And that is the problem with computer 'journalists' like you - any exposure is good exposure. You lost any credibility with me that you might have had. Editor's note: That's fine. But again, Your opinion can't change what I was told. --Paul

You are a straight out liar. I too have friends at HP (I work there) and HP is NOT adding WMA to its version of the iPod. In fact, the proviso you cite as your reason for believing the company will add such support in the future ("We're not going to be supporting WMA for now") is there only in case HP has to if it and/or Apple stumbles in the future. The company doesn't anticipate it will ever have to go with WMA, however, and is making no such plans at this time. Liar. Editor's note: Nothing like an anonymous accusation. But I'm not lying. Heck, I even have a witness. As for you... well, you could be anyone. --Paul

Paul, You hit the Mac Advocacy nail right on the head! Like you, I also own and use both platforms and have never understood Mac users rabid enthusiasm for the machine and borderline violent hatred for anything Microsoft. Yes, my Mac works great for the publishing work I do (w/Illustrator, Photoshop & Quark Xpress) and for email, web surfing, etc..but my PCs were much better values. Both are just machines I use to make a living, nothing more, nothing less. PC hardware is much faster and, due to cutthroat competition, much cheaper. A P4 running at 2.2 GHz is considered a low end PC Processor, where Apple sells slow 1 GHz CPUs in its low end desktops (eMacs). Windows XP is far from a perfect OS, but it gets the job done. I've run Apple OS 8.1 (total junk), 8.6, 9.1, 9.22, and 10.2 Jaguar on my Macs through the years and have to say I liked the performance of 9.22 best. I remember, years ago, when I purchased my trusty old PowerPC 8500 brand new, a Mac owning friend at work seemed almost confounded that I didn't quit using my PCs and throw them in the dumpster or something...go figure..

Paul - I am an avid PC user, but I don't like reading plain Apple-bashing! As a person of the media, you are in a position where you have the ability to aggravate or appease your readers. Why not be impartial and not bash a group of people just for the fun of it? Just be responsible. Surely if you insult people, you can only expect worse insults back. Remember, we're only talking about computers here, not world politics (although sometimes the rhetoric gets that absurd in the comments i read).

Paul, I read your response (below) to my concern that you are lumping all mac advocates together and asking us to do the impossible - i.e., stop each and every mac advocate out there from being a jerk. I was disappointed with your response - which itself seems to lump all mac advocates together again. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like you don't intend to stop this practice. Paul, even if mac advocates as a whole are worse than say, Saab advocates, what's your advice as to how we should get every "antogonistic" mac advocate out there to stop? Editor's note: The Mac community, what can I say? It's in trouble. And it comes straight from the top: The constant lying and exaggerating from Steve Jobs on down at Apple is a huge (and, frankly, actionable) problem. That Mac advocates not only accept these lies, but propagate them gleefully, is another problem. Heck, Jobs even made fun of people who ordered G5s last summer but couldn't get them because Apple re-routed many of the early machines to the Virginia Tech super-computer project. And what was the response? Spastic fans practically threw roses on the stage. It's astonishing to me that people can act that way and then accuse PC people (whatever that means; we're really just "almost every computer using person in the world") of being lemmings. So what can you do? You could do what I do, for starters: Be honest about Apple and its products. You could correct people when they repeat, for the upteenth time, some bit of chicanery about Apple or its products to others. It's all over the press. I still see reports that cite Apple's "5 percent market share," which it hasn't had since the 1990's, or credit Apple for many technologies it didn't event or popularize. Write those journalists and set them straight. They're the ones propagating mistruths. I'm not anti-Apple. But I cannot believe some of the stuff I hear and read on a regular basis. It's time for the Anti-EvangeList, but done fairly: You shouldn't lost askance at every positive bit of news; but you should seek the truth. --Paul

" Editor's note: Again, just the sort of friendly feedback I was talking about. Thanks." Poor Paul! What did you expect? That people will say "Thank you" for your provocations? Your obvious MS-biased articles? Your constant mockery about everything non MS? Your FUD? Your insults on people which have chosen something else than MS and which think that freedom and choice is better than an MS market monoply? I can see only two reasons for your behaviour: 1. Either you're very bored writing about MS or 2. You perceive the alternatives as superior and therefore have to justify your decision for Windows somehow. Editor's note: There's a third choice, which would never occur to you. I'm correct about the WMA/AAC debate. --Paul

I have to reply to Corey Krall's comments. First, let me say that I've been a Mac owner since 1989 and Mac developer since 1986. Currently, I own three of them. I also own three PCs - two handbuilt and one laptop. It's one thing to be first, it's another to actually do something with that lead. Apple may have put the GUI on the first personal computer (Xerox actually invented it), but it was Microsoft who got it on 95% of the desktops - not Apple. Apple may have invented the PDA and viable handwriting, but it was Palm who actually got into the hands of a lot of people. Apple may have put out the first laser printer - but it was companies like Samsung who made them cheap enough for 'the rest of us'. I also think that there are times when we give Apple way too much credit for being first. Apple didn't invent USB or even WiFi. Both were around before the iMac hit the streets. Apple just made a bigger deal of them and seemed to kick off a revolution: but if you look at the actual sales timing, you see a different story - USB and WiFi device sales actually didn't take off until Win98SE showed up - with USB support. Similarly, WiFi didn't take off until Windows gained support for it. To show it's not a quirk - look at Bluetooth. Apple did their 'we're first' thing with that and stuck it on every Mac - but this time Microsoft didn't leap in with support in WinXP. So Bluetooth is almost irrelevent - it's just not widely supported or used - even though Apple tried to promote it. Apple may be good at razzledazzle and selling style - but the meat and potatoes computer use comes from Microsoft. Apple was supposed to be (by their own words) the company 'for the rest of us' - but from the very beginning - it was the company 'for the rest of us with lots of cash'... and most of us don't have lots of cash. So to answer your question: Is Mercedes and BMW irrelevent - actually, yes - to the vast majority of us, they are. Finally, you say that if more people opened their minds to MacOS, they'd be surprised. I argue the exact thing in reverse: most Mac users I know who have major problems using Windows have these problems because they demand that Windows behave like MacOS. If THEY'D open up their closed minds, perhaps THEY'D be surprised. Editor's note: So I agree with most of this. The whole "Apple is like BMW" argument, however, is bogus. BMW doesn't compete in a market against exactly one competitor who both owns 95 percent of the market and makes a superior product. Instead, the three biggest car makers (all of which own two or more brands) control about 65 percent of the market, and the rest id divided between dozens of players. The PC market has consolidated to the market we have now: One major player and a couple of also-rans. And because BMW is a luxury car maker, that comparison casts Apple in an undeservedly positive light. Besides, Apple only has 1.88 percent of the PC market. They're more like Kia than any other car company: Few people would actually consider buying one, but those that do are impressed with their advantages. --Paul