MacWorld (iPhone) Predictions

Picture 2-10

The Macworld Expo is coming in a little over a week and I'm wondering what it will bring for iPhone users. Macworld will obviously be focusing primarily on, er, Macs, but I'm expecting that there will be iPhone news too. Expecting it enough that, yes, Phone different will be there reporting on the events!

In any case, there's a thread up in our forums started by rener asking about what's coming and it seems like a fun thing to think about on a Friday. I won't touch the Mac rumors (except to say I want the subnotebook), but here's my shot at what I expect iPhone-wise:

  • Firmware Update 1.1.3 gets released (though doesn't necessarily get facetime in the Stevenote)
  • 1.1.3 does not, as has been rumored today, get cut & paste.
  • 1.1.3 does get A2DP ("What the Heck" pick)
  • Further sync features (notes and tasks!) are announced and possibly included in 1.1.3
  • A new iPhone-compatible speaker-dock system
  • If we get our A2DP Stereo Bluetooth What-the-heck prediction right, Apple will also release some bluetooth headphones.
  • 16 gig iPhone (but not a 3G version)

You?

Dieter Bohn

Dieter Bohn is former editor-in-chief of Smartphone Experts, writing across iMore, Windows Phone Central, Android Central, and more. You can find him on Twitter (and everywhere else) @backlon.

More Posts

 

0
loading...
0
loading...
0
loading...
0
loading...

← Previously

Review: Pacific Rim Leather Jacket for Apple iPhone

Next up →

Former Exec Rubenstein Wanted a Physical Keyboard on the iPhone

Reader comments

MacWorld (iPhone) Predictions

128 Comments
Sort by Rating

Obvious thread, but a fun one. What will we see?
iPhone 2G with 16GB and 3G Cell?
iPhone 1.1.3 Firmware with Google Locate & Pin Drag, Wiggly Home Customization, Cut'n'Paste, etc?
All new AppleTV, with iTunes WiFi Movie Store with rentables for iPhone?
MiniBook (dock-able to desktop, with iPhone dock-able to MiniBook?)
Jay-Z running Def Apple Jam?
White turtle neck?
Revolutionary "Namaste" UI?
Just over a week away....

I will be there! WOO HOO!!
Predictions.. will have to come up with some. Expect some frontpage action tomorrow and I'll tie it to this thread. :D

Here's what I came up with tonight.
3 iLife apps get updated in the days preceding MacWorld Expo, the other 2 get updated during Macworld.
Update to Mac OS X preceding the show.
Brief mention of a small new addition to .Mac.
Probably about 2 new iPhone apps that Apple will make available as a separate purchase. One will probably be a To-Do List application that is only compatible with Leopard in conjunction with the iPhone.
ITunes 8.0 with support for movie rental service.
Movie related announcements and other iTunes related things.
New Hi-Fi device that has HD radio. This seems inevitable with all the partners Apple has lined up to take advantage of iTunes Tagging of songs from HD radio - so yes, I'm saying this new hi-fi device will have a built in HD radio. How come nobody has noticed that the "Buy Now" buttons have been stripped from the iPod Hi-Fi pages at Apple.com?
An atypical announcement of a professional high-end application at a consumer level show.
Also somewhat atypical is the announcement of new Pro machines.
Definitely a new, smaller sized portable. Somewhere between 8" X 5" - 13" X 8".
Possible that it will interact with some other Apple hardware piece. Maybe the Apple TV??? I don't really have any idea here. Just guessing obviously.
Oh, probably also 2 new Apple branded iPhone accessories and 1 new iPhone model that has 16GB memory.
The day after the keynote, new Xserves will be announced.
Keep in mind these are all pulled out of thin air with no unmentionable sources and not much thought put into it. They just seemed to make sense at this moment.
Oh, almost forgot about a new firmware/software upgrade for the iPhone.

@Septimus: Awesome news! Can't wait to read/listen to the coverage.
@Archie: Are we talking point releases/fixes or major new functionality for iLife/OS X?
.Mac is still a puzzle to me. Some great features, not all yet fully realized (has anyone got back-2-my-mac perfected?), and not yet priced competitively, I think.
ToDo's tied into Leopard mail? Note syncing? Cut'n'paste for the mobile bloggers?
Personally I'm not clamoring for Java or Flash (given Flash' historic hoggishness on OS X), but a more competitive Quicktime interactive would be an interesting play...
HD Radio set up similar to Starbucks with a Buy-It-Now feature for song discovery?
The Pro-app/Final Cut announcement is rumored to be RED codec support.
Mac Pros with Blu-Ray?
iTablet or MacBookMini? Or both?
How about BlueTooth connection for iPhone with the new Apple Keyboard?
I think it will be hard-near-impossible for Jobs to (literally) pull an iPhone level disruptive device from his pocket 2 years in a row, so the bar is set incredibly high.

Small point releases for 3, new functionality for 2 at the show.
OS X will receive an update (10.5.2).
To-Dos tied into Leopard at a system level. Note syncing doesn't feel right yet. But it may come about in the form of .Mac parity when using a .Mac email account. The short of it is I don't know.
HD Radio, yeh, kinda like that. Only it will bank the marked songs into a "Want To Purchase" playlist.
That pro app thing, I think I am going to say they will have a beta of it to try out with final product being made available about 4 months later. I thought Final Cut already had RED support.
Mac Pros... with Blu-Ray... with new case design... with new memory architecture... with more ports in the front... with faster processors (of course).
The small portable... I'm thinking detachable screen. No hard drive. Flash memory.
Can write more later. Gotta go.

I can't find the link at the moment, but the RED support is rumored to be the ability to edit RED low-RES rather than at 4K

I can't find the link at the moment, but the RED support is rumored to be the ability to edit RED low-RES rather than at 4K
Oh, that would be cool.
My idea was based on the fact that Apple stays at the forefront of software technologies and capabilities and this is especially true with their professional level apps. Seeing some new stuff brewing in the motion animation and composition industry seems to dictate Apple will too. Well, that and Apple is discontinuing Shake, so it is pretty obvious there will be a new app in a very short time here. My thinking, possibly the showing of a new beta app.
I don't use RED, but I can see where low-rez work would come in handy - four all 4 of those RED owners.
In regards to a new portable coming from Apple, I really have no idea what it would be called but it definitely will not be part of the MacBook line or MacBookPro line. Whatever it is, it will probably get a devoted section here at PhoneDifferent. Kind of a cross between the iPhone and a MacBook.
No disruptive device you say... :)

The Macworld Expo is coming in a little over a week and I'm wondering what it will bring for iPhone users. *Mac*world will obviously be focusing primarily on, er, *Macs*, but I'm expecting that there will be iPhone news too. Expecting it enough that, yes, Phone different will be there reporting on the events!
In any case, there's a thread up in our forums started by rener asking about what's coming and it seems like a fun thing to think about on a Friday. I won't touch the Mac rumors (except to say I want the subnotebook), but here's my shot at what I expect iPhone-wise:
- Firmware Update 1.1.3 gets released (though doesn't necessarily get facetime in the Stevenote)I think Steve will want to show off Maps... in some fashion.
- 1.1.3 does *not*, as has been rumored today, get cut & paste.Agreed
- 1.1.3 *does* get A2DP ("What the Heck" pick)hm, maybe.
- Further sync features (notes and tasks!) are announced and possibly included in 1.1.3
I wish they would hurry up with this. I am teetering on the Google subscription-syncing solution to have this kind of functionality.
- A new iPhone-compatible speaker-dock system
- If we get our A2DP Stereo Bluetooth What-the-heck prediction right, Apple will also release some bluetooth headphones.I can't see this happening yet. Apple still wants those white corded headsets dawned amid the crowds.

@archie: iPhone level disruptive, which I consider up there with the Apple 2 and Mac in terms of game-changers. Likewise, iPhone and Leopard represent a UI leap for me, the same way Mac took us from filename.ext to icon, we have now gone from icon metaphor to Coverflow/Quicklook actual representation.
Also, the iPhone while expected in general was a well kept secet in specific, whereas either a MiniBook or iTablet may be more evolutionary and more leaked (thanks to Chinese component makers!)

@Septimus: A2DP would be great. I'm still intending to try it with Leopard on my Mac but IPhone would truly rock. (Yeah, I'm the master of the single entendre...)

- 1.1.3 *does* get A2DP ("What the Heck" pick)
- If we get our A2DP Stereo Bluetooth What-the-heck prediction right, Apple will also release some bluetooth headphones.
I think if that were so the iPod Touch would need bluetooth too. So I predict that:
1) There'll be no A2DP, or
2) It'll be revealed that the Touch had BT all along, or, perhaps,
3) A new BT Touch will be released (with 24/32 GB to keep up with the competition/keep the capacity advantage over an upgraded iPhone?)
Also, I'll guess that either 1.1.3 or new (but non-3G) hardware will fix the connection problems prevalent on O2, and I'll be left wondering again whether I should buy one or wait for 3G :(

@Septimus: A2DP would be great.
I know a lot of people think this but for me the negatives (lower sound quality, something else to charge, bulkier hardware, limited hardware choice) greatly outweigh the positives (no wires).
Each to his/her own :)

@marcol:
A2DP on iPhone would be good because it would allow you to have one (1) bluetooth device to handle both calls and music.

Right now the iPhone has Handsfree Gateway (HFP), Phonebook (PBAP), Headset Gateway (HSP) and IrMC Sync for profiles.
I also want
AVRCP
OBEX
OPP and maybe
HID.
SYNCH would also be a nicety but definitely not necessary; same with A2DP for me personally.
Edit: Oh, wait, I think SYNCH is what provides IrMC. THAT'S interesting! So I wonder what why they included that...

somewhat atypical is the announcement of new Pro machines...
Mac Pros... with Blu-Ray... with new case design... with new memory architecture... with more ports in the front... with faster processors (of course).
Yes, "somewhat atypical is the announcement of new Pro machines".
With Apple actually ceding to CES for the first time ever this year (never before has MacWorld been held this late in the year), I should have seen that they would release the Pro machine the week before during CES. And the XServe of course wasn't announced the day AFTER the keynote like I said but the week before - again to get in on CES buzz.
What did I get wrong here:
No new case design and no new Blu-Ray option. This is quite puzzling. There is something behind this Blu-Ray ordeal that we aren't seeing yet I think.
The memory architecture on these things are incredible, 2 unique riser cards to simplify the installation process. AND, a new faster implementation of 32GB total of 800 MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMM memory.
Case redesign??? Turns out that was just the inside (everything rearranged). :(

Holy Crap! The new memory architecture is showing a 64% speed increase over previous implementation.

I'm not sure Apple has gotten into the "fashion" aspect to push sales of the pro machines, the way it certainly does with the con/pro/sumer ones. (However, based on how many blognistas alone claimed to be ordering new Pro's immediately post PR, I'd say they don't have to worry - target audience nailed!)
The new specs are incredibly impressive. Running 8 (eight!) 30" displays at the same time is mind boggling, and the plumbing inside makes them, as I'm sure Jobs would say, "screamers".
Dropping them this week, almost off-hand, is ballsy to say the least. Sure it bites into what has been a very lackluster CES to be sure, but it also raises expectations even higher for Mac World (just look at Semptimus' posts!)
It's going to be a loooooong week waiting for that keynote!

@archie
No new case design and no new Blu-Ray option. This is quite puzzling. There is something behind this Blu-Ray ordeal that we aren't seeing yet I think.
Gizmodo presents this by way of explanation for the lack of Mac Pro design tweaks:
Other sources inside Apple confirmed us that, after the introduction of the Intel architecture, the company's strategy was not to update the external design of their hardware for the time being. The idea was to complete the migration, keeping it as invisible as possible. So instead of introducing new designs as an element of disruption, they kept the looks steady to transmit the idea of continuity and stability to an existing user base wary of yet another major architectural change in the platform. Once the transition was solid, the company was going to start changing the looks of each of the product lines, one by one, starting with one of their core products: the iMac.
Here're the rest of Gizmodo's MacWorld predictions:
http://gizmodo.com/343246/what-to-expect-at-macworld-2008-and-why-we-think-it-will-bigger-than-usual

@archie
Gizmodo presents this by way of explanation for the lack of Mac Pro design tweaks:
Other sources inside Apple confirmed us that, after the introduction of the Intel architecture, the company's strategy was not to update the external design of their hardware for the time being. The idea was to complete the migration, keeping it as invisible as possible. So instead of introducing new designs as an element of disruption, they kept the looks steady to transmit the idea of continuity and stability to an existing user base wary of yet another major architectural change in the platform. Once the transition was solid, the company was going to start changing the looks of each of the product lines, one by one, starting with one of their core products: the iMac.
Yeah, I totally agree with this strategy but it has been a full 2 years since the Intel switch over... and the Pro machine design was around 4 years before that. AND since Apple already HAS changed the look of the iMac I was expecting a reworked case design for the Pro machine next. You are right in that the typical Pro level user is not as conscious (or concerned anyway) about the aesthetics but I was led to believe in a particular manner that these new desktops would look different so I am puzzled with this desktop having the same look.
As far as Apple's other desktop machine, the mini, I think its morphing/repurposing will dictate a new design there.

Probably something to do with Blu-Ray - in regards to this "Something in the Air" statement. Maybe an outboard Blu-Ray unit with wireless capabilities that you can use on the Mac Pros AND the Apple TV... and an iMac and the Mac mini and an iPhone, etc. One drive for the whole house or office. No use in purchasing an expensive Blu-Ray unit only to have it confined to the Pro machine.
[COLOR="DarkRed">Plus, if they are distributing iTunes video content on discs (as evidenced by premature Fox media releases), you will need a method to get that content to iTunes, so some sort of outboard disc player does seem to make sense.[/COLOR]
So that would solve the Blu-Ray issue of the Pro machines but I am still puzzled about a case redesign.
Unless there was a whole new desktop class machine that Apple is making - larger than the mini, which seems weird given recent trends towards mobility.

Course "Something In The Air" could also just be in regards to that "disruption" I was speaking of earlier.
Apple disrupting AT&T themselves.

@archie:
Well, there is always the rumor of the mini-tower (some of the TUAW people predict it again). A consumer-level Mac with expansion capabilities. That could be your new desktop class machine right there... (especially if Mini gets folded into Apple TV as a media-focused machine).

Yeh, that's the kind of disruption I'm talking about. To elaborate though, the fact that Apple has partnered with AT&T on the iPhone does not stop them from partnering with FON or Sprint or whoever to provide WiMax on a different sort of mobile that is NOT an iPhone (but could provide iChat functionality: texting audio, video).
Also surprised they didn't mention the possibility that Apple TV would probably get WiMax (and Wi-Fi) as well. If they are entering into a new partnership with these studios, Apple is going to want to impress them with sales figures ("See, iTunes is the best distribution model for you"). How are they going to do that if everyone has to buy a new Airport Extreme (or some other such wireless n device). To require two separate devices would be a deterrent. The initial Apple TV didn't have this capability and so did not have the same requirements. It would be very Apple like to enter into this kind of new content business by providing a simple solution - an Apple TV that can get the content independent of other devices.
Anyway, I guess I don't fully expect everyone to realize these issues. I do myself because I have been emerged in the industry longer than most.

Not at all! Wifi music store could be seen as a first step in that very direction ( though there would have to be something for non wimax areas as well -- 'natch)

There is a reason Apple dropped Airport support for their Time Machine backup solution at the last moment.

Yup, called Time Capsule, and also with 1TB!
Likewise, Mac Book Air, 1.1.3 iPhone, and movie rentals.
Check, check, check, and check.
One More Thing, however, was MIA?

Not sure what time capsule is all about. Thought that was a feature of their new OS where you just hook up any old external HD.
But i liked the other new things. Although I wouldn't purchase that thin laptop as it seems more of a fashion statement than any bang for the buck. I did hear it was instant on. But its too costly.
All in all, it was pretty lame from the iphone point of view.

Yup, called Time Capsule, and also with 1TB
Ummm... No offense rener but I am sure you are mistaken. It was me that came across the wireless backup solution to be announced at the keynote.

Here's what I came up with tonight.
3 iLife apps get updated in the days preceding MacWorld Expo, the other 2 get updated during Macworld.
Update to Mac OS X preceding the show.
Brief mention of a small new addition to .Mac.
Probably about 2 new iPhone apps that Apple will make available as a separate purchase. One will probably be a To-Do List application that is only compatible with Leopard in conjunction with the iPhone.
ITunes 8.0 with support for movie rental service.
Movie related announcements and other iTunes related things.
New Hi-Fi device that has HD radio. This seems inevitable with all the partners Apple has lined up to take advantage of iTunes Tagging of songs from HD radio - so yes, I'm saying this new hi-fi device will have a built in HD radio. How come nobody has noticed that the "Buy Now" buttons have been stripped from the iPod Hi-Fi pages at Apple.com?
An atypical announcement of a professional high-end application at a consumer level show.
Also somewhat atypical is the announcement of new Pro machines.
Definitely a new, smaller sized portable. Somewhere between 8" X 5" - 13" X 8".
Possible that it will interact with some other Apple hardware piece. Maybe the Apple TV??? I don't really have any idea here. Just guessing obviously.
Oh, probably also 2 new Apple branded iPhone accessories and 1 new iPhone model that has 16GB memory.
The day after the keynote, new Xserves will be announced.
Keep in mind these are all pulled out of thin air with no unmentionable sources and not much thought put into it. They just seemed to make sense at this moment.
Oh, almost forgot about a new firmware/software upgrade for the iPhone.
2 for 12 (including the known movie rental stuff). Karnak would be impressed. (The sad thing is that several of your guesses are things Apple should be doing).
I like how Apple is charging existing Touch customers $20 for the same apps as the iPhone...or that come with the "new" Touch. (Ug).

Not sure what time capsule is all about. Thought that was a feature of their new OS where you just hook up any old external HD.
But i liked the other new things. Although I wouldn't purchase that thin laptop as it seems more of a fashion statement than any bang for the buck. I did hear it was instant on. But its too costly.
All in all, it was pretty lame from the iphone point of view.
Up until now there was no officially supported solution for putting the backup target drive on the network (though there was an easy hack - I've been backing up to my infrant NAS for many weeks now). This is the first official solution. However, Apple has already officially said that it's a bug, and so there should be a fix to allow this with "any old" drive on the network before too long.
I can see where people who were considering a new router/access point would consider the time capsule, though I think people would be better off with an airport and plugging a usb drive into it.

2 for 12 (including the known movie rental stuff). Karnak would be impressed. (The sad thing is that several of your guesses are things Apple should be doing).
I like how Apple is charging existing Touch customers $20 for the same apps as the iPhone...or that come with the "new" Touch. (Ug).
I don't have a lot of sympathy for those customers - they bought something marketed as a fancy ipod, knowing what software it came with. (Pretty much all the software, other than the web browser, was equivalent to stuff on an ipod, and the web browser was there primarily to allow wifi itunes purchases). Adding those other apps moves it away from an ipod and more toward a mini-communicator. And if people don't want to pay, they can just jailbreak and get some equivalent apps, or wait a month or so and start downloading very cheap or free apps off of itunes.

2 for 12 (including the known movie rental stuff). Karnak would be impressed. (The sad thing is that several of your guesses are things Apple should be doing).
Hey MikeC, its been a long time. So, 4 million iPhones sold. How do those numbers match up with your in store sales predictions?

I don't have a lot of sympathy for those customers - they bought something marketed as a fancy ipod, knowing what software it came with. (Pretty much all the software, other than the web browser, was equivalent to stuff on an ipod, and the web browser was there primarily to allow wifi itunes purchases). Adding those other apps moves it away from an ipod and more toward a mini-communicator. And if people don't want to pay, they can just jailbreak and get some equivalent apps, or wait a month or so and start downloading very cheap or free apps off of itunes.
I subscribe to caveat emptor as much as the next guy. I just think it creates ill will where none is needed.
The Touch is a slick device, and to me, one of the jewels they should be pushing. (not everyone can switch carriers and phone, but everyone can switch PMPs)

Hey MikeC, its been a long time. So, 4 million iPhones sold. How do those numbers match up with your in store sales predictions?
Well, I still go buy the stores every so often, and again, not much frenzy for iPhones (although lots of people buy Macs and Touches over the holidays it seemed.)
I do see a lot more in the wild, for sure.
I'm sure most of these sales are online, and the European numbers are in there as well.
Still, I'm impressed they have sold that many - never underestimate the number of people willing to part with cash.
Here were the estimates back in the day:
Fiscal year ending Sept 2007, and Sept 2008.
• American Technology Research: 250,000, N/A
• Bear Stearns & Co: 650,000, N/A
• Credit Suisse: 1.7 million, 12.3 million
• Pacific Crest Securities: 800,000, 4.8 million
• Piper Jaffray & Co: 1.2 million, 8 million
• UBS AG: 950,000, 8.1 million
• Goldman Sachs: 5.25M, 12 million
• JP Morgan: N/A, 9.85 million
A lot of variability there...Looks like Piper was the closest thus far.
It will be very interesting what the 2008 number are. I expect another iPhone release of some sort to push toward those numbers. Still, that is a lot of phones...it will be interesting to see if the meteoric rise continues. For a phone limited to certain carriers, these are sweet numbers.
So who's getting a Macbook Air? Isn't this what the Palm Foleo should have been? ;-)

@archie:
LOL! That's what I was saying. (Though you were a bit of a tease about it...)
The $20 for Touch update makes no sense to me given the iPhone and Apple TV updates are gratis. However, it's been pointed out that both those updates make Apple money via rentable movies, where the 5 apps for Touch don't. Don't understand still.
I like Time Capsule, but it will be interesting to see if you can use it for more than just Time Machine. And will iDrobo be next?
Apple TV 2 has me interested. I have a ton of DVDs I'd rather rip and make available via iTunes, but with a MPB I don't have the local storage to merely sync. If I could make a secondary library and synch that, it would be perfect,
Sad there was no "One more thing..." (even Safari Windows was one more thing...)

@archie:
LOL! That's what I was saying. (Though you were a bit of a tease about it...)
The $20 for Touch update makes no sense to me given the iPhone and Apple TV updates are gratis. However, it's been pointed out that both those updates make Apple money via rentable movies, where the 5 apps for Touch don't. Don't understand still.
The apple TV update doesn't add new functionality (afaik) other than allowing you to spend money to rent movies. It doesn't provide anything free (other than a change in UI).
The touch update adds lots of new functionality that is free to use once installed, enabling the device to do things it was never advertised as being able to do.
I don't see any relationship between these updates. Demanding a free update is sort of like demanding Microsoft throw in Office because you already paid for Windows Basic (i.e.: Touch) and because people who buy Windows Super Deluxe (ie: iphone) already get Office.

I subscribe to caveat emptor as much as the next guy. I just think it creates ill will where none is needed.
The Touch is a slick device, and to me, one of the jewels they should be pushing. (not everyone can switch carriers and phone, but everyone can switch PMPs)
Then I demand all itunes songs for free, because I like free stuff.

The apple TV update doesn't add new functionality (afaik) other than allowing you to spend money to rent movies. It doesn't provide anything free (other than a change in UI).
The touch update adds lots of new functionality that is free to use once installed, enabling the device to do things it was never advertised as being able to do.
I don't see any relationship between these updates. Demanding a free update is sort of like demanding Microsoft throw in Office because you already paid for Windows Basic (i.e.: Touch) and because people who buy Windows Super Deluxe (ie: iphone) already get Office.
My question is will the 30+24 model work (30 days to view, 24 hours to complete after starting).
Sure, this appeals to the person who can sit and watch a movie; but what about those who watch things in chunks? Maybe it's small audience.
I do like the Netflix "free" streaming, although obviously it's computer oriented, not TV.
The real question is this - when will the hack be in place to download and playback as often as you want? ;-)

The real question is this - when will the hack be in place to download and playback as often as you want? ;-)
http://lifehacker.com/345566/download-netflix-watch-now-movies-easy+like-with-netflix-download-links
The apple TV update doesn't add new functionality (afaik) other than allowing you to spend money to rent movies. It doesn't provide anything free (other than a change in UI).
It removes the need for a computer running iTunes in order to download and watch video podcasts, including HD video podcats, for free.
I don't see any relationship between these updates. Demanding a free update is sort of like demanding Microsoft throw in Office because you already paid for Windows Basic (i.e.: Touch) and because people who buy Windows Super Deluxe (ie: iphone) already get Office.
It's not a question of demand or entitlement (and I don't even own a Touch). It's a question, for Apple, of PR. Including the new apps for free on new Touches makes (legitimately or not), early purchasers once again (rightly or wrongly) feel slighted by Apple (after the reaction to the iPhone price drop, it has become a melodrama of sorts).
Likewise, allowing wireless backups to Time Capsule but disabling them in the release version of Leopard (while they were enabled in the beta), absent a clear statement of whether or not its forthcoming and if not, why not, creates a PR problem (similar perhaps to the iPhone SDK where Jobs finally had to "just say it")
It's strange how Apple missteps these little perception problems as they grow... (which should be handled with better planning/pr from inception).

http://lifehacker.com/345566/download-netflix-watch-now-movies-easy+like-with-netflix-download-links
It removes the need for a computer running iTunes in order to download and watch video podcasts, including HD video podcats, for free.
It's not a question of demand or entitlement (and I don't even own a Touch). It's a question, for Apple, of PR. Including the new apps for free on new Touches makes (legitimately or not), early purchasers once again (rightly or wrongly) feel slighted by Apple (after the reaction to the iPhone price drop, it has become a melodrama of sorts).
Likewise, allowing wireless backups to Time Capsule but disabling them in the release version of Leopard (while they were enabled in the beta), absent a clear statement of whether or not its forthcoming and if not, why not, creates a PR problem (similar perhaps to the iPhone SDK where Jobs finally had to "just say it")
It's strange how Apple missteps these little perception problems as they grow... (which should be handled with better planning/pr from inception).
Rener, thanks for the link. I was referring to iTunes, not Netflix, but the Netflix stuff is good too.
Now if I could just get their player to work! (argh - audio, no video).

2 for 12 (including the known movie rental stuff). Karnak would be impressed. (The sad thing is that several of your guesses are things Apple should be doing).
I like how Apple is charging existing Touch customers $20 for the same apps as the iPhone...or that come with the "new" Touch. (Ug).Mike you can't count.
Let's see...
I knew that there was a new backup device coming to go with Time Machine - you heard this from me exclusively.
I knew that Apple TV was going to be updated.
I knew (like everyone else, as you said) that movie rentals were coming to the iTunes Store.
I knew that iTunes would of course get updated to support this.
I knew that the iPhone update 1.1.3 was arriving on this day.
I also knew that this iPhone 1.1.3 update included Mail app changes to give gMail accounts more features and IMAP functionality - you heard this from me exclusively.
I knew that Apple was introducing a new portable at 13" X 8" or 8" X 5".
As we now know, it was the larger size... OK I missed it by an inch. Sorry.
Actual size is 13 X 9. I thought I came pretty close though so you can stick it mikec.
We will soon see another device at the 8" X 5" size that I called out (Again, you heard it here first).
Nobody else was predicting Pro level hardware to arrive at this consumer level show - except for me. I said that they were going to be releasing new Mac Pro AND new Xserves. I said the Mac Pro would be released the first day and the Xserve would be released the day after. As we now know, I was only 5 and 6 days off. Not bad considering nobody (the press and anyone else with an outlet on the net) thought they would consider releasing at this time.
In regards to the iLife app updates only 2 were updated and then of course you have 2 others that were tied in - Front Row and QuickTime. I was wrong when it came to the 2 that I thought would get new functionality.
And I was also wrong when it came to the release of the 16GB iPhone. I was 99.9% sure this would come to fruition. There were probably some political reasons or a time factor in the keynote that stopped this from happening to be a focus. I am quite certain we will see this in about 4 weeks though.
Oh, I did also miss the iPod Hi-Fi II.
But beyond that I did pretty well. Not as good as last year though. Last year I even predicted the upsetting news that iLife '08 would not arrive until much later. Nobody thought that one was possible. :)

I like how Apple is charging existing Touch customers $20 for the same apps as the iPhone...or that come with the "new" Touch. (Ug).
Mike, I don't know why you paint this as a bad thing that Apple is doing?
I'm SURE you know of Sarbanes-Oxley and I am sure you know that only AppleTV and the iPhone fall under this so why continue to make this an issue.
iPhone users pay a monthly fee that gets them sftware updates, iPod touch users do not. This is why they are required to pay a mere $20 for 5 applications. THIS is a bargain in my mind.

I can see where people who were considering a new router/access point would consider the time capsule, though I think people would be better off with an airport and plugging a usb drive into it.
I like the fact that you are not bottle-necked with a USB connection. The Time Capsule has a fast server-class SATA drive spinning at 72,000.

@archie:
LOL! That's what I was saying. (Though you were a bit of a tease about it...)Ah, that's cool. Sorry.
The $20 for Touch update makes no sense to me given the iPhone and Apple TV updates are gratis. However, it's been pointed out that both those updates make Apple money via rentable movies, where the 5 apps for Touch don't. Don't understand still.
I like Time Capsule, but it will be interesting to see if you can use it for more than just Time Machine. And will iDrobo be next?Yup, Mac or PC can write to it as a drive other than a Time Capsule connected to Time Machine.

you'd like to think ipod users already paid for the software updates with the initial purchase.
I'm not paying for windows updates, palm updates, or any of number of software updates i get..why is this one ok to pay for? (not that i am..i don't own one but do own the iphone).

Mike you can't count.
Let's see...
I knew that there was a new backup device coming to go with Time Machine - you heard this from me exclusively.
I knew that Apple TV was going to be updated.
I knew (like everyone else, as you said) that movie rentals were coming to the iTunes Store.
I knew that iTunes would of course get updated to support this.
I knew that the iPhone update 1.1.3 was arriving on this day.
I also knew that this iPhone 1.1.3 update included Mail app changes to give gMail accounts more features and IMAP functionality - you heard this from me exclusively.
I knew that Apple was introducing a new portable at 13" X 8" or 8" X 5".
As we now know, it was the larger size... OK I missed it by an inch. Sorry.
Actual size is 13 X 9. I thought I came pretty close though so you can stick it mikec.
We will soon see another device at the 8" X 5" size that I called out (Again, you heard it here first).
Nobody else was predicting Pro level hardware to arrive at this consumer level show - except for me. I said that they were going to be releasing new Mac Pro AND new Xserves. I said the Mac Pro would be released the first day and the Xserve would be released the day after. As we now know, I was only 5 and 6 days off. Not bad considering nobody (the press and anyone else with an outlet on the net) thought they would consider releasing at this time.
In regards to the iLife app updates only 2 were updated and then of course you have 2 others that were tied in - Front Row and QuickTime. I was wrong when it came to the 2 that I thought would get new functionality.
And I was also wrong when it came to the release of the 16GB iPhone. I was 99.9% sure this would come to fruition. There were probably some political reasons or a time factor in the keynote that stopped this from happening to be a focus. I am quite certain we will see this in about 4 weeks though.
Oh, I did also miss the iPod Hi-Fi II.
But beyond that I did pretty well. Not as good as last year though. Last year I even predicted the upsetting news that iLife '08 would not arrive until much later. Nobody thought that one was possible. :)
Archie,
Thanks for the revisionist history post, and the insult to "stick it". I took your advice, and stuck it in a certain person's maternal representation. (Mods, feel free to delete this post, but quite frankly am sick of Archie's insulting comments. One good policy violation begets another.)
I was going to respond point by point, but it doens't matter. You just make up the fact to suit yourself (and if you even read, I gave you laptop prediction regardless of size.)

Mike, I don't know why you paint this as a bad thing that Apple is doing?
I'm SURE you know of Sarbanes-Oxley and I am sure you know that only AppleTV and the iPhone fall under this so why continue to make this an issue.
iPhone users pay a monthly fee that gets them sftware updates, iPod touch users do not. This is why they are required to pay a mere $20 for 5 applications. THIS is a bargain in my mind.
Customers don't like getting nickeled and dimed.
Not sure why you bring up SOX, as it has nothing to do with the conversation.
As for your logic on why Touch people pay and IPhones people do not, I guess that's one perspective, but I think most would disagree.

you'd like to think ipod users already paid for the software updates with the initial purchase.
I'm not paying for windows updates, palm updates, or any of number of software updates i get..why is this one ok to pay for? (not that i am..i don't own one but do own the iphone).
These are not updates. You are receiving completely new applications that give you 5 completely new pieces of functionality that was not promised with the initial product release.

Sorry, but i don't buy that. If they're not updates, then apple shouldn't be selling ipods with the current update and make the purchase separate.
I think you forgot what updates are. New functionality is part of it. I thought that was part of the Apple experience. Apparently not..unless you pay more.

Mike, I don't know why you paint this as a bad thing that Apple is doing?
I'm SURE you know of Sarbanes-Oxley and I am sure you know that only AppleTV and the iPhone fall under this so why continue to make this an issue.
iPhone users pay a monthly fee that gets them sftware updates, iPod touch users do not. This is why they are required to pay a mere $20 for 5 applications. THIS is a bargain in my mind.
My dell laptop gets new software updates every few months. Sometimes they even add new "features". I dont need to pay for any of these.
It makes no sense for Apple to charge early adopters for a firmware upgrade. It only creates ill-will for a measly $20. I think the is the first negative thing apple has done in over a year.

Yet the point updates for OS (10.5.x) are unpaid and can add new features, same with Apple TV and iPhone (not sure if OS sales are subscription based?)
Some have said, with the SDK on the horizon, that Apple is testing the waters on iTunes App sales?
Personally, I have one friend who bought the update no question immediately, and another who loves the apps but is offended at the idea of paying for them.
On the flip side, TUAW is reporting that 1.1.3 unbricks past-bricked iPhones?

I like the fact that you are not bottle-necked with a USB connection. The Time Capsule has a fast server-class SATA drive spinning at 72,000.
7200. And a USB drive can run at 7200 as well. The interface may be a little slower, but with some USB enclosures you can get RAID (adding speed, reliability, or both). Speed is probably not such a big deal since you are network-bound, anyway (and this is for backups, so reliability is key).
The best solution is a RAID NAS running on the network, but leopard doesn't allow it (without a hack. I use the hack with an Infrant box with four "server class" 750GB drives in it running a RAID configuration as my time machine target. Works fine so far.)

Does Drobo work with Time Machine? Or would that be a waste of the little bot?
When directly attached (usb) yes.
It would probably work with its new network add-on as well, but that requires the same hack.
I don't quite see where the drobo love comes from (other than the cool look of the box); it seems priced about the same as the infrant, and a lot less functional.

Archie,
Thanks for the revisionist history post, and the insult to "stick it". I took your advice, and stuck it in a certain person's maternal representation. (Mods, feel free to delete this post, but quite frankly am sick of Archie's insulting comments. One good policy violation begets another.)
I was going to respond point by point, but it doens't matter. You just make up the fact to suit yourself (and if you even read, I gave you laptop prediction regardless of size.)
It is you that continues with a revisionist perspective dear one.
You said, "2 for 12 (including the known movie rental stuff)". That's it. I assumed you were giving me iTunes update and Movie rental service, not the laptop.
Besides you missed the others.
[LIST]
[*]new firmware/software upgrade for the iPhone just as I said
[*]additional iPhone update features in Mail application just as I said
[*]new backup device coming to go with Time Machine just as I said
[*]Movie rental service just as I said
[*]Apple TV to be updated just as I said
[*]Brief mention of a small .Mac feature just as I said
[*]new small portable just as I said
[*]and basically called the Mac Pro AND new Xserves as well
[/LIST]
That's 8 things... not 2.

Customers don't like getting nickeled and dimed.
Not sure why you bring up SOX, as it has nothing to do with the conversation.
As for your logic on why Touch people pay and IPhones people do not, I guess that's one perspective, but I think most would disagree.
Thick headed!
I bring up SOX because it is intertwined. Just because you separate these two issues for us to read does not mean that is the way it must be. The reason people are being asked to pay is because of SOX.
I'll say it again. The iPod Touch is not under subscription accounting. The iPhone and Apple TV are.
There is precedence for this action - at least 5 years worth: 1998 - 2003, probably goes back further. Companies were recognizing revenue from products and services at the time of sale without it being finished or delivered, resulting in hairy accounting practices.
I think its funny that Apple has been doing this with explanation for years but people cannot remember why. Remember that whole ordeal with them enabling 802.11n on Macbooks that were not advertised as having 802.11n?

new Pro machines...
What did I get wrong here:
No new case design and no new Blu-Ray option. This is quite puzzling. There is something behind this Blu-Ray ordeal that we aren't seeing yet I think.
Now know what the ordeal was behind the lack of Blu-Ray drives in the Pro machines.
Apple's new "Remote Disc" feature included with MacBook Air doesn't support streaming of high-bandwidth media yet. Just learned of this Friday.
One can assume that it will eventually; at which point we will see Blu-Ray drives as a Build-To-Order option along with an Apple TV update to utilize external BluRay drives to pull in streaming movies (we can hope anyway) just as the MacBook Air pulls in content from remote discs.

Thick headed!
I bring up SOX because it is intertwined. Just because you separate these two issues for us to read does not mean that is the way it must be. The reason people are being asked to pay is because of SOX.
I'll say it again. The iPod Touch is not under subscription accounting. The iPhone and Apple TV are.
There is precedence for this action - at least 5 years worth: 1998 - 2003, probably goes back further. Companies were recognizing revenue from products and services at the time of sale without it being finished or delivered, resulting in hairy accounting practices.
I think its funny that Apple has been doing this with explanation for years but people cannot remember why. Remember that whole ordeal with them enabling 802.11n on Macbooks that were not advertised as having 802.11n?
Thick headed?
Again, SOX has ZERO to do with the reason people are being asked to pay. I'm afraid you do not understand SOX, and no sane person on the planet would agree with that viewpoint. That is like saying the reason there are ratings on video games is due to the Patriot Act.
SOX has everything to do accounting/financials/controls/accountability, and nothing to do with marketing or product feature sets.

Now know what the ordeal was behind the lack of Blu-Ray drives in the Pro machines.
Apple's new "Remote Disc" feature included with MacBook Air doesn't support streaming of high-bandwidth media yet. Just learned of this Friday.
One can assume that it will eventually; at which point we will see Blu-Ray drives as a Build-To-Order option along with an Apple TV update to utilize external BluRay drives to pull in streaming movies (we can hope anyway) just as the MacBook Air pulls in content from remote discs.
I think he was taking about the Pro Macbooks, not the Macbook Air.
Maybe it's just as simple as costs and the market penetration of Blu-Ray (or HD DVD for that matter.)

Thick headed?
Again, SOX has ZERO to do with the reason people are being asked to pay. I'm afraid you do not understand SOX, and no sane person on the planet would agree with that viewpoint. That is like saying the reason there are ratings on video games is due to the Patriot Act.
SOX has everything to do accounting/financials/controls/accountability, and nothing to do with marketing or product feature sets.
If Apple Inc. (or any other company for that matter) sells a product, and if it then adds a feature to the product, Apple can be held liable for improper accounting if it accepts revenue from the product at the time of sale given that it hasn’t finished delivering the product at that point.
Get it? It becomes implicit that the product was not finished at the time of introduction.
I'll try explaining it differently.
You are paying $20 for a certain added value, namely the ability to write notes, quickly check the weather, quickly track stocks, check your location, get driving directions, check traffic and send and receive email. Now, you have to admit that any sane person looking at this can perceive the value and be able to say, "yeh, all those features are worth $20".
The GAAP says Apple MUST account for separate (added) values that software brings to products previously sold. Those things I listed above weren't just a software upgrade, they were substantial added values that were not promised in any way shape or form in the original product. It is in essence a whole new product now.
And HEY, what do you know - the iPod Touch now has a different SKU #.

I think he was taking about the Pro Macbooks, not the Macbook Air.No, I'm pretty sure "he" was talking about the unforeseen reasoning of Mac Pros not including Blu-Ray drives built in. The reason I'm pretty sure is because that "he" is ME.
Maybe it's just as simple as costs and the market penetration of Blu-Ray (or HD DVD for that matter.)Or... maybe it's that the whole advantage and reasoning of the MacBook Air relies on the stability of the "Remote Disc" feature. Who would pay that much for a feature - the main feature - that didn't work correctly, am I right?

All these other companies..not being GAAP compliant..but Apple is on the ipod Touch? LOL
Try again.
The whole issue is Apple charging its customers for a software update. GAAP doesn't force them to do so. How they record or recognize revenue or expenses is irrelevant to me.

Pure speculation and labeled as such:
Could there be some sort of usage or license fee paid to Skyhook per unit for the Wi-Fi Google Maps location service? If so, could the subscription accounting model for iPhone allow this to be expensed against the future recognition for iPhone, and against the immediately recognized revenue of iPod Touches sold from this point on, but for previously (already) recognized iPod Touches, be passed on to the consumer so Apple can expense against the upgrade charge?
Again, pure speculation, and even if there is anything to it, no doubt the debate will rage over whether or not Apple could/should eat it as a gift to early adapters, or how (much) they chose to charge either way...

If Apple Inc. (or any other company for that matter) sells a product, and if it then adds a feature to the product, Apple can be held liable for improper accounting if it accepts revenue from the product at the time of sale given that it hasn’t finished delivering the product at that point.
Get it? It becomes implicit that the product was not finished at the time of introduction.
I'll try explaining it differently.
You are paying $20 for a certain added value, namely the ability to write notes, quickly check the weather, quickly track stocks, check your location, get driving directions, check traffic and send and receive email. Now, you have to admit that any sane person looking at this can perceive the value and be able to say, "yeh, all those features are worth $20".
The GAAP says Apple MUST account for separate (added) values that software brings to products previously sold. Those things I listed above weren't just a software upgrade, they were substantial added values that were not promised in any way shape or form in the original product. It is in essence a whole new product now.
And HEY, what do you know - the iPod Touch now has a different SKU #.
The only thing I "get" is that you have no fargin idea what you are talking about.
"Not finished at the time of introduction" - GMAFB. We're talking about a phone/PMP here, not jet airplane. An item is sold. Revenue realized. End of story.
Again, SOX has nothing to do with it. GAAP has nothing to do with it. This is just Apple seeing a chance to make more money! Plain and simple! Saying Apple MUST charge for the "update" is laughable.
The Touch having a different SKU means nothing - SKUs change all the time for the "same" products; obviously, you know just about as much about retail as you do about regulatory rules and accounting practices - NOTHING.
Keep swinging and talking with confidence. Pretty soon we'll get to the point where it's Bush's fault that Apple has to charge $20 and HD streaming isn't ready....

No, I'm pretty sure "he" was talking about the unforeseen reasoning of Mac Pros not including Blu-Ray drives built in. The reason I'm pretty sure is because that "he" is ME.
Or... maybe it's that the whole advantage and reasoning of the MacBook Air relies on the stability of the "Remote Disc" feature. Who would pay that much for a feature - the main feature - that didn't work correctly, am I right?
I thought you liked being referred to in the thrid person....
Macbook Pro and MBA are two different beasts.
"Remote disc" is soooooo amazing (not) Only the Apple RFD could make network file transfer and drive sharing seem new and exciting. This has been done for a long long time.

All these other companies..not being GAAP compliant..but Apple is on the ipod Touch? LOL
Try again.
The whole issue is Apple charging its customers for a software update. GAAP doesn't force them to do so. How they record or recognize revenue or expenses is irrelevant to me.
Bingo.

All these other companies..not being GAAP compliant..but Apple is on the ipod Touch? LOL
Try again.
The whole issue is Apple charging its customers for a software update. GAAP doesn't force them to do so. How they record or recognize revenue or expenses is irrelevant to me.The whole issue is that it is NOT JUST a software update. You are changing the product, making it do something substantially different as advertised. There are not "all these other companies" doing this because they do not add features to the extent that Apple does.
And GAAP... it may not be law but it is a rule and this rule is enforced by the government. Plain and simple.

Pure speculation and labeled as such:
Could there be some sort of usage or license fee paid to Skyhook per unit for the Wi-Fi Google Maps location service? If so, could the subscription accounting model for iPhone allow this to be expensed against the future recognition for iPhone, and against the immediately recognized revenue of iPod Touches sold from this point on, but for previously (already) recognized iPod Touches, be passed on to the consumer so Apple can expense against the upgrade charge?
Again, pure speculation, and even if there is anything to it, no doubt the debate will rage over whether or not Apple could/should eat it as a gift to early adapters, or how (much) they chose to charge either way...
Rener,
Anytime you have a charge, you can get very creative on what expenses go against it. I highly doubt the licensing for any feature is driving the charge. The revenue for an iPhone and Touch (hardware) are realized when the device is sold. The revenue from the carrier fees is realized in each additional month, separate from the hardware.
The reason for charging the $20 is simple:
- They can do it, and fanboys will gladly pay the $20
- The get extra cash they can use for other things
- The can write off additional expense (internal accounting trick/benefit)
The bottom line is that Apple loves sticking it to earlier adopters. They've been doing this since the original Mac days. It's one thing they are very consistent about.

The whole issue is Apple charging its customers for a software update.
Every software company in the world (except for open source stuff of course) charges their customers for software upgrades. Why do you expect Apple to not do so?
I want a serious answer because I think you have unfounded expectations.

The whole issue is that it is NOT JUST a software update. You are changing the product, making it do something substantially different as advertised. There are not "all these other companies" doing this because they do not add features to the extent that Apple does.
And GAAP... it may not be law but it is a rule and this rule is enforced by the government. Plain and simple.
Nothing you state is "plain and simple".
GAAP is not enforced by the government, because they are not gov't rules - it is the guide for reporting. The SEC enforces the gov't rules; GAAP is seen as one of the authoritative source in these matters. But I digresss - it still has ZERO to do with squeezing an extra $20 out of people.
"Other companies don't add features to the extent Apple does"....uh, sure.

I thought you liked being referred to in the thrid person....
Macbook Pro and MBA are two different beasts.mike, why don't you go back and read the original post. I am not sure what else to say.
"Remote disc" is soooooo amazing (not) Only the Apple RFD could make network file transfer and drive sharing seem new and exciting. This has been done for a long long time.Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot. This is something only Macs can do. You of course conveniently fail to mention this. :mad:

Every software company in the world (except for open source stuff of course) charges their customers for software upgrades. Why do you expect Apple to not do so?
I want a serious answer because I think you have unfounded expectations.
Even some open source companies charge for updates.
Let's see...who does updates in the consumer space and does not charge...
Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Netgear, Linksys (Cisco), D-Link, Sprint, Verizon, Palm, Archos, Creative, NVidia, ATI, Intel, AMD...I'm sure we could go on all day.
If you truly want to treat this as software, most vendors give you free updates for a year.
So the expectation is not unfounded. It's just odd when a company that is supposedly "customer focused" goes against the grain. People notice it. They think, "you just got my $300, 400, 500 bucks, and not you want to ding me again?"
Again, as I said, early adopter get no love from Apple.

mike, why don't you go back and read the original post. I am not sure what else to say.
Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot. This is something only Macs can do. You of course conveniently fail to mention this. :mad:
Only Mac can boot from the network? Wow I guess that "wake-on-lan" stuff that has been in PC BIOS for years never really existed.
I can see why you use a mad emoticon...I'd be mad too if I had such a limited view of technoloy.
Apple invented everything - except the Internet, which was, of course, Al Gore.
You sure you want to keep putting your foot in your mouth?

Even some open source companies charge for updates.
Let's see...who does updates in the consumer space and does not charge...
Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Netgear, Linksys (Cisco), D-Link, Sprint, Verizon, Palm, Archos, Creative, NVidia, ATI, Intel, AMD...I'm sure we could go on all day.
Mike I just went back a couple of years on sites like http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Search.aspx?displaylang=en for Microsoft and then also Dell, Linksys, D-Link and Netgear.
NOT one of the 5 companies that I checked had any software upgrades that brought new features. And I couldn't find one instance of a wireless router company upgrading firmware to provide faster connections or adding substantial new features to their gear like Apple has done.
Every time a company - companies that I do business with - updates their applications with substantial new features, I have to pay for it. Happens with Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe/Macromedia Contribute, Adobe/Macromedia Flash, Adobe/Macromedia, Adobe ImageReady, Adobe/Macromedia Fireworks, Adobe/Macromedia Dreamweaver, Adobe InDesign, Adobe GoLive, Final Cut Studio, Strata Studio Pro, Adobe After Effects, Roxio Toast, CSSEdit, FileMaker Pro, iWork (only purchased once but still holds), iLife, Little Snitch, Poser, LightWave 3D, Strata 3D CX, RapidWeaver, Transmit, TextMate, SubEthaEdit, TextSoap, SOHO Notes, Data Rescue, DiskWarrior, and no less than 20 other plug-ins for apps ranging from Photoshop to Mail - I have had to pay every single time they release new features. What makes the companies that I buy from different than the companies you buy from?
If you truly want to treat this as software, most vendors give you free updates for a year.I think THIS is what is really eating you. You are coming to realize that Apple really is a software company at heart. Just as I had said many years back. Remember that arguement from years back mikec? Yeh! Is this what brought about your extreme dislike for anything posted under the name of "archie". :D
Anyway, I ask you to post an example of a vendor that gives you free updates for a year (NOT A VALUE ADDED VENDOR WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS WHAT APPLE IS DOING WITH THE IPHONE AND APPLE TV).

Only Mac can boot from the network? Wow I guess that "wake-on-lan" stuff that has been in PC BIOS for years never really existed.Oh, it exists, it just doesn't do as you suggest.
I can see why you use a mad emoticon...I'd be mad too if I had such a limited view of technoloy.
Apple invented everything - except the Internet, which was, of course, Al Gore.
You sure you want to keep putting your foot in your mouth?Well, I hope YOU keep it up because I am getting a good laugh out of your struggling. The only thing I am getting tired of is looking through Dell and Microsoft's web site.

mike, why don't you go back and read the original post. I am not sure what else to say.
Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot. This is something only Macs can do. You of course conveniently fail to mention this. :mad:
My ancient compaq laptop has a netboot option. Press a key (F12?) on startup, and it boots off the network. Never used it, though. I imagine the mac version is much prettier.

Mike I just went back a couple of years on sites like http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Search.aspx?displaylang=en for Microsoft and then also Dell, Linksys, D-Link and Netgear.
NOT one of the 5 companies that I checked had any software upgrades that brought new features. And I couldn't find one instance of a wireless router company upgrading firmware to provide faster connections or adding substantial new features to their gear like Apple has done.
Every time a company - companies that I do business with - updates their applications with substantial new features, I have to pay for it. Happens with Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe/Macromedia Contribute, Adobe/Macromedia Flash, Adobe/Macromedia, Adobe ImageReady, Adobe/Macromedia Fireworks, Adobe/Macromedia Dreamweaver, Adobe InDesign, Adobe GoLive, Final Cut Studio, Strata Studio Pro, Adobe After Effects, Roxio Toast, CSSEdit, FileMaker Pro, iWork (only purchased once but still holds), iLife, Little Snitch, Poser, LightWave 3D, Strata 3D CX, RapidWeaver, Transmit, TextMate, SubEthaEdit, TextSoap, SOHO Notes, Data Rescue, DiskWarrior, and no less than 20 other plug-ins for apps ranging from Photoshop to Mail - I have had to pay every single time they release new features. What makes the companies that I buy from different than the companies you buy from?
I think THIS is what is really eating you. You are coming to realize that Apple really is a software company at heart. Just as I had said many years back. Remember that arguement from years back mikec? Yeh! Is this what brought about your extreme dislike for anything posted under the name of "archie". :D
Anyway, I ask you to post an example of a vendor that gives you free updates for a year (NOT A VALUE ADDED VENDOR WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS WHAT APPLE IS DOING WITH THE IPHONE AND APPLE TV).
Archie,
Take the lips off the crack pipe...you obviously have not done even one bit of real research.
There are thousands of glaring examples - for instance Microsoft Desktop Search...a completely new function, free. Ok, you can eat that crow pie now.
(I could go on about Netgear as well, but why don't you just spend some time on those release notes and see for yourself.)
Nice try, but I said if _you_ want to take a software perspective. I remember your argument, and you were wrong then, and are wrong now. Apple is a hardware company- that is where the majority of revenue comes from. They are just a cool, consumer version of Sun.
As for examples, there are thousands...I already gave you a MS one; how about the Squeezebox adding Pandora? Opps...yea, you missed that too.
You really, really should lay off the Kool Aid.

Oh, it exists, it just doesn't do as you suggest.
Well, I hope YOU keep it up because I am getting a good laugh out of your struggling. The only thing I am getting tired of is looking through Dell and Microsoft's web site.
If I am so wrong, please explain in detail what Remote Disc does that is so amazing and different.
As long as you want to come to class, I will continue to school you accordingly.

My ancient compaq laptop has a netboot option. Press a key (F12?) on startup, and it boots off the network. Never used it, though. I imagine the mac version is much prettier.
Shhhhhh! No facts! Disruption of the RFD is not allowed!

Archie,
Take the lips off the crack pipe...you obviously have not done even one bit of real research.
There are thousands of glaring examples - for instance Microsoft Desktop Search...a completely new function, free. Ok, you can eat that crow pie now.[SIZE="4">BWAH, HA, Ha, Ha, ha, ha![/SIZE]
This is too good!
Sarbanes-Oxley actually started mandating that this sort of functionality be available to consumers. Microsoft had to release Microsoft Desktop Search... and we all know the release was bogus in that it only found the same limited results (no e-mail or contact database searching, extremely slow... etc.) as what was already there from the built in search.
Nice try, but I said if _you_ want to take a software perspective. I remember your argument, and you were wrong then, and are wrong now. Apple is a hardware company- that is where the majority of revenue comes from. They are just a cool, consumer version of Sun. Whatever. Look, the evidence is there. And additional information continues to pile up to support this fact - like this subscription accounting so that they can continue offering the software, Apple's self proclamation of being a "software" company, board members only being from "software" companies, plus all the reasons from before.
Not even sure why you would care one way or the other. Why does this fact offend you so much?
As for examples, there are thousands...I already gave you a MS one; how about the Squeezebox adding Pandora? Opps...yea, you missed that too.Pandora is a completely separate company... and it's a completely separate service. On top of that, you have to pay for it!

If I am so wrong, please explain in detail what Remote Disc does that is so amazing and different.I already did

My ancient compaq laptop has a netboot option. Press a key (F12?) on startup, and it boots off the network. Never used it, though. I imagine the mac version is much prettier.hmmm. Well, it must not have worked very well if they no longer let there computers do it.
So it can do this wirelessly huh?

hmmm. Well, it must not have worked very well if they no longer let there computers do it.
So it can do this wirelessly huh?
I don't know whether or not they still let their laptops do it. The model is an R3000, which I got about 3 years back. I imagine that other models had that function, too; this is consumer laptop, not a commercial one. I'm guessing that most of their consumer laptops had that function (and might still have it).
Like I said, I've never used it (I just see that every time I boot I get the message on the screen that tells me to hold a key to boot off the network).
Since it has built-in 802.11g wireless, I assume it can use it, but I won't swear to it.
Of course, every unix machine i've ever owned has booted off the network (not wirelessly, though).
By the way, did you just say that SOX made microsoft add desktop search? Did I misread that?

What's RFD? (We usually use that for Red Flag Deals in Canada, but that seems out of context here?)
My bad...RDF...Reality Distortion Field.

[SIZE="4">BWAH, HA, Ha, Ha, ha, ha![/SIZE]
This is too good!
Sarbanes-Oxley actually started mandating that this sort of functionality be available to consumers. Microsoft had to release Microsoft Desktop Search... and we all know the release was bogus in that it only found the same limited results (no e-mail or contact database searching, extremely slow... etc.) as what was already there from the built in search.
Whatever. Look, the evidence is there. And additional information continues to pile up to support this fact - like this subscription accounting so that they can continue offering the software, Apple's self proclamation of being a "software" company, board members only being from "software" companies, plus all the reasons from before.
Not even sure why you would care one way or the other. Why does this fact offend you so much?
Pandora is a completely separate company... and it's a completely separate service. On top of that, you have to pay for it!
So SOX is the reason MS released Desktop Search? I guess you aren't just on crack, but meth and special-k too. Again, SOX has nothing to do with it.
Have you every used Desktop Search? Bogus? Hardly. I think you need to look at:http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/desktopsearch/choose/windowsdesktopsearch.mspx
It does emails, contacts, etc....all the things you say it doesn't. You don't even know what you are talking about, yet you spout out untrue statements with such authority.
As for Apple being a hardware company, it's you who are offended, not I. I just observe a fact. Apple makes most of it's money from hardware. Sure, they make software to support their hardware (and no one elses). They broker content, which is like a media company. They get a cut of telco revenues. But at the end of the day the vast majority of $$$ come from one place - gadgets in peoples hands. So it's a hardware company.
As for the Board of Directors, again, you open your mouth without looking at facts:
Bill Campbell - Intuit Corp. - Software
Millard Drexler - J. Crew - Retail
Albert Gore Jr. - Govt
Steve Jobs
Andrea Jung - Avon Products - Fashion Retail
Arthur D. Levinson, Ph. D. -Genentech - Biotech
Dr. Eric Schmidt - Google - Software (but really Media/Advertising); Google sells very little software and hardware relative to their Ad stuff.
Jerry York - Financial Services/Capital Markets
Actually, this is a pretty good board; good representative good, except for Schmidt, who really is the example of "better to be lucky than good". But again, these are not all "software" folks.
As for Pandora, who cares if it's separate company or if it costs $$...the fact is a product feature was added at no cost.
Had enough yet?

I already did
No, you did not. If you can't or don't want to, just say so.
That's okay, I will do it for you:
http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20080118143319155
So basically Apple has made software (installed in both locations), and code extension to support this.
Good for them.
So it's not Wake-On-LAN, but just redirected boot (albeit wirelessly, which may be useful; I think sharing the optical drive is the main use).
I guess we should clarify netboot, wake-on-lan, and all that fun stuff so it's clear.

I don't know whether or not they still let their laptops do it. The model is an R3000, which I got about 3 years back. I imagine that other models had that function, too; this is consumer laptop, not a commercial one. I'm guessing that most of their consumer laptops had that function (and might still have it).
Like I said, I've never used it (I just see that every time I boot I get the message on the screen that tells me to hold a key to boot off the network).
Since it has built-in 802.11g wireless, I assume it can use it, but I won't swear to it.
Of course, every unix machine i've ever owned has booted off the network (not wirelessly, though).
By the way, did you just say that SOX made microsoft add desktop search? Did I misread that?
Wake-on-lan only works with wired Ethernet cards (specialized products and esoteric hacks notwithstanding); it will (generally) not work with wi-fi for a variety of tech reasons. Network booting is similar, although not the same. As you mention, this is very common in Unix and Ethernet (wired) invironments.
The difference is that Apple has made something where, if you install software on both the host and the MBA, you can do this "wirelessly" from the MBA. It's still not wake-on-lan, unless they have a hook into the suspend mode and keep the wi-fi card active (which they may have done; haven't seen enough details on the spec. Details are sketchy, but I am sure they will follow once it's out there more.
No, you did not misread it - the gov't, via SOX made MS create and release WDS, according to Archie.

As for the Board of Directors, again, you open your mouth without looking at facts:
Bill Campbell - Intuit Corp. - Software
Millard Drexler - J. Crew - Retail
Albert Gore Jr. - Govt
Steve Jobs
Andrea Jung - Avon Products - Fashion Retail
Arthur D. Levinson, Ph. D. -Genentech - Biotech
Dr. Eric Schmidt - Google - Software (but really Media/Advertising); Google sells very little software and hardware relative to their Ad stuff.
Jerry York - Financial Services/Capital Markets
Actually, this is a pretty good board; good representative good, except for Schmidt, who really is the example of "better to be lucky than good". But again, these are not all "software" folks.
You have misunderstood the context. I thought putting the word software in quotes would communicate what I meant to you but I obviously misjudged your level of comprehension. I said there were only board members from "software" companies as opposed to "hardware" companies. I didn't say they were ALL from software companies.

So SOX is the reason MS released Desktop Search? I guess you aren't just on crack, but meth and special-k too. Again, SOX has nothing to do with it.
Have you every used Desktop Search? Bogus? Hardly. I think you need to look at:http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/desktopsearch/choose/windowsdesktopsearch.mspx
It does emails, contacts, etc....all the things you say it doesn't. You don't even know what you are talking about, yet you spout out untrue statements with such authority.I KNOW the first version did not because there was this big upset about how it faired with Google's - at the very least people were all up in arms and complaining about their mail accounts that were through Hotmail and such services. It lacked major functionality compared to others at that time.

So SOX is the reason MS released Desktop Search? I guess you aren't just on crack, but meth and special-k too. Again, SOX has nothing to do with it.Yup. That and they needed to compete with Google. But the reason Google released it is they saw an opportunity; with Microsoft moving so slowly, they knew they could get in favorably with the IT managers before Microsoft released Desktop Search.
You see, Sarbanes-Oxley and other related acts were what forced IT in US companies to have control over sensitive information. IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about. Apple and Google were first. Microsoft was about last I suppose and had the worst implementation. No surprise here.
Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search.
And now everybody here knows how it started - this Microsoft/Google rivalry.

You have misunderstood the context. I thought putting the word software in quotes would communicate what I meant to you but I obviously misjudged your level of comprehension. I said there were only board members from "software" companies as opposed to "hardware" companies. I didn't say they were ALL from software companies.
The context was that you were arguing that Apple is a software company.
Therefore, the intepretation is quite accurate. Again, not sure why you have a problem with the moniker. Apple is doing very well, regardless of category.
I can only read what you write. If you want to write more clearly, please feel free to do so.
In the meantime, please elaborate on how the gov't, through SOX, forced MS to create and release WDS.
Oh, and just in case you need another example of a company adding a feature and not charging for it:
http://kbserver.netgear.com/release_notes/d102798.asp
Looks like WPA-PSK was added....hmmm...don't seem to see a charge for it. You better call the SEC!
Why is it so had for you to see that it's all about the chance to make $$$ and do some internal accounting acrobatics? Give Apple corporate finance for being creative, as opposed to saying they are forced to to go by the gov't.

I KNOW the first version did not because there was this big upset about how it faired with Google's - at the very least people were all up in arms and complaining about their mail accounts that were through Hotmail and such services. It lacked major functionality compared to others at that time.
You KNOW a lot fo things, but you end up being shown to be wrong, again, and again and again and again.
What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products.
But the point is moot. It's not what WDS was, it is about what WDS is NOW. You can download it for XP. If it a new, free, and provides a significantly different feature.
You can try to obfuscate, but there's stil egg on your face and everybody sees it.

Yup. That and they needed to compete with Google. But the reason Google released it is they saw an opportunity; with Microsoft moving so slowly, they knew they could get in favorably with the IT managers before Microsoft released Desktop Search.
You see, Sarbanes-Oxley and other related acts were what forced IT in US companies to have control over sensitive information. IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about. Apple and Google were first. Microsoft was about last I suppose and had the worst implementation. No surprise here.
Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search.
And now everybody here knows how it started - this Microsoft/Google rivalry.
Oh, that little thing about having to compete with Google. How could we forget that. Maybe that was the only reason (actually, not maybe - it is!)
WTF? Why the SOX obsession? I know you don't get it. It's not about IT, it's aboout the public corporation having controls.
"IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about". This statement is so whacked, I'm pretty sure you have become unhinged. It not only is false, but it defies logic. Wow, wow, wow.
Seeing you have never used WDS, as evidenced by your lack of understanding, I would say you have not idea if it is the worst. (It is actually quite good).
"Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search."
Thanks for repeating it. At least you are consistent on this one issue. I could say more, but the wrongness of your words speak for themself.
Thanks for telling everyone what they already knew - a MS/Google competition. Wow, geez, we had no idea....

Yup. That and they needed to compete with Google. But the reason Google released it is they saw an opportunity; with Microsoft moving so slowly, they knew they could get in favorably with the IT managers before Microsoft released Desktop Search.
You see, Sarbanes-Oxley and other related acts were what forced IT in US companies to have control over sensitive information. IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about. Apple and Google were first. Microsoft was about last I suppose and had the worst implementation. No surprise here.
Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search.
And now everybody here knows how it started - this Microsoft/Google rivalry.
SOX requires no such thing. Furthermore, having worked at large public companies subject to SOX, I've never seen one that actually permitted their employees to use WDS (or google desktop search, for that matter).
SOX requires that those signing financial statements be liable for thair accuracy, among other things. As part of this, they are liable for the processes which generate this information. This has led to a change in IT processes, for sure. However, there's nothing in SOX about "controlling" employees searching.

SOX requires no such thing. Furthermore, having worked at large public companies subject to SOX, I've never seen one that actually permitted their employees to use WDS (or google desktop search, for that matter).
SOX requires that those signing financial statements be liable for thair accuracy, among other things. As part of this, they are liable for the processes which generate this information. This has led to a change in IT processes, for sure. However, there's nothing in SOX about "controlling" employees searching.
I've seen WDS using at all types of companies...basically it comes down to policy.
Your comment on SOX is abolutely correct. However, in "archizarro" world (archie+bizarro), SOX forces companies to do many things, including mandating the color, smell and taste of products. I hear in that world, SOX is also repsonsible for birth defects, body odor, and Britney Spears' meltdown.
Hey, at least one thing good has come of this thread...the invention of the word archizarro. (oh wait, I didn't invent it, I was forced by SOX to do it! Drat!)

To address the last few posts...
[LIST]I see no reason to elaborate any further on Sarbanes-Oxley. You asked me to elaborate the first time and I obliged - answering with more than enough detail. You asking a second time is just harassment. I do not appreciate your casual discounting of my comments as if I have no idea what I am talking about. It is apparent to me that it is you who have misspoken and are simply trying to redirect this at me.[/LIST]
[LIST]You also asked me to explain Remote Disc a second time (again disregarding my previous statements):
I specifically addressed you in post #81 by saying "Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot."[/LIST]
[LIST]Your other hardware upgrade that you found from NetGear, WPA-PSK, is merely an added security feature. This is not a substantial added capability.[/LIST]
[LIST]In regards to your question:
[INDENT]"What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products."[/INDENT]
My response is that I was talking about the "first" version. You are apparently talking about version 3.01. And the point is not moot since you brought it up and want to continue arguing it.[/LIST]
[LIST]I do use Microsoft Desktop Search on a daily basis about every 3 or 4 months for 3 weeks straight - when contracting onsite for a medical company.[/LIST]
[LIST]To cmair who says SOX requires no such thing, I ask that you do a search yourself since you... and mikec, will not be believing me. All you have to do is type "Sarbanes-Oxley" and "IT" into a Google field and you will see.[/LIST]
[LIST]And I didn't say SOX requires "'controlling' employees" (try reading it again). I said they need to have control of data. The data needs to be indexed as required by Sarbanes-Oxley. [/LIST]
So, I'll say it again - THIS IS WHY MICROSOFT HAD TO RELEASE MICROSOFT DESKTOP SEARCH. They were "required" to provide the tools to give this access.
I still think it's ironic (and hilarious) that this is the first example that mikec thought that he found to disprove my statements about Sarbanes-Oxley itself.

To address the last few posts...
[LIST]I see no reason to elaborate any further on Sarbanes-Oxley. You asked me to elaborate the first time and I obliged - answering with more than enough detail. You asking a second time is just harassment. I do not appreciate your casual discounting of my comments as if I have no idea what I am talking about. It is apparent to me that it is you who have misspoken and are simply trying to redirect this at me.[/LIST]
[LIST]You also asked me to explain Remote Disc a second time (again disregarding my previous statements):
I specifically addressed you in post #81 by saying "Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot."[/LIST]
[LIST]Your other hardware upgrade that you found from NetGear, WPA-PSK, is merely an added security feature. This is not a substantial added capability.[/LIST]
[LIST]In regards to your question:
[INDENT]"What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products."[/INDENT]
My response is that I was talking about the "first" version. You are apparently talking about version 3.01. And the point is not moot since you brought it up and want to continue arguing it.[/LIST]
[LIST]I do use Microsoft Desktop Search on a daily basis about every 3 or 4 months for 3 weeks straight - when contracting onsite for a medical company.[/LIST]
[LIST]To cmair who says SOX requires no such thing, I ask that you do a search yourself since you... and mikec, will not be believing me. All you have to do is type "Sarbanes-Oxley" and "IT" into a Google field and you will see.[/LIST]
[LIST]And I didn't say SOX requires "'controlling' employees" (try reading it again). I said they need to have control of data. The data needs to be indexed as required by Sarbanes-Oxley. [/LIST]
So, I'll say it again - THIS IS WHY MICROSOFT HAD TO RELEASE MICROSOFT DESKTOP SEARCH. They were "required" to provide the tools to give this access.
I still think it's ironic (and hilarious) that this is the first example that mikec thought that he found to disprove my statements about Sarbanes-Oxley itself.
Dude -
SOX does NOT require "indexing" of data. It requires management to report on controls on processes and data which are used for FINANCIAL reporting. The fact that some IT departments used this as an opportunity to get their budgets inflated notwithstanding, it certainly does not require indexing things (beyond the implication that data that is relied on in generating financial reports should be reliable and the methods used to insure its reliability need to be reported).

To address the last few posts...
[LIST]I see no reason to elaborate any further on Sarbanes-Oxley. You asked me to elaborate the first time and I obliged - answering with more than enough detail. You asking a second time is just harassment. I do not appreciate your casual discounting of my comments as if I have no idea what I am talking about. It is apparent to me that it is you who have misspoken and are simply trying to redirect this at me.[/LIST]
[LIST]You also asked me to explain Remote Disc a second time (again disregarding my previous statements):
I specifically addressed you in post #81 by saying "Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot."[/LIST]
[LIST]Your other hardware upgrade that you found from NetGear, WPA-PSK, is merely an added security feature. This is not a substantial added capability.[/LIST]
[LIST]In regards to your question:
[INDENT]"What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products."[/INDENT]
My response is that I was talking about the "first" version. You are apparently talking about version 3.01. And the point is not moot since you brought it up and want to continue arguing it.[/LIST]
[LIST]I do use Microsoft Desktop Search on a daily basis about every 3 or 4 months for 3 weeks straight - when contracting onsite for a medical company.[/LIST]
[LIST]To cmair who says SOX requires no such thing, I ask that you do a search yourself since you... and mikec, will not be believing me. All you have to do is type "Sarbanes-Oxley" and "IT" into a Google field and you will see.[/LIST]
[LIST]And I didn't say SOX requires "'controlling' employees" (try reading it again). I said they need to have control of data. The data needs to be indexed as required by Sarbanes-Oxley. [/LIST]
So, I'll say it again - THIS IS WHY MICROSOFT HAD TO RELEASE MICROSOFT DESKTOP SEARCH. They were "required" to provide the tools to give this access.
I still think it's ironic (and hilarious) that this is the first example that mikec thought that he found to disprove my statements about Sarbanes-Oxley itself.
You see no reason to elaborate, because you have been shown to be wrong. It's not harrassment, it's responding with fact to your absurd statements. Anyone who has read the thread can see it. Glad to see admitting defeat in spirit if not in actual words.
Your explanation of Remote Disc as "startup and Netboot" did not adequately describe why it's special. It's the wireless part (which I had to mention).
WPA-PSK is not a susbstantial capability? I think there is an entire security industry that would disagree on that one. Sorry, but you can't just explain it away. It goes core to your original assertions.
WDS 3.x is the main one most people have seen/used, not 2.6. But again, they point is that SOX had nothing to do with it! If you truly used it, you would not have made the erroneous post in the first place.
Googling something, not referencing wikipedia, does not make something fact.
Again, the claim that SOX rulings somehow drove MS to release WDS functionality (indexing and presentation) is just an archizarro fantasy.
It was the first example that disproves your "no one adds function for free due to SOX" drivel because it was so glaringly obvious.
You really can't just admit you are mistaken about this whole thing.

Here are a few links that I found that perfectly illustrate what I am saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_search
read 4th paragraph down
http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=7963&categoryid=&channelid=&search=dangers
read 4th paragraph up
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search/Microsoft-Offers-BusinessClass-Desktop-Search/
I'm done.
NONE of these agree with what you said. They say that you can't allow people to have access to "sensitive" information (that is, non-public information that would allow them to trade securities at an advantage over the public).
If anything, they say that allowing search could VIOLATE SOX, because it can lead to unauthorized people obtaining secret (non-public) information. In fact, one of the articles explicitly points out that the SOX issue is not that you must provide search, but that you must prevent UNAUTHORIZED search.

Dude -
SOX does NOT require "indexing" of data. It requires management to report on controls on processes and data which are used for FINANCIAL reporting. The fact that some IT departments used this as an opportunity to get their budgets inflated notwithstanding, it certainly does not require indexing things (beyond the implication that data that is relied on in generating financial reports should be reliable and the methods used to insure its reliability need to be reported).
This is sounding suspicously like a true statement...hence it has no place in archizarro.

Here are a few links that I found that perfectly illustrate what I am saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_search
read 4th paragraph down
http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=7963&categoryid=&channelid=&search=dangers
read 4th paragraph up
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search/Microsoft-Offers-BusinessClass-Desktop-Search/
I'm done.
How are you done, when you didn't even start?
None of these support your claim:
wiki : The issue is control over data that should not be seen (by person or machine) Strike 1!
ebusinessforum: controls over data access (see wiki) Strike 2!
eweek: No mention of SOX or Sarbanes. (If this is to show the competition with Google, that was never disputed) Strike 3!
You're out.
Hey, at least you were right about the corporate iPhone plans last week, so it's not all turd stew.

In defense of archie, those articles do in fact mention that IT departments are required to control the company's information and control who searches what. Microsoft, having an established presence in these corporations, was inturn expected to develop the tools to provide these new requirements.
But this doesn't mean the law specifically says that Microsoft must issue free software as archie says.

What the articles say is that SOX requires PREVENTING people from searching for what they're not supposed to search for.
By creating a new search tool, it only increases the likelihood of someone doing so. It says the opposite of what archie suggests, unless you buy into this strained logic:
1) prior to WDS, IT departments let people install any software they wanted (or at least any desktop search tool they wanted) -AND-
2) prior to WDS, people installed alternative search tools, and these search tools were somehow able to access the information that needs to be kept under control -AND-
3) after WDS, IT departments suddenly stopped letting these people run their other search tools -OR- people interested in accessing info without permission suddenly forgot how -AND-
4) WDS provides magic functionality that permits searching of everything except this secret information -AND-
5) this functionality is easier to achieve than simply hiding/password-protecting/access-controlling the secret information at the OS level -AND-
6) the secure information is sitting around in shared drives in the first place

In defense of archie, those articles do in fact mention that IT departments are required to control the company's information and control who searches what. Microsoft, having an established presence in these corporations, was inturn expected to develop the tools to provide these new requirements.
But this doesn't mean the law specifically says that Microsoft must issue free software as archie says.
Ah, thanks for sticking up for me there crazycray but I never said the law specifically stated that Microsoft must issue free software." What I did say is as quoted below:
Sarbanes-Oxley actually started mandating that this sort of functionality be available to consumers. Microsoft had to release Microsoft Desktop Search...
Because Microsoft already had this omnipresent placement on office PCs, the IT departments had no choice but to turn to M$ to provide them a solution for what was required of the company to adhere to the new Sarbanes-Oxley act. But in a sense it could be viewed in such a manner that they were speaking specifically of Microsoft to provide the solution.

What the articles say is that SOX requires PREVENTING people from searching for what they're not supposed to search for.
By creating a new search tool, it only increases the likelihood of someone doing so. It says the opposite of what archie suggests, unless you buy into this strained logic:
1) prior to WDS, IT departments let people install any software they wanted (or at least any desktop search tool they wanted) -AND-
2) prior to WDS, people installed alternative search tools, and these search tools were somehow able to access the information that needs to be kept under control -AND-
3) after WDS, IT departments suddenly stopped letting these people run their other search tools -OR- people interested in accessing info without permission suddenly forgot how -AND-
4) WDS provides magic functionality that permits searching of everything except this secret information -AND-
5) this functionality is easier to achieve than simply hiding/password-protecting/access-controlling the secret information at the OS level -AND-
6) the secure information is sitting around in shared drives in the first place
It's interesting that you use the word "magic" to describe the very thing I said that M$ did in fact do for the IT departments.
[SIZE="3">Why do you think this is not real?[/SIZE] You are apparently in IT yourself so I find this absolutely astounding. I mean, jeez... it is mentioned in every article so why can you not accept this small fact that Microsoft did indeed design their search tool so that IT can determine which users can search and access specific information.
And yes, secure information IS sitting around in shared drives in the first place.
It seems to me that you are recognizing the fact that I am a Designer and Developer but you are failing to grasp that those of us in this field are required to take on the responsibility of IT departments. It started in the 90s when we typically worked in our little bubble of Macs amongst a sea of Windows machines (IT didn't want anything to do with us because we used Macs). Although the environment has changed greatly it seems that it is still our responsibility to integrate. Though now, in some companies it is us who has to do the integration for the others (Windows users). How's that for irony. Plus, I also have to do the ActionScripting and Javascripting and logic for the projects that I work on. So I would not discount this "designer" so quickly.

archie, you are wrong again. I am not "in IT." I was a microprocessor designer for many years, and now I'm in an unrelated field.
And as to your argument, the key issue for IT was NOT *addition* of WDS, but *prevention* of other (unsecure) search tools.
And I say "magic" because it is far easier to prevent access at the file/record level than it is to rely on each tool (e.g.: search, word processor, etc.) to provide its own access protocol.
I seldom agree with Mikec, but this time for sure he's right.

In defense of archie, those articles do in fact mention that IT departments are required to control the company's information and control who searches what. Microsoft, having an established presence in these corporations, was inturn expected to develop the tools to provide these new requirements.
But this doesn't mean the law specifically says that Microsoft must issue free software as archie says.
IT shops has to put controls in place based on the business requirements and regulations. Indexing, logic, and presenatation ("Search") are functions. It has nothing to do with the release of WDS, which was Archie's assertion.

Ah, thanks for sticking up for me there crazycray but I never said the law specifically stated that Microsoft must issue free software." What I did say is as quoted below:
Because Microsoft already had this omnipresent placement on office PCs, the IT departments had no choice but to turn to M$ to provide them a solution for what was required of the company to adhere to the new Sarbanes-Oxley act. But in a sense it could be viewed in such a manner that they were speaking specifically of Microsoft to provide the solution.
crazy was wrong too, but that's okay. those articles are poorly written.
You can spin any way you want...it was obvious what you said. And now you try to change it...and guess what, you are still wrong.
You said "Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search" in post 102. This is 100% false.
It was wrong when you said it the first time, the second time, and every subsequent time. Repeating it will not make it true.

It's interesting that you use the word "magic" to describe the very thing I said that M$ did in fact do for the IT departments.
[SIZE="3">Why do you think this is not real?[/SIZE] You are apparently in IT yourself so I find this absolutely astounding. I mean, jeez... it is mentioned in every article so why can you not accept this small fact that Microsoft did indeed design their search tool so that IT can determine which users can search and access specific information.
And yes, secure information IS sitting around in shared drives in the first place.
It seems to me that you are recognizing the fact that I am a Designer and Developer but you are failing to grasp that those of us in this field are required to take on the responsibility of IT departments. It started in the 90s when we typically worked in our little bubble of Macs amongst a sea of Windows machines (IT didn't want anything to do with us because we used Macs). Although the environment has changed greatly it seems that it is still our responsibility to integrate. Though now, in some companies it is us who has to do the integration for the others (Windows users). How's that for irony. Plus, I also have to do the ActionScripting and Javascripting and logic for the projects that I work on. So I would not discount this "designer" so quickly.
Archie,
For a "designer/developer", you have a very provincial view on this. This all comes down to an inferioroty complex because you were a Mac user in a world of PCs. (How sad is that...)
It's not "magic"; it's the perception that the search tool could crawl and get access to information that person should not have, and the sharing of that index (and data).
The real issue is unsecured data and lax controls. No technology addresses this - it's a process and policy issue (which tech can be used to enforce.)
But again, to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with SOX and the release of WDS.

archie, you are wrong again. I am not "in IT." I was a microprocessor designer for many years, and now I'm in an unrelated field.
And as to your argument, the key issue for IT was NOT *addition* of WDS, but *prevention* of other (unsecure) search tools.
And I say "magic" because it is far easier to prevent access at the file/record level than it is to rely on each tool (e.g.: search, word processor, etc.) to provide its own access protocol.
I seldom agree with Mikec, but this time for sure he's right.
Seldom? I thought we were all kum-bay-yah after the battery discussion :-) I don't recall any major disagreements sicne then.
As for your post, it is spot on.

Here's a quote I just pulled from the net. Heather Friedland is the product planner for desktop search within Microsoft. She is or course speaking about M$ Desktop Search tool.
[INDENT]"One difference, said Friedland, are group policies that can be set by the IT manager to govern the types of searches allowed by the information workers. For example, the IT manager might designate that intranet searches or SharePoint searches are permissible, but not searches of individuals Outlook inboxes."[/INDENT]
Look cmaier... I mean mikec... err however you want me to address you. Heather says this is what it does so why can't you believe me when [SIZE="3">I[/SIZE] say that is what it does as well.

Archie,
For a "designer/developer", you have a very provincial view on this. This all comes down to an inferioroty complex because you were a Mac user in a world of PCs. (How sad is that...)
It's not "magic"; it's the perception that the search tool could crawl and get access to information that person should not have, and the sharing of that index (and data).
The real issue is unsecured data and lax controls. No technology addresses this - it's a process and policy issue (which tech can be used to enforce.)Which is exactly why the software companies were called upon! JEEZ... you moron.
But again, to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with SOX and the release of WDS.It does, you just said so yourself.

Here's a quote I just pulled from the net. Heather Friedland is the product planner for desktop search within Microsoft. She is or course speaking about M$ Desktop Search tool.
[INDENT]"One difference, said Friedland, are group policies that can be set by the IT manager to govern the types of searches allowed by the information workers. For example, the IT manager might designate that intranet searches or SharePoint searches are permissible, but not searches of individuals Outlook inboxes."[/INDENT]
Look cmaier... I mean mikec... err however you want me to address you. Heather says this is what it does so why can't you believe me when [SIZE="3">I[/SIZE] say that is what it does as well.
All that says is: "if you are going to have search, you must control what can be searched." It does NOT say: "you must have search."
Your statement was that SOX requires search. Not that "SOX required microsoft to take its search tool and add policies to it."

Here's a quote I just pulled from the net. Heather Friedland is the product planner for desktop search within Microsoft. She is or course speaking about M$ Desktop Search tool.
[INDENT]"One difference, said Friedland, are group policies that can be set by the IT manager to govern the types of searches allowed by the information workers. For example, the IT manager might designate that intranet searches or SharePoint searches are permissible, but not searches of individuals Outlook inboxes."[/INDENT]
Look cmaier... I mean mikec... err however you want me to address you. Heather says this is what it does so why can't you believe me when [SIZE="3">I[/SIZE] say that is what it does as well.
Hmmm...this just looks like permission setting to me. It's not SOX related.
Sorry, but you keep providing "evidence" that have nothing to do with your assertion.

Which is exactly why the software companies were called upon! JEEZ... you moron.
It does, you just said so yourself.
"Moron?" Oh, the humanity! I hope the mods protect me from such harmful insults! Last layer of defense when you know you are wrong...name calling.
"Software companies were called upon"....um, I really think youdon't understand how software get's made and marketed. There are lot of "SOX" related software software/solutions out there, bu again, WDS was not made to adddress that. Integratiing it with Active DIrectory != SOX driven.
Maybe I should pick another obvious "free" software upgrade, and you can try to spin that. Or will it all be SOX related, no matter what?
I'm not sure why you said "you said so yourself" (referring to this being SOX related). I never did, and that is a lie. You like to lie, as you are patholgoically incapabale of separating your incorrect interpretations from reality.
Amy Winehouse callled...she wants her crack pipe back.