While this blog has been a lot of work – I did most of it on my own time – it has been a labor of love. I appreciate all of you who were regular readers or even occasional visitors. Hopefully I shed a bit of insight on the world of Apple.

Should I decide to continue the blog on another forum (that’s what iWeb is for, right?), you’ll be able to find a link to it from MacSurfer.

-Dave Zeiler

The 99-cent app presented a crying baby the user quieted by shaking the phone. The silenced baby had two red X marks over its eyes.

In a week that otherwise featured great news from Cupertino – a record non-holiday quarter and the billionth app sold from the App Store – the affair was an inopportune distraction.

Responding to multiple media inquiries, Apple spokesperson Natalie Kerris delivered this brief apology Wednesday:

“This application was deeply offensive and should not have been approved for distribution on the App Store. When we learned of this mistake, the app was removed immediately. We sincerely apologize for this mistake and thank our customers for bringing this to our attention.”

The developer responsible for Baby Shaker, Sikalosoft, apologized as well. A statement on its Web site says, in part: “Yes, the Baby Shaker iPhone app was a bad idea. You should never shake a baby! Even on an Apple iPhone Baby Shaking application. In case you are unaware Baby Shaker was an Apple iPhone application that was greatly lacking in taste.”

But several organizations concerned with the prevention of head trauma to infants and children remain unsatisfied. In particular, the Sarah Jane Brain Foundation has announced a prolonged national demonstration against Apple and iPhone partner AT&T that will run from May 3 through May 17 across 15 U.S. cities unless Apple does more to atone for its error.

This is one of those times when Apple’s characteristic reticence does not serve it well.

The Baby Shaker app is offensive in a way much more profound than some of the other questionable offerings on the App Store, such as those that make rude noises or simulate bouncing breasts. This app made a joke out of a deeply serious and tragic issue.

And because from the outset Apple has insisted on screening every app, it assumes responsibility for anything objectionable.

That means Apple is on the hook for more than just a terse 44-word statement. It has a raging PR fire on its hands, and the quicker it acts to extinguish it the better.

The folks at the Sarah Jane Brain Foundation have requested Steve Jobs publicly apologize to the families and victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome, provide a full explanation of how the app got through Apple’s screening process and take action to “mitigate the damages it has caused to the many prevention efforts throughout the country.”

Mostly, I agree. One of Apple’s greatest assets is its image. Allowing that image to become further tarnished by this incident is unwise and unnecessary. Waiting for it all to “blow over” would make Apple look like just another big, callous corporation.

Here’s what Apple should do:

Get personal: Tim Cook, not Steve Jobs, should apologize to the families. Cook is in charge during Jobs’ medical leave; it’s his responsibility to deal with any crisis. Showing some heartfelt contrition here would help defuse much of the anger.

Fix the system: Apple is loath to offer any details about how it does anything internally, but could at least say it is investigating how the Baby Shaker app got approved. Better still, it could promise to identify the responsible employee(s) and discipline them. That could mean involuntary discharge, though that would be up to Cook. Apple needs to fix whatever went wrong not only to placate the offended, but for its own good.

Make a contribution: Since it was sold for only two days, the Baby Shaker app likely caused little actual harm, so I don’t see much need for Apple to create a plan to mitigate damage.

But that doesn’t mean Apple shouldn’t try to help. The company has a vast pile of cash – $28.9 billion -- at its disposal. Some large donations to a few organizations working to help victims and families of Shaken Baby Syndrome would be a great gesture and could make a real difference.

Ironically, the publicity from this unfortunate incident probably will help those organizations by focusing a great deal of attention on an issue most people rarely think about. Raising public awareness is a major function of these groups.

Although Apple never should have let this happen, a pro-active approach could mitigate damage to its image while aiding a worthy cause.

But only if it can defy its obstinate corporate culture. Frankly, I’m not sure that’s possible.

Reporting earnings for the March quarter yesterday, Apple exceeded Wall Street expectations by a resounding 24 cents per share. Its profit of $1.21 billion translated to $1.33 per share, well above the $1.09 predicted.

To put this achievement in perspective, consider that Apple’s total profit was 26 cents per share as recently as the September quarter of 2004. In its fiscal 2003 Apple’s entire annual profit was just 19 cents per share.

So once again Apple made the gloomy prognosticators look foolish. (Even I admit I had my doubts.)

Overall Apple had its best non-holiday quarter ever, said Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer, with revenue increasing 9 percent year over year and profits increasing more than 15 percent.

Though Mac sales declined 3 percent from 2.29 million units in last year’s March quarter to 2.22 million, the iPhone picked up the slack and then some.

Unit sales of the iPhone rocketed 123 percent resulting in a 302 percent revenue increase year over year. The iPhone contributed $1.52 billion to Apple’s revenue total for the quarter, compared to $378 million last year.

Of course, the comparison isn’t exactly fair. The iPhone now is sold in 81 countries; in the early part of last year it was available in just four, including the United States.

Meanwhile, iPod unit sales grew 3 percent to 11 million, though revenue declined 16 percent from $1.818 billion to $1.665 billion.

I found this odd since Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook said iPod Touch sales had more than doubled year over year. I’d have thought the Touch’s higher margins would have helped prop up overall iPod revenue.

But the iTunes Store segment (which includes “iPod services and Apple-branded and third-party iPod accessories) had a nice 18 percent bump in revenue from $881 million to $1.049 billion.

The amazing success of the App Store – which is on the verge of selling its 1 billionth app -- apparently gave the iTunes Store an extra boost this quarter.

A less likely contributor to Apple’s successful quarter was the Software, Service and Other sales category, which also saw revenue increase 18 percent to a tidy $625 million. Oppenheimer said that sales of the iLife ’09 and iWork ’09 suites, introduced in January, were better than anticipated.
A few more nuggets from the conference call:

Mac holds its own: For the past three months, numerous analysts and pundits have berated Apple for refusing to lower prices or introduce a low-cost laptop to compete with cheap netbook PCs. Apple has stubbornly held its ground, but was not punished as harshly as some predicted.

In fact, given the “challenging economic environment, Oppenheimer said the company was “very positive about our Mac performance.” He noted that IDC data showed the larger PC market contracting by 7 percent in the quarter, making the 3 percent decline in Mac sales look better by comparison.

No wonder Oppenheimer prefers IDC’s data; its report last week showed Apple’s market share increasing from 7.2 percent to 7.6 percent. Gartner’s report showed Apple’s market share falling from 8 percent to 7.4 percent.

The 2Q results could have been much worse. Cook said the refresh of the entire Mac desktop line March 3 gave sales a big boost at the end of the quarter. He said Mac sales in the U.S. suffered because both creative professionals and education customers were putting off buying due to the poor economy.

Unit sales of laptop Macs dove 22 percent, and many of those who did buy went for the previous-generation model $999 MacBook. Cook called that a “good thing,” seeing it as strength among the consumer market.

The dreaded netbook question: Asked about the diminutive PCs, Cook blasted the category as he has before, criticizing the “cramped keyboards, terrible software, junky hardware, [and] very small screens.”

Cook said Apple had no interest in creating such a product, then deftly pointed out that the iPhone and iPod Touch can perform many of the tasks for which people buy netbooks, such as e-mail and light Web browsing.

And then he hinted once again that Apple might be developing some sort of innovative product in the genre, offering teasers such as “the product pipeline is fantastic for the Mac.”

Retail Stores: The stores made a bit less money, but Apple is selling its wares – particularly the iPhone – in more places these days. Still, Oppenheimer said “about half” of all Mac sales in the stores were to customers who had never previously owned a Mac, same as he always does. So apparently people haven’t stopped switching from Windows to the Mac, no matter what Lauren says.

The money’s in the mattress: Apple’s cash position grew by $841 million, bringing its war chest to $28.9 billion. And no plans to spend it. “Our investment priority for the cash continues to be preservation of capital,” Oppenheimer said. So there.

Steve Jobs: When asked for an update on the recuperating CEO, Oppenheimer reiterated the company line: “We all look forward to Steve returning to Apple at the end of June.”

The iPhone platform: The combined sales of the iPhone and iPod Touch have reached 37 million units, with about 21 million iPhones and 16 million Touches. Both Cook and Oppenheimer spoke often of the new platform’s potential, particularly with the iPhone OS 3.0 coming this summer. “I think it unleashes a whole new level of innovation that keeps Apple years ahead of everyone else,” Cook said.

Feeling the love for AT&T: Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster, citing survey data showing that some people don’t buy an iPhone just to avoid AT&T, asked why Apple maintains the exclusive relationship in the U.S.

Cook replied that AT&T has “done a very good job with the iPhone.” He said Apple is happy with AT&T and has no plans to change the relationship. He also admitted that Apple’s choice of GSM technology – driven by the need to make the iPhone work with the most common networks globally -- precluded a relationship with Verizon, which uses CDMA.

Maybe some of you still are. But in all probability you’ll get over it in time. And if you bought music from the iTunes Store before, chances are you’ll continue to do so even if you boycott it for a while.

As of April 10, Apple did what it said in January it would do – leave behind the 99 cents for each song doctrine for variable pricing at three levels: 69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29.

Although I’m just as displeased about this development as everyone else, from a business standpoint it makes sense for Apple.

It’s obvious the record labels pushed for this increase, particularly considering that both Amazon and Wal-Mart both added a more expensive tier to their services ($1.29 for Amazon, $1.24 for Wal-Mart) almost immediately after the iTunes increase went into effect.

But I wonder how much Apple protested. With its dominant market position, Apple can best afford to risk charging more. And you can bet Apple gets a proportional cut from the price increase, which will make the iTunes Store more profitable.

Some have argued that the price increase will deter customers and eat into profits for all digital music vendors.

In particular a Billboard report last week that noted how many of the $1.29 songs slipped several positions in the charts, while several 99-cent songs moved up.

That’s to be expected, but it won’t last. Anyone who prefers shopping at the iTunes Store will recover from the sticker shock within a few weeks or, at most, months.

Let me share a little story. A couple of years ago, the snack vendor at the Baltimore Sun raised the prices on everything in the machines. For the first week, I bought nothing out of those machines.

But after another week or so, I cracked. I bought a bag of chips. A few days later, a cinnamon Danish. I wasn’t buying as much as before, but I was buying.

As the months went by, my snack purchasing gradually climbed back to its previous health-endangering level. I eventually stopped thinking about the price increase.

You may be ticked about $1.29 songs now, but you want your music and you’d rather not go the piracy route. Otherwise, you wouldn’t bother paying for legal downloads.

The reality is neither Apple nor its rivals needs the 99-cents-fits-all policy anymore. Yes, it was genius in 2003. It kept things simple and encouraged a wary public to try out iTunes.

But as a business tool, it has outlived its purpose.

Truth be told, the new pricing structure is not all that bad for customers. Apple has succeeded in completely eradicating digital rights management from legal downloads. Most albums remain $9.99. And if we ever see more of those 69-cent songs, fans of less in-demand music will actually pay less than before.

As for Apple’s competitive position, it remains unchanged. Amazon and Wal-Mart have less expensive offerings on the whole, but that was true before last week.

Apple will continue to dominate. According to research firm NPD Group, 87 percent of people who download digital music use the iTunes Store. Amazon is second with 16 percent, Wal-Mart a distant third.

Digital music customers seem less fixated on price and more on convenience and ease of use. Having the dominant MP3 player helps, too.

“Customers are pleased with the Apple ecosystem,” says NPD’s Russ Crupnick in his blog.

Another Apple advantage is those ubiquitous gift cards.

Crupnick says gift cards usually negate concerns over price. “Let’s face it, many consumers look at the face value of the gift card, rather than the cost of each song they’re purchasing.”

Finally, many downloads bought elsewhere end up on iPods anyway. The iTunes Store profit is a bonus. As long as people keep buying iPods, Apple wins.

Anyone who made extensive use of HomePage faces a fair amount of work to transfer their files to MobileMe pages. For most people, that will mean photos and videos, although you could use HomePage to create any kind of personal Web site.

Subscribers can continue to edit pages made with HomePage until the July 7 cutoff. After that existing Web pages will exist in perpetuity, but users won’t be able to change or even delete them.

Thankfully, files won’t disappear because they’re stored on the user’s iDisk. Users who stored their media on their iDisk only (and did not have copies on their Mac’s hard drive) will need to download each file and reconstruct new pages on MobileMe from scratch.

Apple has posted instructions on its Web site on how to do this, but how about automating the conversion process somehow? Perhaps that posed to many technical hurdles, but Apple could have made an effort.

After all, people shell out $99 a year for MobileMe. Many have subscribed since it converted from the free iTools to a paid service in 2002. Is it too much to ask for a bit more consideration of your most loyal customers?

Then again, this is business as usual for Apple. Whenever it leaves a technology behind for something new and better, veteran users clinging to older technology feel the pain.

For instance, another feature that goes away July 7 -- .Mac Groups – has no equivalent in MobileMe whatsoever. If you relied on .Mac groups for anything, tough luck.

This doesn’t mean MobileMe stinks. Overall, it’s a significant improvement over .Mac.

But Apple’s transitions often seem to inconvenience the most steadfast Mac users – those who have stuck by Apple for many years but don’t necessarily have the means to keep up with the company’s latest and greatest.

Anyway, enough grousing. What does the end of HomePage mean to you?

In the case of converting HomePage pages to MobileMe pages, folks who own iLife ‘08 or iLife ’09 should have the least trouble. The newest versions of iPhoto and iMovie automatically integrate with MobileMe.

People using iLife ’06 – and I’m sure there are still quite a few, as iLife ’06 was preinstalled on Macs through mid-2007 – will need to use iWeb to re-create their pages. Fortunately, both iMovie ’06 and iPhoto ’06 include an option to send files to iWeb, which can publish to MobileMe.

Anyone using iLife ’05 or earlier, however, will need to upgrade if they wish to continue creating and editing Web pages on their MobileMe space. That would include anyone who’s still using a Mac purchased in 2005 or earlier and never bothered to upgrade iLife.

Although I’m not a fan of “forced upgrades,” clearly anyone still using iLife ’05 is missing out on some terrific improvements in the suite. You do what you gotta do, I guess.

Here are the links to the relevant Apple KnowledgeBase pages, for convenience:

MobileMe/.Mac HomePage FAQ

Migrating photos from HomePage to MobileMe

Migrating movies from HomePage to MobileMe

MobileMe .Mac Groups FAQ

According to the latest ChangeWave Research survey on smartphones, only 1 percent said they were “somewhat likely” to but a Pre. No iPhone owners were “very likely” to buy a Pre.

Owners of Research in Motion’s BlackBerry displayed a similar loyalty; just 3 percent said they’d be “somewhat likely” to switch to a Pre, with 1 percent “very likely.”

Those most likely to buy the Pre were current Palm customers. However, if the Pre should gain traction, the bulk of its share gains will come from weaker players in the smartphone market, such as Nokia and Samsung.

Apart from that insight, the ChangeWave results indicate RIM and Apple will continue to dominate the smartphone arena for the foreseeable future, and that Apple will continue to thrive.

Rockville, Md.-based ChangeWave conducted the survey of 4,292 cell phone owners March 17-23. The company conducts frequent surveys from among the 20,000 members of its “ChangeWave Alliance,” a self-selected group of mostly U.S.-based business professionals and early adopter consumers.

Apple’s numbers haven’t changed much from the previous survey (conducted in December), which mostly is good news. The iPhone continues to hold a strong No. 2 position to RIM’s ever-growing family of BlackBerries.

In fact, Apple gained 1 point from December, reaching 24 percent of current owners while RIM held steady with 41 percent. It’s the seventh consecutive ChangeWave survey in which Apple has increased market share.

In the data on planned purchases, Apple maintained its 30 percent while RIM dropped 2 points to 37 percent.

ChangeWave also asked some iPhone-specific questions, including some speculating on the new models expected to appear in June.

A hypothetical new $299 32GB iPhone 3G appealed to 9 percent of the respondents, while 11 percent said they’d buy a $199 16GB model. And 8 percent would go for a $99 8GB iPhone without 3G network capabilities. The ChangeWave report surmises that such new models “have considerable potential to move the needle.”

The new iPhone operating system also could help attract more customers. One out of five respondents said the upgraded iPhone OS 3.0 would make them “significantly more likely” or “somewhat more likely” to buy an iPhone.

For those not considering the purchase of an iPhone, Apple has made significant progress in the key area of affordability. The number of people who cited cost as the main reason for passing on the iPhone fell from 14 percent in December to 6 percent in March. That number was as high as 23 percent as year ago.

Only 1 percent named the economy as the primary reason for not wanting an iPhone, which could indicate that iPhone sales won’t get hit too badly by the recession.

Other nuggets from the ChangeWave survey:

Steve Jobs: For the past three surveys, ChangeWave has asked what impact the departure of Steve Jobs as CEO would have on the likelihood of buying Apple products in the future (not just the iPhone).

The number saying it would make them “less likely” has fallen each time, from 18 percent in June 2008, to 14 percent in December and just 9 percent in the current survey.

“While Apple still has a long way to go in ameliorating consumer concern,” the report says, “ things do appear to be moving in the right direction.”

Satisfaction: Apple once again led in customer satisfaction with 79 percent of iPhone owners saying they were “very satisfied.” That’s up from 72 percent in December, but almost identical to Apple’s rating in the June 2008 and March 2008 surveys.

RIM fell two points to 50 percent. RIM had a 54 percent rating in both the June and March surveys last year.

Operating Systems: The current share for the iPhone OS remained the same as in December -- 22 percent -- although it had more than doubled from 10 percent in June 2008. RIM slid 1 point to 39 percent, while Google’s Android registered for the first time with 1 percent.

Windows Mobile notched 18 percent, a 2-point decline. That continues Microsoft’s plummet from 29 percent in last year’s June survey.

When asked what OS they’d prefer on their next smartphone, Apple got 22 percent, but RIM just 27 percent. Apple had the same number in December, but RIM dropped from 32 percent. Android got 4 percent.

Windows Mobile picked up a point here (to 12 percent), but has fallen from a high of 24 percent in January 2008.

After languishing around the neighborhood of 4 percent for years, the Mac began a startling rise among first-year students at UVA, doubling to 8.26 percent in 2004. Large gains have followed every year since, with the number just passing 37 percent this past fall.

That, my friends, is a 925 percent increase, a once unthinkable turn of events.

If this is in any way representative of a general shift among young consumers toward Apple, the future of the Mac could be brighter than ever.

Although extremely well regarded (U.S. News and World Report ranked UVA second in its 2008 list of the best national public universities), the University of Virginia is in many ways a typical public university. It offers a broad range of studies and recent freshman classes have been increasingly diverse, both ethnically and economically.

And unlike some institutions, UVA doesn’t have an expressed preference for either Macs or Windows PCs. That freedom of choice makes it a viable test bed for computer preferences among university students.

UVA doesn’t offer any explanations for the shift to Macs; it simply complies the data every year and publishes it on the university Web site. However, based on other data collected by UVA in the same survey, the legendary “iPod halo effect” appears the most likely cause.

UVA has asked about MP3 players only since 2006, but that year 67 percent of the incoming students owned iPods, with only 10.27 percent owning another brand of music device. In 2007 that number rose to 75 percent; an additional 2 percent owned an iPhone.

In 2008 UVA lumped the iPhone and iPod Touch together. In the current freshman class, 18 percent owned a Touch or iPhone, with another 64 percent owning another type of iPod. Admitting the possibility that some students may have answered affirmatively to both, the two categories nevertheless add up to 82 percent.

I realize this is only data from one school, and that UVA’s student population probably can afford Macs more easily than the average U.S. college student.

Still, as recently as 2001 only 2.8 percent of UVA students arrived on campus with a Mac. Such an extraordinary turnaround in such a short period indicates Apple has had a profound influence on teen-age consumers (at least in the sample attending UVA).

What we have here is a piece of evidence, small though it may be, that Apple’s “Trojan Horse” strategy -- to win over customers first with the iPod, and more recently with the iPhone – continues to bear fruit.

And the orchard has only just begun to blossom.

It’s most recent TV ad, “Lauren,” showing a perky young woman shopping for a laptop with a 17-inch screen that costs under $1,000, mentions the Mac by name.

One of the generally principals of advertising is to avoid mentioning a competitor by name. This is especially true for market leaders, and in the computer market Windows retains an overwhelming 90 percent share.

<br/><a href="http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=0bb6a07c-c829-4562-8375-49e6693810c7" target="_new" title="Laptop Hunters $1000 - Lauren Gets an HP Pavilion">Video: Laptop Hunters $1000 - Lauren Gets an HP Pavilion</a>

That Microsoft feels compelled to send Lauren into “The Mac Store” (as she misidentifies it) in an attempt to convince viewers that Macs cost too much for regular people, tells me the company can hear Apple’s footsteps.

Numerous Mac Web sites have deconstructed the ad over the past several days, noting among other things that the $699 Hewlett-Packard laptop Lauren obtains at a Best Buy is a lousy PC. Moreover, the ad ignores why increasing numbers of Windows users have switched away from cheap PCs to Macs, such as the iLife software suite, superior build quality and overall ease of use.

The “Lauren” ad is but the latest sign that Microsoft doesn’t like what it sees in the marketplace, despite having lost just a tiny amount of market share to the Mac.

Knocking Apple in a TV ad probably has as much to do with the other areas in which the two companies compete as it does with the computer market.

In the bigger picture -- one that includes music and smartphones -- Apple’s success clearly irks Microsoft. Combine that with the constant needling from Apple’s “I’m a Mac/I’m a PC” ads and one can imagine the gang in Redmond has been itching to punch back for quite some time.

Take the music arena. Although Microsoft’s Zune MP3 player feature for feature is competitive with the iPod, it has made almost no headway in gaining market share. That has to drive the folks in Redmond nuts.

However, Apple’s greatest threat to Microsoft lies in the smartphone market. When Apple announced the iPhone in January 2007, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer infamously dismissed the iPhone as too expensive.

“There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share,” Ballmer said in an April 2007 USA Today interview. “No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60 percent or 70 percent or 80 percent of them, than I would to have 2 percent or 3 percent, which is what Apple might get."

Let’s see how that turned out, shall we?

According to statistics for 2008 released by research firm Gartner March 11, the iPhone had 8.2 percent of the worldwide market, while Windows Mobile had 11.8 percent.

But the numbers specific to the fourth quarter show Microsoft gaining a little share but Apple closing the gap. Windows Mobile had a share of 12.4 percent, the iPhone 10.7 percent – a mere 1.7 percent difference.

Apart from stiff competition, the popularity of the iPhone presents another problem for Microsoft: like the iPod, it’s introducing Apple technology to millions of Windows users. Among the factors in the rise in the Mac’s market share has been the iPod “halo effect.”

Hey, if I ran Microsoft, I’d be worried, too.

Expect Redmond’s public assault on Apple not only to continue, but to get nastier. Microsoft doesn’t need to dominate music or phones (as much as it would love to), but the near-monopoly it has with Windows on PCs remains one of its primary profit centers (Office being the other.)

Mac sales may have slowed for now, but when the economy improves its increases in market share will resume. The Mac experience is about much more than "the logo," as Ballmer derisively put it last week.

A resumption of the Mac's growth is what Microsoft fears. So it’s exploiting the bad economy with an ad like “Lauren” to depict Macs as an impractical choice.

It might even be marginally effective in the short term, but what’s the strategy when the economy perks up?

Any thoughts, Mr. Ballmer?

After conducting an e-mail interview with Charlie Miller, who has gained notoriety in the Mac community by compromising the Safari Web browser on a Mac laptop to win the PWN2OWN contest two years running, I’m now convinced Macs could easily fall prey to malicious exploits.

I know the notion of Mac vulnerability is unpopular, but Miller makes convincing arguments (see the full interview below). And unlike vendors of anti-virus software, Miller and the company he works for – Baltimore-based Independent Security Evaluators – have nothing to gain (ISE is a consulting firm that analyzes applications for security holes).

Miller has an impressive background: He worked five years for the National Security Agency before becoming a principal analyst at ISE. He’s written two books, one of which is “The Mac Hackers Handbook.”

Furthermore, Miller likes Macs; he prefers them, in fact. His primary computer is a 1.83 GHz MacBook. Although he’s won both a MacBook Air and a MacBook Pro at the PWN2OWN contests, he prefers his trusty old MacBook.

Mac susceptibility to malware is not as black and white as many people believe. Apple haters celebrated Miller’s feat; Safari was the first browser to fall in last week’s contest. (Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox also were breached, but Google’s Chrome was not.)

Meanwhile, the Mac community mostly jeered, noting Miller had prepared his exploit in the weeks before the contest. Although true, it doesn’t change the fact he discovered a valid hole in Safari’s code. Mac users should be less critical and more concerned.

And frankly so should Apple. Imagine the PR disaster that would ensue should an exploit for the Mac become widespread. It would punch a huge hole in one of Apple’s major selling points for the Mac – as a safe alternative to malware-plagued Windows PCs.

Now, the interview:

Q: I've been reading the fallout your, er, exploits have caused: cheering from the anti-Apple crowd, defensiveness from the Mac users.

A: Yes, I mostly notice the defensiveness of the Mac fan boys. I've had them say I cheat, that it’s only in the open source components (which
it isn't this year), that I'm out to ruin Apple, etc. Some people 
can't face the reality when it’s staring them in the face. I probably 
haven't made a lot of friends with my new book "The Mac Hackers 
Handbook" co-authored with Dino Dai Zovi, the guy who won Pwn2Own three years ago.

Q: Should Mac users be worried?

A: They should definitely be a little worried. Any security expert knows 
that Mac OS X is less secure than Windows. The question is which is SAFER. Because Mac OS X is still relatively rare, it is actually a
little safer. But it has nothing to do with it being more secure, but 
rather, that bad guys are entirely focused on Windows at the moment 
due to the overwhelming market share Windows has. At this time, I 
still don't recommend anti-virus for Mac OS X users, because there 
simply isn't much malware for that platform. However, if Mac OS X 
market share ever goes up, there will be a landslide of exploits and 
malware.

Q: When you say "landslide of 
 exploits," does that include self-replicating viruses such as those that plague Windows and spread around the globe within hours? That's not supposed to be possible on OS X, so they say. Could someone get control of my Mac at home, which is behind a router with a firewall 
(but sans commercial AV software)?

A: Yes, it is built upon UNIX. However, there is a ton of Apple 
developed software running in Mac OS X, so that is mostly irrelevant. 
Being based on BSD, there probably isn't a remote root in the TCP 
stack, but it doesn't affect whether there is a bug in Safari of Mail 
or how exploitation would fail. So yes, a BSD box is very secure. A 
BSD box with Safari, Mail, mDNSResponder, iChat, etc is as likely to have bugs as any other operating system.

As for a worm, I could imagine a bug in Mail being wormable, as an exploit could mail itself to all the people who have sent you mail, etc. You are protected from server side attacks from your router, but
then again, so is your Windows PC.

Q: I understand one common objective is to 
take control of a PC to use it as a spam-sending zombie. Is that the kind of thing that could happen to Macs?

A: Yes, everything you could do on a Windows machine: turn it into a 
"bot,” send spam, perform DDOS [distributed denial of service], etc. can be done from a compromised Mac.

Q: Has Apple been remiss in leaving so many holes in Safari?

A: All software has bugs, so I can't really blame them for that. Safari
may seem to have more bugs because it tries to do more. It tries to make the user experience nice by handling hundreds of different file 
formats and URL handlers. With more code come more bugs. (For 
example, Safari comes default with Flash and Java installed, Windows 
doesn't. I personally like this but it does increase the attack 
surface).

Q: If it is indeed so easy to hack OS X, shouldn't we have seen at least a few examples of malware in the wild by now? The Mac's share has been growing in the past two years, especially among the
group least likely to protect themselves: consumers.

A: I think the reason is economics. Hackers don't do things for fame 
anymore; it’s a business. It simply isn't profitable to try to make a 
botnet of Mac OS X machines when there are so many more Windows 
machines. I like to say that if 90% of computers are Windows 
machines, bad guys will spend 100% of their time on Windows, not 90%.

Q: Is Windows, at its core, more secure than Mac OS X? And why is the iPhone less vulnerable?

A: Yes. It’s not about the bugs, but rather the technologies which make it difficult to go from a bug/vulnerability to a bad guy running code
on your system. Windows has it, OS X doesn't. The two technologies 
that Windows has that Mac OS X lacks, specifically, are Address Space 
Layout Randomization (ASLR) and a non-executable heap. These two 
things make it very hard to write exploits (the code that gains 
control of your computer) in Windows.

IPhone is more secure than OS X because it has a smaller attack 
surface (Mobile Safari doesn't try to do everything in the world) and
it has some anti-exploitation technologies built into it (specifically 
a non-executable heap).

Q: Do Mac users need to do anything now to protect themselves, or is it safe to wait until the exploits appear?

A: If you are paranoid, there are some steps you can take, the most basic 
being anti-virus. However, at this time, I don't think its necessary
 considering the expense and potential slow-down versus any benefit
 gained.

Q: Could Apple make some easy changes to OS X to make it less vulnerable? Or are the problems so deeply rooted in the OS that major code revision would be needed?

A: Most of the changes are pretty major and will have to wait for Snow 
Leopard at least. I heard a rumor that Snow Leopard will have ASLR 
for example, although I don't know if this is the case.

Q: Do you think Apple has been too cavalier toward security in Safari and the Mac OS? Does Apple need a Bill Gates-like initiative to start
closing the most obvious holes before it’s embarrassed by a wave of malware?

A: I think Apple has stepped it up in the last couple of years but could definitely improve. It boils down to economics. Apple is in business
to sell computers. Frankly, that is all they care about, as any
company should. Consumers feel Macs are more secure than Windows 
(even though they are wrong). Where is the economic incentive for 
Apple to spend money on security in light of this fact?

I have been 
talking about this issue for a while because I don't want it to come 
to some large worm or other security issue to force Apple into action,
although I'm afraid that is what it will probably take. I want to see 
Apple become more secure. Until the bottom line is affected, I don't 
see major changes coming from them. Ironically, Microsoft spends a 
ton on security, is more secure, but is perceived as less secure!



For further reading, Tom’s Hardware conducted a much more technical interview with Charlie Miller earlier this week.

The mirror that Israeli filmmakers Kobi and Ron Shely hold up to the Mac community is at turns flattering and embarrassing as it examines its subject from many angles.

The film premiered at Macworld in January and was released to the public Jan. 27.

Much of the footage was shot in 2007, when Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone at Macworld. Early on in the 55-minute film we see a lot of the folks who showed up at Moscone West in San Francisco in the wee hours of the morning in the hope of gaining entry to the Jobs keynote.

They came from all over the world, a testament to the fervor of the most devoted members of the Mac community. It’s simultaneously inspiring and vaguely disturbing.

Perhaps the wackiest of the lot is a bearded man wearing a t-shirt bearing an image of Steve Jobs. After showing off a belt buckle with a scrolling light message that reads, “Thanks Steve,” he proudly points out he’s wearing something he calls a “Utilikilt.”

Later in the film this guy says, “Steve knows what we want, and we agree with him,” proudly embracing the stereotype of the Kool-Aid-drinking Mac fanatic. Yikes.

Fortunately, the filmmakers also spend a lot of time with many well-known personalities in the Mac community, such as former chief Mac evangelist Guy Kawasaki, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Andy Ihnatko and Shawn King of the Internet audio show “Your Mac Life.”

King in particular delivers much-needed perspective throughout MacHEADS. “It’s just another company,” King observes, warning those who believe in Apple’s beneficence to keep in mind it remains a for-profit enterprise.

“It’s the [user] community you want to talk about. It’s the community that’s cool,” King says. “Don’t love Apple, love the community.”

MacHEADS tries to give as complete a picture of the Mac community as possible – how it started, what keeps it going, what sort of people are drawn to it. For the most part, it hits the mark.

The film is divided into several sections. After the introductory sequence with the folks in line for the keynote, MacHEADS delves into the early days of the Mac with some impressive old footage, including the very first Macworld and period interviews with founders of the Berkeley Mac Users Group.

A grim segment follows on how the most loyal members of the Mac community struggled to keep the faith through the dark days of the mid-1990s, when Apple nearly went out of business.

Then we see how Apple’s revival has thrilled Mac users while weakening the bonds that hold the community together.

The last segment, “The Cult of Jobs,” focuses on the borderline excessive reverence the Mac community has for Steve Jobs, de facto guru of the Mac “cult.”

One of the recurring themes in MacHEADS is how much Mac owners love their machines, sometimes to apparently unhealthy extremes. The first person we see in the film admits his obsession with Macs has “kept me isolated, kept me from having a life, kept me from having a wife.”

A more striking example takes place in New York’s legendary Tekserve, where Mac owners bring their ailing machines for repair. Forlorn Mac owners sit in a waiting area, cradling their disabled iMacs and MacBooks on their laps while stroking them like a beloved pet.

I love my Macs, too, but I don’t think I’m that bad.

Near the end of MacHEADS several long-time Mac users express concern that Apple seemed less involved with the Mac community than it had been during its "beleaguered" days.

Several Macworld 2007 attendees say they’re disappointed at the company’s emphasis on the iPhone and iPod while apparently ignoring the Mac.

The Mac personalities all point out that once Apple became a successful business again, it no longer needed to court its customers as Mac evangelists.

“The Mac community scares Apple,” King says bluntly. “Apple’s all about control. It can’t control these people.”

One nitpick I have with MacHEADS is that I don’t think it makes enough of a distinction between the shrinking Mac user groups that consist largely of original members from the 1980s and the far larger Mac community that flourishes on the Internet.

In the film, the folks who continue to meet in person lament the loss of the social aspect of the Mac user groups. I don’t disagree, but a lot of the old camaraderie and willingness to help each other solve problems lives on in Mac online forums.

All in all though, MacHEADS does an excellent job of portraying the Mac community in all its oddball glory. Every Mac devotee should see it.

You can rent it online from Amazon’s video on demand service for $2.99 or buy the download for $9.99. The iTunes Store offers MacHEADS as a $3.99 rental or $14.99 download. Don’t ask me why Apple charges more than Amazon. Or you can buy the DVD here.

The music was free, but only as long as the customer maintained a subscription. Songs could not be burned to a CD. SpiralFrog-obtained music is expected to stop playing for current customers within 60 days.

Although many in the media at the time SpiralFrog launched suggested it could grow into an “iTunes Store killer,” I disagreed. I predicted SpiralFrog would fail with a year because of its many drawbacks, not the least of which was incompatibility with Apple’s market-dominating iPod.

SpiralFrog employed Microsoft’s PlaysForSure digital rights management, limiting the service to WMA-compatible MP3 players only. That excluded Microsoft’s own Zune as well as the iPod.

Customers also had to renew their subscription every 60 days or lose access to their music. And SpiralFrog could only get two of the four major labels on board (Universal and EMI), which restricted the breadth of its catalog.

Changes in the competitive landscape since SpiralFrog’s Sept. 2007 launch further destabilized its business model. Within a few months Amazon was selling DRM-free MP3s. The iTunes Store went completely DRM-free this past January.

According to a story on CNET, the collapsing economy and the resulting shrinkage in advertising pushed the company over the brink. A heavy debt load didn’t help, either.

The demise of SpiralFrog, along with another ad-supported music Web site (Ruckus, which shut down Feb. 6), implies that particular model may just be unworkable.

Certainly such sites have never seriously threatened Apple’s iTunes Store, although I think they would have fared better had they been compatible with iPods.

How is it all those iPod killers, iTunes Store killers and iPhone killers never quite land that fatal blow?

By this time each year, Apple usually has announced the dates for its annual Worldwide Developers Conference. Why the delay, I wonder?

Two weeks ago I posted a prediction that WWDC would occur June 7-12, with the keynote – and the concurrent release of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard Monday, June 8. Since then I haven’t found any evidence to the contrary.

While researching that post, I discovered that in the previous four years Apple has announced the dates for WWDC no later than mid-March.

Even in 2007, when Apple delayed WWDC until August to coincide with the release of new Mac Pro and Xserve models – which completed the transition to Intel processors – the dates were announced March 7.

Last year Apple announced the dates March 13, and we’re already a week past that.

What’s up with that?

Maybe Apple wants to keep up the steady drumbeat of positive news. Note how in the past several weeks Apple gave us Safari 4.0, a complete refresh of the Mac desktop line, a new iPod Shuffle and just this week the iPhone OS 3.0 beta.

Each announcement has come about a week after the previous one, usually on a Tuesday. It’s a clever way to reinforce the notion that Apple isn’t afraid to forge ahead with a barrage of new products despite the poor economy.

It’s possible Apple has saved the WWDC announcement to serve as next week’s news, unless it has yet another new product hiding up its sleeve.

Otherwise, I'm struggling to come up with possible explanations. Could it have something to do with the arrival of the third generation of the iPhone? Have unforeseen issues cropped up with Snow Leopard that might (gasp!) stall its release past the summer?

Beats me. Suggestions, anyone?

The third version of the iPhone’s operating system, demonstrated today by several Apple executives, accelerates its evolution into the Swiss Army knife of mobile computing.

Apple Senior Vice President for iPhone Software Scott Forstall, who led the presentation along with Apple vice president of iPod and iPhone marketing Greg Joswiak, said this “major update” to the iPhone software includes 100 new features.

The addition of perhaps the two most requested features, MMS (multimedia messaging service, which allows audio and photo files to be sent via text message) and cut and paste should quiet some of the harshest criticism of the iPhone.

Since just about every competing smartphone already offers those two features, they were way overdue in the iPhone.

Nevertheless, the cut and paste feature looks particularly well implemented and easy to use. My favorite part: shaking the iPhone serves as the “undo.”

Apple also said it has solved issues with its push technology, which allows the iPhone to “listen” for such things as e-mail and instant messages, sending them automatically to the iPhone without the user having to do anything.

Push was promised for the current version of the iPhone software, but developer requests for extended capabilities delayed it until now (at least that’s the reason Forstall gave).

Beyond those major enhancements, the new iPhone software includes many other welcome changes.

For example, users can search not only their contacts, but also their calendar, iPod music, e-mail and notes. Just as on the Mac, the feature is called Spotlight and is available from a new, additional Home screen.

Many users also will like the ability to use the landscape keyboard – which makes the individual keys wider and easier for fat fingers to hit accurately – in all of Apple’s apps, such as Mail and Notes, not just the Safari browser.

Several of the iPhone 3.0 features pitched as tools for developers – Apple is giving developers more than 1,000 new APIs – could result in a variety of clever new apps for users.

Peer-to-Peer connectivity, either wirelessly via Bluetooth or via the dock connector, has tons of potential. It allows the iPhone to recognize and connect to other iPhones or devices by using the Bonjour automatic network discovery protocol built into Mac OS X.

As an iPod Touch owner I wonder whether this feature will be enabled on Touches upgraded to the 3.0 version of the iPhone OS. The Touch does not have Bluetooth switched on, but when iFixit disassembled a second generation Touch last fall it found a chip capable of both Bluetooth and FM reception. (Crossing fingers.)

Also intriguing is the new ability to control hardware accessories. Forstall demonstrated how the iPhone’s equalizer, for example, could control external speakers.

Something developers will appreciate is how Apple has made it easier for customers to make purchases from within apps. Now people who buy a magazine app can buy a subscription right in the app. Likewise, a game app can offer additional levels. Of course, developers need to add this support to existing apps.

Thankfully, the “In-App Purchase” feature will work only in paid apps, not the free ones, so “you won’t be asked to buy something in that app,” promised Forstall. I think this is a good idea, but I hope developers won’t abuse it.

The changes to the iPhone software show Apple plans to keep pushing the platform forward aggressively. It will remain the envy of rival phone vendors, all of which are desperately trying to copy it.

Some statistics Joswiak gave at the start of the presentation illustrate just how big of a phenomenon the App Store has become. The number of apps has exploded to 25,000 in just eight months, with the total number of downloads exceeding 800 million. That won’t be easy for competitors to duplicate.

Developers can get a beta version of the iPhone 3.0 OS as of today so they can start building cool new apps; customers will get it “this summer” (no date was given). The update will be free for iPhone owners and a $9.95 upgrade for iPod Touch customers.

All previous models of iPhones and Touches can run the new OS, but not every new feature will work. For example, MMS won’t work on first-generation iPhones because of a slight difference in the hardware.

A lot of folks have imagined assorted designs for Apple’s Next Big Thing in recent months.

Some say Apple will produce a traditional (clamshell with keyboard) but elegantly designed netbook running Mac OS X.

Some say Apple’s entry will revive the Mac Tablet concept, but substituting the iPhone’s Multi-Touch interface for handwriting recognition.

Some say we’ll see a slightly larger iPod Touch – a device sized somewhere between the iPod Touch and a Mac Tablet.

Two reports earlier this week added fuel to the already nearly incessant speculation that Apple is indeed working on a netbook.

Both -- one from the Chinese-language Commercial Times report and another from Dow Jones -- said Taiwan’s Wintek Corporation will supply 10-inch touch screens to Apple, but offered no other details.

Of course, a few naysayers claim the iPhone, iPod Touch and MacBook Air already comprise a complete line-up of mobile computing devices, so Apple has no need for another.

But I agree with those who believe Apple does in fact have a major new mobile product in development. Apple has many options, though – perhaps too many.

Some issues with which Apple engineers could be grappling:

Keyboard: If we’re talking about a netbook-sized device, does Apple go with an undersized physical keyboard as seen on many PC netbooks or opt for a larger version of the iPhone touch-screen keyboard, which appears on the screen as needed? Critics of the iPhone knock it for its lack of a physical keyboard, yet mobile phone makers have rushed to imitate the touch screen concept.

Size: As described above, Apple could build a 9- to 10-inch Mac netbook, a 9- to 10-inch tablet about half as thick, or a larger iPod Touch with a 5-, 6- or 7-inch screen. While Apple loves miniaturization (see: new iPod Shuffle), any device intended for a lot of Web browsing will benefit from more screen real estate.

Operating system: Obviously Apple will use a variation of Mac OS X, but will it be the one on the iPhone that omits some services to make it sleeker and more efficient on a less-powerful device or the full version used on its Macs? Less powerful devices will extend battery life, but a device with a full version of OS X could do more. A full version of Safari would make Web browsing a lot easier.

Storage: Most netbooks use relatively cheap hard drives to keep costs down. Using flash memory helps reduce physical size and weight as well as power consumption, but sacrifices capacity and drive up cost. Since Apple already buys a big chunk of world’s flash memory for use in its iPods and iPhones, it can get better deals than anybody else. Nevertheless, the price/capacity gap presents a dilemma.

Connectivity: Any mobile device Apple releases in 2009 should incorporate the 802.11n wireless networking standard. A USB port and Bluetooth also are strong possibilities.

The real question here is whether Apple will build in support for 3G – the type of connection smartphones use. With 3G, you’d have Internet access anywhere you can get a cell phone signal, just like with the iPhone. The disadvantage is the hefty fees cell phone companies charge for use of their data networks.

Price: The MacBook Air, with its larger screen and more powerful processor weighs about the same as the typical netbook PC (3 pounds) but costs about four times as much. Clearly Apple can get away with charging a premium for a new mobile device, particularly if it’s groundbreaking in some way (a good bet, given the company’s track record).

But if the intent is to take a bite out of the netbook market, a product priced too high may not lure away enough buyers -- even those who don’t mind paying more for a revolutionary device.

My guess: Like many, I lean toward a larger iPod Touch -- an iTouch, I suppose.

Less is more in this case. A smaller device is not only more portable, it will cost less to manufacture and be better able to compete with netbooks on price.

I envision a device about 3.6 inches wide with a 5-inch touch screen, otherwise very similar to the iPod Touch. At this size, it still fits in a shirt pocket, yet provides a screen much more suitable for such things as reading books or browsing the Web, not to mention gaming.

It could run any app in the App Store in a compatibility mode, but would offer developers opportunities for new apps designed for its bigger screen (and faster ARM processor).

This iTouch would use a scaled up version of the iPhone’s onscreen keyboard, but a USB port multiples the possibilities. While plugging a regular keyboard into an iTouch would be awkward, imagine third parties building special keyboards that attach to the device, making it a single unit that could be used like a netbook.

For that matter, imagine third parties creating similar USB-based game controllers. A USB port creates more user options without adding cost to the device.

Such a sleek gadget could compete with netbooks, Amazon’s Kindle and handheld gaming devices all at once without threatening MacBook sales and only mildly cannibalizing the iPod Touch, particularly if priced correctly – I’d say between $499 and $599.

What do you think?

The “Woz” has been paired with Karina Smirnoff, a professional dancer who has won many championships. This will be her sixth season with “Dancing with the Stars.”

Those of us who started their computing lives on any iteration of the Apple II will always have a warm spot in our hearts for Woz. While Steve Jobs had the vision (even in the very early days), Wozniak had the engineering chops to transform that vision into the first personal computer anyone could use.

Although I’m not a fan of “Dancing with the Stars,” I wish Woz the best of luck. Win it for the geeks!

But if Wozniak is to have a chance at victory, he’ll need the heavy support of geekdom in addition to Smirnoff’s skilled and patient tutoring. In fact, Woz is counting on it. On his Web site he encourages his fans to show their support.

To vote for Woz and Karina, call 800-86834-10 (800-VOTE4-10), use your cell phone to text in the code 3410 or log in to the “Dancing with the Stars” Web site.

Bonus reasons to vote for Woz:

1. He looks good in a pink shirt.
2. There is a street named after him in San Jose.
3. He sponsored the US Festivals in the early 1980s.
4. He once dated comedian Kathy Griffin.
5. I met and interviewed him in 2003, when he spoke at the 25th anniversary celebration of the Maryland Apple Corps user group.
6. The Segway Polo “Woz Challenge Cup” was named in his honor. Woz plays on the Silicon Valley Aftershocks, which won the trophy in 2007.

Fans of “Dancing with the Stars” (or any reality show) can follow the developments on baltimoresun.com’s Reality Check blog.