Headline Feeds
Speculation over an AT&T (NYSE: T) 3G-enabled MacBook fanned some flames in the Apple-minded blogosphere this week, as did Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL) and IBM's (NYSE: IBM) settlement over engineer Mark Papermaster.
Also, most everyone seems pleased that Apple is finally letting iTunes customers upgrade their musical libraries one song at a time rather than all-at-once.
Apple Telephone & Telegraph?
Years ago, Apple jumped in bed with AT&T to offer exclusive cellular services to iPhone owners. Might the companies be considering a relationship more akin to marriage?
A CNN Fortune article kicked up speculation this week when Jon Fortt reported that AT&T's Glenn Lurie, who hashed out the iPhone deal with Apple, mentioned that he sat down with Apple's COO Tim Cook -- and this was nestled in a story about AT&T subsidizing netbooks in exchange for contracted 3G data plans. Fortt asked Lurie the question, "Will AT&T ever sell a discounted MacBook?"
The response?
"We're having conversations with lots of folks," Lurie says. "I would very much like to do more business with Apple, and hope that we do."
The blogosphere jumped on that one, and while some liked the idea of a 3G-connected MacBook, most seemed nonplussed over another contractual tie to AT&T.
"If this does happen, I would hope it's not built into the internal hardware, which I think is a stupid idea which limits the consumer and would be a tech support nightmare for both companies," commented bdkennedy1 on an AppleInsider.com post on the subject.
Over at MacDailyNews, dg commented, "just give me tethering and a macbook air and i'm good....."
AlanAudio added, "A netbook is only really useful if it's going to work wherever you happen to be, so it needs a 3G connection built in and that needs to have an airtime contract. Therefore it's looking a lot like the business model for the iPhone, where Apple gets ongoing income from the service provider that the customer signs a contract with. They can do a similar thing with a netbook, sell it either at zero profit or subsidised and then make the real profit over the next 24 months."
Sure, the option might seem reasonable, but doesn't Apple prefer to play alone?
"Wait a minute... WAIT A MINUTE! I remember various people saying Apple doesn't work well with partners?" Avoman added, noting, "Seems to me Apple has grown fond of revenue streams so perhaps this rumor has a little substance to it. Time will tell."
Either way, Apple pretty much had to sign on with a single partner in the U.S. in order to successfully launch the iPhone. Does Apple really need such a partner for a MacBook? Probably not. Does Apple want to sell subsidized products? Hard to say. Does Apple think it's a good idea to be locked into a partnership with anyone it might have to depend on? Probably not.
But are their benefits and possibilities for Apple MacBooks for 3G connectivity beyond a USB dongle add-on device?
You bet.
"If Apple embedded WWAN (wireless wide area network) capabilities into the MacBook Air, it would lessen the problem of having just a single USB port, because you wouldn't need to hog that port with an external modem," Avi Greengart, research director of wireless devices for Current Analysis, told MacNewsWorld.
And, "If Apple used Qualcomm's (Nasdaq: QCOM) GOBI chipset, it could offer a single notebook SKU (stock keeping unit) that could work with any wireless carrier," he added.
Apple-IBM Tug of War a Win-Win?
Both Apple and IBM consider Mark Papermaster a guy who's important enough to write press releases about. After a long back-and-forth between Apple (Papermaster's new employer) and IBM (his former company), Apple announced that the engineer would start work April 24. For its part, IBM announced it had resolved the lawsuit against Papermaster. At issue was a non-compete clause that Papermaster signed while at IBM that prevented him from working for a competitor within one year of leaving IBM. Is consumer-focused Apple a competitor of enterprise-focused IBM? Probably not. But still, IBM was worried (if not a little irritated that their genius left Big Blue to go work for Steve Jobs).
In any event, IBM sued, and a judge told Papermaster to hang tight until the issue was resolved -- and now it is. Papermaster can work for Apple, but only after having been absent from IBM for six months, hence the April 24 start date. Also, IBM reported, Papermaster will remain subject thereafter to all of his contractual and other legal duties to IBM, including the obligation not to use or disclose IBM's confidential information. Following commencement of his employment with Apple, Papermaster will be required to certify, in July 2009 and again in October 2009, that he has complied with his legal obligations not to use or disclose IBM's confidential or proprietary information. The preliminary injunction will be replaced by a court order, under which the court will have continuing jurisdiction over this matter, including compliance enforcement powers, until Oct. 24, 2009 -- one year after Papermaster's departure from IBM.
What's this mean? Papermaster is legally bound by the court to comply -- and do so in writing. If at a later date IBM determines that Papermaster broke his word and divulged proprietary secrets, there would be a big stick looming over Papermaster -- a federal perjury charge. Instead of future issues resulting in teams of lawyers tossing words and documents around a court while Papermaster works from Cuptertino, he could face some nasty criminal charges, too.
Papermaster will work at Apple as senior vice president of devices hardware engineering.
Commenters on the issue seemed pleased to have Papermaster at Apple, regardless of the legal hoops.
"With a name like Papermaster, he must be some sort of superhero, so it's great to have him on board," quipped IJ Reilly on the MacRumors.com post on the subject.
Others were curious about the ramifications of noncompete agreements.
"Don't get me wrong, I love Apple and this sounds good for them. But what's the point of those agreements you sign saying you won't work for the competition? Do they not matter if you 'really really want to'?" asked mattwolfmatt.
"I would have to say this is one of the highest profile cases of noncompete that I've seen in a long time," Charles King, principal analyst for Pund-IT, MacNewsWorld.
"It's strange because the strength of noncompete agreements is based on state law. In California, they basically aren't as strong as the paper they're written on -- they've been knocked down time and time again, but Massachusetts, for example, has strong noncompete clauses, and they are upheld on a regular basis," he explained.
Meanwhile, Single Song Upgrades Come to iTunes
Moving on to something that most everyone likes, Apple finally upgraded its own iTunes song upgrade process. Previously, if a customer had purchased DRM-laden 128 kbps songs from iTunes -- and wanted to upgrade to the newer DRM-free 256 kbps songs -- they had to upgrade every eligible song in his or her entire library in one big shot. For some, it meant a big expense, and for others it meant they had to upgrade old songs they didn't even particularly like much.
Now you can upgrade individual songs for $0.30 per track.
"Excellent news! I went to upgrade my library to DRM-Free the other day and iTunes quoted me 120 pounds for the pleasure. I will upgrade the whole library but not all in one go like that," commented Optimus Rhyme on The Unofficial Apple Weblog.
Still, the process seems a bit counter-intuitive and non-Apple-like.
"You could always select which tracks to upgrade. You never had to upgrade them all. Based on the previous commenters, this seems to have been a common misconception, so I don't know what to say, maybe there was some confusion in the user interface that if you made the wrong choices go you to some destination where you could only upgrade your entire library, but since the inception of iTunes Plus, I was able to select only a few of the tracks that I owned," Ray commented.
"Well then, this 'common misconception' seems to be rather widespread as half the internet is reporting on this apparently new feature today," added Anders on TUAW.
So, might the newer ease-of-use ... or at least widespread knowledge ... open the floodgates to new upgrades?
"I think it's the step in the right direction. A lot of people are still not happy with the fact that they have to pay again for these tracks, myself included," Sven Rafferty, founder of hyperSven and the SvenOnTech blog, told MacNewsWorld.
"It's a double tax that new iTunes Plus buyers do not have to pay. Why should loyal long-time customers be forced into another label scam? I think sales will be better in sales for iTunes, but flood-gates opened it will not be," he added.
