The Name Sucks.

This is not opinion, this is established fact. It’s an uninspired brand coming from Apple, looking and sounding way to close to iPod for my tastes. And the feminine hygiene jokes were immediate and plentiful.

I wish they would have went with something like Canvas, though that name implies creativity over consumption — the opposite of the iPad.

It’s a Bigger, Faster iPod Touch. Or a Crippled Netbook Without a Keyboard. Take Your Pick.

The iPad is beautiful — a work of art. But Revolutionary? No.

It runs the iPhone OS and can run apps designed for the iPhone/iPod Touch in addition to new applications designed specifically to take advantage of the 9.7 inch display and the Apple designed A4 processor. This means that for yet one more device, Apple will play gatekeeper to what applications you can and cannot run. Or, as Dan Gillmor aptly put it earlier in the day:

The iPad is clearly Apple’s answer to low-cost netbook computers, but the problem is, it’s not really a computer in the way we typically think of one. Here is an incomplete list of things you can do on any netbook, but not on the iPad:

• Download and install applications from any source off the internet, including open source projects
• Choose an alternative web browser (Chrome, Firefox, etc.)
• Watch Flash-based video and view Flash websites
• Run multiple applications at the same time
• Use any USB device

One last, important thing to note in this section: All of the many amazing use cases given for the iPad today could just as easily be accomplished on a laptop/netbook or the iPhone/iPod Touch. All of them.

The Price is Better than Expected.

Apple did a couple of really clever things regarding price for the iPad:

1. In the weeks leading up to Apple’s event, it intentionally fed the “around $1000″ price point to the media, setting expectations on the iPad being an expensive device.
2. Focused completely on the “starting at” price of $499. Nevermind that most people will opt to pay more for extra storage or 3G wireless — The iPad is now seen as a bargin.

In the end, an WiFi-only iPad costs $300 more than an iPod Touch equipped with the same amount of memory (though the entry level iPad gives you 16GB instead of 8GB like on the basic Touch).

It Should Make a Good eBook Reader Killer.

For all but the biggest book lovers, there won’t be a big debate between buying a dedicated eBook reader or spending a little more for the versatility of the iPad. The high quality screen should be just fine for reading large amounts of text. Plus, you can always watch HD video on it if you need a break.

Personally, I think Amazon’s Kindle brand will be around for a long time to come. They’ve got deep pockets and a huge advantage with the relationships they’ve made from their dead-tree book business.

But these other, up-start eBook readers? They’re screwed.

3G Wireless Sans-Contract is Nice. No Verizon Option is Lame. 250 MB Data Plan is Super Lame.

I’m glad Apple is offering 3G wireless broadband as an option for those who want to pay extra for it. And the fact that it’s being done without any long-term contracts is really nice. I hope that becomes the industry standard.

Apple partnering up with AT&T again for the iPad is a disappointment as they’ve already proven they can’t handle the network load created by the iPhone. It would have been nice to finally see a Verizon Wireless option.

The 250MB/month data plan for $14.99 is useless. You can burn through 250 megabytes in a couple of hours if you’re watching YouTube videos or streaming music from Pandora. I really think it’s there as a psychological pricing trigger — If you see it next to the option for “unlimited” data for twice the price, a lot of people will pay the extra money and be done with it.

iMeh.

The iPad is unquestionably an amazing consumer electronics device, but it’s not obvious why I’d want one. Maybe, as some Apple fans have said, you have to actually hold one in your hands in order to get it. Problem is, I don’t remember needing to get my hands on an iPhone to appreciate its significance. And that, I think, sums up the Apple iPad.

Possibly related posts:

1. Apple Announces iPhone — Cingular Only
2. The Problem with Tablets
3. Apple and AT&T: Inglorious Bastards
4. Wow — A Free Apple iPhone!
5. The iPhone on Verizon: Break My Heart Again, Apple

And while you can be sure I’ll be tracking Wednesday’s event coverage on GDGT Live and TWIT Live, I’m skeptical that Apple’s tablet device — or any tablet for that matter - will be a commercial success. Not necessarily because they’ll make a dud (possible, but unlikely), but because the very idea of a tablet computer seems unnecessary.

Still — I can’t wait to see what Apple has made.

Awkwardness

Although Apple will be getting all of the attention for its new tablet this week, it is far from the first company to take a crack at the form-factor. Microsoft alone has been pushing pen-based computers for at least eight years (I remember seeing Bill Gates demoing one at a technology conference in Fargo in 2002), and there have been various rumors of an Apple tablet for nearly as long. The product category has seen some success in niches such as law and medicine, but the average person has shown little interest so far.

Why? One big reason is size. There is a small size range — between 8 to 10 inches — that makes sense for a tablet screen. Any bigger and you might as well carry your laptop. Any smaller and you’re competing against the iPhone or Android-powered phones which already do a Good Enough job of running apps and providing connectivity wherever you are. The problem is that a 10-inch device is incredibly awkward. It’s too big to fit in your pockets and too small to comfortably get real work done.

Another problem is that, at least in the past, tablet functionality has been tacked onto existing interfaces and operating systems. Windows XP, Vista, and 7 are each capable of functioning on tablet devices, but from everything I’ve seen and heard, it’s not a great experience. Windows was designed to be used with a keyboard and mouse, and shoehorning stylus or touch technology to work with it creates a novel secondary form of interaction, at best.

Perhaps the best discussion I’ve heard on the basic problems facing the tablet form-factor is from the December 3, 2009 episode of the gdgt weekly podcast. The relevant section — which you can listen to below — is a few minutes long, and worth listening to.

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Cost

Let’s make the easy to believe prediction that Apple’s table is beautifully designed and has a user interface to match — It’s a home run by every technical and aesthetic measure. That still levels the important detail of how much this new device costs. Apple doesn’t aim to be the price leader in any category (especially with a new product), so expect something in the $800-$1000 price range depending on storage and a few other “premium” features.

Again, the tablet is stuck in the awkward middle. You can get a Macbook for essentially the same price, or a netbook with a 10-inch screen and a keyboard for 1/3 the cost of an Apple tablet. Granted, it won’t be an Apple and the screen will suck, but for most people, price matters. But wait — there’s more! If rumors are true, not only will buyers of the Apple tablet pay the typical premium for the new product (that’s not a knock, by the way — I’ve happily paid it many times myself), but other ongoing costs.

First, it’s expected that just like with the iPhone and iPod Touch, Apple will use the iTunes Store to distribute and sell applications. If this is true, it means you’ve got to go through Apple’s walled garden for every program you put on your tablet — no open source apps, no “unapproved” apps, etc.

Second, it’s rumored that the new Apple device will be the premiere platform for reading books, magazines, and newspapers. If this is true, guess where you’ll be going to purchase or subscribe to this content? Yup — the iTunes Store.

Third, it’s likely the Apple tablet will come with the ability to use Verizon or AT&T 3G broadband to give you an internet connection anywhere. Let’s hope this is at least optional, otherwise that’s another $30–40 monthly subscription you’re required to pay.

Watching with Interest

Don’t misinterpret my skepticism of tablets with a desire for Apple to fail with their new product.  Sure, I have issues with their general lack of platform and application openness and the potentially high ongoing price tag for their tablet, but I hope they deliver an innovative device that forces just as much industry change as the iPhone did. I just think they’ll face a much harder sell than getting people to buy a phone or a laptop.

And while nobody has scored a hit with a tablet computer yet, if anyone can, it’s Apple.

Possibly related posts:

1. Apple Announces iPhone — Cingular Only
2. iMeh: A Few Quick Thoughts on the Apple iPad
3. Steve Jobs Still Hates North Dakota
4. Apple and AT&T: Inglorious Bastards
5. The iPhone on Verizon: Break My Heart Again, Apple

Despite the wonders that are Macintosh, the iPod, and the iPhone, every once in awhile you get a reality check on what Apple really stands for as a company. Monday was one of those times.

In the one year history of the App Store, Apple has been notoriously inconsistent in what applications get approved or denied. On Monday, it was revealed that the official Google Voice app, submitted to Apple for approval six weeks ago by Google, had been rejected. In addition, Apple also removed all third-party Google Voice applications already in the App Store. The official reason? They “duplicate features that the iPhone comes with (Dialer, SMS, etc.)”. This after one was even personally approved by Apple Vice President Phil Schiller. Classy.

A day later, it seemed that AT&T was the main driver behind all Google Voice applications getting banned from the App Store. That the carrier concocted some imaginary scenario where this service was seen as a direct threat on its business model isn’t surprising. Unfortunately, it’s also not at all surprising that Apple was happy to entertain AT&T’s fantasies by killing these apps. In the process, they also demonstrated their contempt for their customers, iPhone developers, and innovation in general.

Don’t get me wrong — it’s clear that having one, centralized place to download and purchase apps for the iPhone is one of the major reasons for the platform’s success. But with this advantage comes the fact that Apple has complete and total say over what can be run on your iPhone or iPod Touch. The worst part about this situation is that not only does the approval process seem completely arbitrary, but Apple simply does not want to communicate with app developers at all. Take this partial exchange between the developer of VoiceCentral, one of the Google Voice apps removed, and an Apple representative:

Richard: “I’m calling to let you know that VoiceCentral has been removed from the App Store because it duplicates features of the iPhone.”

Me: “I don’t understand that reasoning. By that logic wouldn’t apps like Textfree, Skype, fring, or iCall be considered duplicates?”

Richard: “I can’t discuss other apps with you.”

Me: “It’s not the apps themselves I want to discuss just the lack of consistency in rule enforcement.”

Richard: “I can only say that yours duplicates features of the iPhone and was causing confusion in the user community. It’s against our policy.”

Me: “So what has changed that it is now against policy? It has been in the store for the last 4 months with no problem. There wasn’t a problem for the 1.5 months prior to that when you were ‘reviewing’ it. And this didn’t come up with any of the updates we submitted after it was already in the store.”

Richard: “I can’t say — only that yours is not complying with our policy.”

Me: “Can you tell me what portions of the app were duplicate features?”

Richard: “I can’t go into granular detail.”

You can read the full encounter on the developer’s blog.

Conversations like the one above (if you can call them that) have been far too common. Apple was in top form at the last session of this year’s WWDC developer conference. Topic: The App Store (emphasis is mine):

The content of sessions is under NDA, so I can’t tell you what it was about. So I’ll tell you what wasn’t in it: the audience Q&A session that succeeded nearly every other WWDC session and usually provided invaluable access to Apple employees and useful additional knowledge to attendees. The session itself blew through its lightweight examples quickly, ending 45 minutes early. The majority of the audience was clearly there for the Q&A. As people lined up at the microphones around the room, the presenter abruptly showed a simple slide with only “WWDC” in plain lettering, thanked us for coming, and bolted off the stage. The Apple engineers, usually staying around the stage for one-on-one questions, were gone. The lights came up instantly, and it was the only session that didn’t end in music. The audience was stunned.

It was a giant middle finger to iPhone developers. And that’s the closing impression that Apple gave us for WWDC. Clearly, they had absolutely no interest in fielding even a single question from the topic that we have the most questions about.

This went far beyond reluctant tolerance. It’s hard to interpret it as anything else except blatant hostility. We could probably have a more open discussion with Kim Jong-il about North Korea’s nuclear policy.

If the iPhone didn’t have the App Store, it’d be where it was two years ago with the first generation model — a very well designed phone with a nice web browser and moderate sales.

And as we’ve seen since Steve Jobs’ return to Apple over a decade ago, its secretive natural has served it well — or at least hasn’t harmed it much. But the accumulating case against Apple makes it clear that it has got to become more open to developers about all the App Store policies and processes. A programmer can spend months or longer developing a killer application for the iPhone, submit it to the black box App Store submission process, and only later get a rejection email stating that the program won’t be allowed for reasons that can’t be said.

Apple is quickly burning through any developer trust it accumulated because of the iPhone. Most programmers will go to where the audience (and therefore the money) is, but sooner or later, many will get fed up with the risk and uncertainty of being held hostage to Apple whims and go elsewhere. I’m sure the Android, BlackBerry, or Palm Pre platforms would be delighted to have them.

Possibly related posts:

1. Apple WWDC 2006
2. The iPhone on Verizon: Break My Heart Again, Apple
3. Apple Announces iPhone — Cingular Only
4. Wow — A Free Apple iPhone!
5. Steve Jobs Still Hates North Dakota

Rumors of an iPhone on the Verizon network just won’t go away, however. The latest one comes via Scott Bourne on this week’s Macbreak Weekly podcast:

I had a conversation yesterday — on Memorial Day — with an extremely high-up Verizon employee who told me flat out, they are getting an iPhone. …He said as soon as June, it will be announced.

You can listen to Scott’s quote and the ensuing discussion in this trimmed-down audio clip.

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Now, there have been rumors of a Verizon iPhone for over a year, going back to when Apple was supposedly hiring CDMA engineers —  a necessity if they were pursuing a Verizon-compatible phone since their network is incompatible with the GSM/HSDPA technology used by AT&T. There has been more chatter about the new partnership lately, however, and after listening to Scott on the podcast for a couple of years, I feel he’s trustworthy. It’s certainly possible that his source isn’t, but I don’t believe he’d pass this rumor onto the Macbreak audience if he didn’t think it sounded plausible.

Not that there aren’t some obvious obstacles for a Verizon iPhone. The different wireless technology is one issue, but it’s a technical one that has been overcome by every other handset maker, including Blackberry, Nokia, Motorola, etc. The bigger issue is the AT&T exclusivity agreement that Apple entered into back in 2007. Outsiders aren’t clear on the terms of the deal and when they expire, but the consensus seems to be 2010. Apple may have found a contract loophole that will allow for a Verizon iPhone, but you can be sure AT&T won’t be happy if it happens.

I’ve heard others in North Dakota wish for AT&T to build out their network in our state, but I don’t think that’s the answer. Sure, it would at least make the iPhone a valid purchase option, but I wouldn’t wish AT&T’s network on anyone. The Macbreak weekly guys again:

Scott: I do have to say, if they get a Verizon phone, I’m so, so, so gone from AT&T.

Alex: I’ll find out what it takes to get rid of it. I hate my AT&T reception. […] The Verizon network is so much more solid than the AT&T network.

And remember, these are guys who live in/near San Francisco and other major population areas. If AT&T can’t get their network right there, I have little hope in them building a statewide network in North Dakota.

So, the Verizon/iPhone combination is the only one that works for North Dakota. I’ll put my phone purchase on hold and watch the June announcements with hope, but I’m prepared to get my heart broken by Apple yet again.

Possibly related posts:

1. Apple Announces iPhone — Cingular Only
2. Steve Jobs Still Hates North Dakota
3. On the iPhone Hype
4. Wow — A Free Apple iPhone!
5. The BlackBerry Storm is Verizon’s Vietnam

Still AT&T Only. North Dakota Still Out of Luck.

When I wrote about the first iPhone announcement 1 1/2 years ago, I mentioned how it was going to only be available for the AT&T (then Cingular) wireless network. This is still the case, and the wireless provider still has no presence in North Dakota, so us North Dakotans are out of luck yet again.

With Verizon’s purchase of Alltel last week, North Dakota will effectively have one statewide wireless provider, creating a monopoly for Verizon in the state. And while I’ve had terrific luck with their service and coverage, more competition is always better. So, maybe we’ll see AT&T move in to challenge them, but I’m not holding my breathe.

I think the best chance of us seeing an iPhone in the upper midwest would be for Apple to make a CDMA compatible version. But, this could be years out, if ever, due to their exclusivity contract with AT&T. Or, maybe our dreams will finally be realized when all the wireless carriers migrate over to Long Term Evolution (3GPP LTE) in a few years.

Or, maybe not.

Possibly related posts:

1. Apple Announces iPhone — Cingular Only
2. The iPhone on Verizon: Break My Heart Again, Apple
3. Obligatory Steve Jobs Keynote Comments
4. A Wireless Opportunity for North Dakota
5. Is North Dakota the Recession’s Big Winner?

I’m not going to attempt to write a review (haven’t had my hands on it yet) or rehash features here — both have already been done more times than I care to count. Apple is advertising over 300 new big and small features in Leopard, but I want to talk about a couple that have similar implementations on other operating systems but are transformed by the polish, execution, and attention to detail that Apple is famous for. Those two features are Time Machine and Spaces.

Time Machine vs. Volume Shadow Copy

The most talked about new feature in Leopard has got to be Time Machine, the built-in automated backup and restore application. I’ll be the first to admit that disaster recovery is unsexy and complicated for most, which is why hardly anyone actually does it. People shouldn’t have to learn the difference between incremental and differential backups, or go through the trouble of scheduling jobs and deciding what files to include. I’ve sporadically burned CD-ROMs of documents and copied important files to my USB thumb drive, but a full system crash would be big trouble for our family. Time Machine ends the need for these ad hoc backup methods by automatically copying files to an external hard drive whenever they’re changed and keeping a version history of them. It removes every excuse for not backing up your Mac, except for spending the cash to get an external hard drive.

The main functionality of Time Machine has been around for decades: In the end, it’s just a backup program. Microsoft has similar technology in the last couple of editions of Windows called Volume Shadow Copy that basically does the same thing. But, because it’s hidden so well in the operating system, I’m guessing that 9 out of 10 people have never even heard of it. Unfortunately, the feature is largely inaccessible to home users since it requires either a Ultimate, Business, or Enterprise edition of Vista, or a combination of Windows XP and a server running Windows 2003. Also, shadow copies in Vista appear to be stored on the same disk as the operating system by default — an absolutely horrible idea if your goal is keeping a safe backup.

So, the idea is the same, but Apple’s execution and attention to detail are way, way better than Microsoft’s. Just look at these two screens: Which one would you rather interact with?

Spaces vs. Virtual Desktops

The other new feature I want to hit on is what Apple calls Spaces, an easy way to create separate workspaces to organize your applications and windows. This functionality too, is nothing new. Users of UNIX and Linux based OSes using the X Window System have been able to take advantage of virtual desktops for decades. Historically, these features have been poorly implemented and directed toward advanced computer users.

Apple appears to have put a lot of thought and work into Spaces, making it what is probably the most polished implementation of the virtual desktop idea we’ve seen so far. Take a look at this video to see how it works in action.

Getting to the Point

Under the hood, modern operating systems all provide the same types of services and functionality. What makes OS X different is that it’s polished. Apple has paid attention to the small details and taken much effort to make things easy and intuitive for users. So, it’s true that Apple has copied ideas from Windows, and from Linux too. They didn’t just do quick ripoffs though — they dramatically improved the experience. And, when Windows and the Mac OS seem to be looking more and more alike, that polish, those small details, can make a big difference.

Possibly related posts:

1. Apple WWDC 2006
2. Apple Announces iPhone — Cingular Only
3. The vMac
4. Apple — First Intel Chips, Now More Than One Button!
5. Prediction: You Won’t Be Using Windows In 10 Years

It’s hard to read in this smaller version, but the subject line reads “larry, our 2nd shipment of iPhones has arrived. Claim yours today.”, and the highlighted text in the body says “Get your revolutionary mobile iPhone — Free of Charge”.

This is quite the accomplishment, because there are only three iPhones known to be working today and Apple says the first ones will likely ship in June 2007.

Nice to see that spammers have jumped on the iPhone bandwagon too…

Possibly related posts:

1. Apple Announces iPhone — Cingular Only
2. The iPhone on Verizon: Break My Heart Again, Apple
3. On the iPhone Hype
4. iMeh: A Few Quick Thoughts on the Apple iPad
5. Apple and AT&T: Inglorious Bastards

Apple calls this a combination mobile phone, widescreen iPod with touch controls, and an Internet communications device. It’s a testament to great design, especially if you see any of the demo videos on Apple’s site. It runs a version of Mac OS X and uses gestures to navigate the interface. For example, to zoom into a Google map, you squeeze your fingers together like you’re pinching something. It’s even got Dashboard widgets. Very cool.

This is my and lots of other people’s dream phone, but there are a couple of problems. First is the price — $499 for the cheaper of the two models. That’s expensive for a phone, but not too bad for a smartphone. The second problem is a killer though. The iPhone is Cingular only, and will be for two years.

Cingular has practically no presence in North Dakota. I’m guessing their closest store is somewhere in the Twin Cities. We’re pretty much stuck with Verizon, Sprint, and Alltel. Verizon gives us the best coverage, but I’d put them as the last carrier waiting in line for the iPhone. They’re all about lock-in and nickel and diming customers by forcing them to pay for ringtones, wallpaper, songs, etc. instead of just syncing with a computer. I hate that they do it, but I don’t feel like we’ve got a better option for mobile phones in Grand Forks.

So, I’m excited to see the iPhone, but I’m not holding out any hope that I’ll ever be able to actually get one. Sucks, but that’s one of the realities of living in North Dakota…

Possibly related posts:

1. On the iPhone Hype
2. The iPhone on Verizon: Break My Heart Again, Apple
3. Wow — A Free Apple iPhone!
4. Steve Jobs Still Hates North Dakota
5. Verizon Wireless News

First, I’m pretty impressed that Apple completed its transition to Intel processors so quickly. The PowerMac has now become a much faster Mac Pro, and while the Xserve name remains the same, the updated rack servers are much faster than the G5 powered ones they replace. Well done Apple.

But because I admitted to myself long ago that I just don’t need the power (or cost) of Apple’s Pro machines and instead got our family an iMac a couple of months ago, I was more interested in the preview of the upcoming Mac OS 10.5, AKA Leopard. Although expectations were pretty high due to the extensive coverage by various Apple sites, Leopard still appears to have plenty of new features worth the upgrade (available sometime next spring).

Here are a few of the things I’m looking forward to:

1. Time Machine seems like a great idea, bringing version control and backups to the masses in a very easy to use interface
2. Virtual desktop support through Spaces to make managing and organizing windows a little easier
3. An improved Dashboard and widget creator — Dashcode
4. Improved iChat, including screen sharing and video special effects

To be honest, I’m hoping there’s more cool stuff in Leopard than the 10 features Steve covered today. He claimed that Apple is keeping some of it under wraps for now, so there might be some other improvements worth noting later. I can only guess as to what they might include, but I’m at least hoping for an improved Front Row and an updated Safari.

Possibly related posts:

1. The Apple Difference? Polish.
2. Apple Announces iPhone — Cingular Only
3. The vMac
4. Some People just LOVE to Complain…
5. Apple and AT&T: Inglorious Bastards

Since Apple announced it was moving its Macintosh computers to Intel processors last summer, two different camps became very interested and active. First was the one wanting to have the option of running Windows on their Macintosh. Second was the group who was intent on getting Mac OS X running on their PC.

Shortly after the first Intel Macs became available, several options for running Windows on a Mac became available. First was XOM (Windows XP on Macintosh), then result of a contest, then came Apple’s own Boot Camp dual-boot solution, followed by the Parallels’ Desktop virtualization technology, which lets you run Windows or Linux in a window just like your other OS X apps (seen here).

The group wishing to run Mac OS on their PCs hasn’t had the same good fortune. A hacked version of the operating system surfaced on the internet shortly after the first developer test machines became available last summer, but Apple has been largely successful at keeping their pride and joy out of the hands of pirates. And even though Apple has consistently stated it has no intentions of offering OS X for generic PCs, a lot of people still think Apple would be better off selling their software to anyone who wants it.

As I stated in a post last summer:

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about this announcement floating around the Internet. The biggest by far is that you will soon be able to install Mac OS X on your Dell or HP/Compaq PC. This is simply not going to happen. I repeat: You will not be able to run Mac OS on commodity PC hardware. Why? Apple has always been, and is still, primarily a maker and seller of computer hardware. The only reason it develops great software is that it happens to be the best way for it to sell hardware. If Mac OS X could run on any and every cheap PC, sales of Macintosh computers would disappear, as would Apple itself.

Second, one of the things that makes a Macintosh a Macintosh is the tight coupling of hardware and software. Driver issues are practically non-existent on Macs, as 99% of devices “just work” out of the box. If Apple all of a sudden had to move from simply supporting hardware it designed to supporting every possible device from China and Taiwan, it would be a disaster. In fact, it would be a lot like Windows.

While laying in bed Saturday morning, I thought of a way Apple could have it both ways. While they’ll never let you install OS X on your PC, they could sell you what I call the vMac (virtual Mac). Just like the Parallels Desktop lets me run a PC in a sandboxed environment on my iMac, the vMac would create a virtual Macintosh running within Windows. Apple would retain as tight of control over the virtual Macintosh hardware as it does over its real hardware, eliminating the driver issues mentioned above. That means Apple could deliver a similar experience to PC users regardless of the hardware they’re running on (at the price of performance, no doubt).

Apple could sell the vMac software outright to PC users along with a copy of OS X, or it could offer it as a free time limited demo to give them a taste of what they could be using instead if they had a Mac.

I’m sure there are a few holes in my idea, but I can’t think of any glaring holes. What do you think?

Possibly related posts:

1. Apple and Intel Sittin’ In a Tree…
2. The Apple Difference? Polish.