By Gary Kirchherr
The new year certainly has had no shortage of news, not just in the high-tech world but in real life as well. The titillating tale of a home-wrecking slut earning her "presidential kneepads" may be more entertaining that Apple Computer's latest shenanigans, but the latter is a bigger source of concern - at least to those of us not negotiating immunity deals with Kenneth Starr.
The latest shocker out of Cupertino, Calif., is word that Claris Corp., Apple's software company, is biting the dust. All its products are going under the Apple umbrella except for database program FileMaker Pro and Web-page authoring tool Claris Home Page. The stripped-down version of the former Claris will become FileMaker Inc. Several sources, including ZDNet, suggested Apple left FileMaker in the shell of its former company because Apple's trying to unload it.
What's the big deal, you might ask. Plenty. Claris produced some of the best software for the Macintosh, and thus it's a bit unsettling that Apple is again killing a successful idea purportedly to save itself. (Can you say "cloning"?) And that Apple itself is in charge of the Claris-created software doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I remember the last time Apple absorbed a Claris software product. Do you remember HyperCard? You don't? Never heard of it? I rest my case.
The best example of the positive difference Claris has made in a typical Mac user's life is ClarisWorks, the venerable all-in-one program the company launched soon after Apple spun it off. The combination word processing, spreadsheet, database, drawing, painting and communications program came into being in the early '90s, one of a handful of such programs that suddenly had sprung up to challenge Microsoft Works. The Microsoft product succeeded in giving the user a multiuse program that worked within the limited RAM constraints at the time, but it was bad software. Its word processor in particular was a byzantine, underpowered mess.
Then Claris brought forth a program that was feature-rich, easy to learn, and Mac-like. Critics and users loved it. Within months the other contenders were memories. Even Microsoft Works, while still around, hasn't been updated in years and has become inconsequential.
Remarkably, ClarisWorks succeeded not only in wiping out the "works" competition, but the low-end stand-alone word processor market as well. By the time ClarisWorks 3.0 came out, its word-processing module had virtually all the features most users wanted - plus, of course, having an integrated spreadsheet, database and drawing program built in. The low-end stand-alone word processors of the time soon bit the dust - WriteNow, Taste, even Claris' own MacWrite Pro. And it is to Claris' credit that it continued to improve its product remarkably, even in the absence of any real competition in its niche (Microsoft, please note).
Claris made another productivity splash in the mid-'90s with the introduction of Home Page. I'd tried two other such programs - Adobe PageMill and the shareware WWW Weaver - before buying Home Page, and there's no contest in terms of ease of use. Home Page has saved me from literally hours of HTML-coding drudgery in the year I've been using it. And there's simply no way I could have found the time to create Web pages that have frames without it.
So I'm a little concerned when I hear that these two vital applications are in transition. Bad enough that neither will be a Claris product, but that Home Page is staying with FileMaker Inc. in particular worries me. Webintosh reported the decision was based on Home Page's "tight-knit integration with the database product." Webintosh also speculates Home Page eventually will be merged with FileMaker Pro. I hope not. Losing the best Web-authoring tool on the market to Apple's frenzied restructuring would be a real shame.
Apple's news didn't stop this month with the Claris-killing. As I was struggling to get this column out early this month, word hit that CompUSA will be the sole major retailer of Apple hardware. Best Buy and Computer City already had said within the past couple of days they would discontinue selling Macs, and Apple probably thought it might as well focus its efforts on the one retailer that is going out of its way to promote Mac products. Other major chains that no longer will have Macs for sale are Sears, Office Max and Circuit City. (More details are available from Inter@ctive Investor.)
While this news doesn't exactly enhance Apple's image with the public, the actual effect on your typical Mac user is minimal. C'mon now - how many people do you know who bought their Macs at Sears or Office Max? The one or two overpriced, neglected models hidden in the corners of these stores obviously never were a high priority of these respective retailers. Granted, Macs weren't treated with quite as much disdain at Best Buy and Computer City, but I appreciate the fact that Apple is rewarding CompUSA for its loyalty to the platform, as seen with this chain's earlier deal to create an Apple "store within a store." Now one knows where to go to find a business that takes Macs seriously. And it's not as if CompUSA has a monopoly; it still has to compete with small retailers, mail order, and Apple's own Web site. Not to mention the Wintel juggernaut. I just hope my optimism proves justified.
Once again, I can't close the column without mentioning the latest problems America Online and Micro$oft are having both with the law and their public image.
AOL once again has flaunted its staff's incompetence and the inherent danger of being associated with the service when news hit that the U.S. Navy was trying to discharge a sailor because of his AOL profile, which suggested he's gay. According to articles in the Washington Post, the sailor had sent an e-mail regarding Navy business to a civilian, who then checked the guy's profile and then tattled to the Navy. Now here's the scary part - a Navy investigator called an AOL representative, who simply handed over to the Navy the name of the guy in the profile. The Navy subsequently told the sailor he was history.
The sailor is fighting the decision in court; he already has won a brief reprieve while he argues that, one, the profile doesn't prove anything, and two, the Navy violated the military's own "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Meanwhile, as reported on ZDNet, AOL has been trying to explain why it turned over personal information on a member without a court order. Hilariously, AOL blames the Navy for the situation, whining that "the Navy deliberately ignored both federal law and well-established procedures for handling government inquiries about AOL members." AOL even has the chutzpah to scold the Navy for the incident, saying in letters to the Navy and Department of Defense that they should "use proper legal procedure in the future." As for its own role, AOL would say only that "this was a case of human error under very unusual circumstances." Right.
This line of bull isn't fooling anybody, including ZDNet Managing Editor Liz Enbysk. " If you're one of AOL's 11M members concerned about privacy, be afraid," she said in her Jan. 23 column. "This is a company that gives lip service to a privacy promise - until they forget, or can make money off your name."
Personally, I sympathize with the sailor, but really now, his sending a Navy-related e-mail from an AOL address with that incriminating profile wasn't too bright. All he had to do was create another screen name - sans an incriminating profile - and send the e-mail using that new persona. AOL makes it easy to disguise yourself with multiple screen names; why didn't he? Duh.
While AOL struggles to wipe yet another egg off its face, Micro$oft continues to learn from the School of Hard Knocks that it isn't as easy to bully the United States government as it is computer manufacturers who are absolutely dependent on your continued benevolence. Realizing that it wasn't getting anywhere with its temper tantrums about the big, bad Justice Department, Micro$oft admitted early in January that, well, perhaps it had been "too strident" in its legal defense of forcing computer makers to include Internet Explorer on Windows 95-licensed PCs. Micro$oft even agreed later to allow PC makers to delete the M$IE icon from their computer desktops. But by the end of the month, Reuters reported that Micro$oft was trying to get Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig removed as the U.S. District judge's special adviser to the case, and even trying to overturn the 1995 consent decree that relates to competitive rules in the software industry. Go figure.
Maybe Micro$oft got testy after Japan's government officials raided M$ office in that country. Something about a search for evidence of calculated anti-competitive practices. (Gee, what a surprise.) And as I was wrapping up this column, word came out 11 states have subpoenaed M$ documents related to the upcoming Windows 98. Reuters quotes New York state Attorney General Dennis Vacco as saying, "The states' investigation is focusing on whether Microsoft is improperly using its dominant market position in Windows operating system software for personal computers to force consumers also to its Internet browser product, Internet Explorer."
Don't shed any tears for Micro$oft, though. Even if Windows 98 were to be delayed indefinitely, Micro$oft won't be hurting. Micro$oft already has a monopoly on the OS market, so what are its slavish lemmings going to do if their OS upgrade is held up? Switch to Macs? Heaven forbid they consider using something besides Windows, even if it is easier to set up and use! Why, the Mac OS isn't even the standard!
|
Talk online to the author by appointment |