Oooooooo, this could be bad. Say, all you non-U.S.-residing viewers-- you know how you've been waiting for April to drag around ever since Steve Jobs announced at the beginning of January that the miniPod would go worldwide by then? And you know how you've been getting all tingly inside with the knowledge that April is now just days away and soon you'll be able to blow a significant wad of euros/kroners/pounds/pesos/whatever on your very own business card-sized miniPod in the anodized metallic color of your choice? Well, Apple has a little question for you: how's July sound?

We're guessing your reply is something along the lines of "July's not so good," only possibly expressed with all sorts of exciting foreign swear words with which we're sadly unfamiliar. But you're going to have to get used to this whole July thing, because faithful viewer Julian Clark was first to inform us that Apple has issued a press release announcing a three-month delay before the miniPod will make it past U.S. borders. Why the extra wait? Well, Apple says it's because of "much stronger than expected demand in the U.S. far exceeding the total planned supply through the end of June." In other words, Americans want more miniPods, so the rest of you foreigners are just going to have to get in line.

Hey, here come those funny foreign swear words again! Ooh, exotic!

We're sure that most of you aren't finding anything unusual about Apple's geographic distribution priorities, as you've probably dealt with it a gazillion times before-- not that that's a reason to be any less frustrated. If it makes you feel any better, though, at least the constrained supply isn't strictly Apple's fault; according to a Reuters article, the problem is that Apple can't get its hands on enough teensy hard drives to fulfill demand. Says Apple hardware marketing guy Greg Joswiak, "we're actually consuming just about all the 4 gigabyte, 1-inch drives they make. As they make more, we'll get more."

And just who's this "they" of whom Joz speaks? Why, it's none other than Hitachi-- a Japanese company! Now, we fully admit that we're not really up on that whole geopolitical scene, and what little knowledge of world events that we possess was gleaned by flipping channels past CNN. (It's between Fox and the Cartoon Network.) But based on what we've seen over the past couple of years, it seems to us that the New World Order now consists of 1) the U.S.A. and 2) Everyone Else, so that means the international miniPod delay is-- that's right-- all your fault. You have only yourselves to blame.

Hitachi reports that it "expects to boost production to meet customer demand," but that still doesn't change the fact that you non-Yanks now have to wait until July for miniPody goodness. Hang in there-- and here's hoping that this lateness with Apple ship dates isn't turning into some sort of trend. Remember the Xserve G5 delay? One missed ship date is unfortunate, and two could be coincidence; if Delay Number 3 shows up soon, though, that'll constitute an actual pattern. And not a pleasant one.

Ask and ye shall receive! Just yesterday we noted the plethora of Mac hardware release date rumors flying all over the place, but lamented that while Power Macs, PowerBooks, iMacs, and eMacs were all covered in one sense or another, none of the rumors seemed to address the possibility of a revision to the iBook. Well, evidently that old Arabian-looking oil lamp we were polishing at the time is worth more than the twenty bucks it'd fetch on eBay, because less than 24 hours later. the granddaddy of all Mac rumors sites tossed us a doozy. (We're hoping tradition holds, here, and we still have two wishes left-- because otherwise, man what a waste.)

Faithful viewer Jamie Pool reports that our wish for whispers of a near-term iBook revision has come to fruition; Mac OS Rumors claims that the next iBook update is slated for "mid-year" and won't come to much more than "a modest speed/spec bump" to "incrementally faster and lower-power/temperature G4s at up to 1.25 GHz" and "incremental improvements in hard disk size, GPU, memory bandwidth, etc." In other words, it'll be the classic speed bump, which is pretty much what any of us would expect, following the slightly more major move from the G3 processor to the G4 last October. And the timing's about right, too, since Apple generally likes to revise each product line every six to nine months if possible. In other words, this part of the rumor's nothing special, although it's definitely nice that it completes yesterday's set.

But here's where things get juicy: MOSR claims that "several new reports" and even some "internal Apple memos" point to a serious overhaul of the iBook line after the mid-year speed bump resets the 6-to-9-month revision clock. Allegedly Apple is looking to put the iBook on some radical new diet, hoping to get the 14-inch model, which currently weighs in at just under six pounds, down to a seriously anorexic "under four pounds" and "several millimeters thinner than today's aluminum PowerBooks." And Apple hopes to do this without sacrificing any features at all; this bag-of-bones iBook will supposedly boast 1280x1024 resolution, a 1.6 GHz "G4-class" processor, DDR400 memory, a 60 GB hard drive, and even a slot-loading SuperDrive. Oh, and despite the seriously reduced weight, this sucker will allegedly pack a battery that will last for six full hours of real-world use. And yet the tech specs aren't supposed to be the selling point; the thin-and-light "iBook mini" form factor is.

Is it a pipe dream? Maybe, especially since MOSR claims that the time frame on this thing is "later this year" or possibly "January." All we know is, if we do have two more wishes on this lamp thingy, one of them is going to be for one of these iBook minis. The other is probably going to be for a sandwich of some sort. We're a little peckish-- and heck, we're not the ones who have to shed a third of our weight by January.

If you're anything like us (and heaven help you if you are), you're still walking around all grins and giggles over Europe's recent antitrust ruling against Microsoft. It was a biggie, after all; a fine of over $600 million (pocket change to Redmond's Finest, of course, but the largest ever imposed by the European Commission for antitrust violations), a demand that the company "reveal secrets of its Windows software," and a requirement that customers be able to buy a version of Windows without Windows Media Player bundled in. And while there's still plenty of time for the whole thing to fall apart during the appeals process, for now, at least, we can all rejoice in the knowledge that Europe delivered the smackdown that the U.S. Department of Justice only promised-- and then never even came close to pulling off.

But what of the DoJ? How are they reacting to Europe's Microsoft ruling? Possibly not how you might have expected: faithful viewer Lee Dronick notes that, according to the Associated Press, the Justice Department has actually gone public to express its disapproval of the EC's actions. R. Hewitt Pate, the assistant attorney general for the DoJ's antitrust division-- and therefore one of the guys you'd generally expect to be cheering loudest right about now-- announced that the "$613 million fine and penalties... could hamper innovation and harm consumers." Wow-- isn't that a direct quote from Microsoft's PR department? In particular, Pate claims that "code removal" (i.e. stopping the forced bundling of Windows Media Player) was "never part of the U.S. solution"; we guess he wasn't around in 1997 when the DoJ got a judge to order Microsoft to stop forcing Wintel manufacturers to ship all Windows systems with Internet Explorer preinstalled. (Microsoft got around it, in typical sleazy fashion.) Incredibly, Pate is also against the size of the fine, since it "raises questions about the lesser fines imposed on price-fixing cartels and other violators."

Now, you may be having a little trouble reconciling those statements with Pate's job, which is presumably to prevent blatant monopoly abuse-- the sort that Microsoft is so good at, it's considering having t-shirts printed up. But remember, the Justice Department has to try to save at least a little face, here, considering how badly it muffed its (multiple) shot(s) at the Redmond Menace. Way back in 1995 or so, the DoJ nailed Microsoft for antitrust violations and the outcome was a "consent decree," which was basically Microsoft promising it'd never do it again. Then the DoJ came after the company only a couple of years later for tying Internet Explorer to Windows, and that eventually led to the mammoth "Redmond Justice" case-- in which the DoJ proved Microsoft guilty (findings of law that were never overturned, even after every Microsoft appeal) and then suddenly tossed it all away on a settlement that amounted to little more than the same useless consent decree of 1995.

So, sure, now that Europe has issued a ruling that might actually change something, Pate claims that the EC's actions go too far and will hurt consumers, and insists that the DoJ's own settlement provides "clear and effective protection" against future infractions. But only two months ago, according to the Associated Press, the DoJ had admitted that it was "increasingly uneasy" that the settlement was "falling short of the government's hopes." So which is it, guys? Sounds to us like the Justice Department is just trying to avoid getting shown up by the EC.

Oh, and let's not forget the other obvious reason why the DoJ might oppose Europe's ruling. C'mon, viewers, get your conspiracy mojo workin', now-- the answer is simple: the DoJ wants to get the fine reduced because any fine paid out for antitrust violations comes out of Microsoft's Monopoly Slush Fund, the very same fund Microsoft taps for bribes. And what better explanation than outright bribery for that ridiculous DoJ settlement even when Microsoft was out of appeals? Sounds to us like maybe Pate et al are concerned that the European fine might turn into a $613 million pay cut for themselves. Not that we're accusing anybody of anything, of course, but you have to admit, it's mighty suspicious...