Drama-hounds everywhere just have to love Apple; what other computer company can inspire so much hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing over the rumored delay of a product that hasn't even been announced yet? For the last couple of days, the biggest buzz in the Mac world has been the fate of Apple's consumer portable, the "P1," which was expected to make its debut at next month's Macworld Expo, but which now might be delayed even further. Worse yet, according to O'Grady's PowerPage, the project was in deep enough trouble that Apple held an executive meeting over the weekend to vote on whether or not they should just scrap the P1 completely-- and while the majority did vote to continue working on it, at least a couple of people are rumored to have voted in favor of Coplanding the thing.

So ever since the PowerPage first broke the story, there's been a flurry of media activity; after all, a late product introduction from Apple isn't news (it's practically a company tradition), but a cancellation-- or even a near miss-- is a big deal. Especially when the product in question is the long-awaited fourth quadrant in Apple's product strategy: the computer that promises to do for laptops what the iMac did for desktops. The good news is that, as far as we can tell, no one still believes that the P1 is in any serious danger of being axed, especially since Steve Jobs has reportedly taken a personal interest in making sure there's a working prototype in time for his keynote address. And Steve knows how to crack a whip.

As usual, Apple's "just not going to talk about rumors or speculation," but this isn't the first time that we think their policy of tight-lipped reticence is hurting more than it helps. After all, the "consumer portable" has been acknowledged by Apple as an upcoming product, and they've publicly stated that it would ship in 1999; how tough is it to step forward and issue a simple statement like "the consumer portable is still slated for a 1999 introduction"? Rumors of product cancellations can't be good things to leave unchecked, so we don't understand why Apple wouldn't make a simple exception to their rule. Could the rumors be partially responsible for Apple's stock price dropping over a point? Ah, well-- at least it gives us all something to take about.

The ripoffs continue unabated; Apple has a long history of watching its innovations get poached by other companies, and what better place to see the latest crop of cheap knock-offs than PC Expo? The iMac's runaway success has led PC makers to adopt some or all of the iMac's distinctive characteristics in an attempt to horn in on the action: ease of use, all-in-one design, and colorful, playful enclosures are all pages from the iMac's book that are being photocopied in the latest offerings from the PC world. While many of the "hottest" items are ones we've already examined, like Packard Bell NEC's all-in-one Z1 (which looks like the Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh's uglier little brother), some of these new systems really illustrate just how deep the iMac influence goes.

Take, for example, Microworkz's new iToaster, described in an MSNBC article. (Gee, the "i" stands for "Internet." Wonder where they got that idea?) The iToaster takes the whole "computer as appliance" theme to an extreme which may or may not catch on; basically, it's a $199 black box that you can connect to a monitor or a television and whose interface is nothing more complex than a slicker-looking Launcher. Turn it on, click one of the buttons to launch an application or visit a web site, and just turn the thing off when you're done. The iToaster is meant to represent the ultimate in simplicity and hassle-free computing. (To that end, at least Microworkz was smart enough not to put Windows on the thing.) Now, if you're looking at the price, functionality, and target market and thinking the iToaster sounds quite a bit like a WebTV, yeah, so do we. The interesting bit to us, though, is how clearly Microworkz is trying to capitalize on the iMac's success with its name and "appliance-grade" ease-of-use.

Think that's a stretch? Well, okay, then we'll take a detour into the Land of the Truly Shameless™. Faithful viewer Eg'z (that's pronounced "eeeeeg'z," by the way) was kind enough to point us towards a CNET article listing the "hottest hardware [they] could find" while walking the PC Expo floor. And what's at the top of the list? The Future Power "E-Power," which CNET describes as "iMac style on a PC." Take one look at the picture, and you'll see what they mean... To say that Future Power has copied the iMac's design "exactly" wouldn't be much of an exaggeration. It's got the iMac's all-in-one design, the same distinctive shape, the same two-tone color scheme. Heck, it's even got the same five fruit flavors, just renamed as jewel colors: amethyst, emerald, ruby, sapphire, and topaz. In AtAT's collective opinion, the E-Power looks so much like an iMac, Apple should have some pretty solid ground for filing and winning a trade dress lawsuit, since the average consumer could easily see an ad for the iMac and wind up buying an E-Power by accident instead. (By the way, we wouldn't mind seeing Apple steal some ideas back from Future Power-- the E-Power has twice the RAM of an iMac and only costs $799.)

While we've dreaded this moment from the beginning, at times we thought it would never come... We're actually nearing the end of "Redmond Justice." Well, okay, we're really just nearing the end of the courtroom testimony-- there's still probably at least a couple of months left before Judge Jackson delivers his verdict, assuming that Microsoft doesn't break down and agree to a settlement in the meantime. And if they don't settle and they lose (a conclusion foreshadowed by the drama's writers so heavily it borders on mania), you can definitely expect a sequel in the form of an appeal. Still, the last witness is on the stand, and it's sort of a sad occasion for us-- even though saying MIT economist Richard Schmalensee's name out loud definitely makes us feel happier.

And gleefully shouting "SCHMALENSEE!" isn't the only thing bringing a smile to our lips. There's also the fact that Schmalensee was supposed to be Microsoft's big, government-toppling finish, but instead he provided paper-thin arguments that Judge Jackson himself questioned aloud; read all about it in USA Today. For one thing, Schmalensee asserted that Microsoft's giving away of Internet Explorer for free when competitor Netscape was selling Navigator for $39 didn't count as "predatory pricing" because Microsoft didn't lose any money in the short term with the expectation of recouping costs after the competition was destroyed. His argument is that Microsoft didn't really lose the hundreds of millions of dollars they spent on IE development by giving the browser away, since they would have made that money back if IE "sparked a mere 3% jump in Windows sales." But who buys Windows because it includes IE? And what about Macintosh and UNIX versions of IE-- how exactly is giving those away supposed to increase Windows sales? The judge was clearly not impressed.

Schmalensee also lost points when he implied that it was not a good idea to consider the scads of email evidence which shows Microsoft's intent was to crush Netscape by giving away IE and bundling it with Windows. For economists to "focus on intent," said he, is "slippery and fraught with peril." Um, sir? You're in a courtroom. Little issues like whether or not Microsoft intended to kill Netscape by illegally wielding monopoly power tend to matter there, so focusing on intent is kind of a big deal-- and the judge stated as such when he responded, "you know that's what courts do every day." Ah, Judge Jackson-- ever the poker face, yes? Sounds like Microsoft may have gotten a "big finish" after all-- in one sense of the phrase.