Remember when RealNetworks decided to wage war on the iTunes Music Store by lowering song prices at its Rhapsody service to just 49 cents, and offering albums for only $4.99? Well, here's hoping you didn't sell your Mac, buy a Wintel, migrate all your data, repurchase all your apps, and pay a few thousand dollars for a total frontal tastectomy to make the transition bearable in hopes of making all that cash back on Windows-only Rhapsody song purchases, because faithful viewer Ken Drake informs us that, as reported by the Associated Press, Real's "limited time" half-price scheme has just ended. And according to Real, at least, it was a smashing success, although we can't help but wonder about their criteria-- specifically, did they originate on another plane of existence with drastically different standards of "success," or is Real's PR department just spinning more wildly than a breakdancer with an inner ear infection?

See, according to USA Today, Real is actually bragging that in the three weeks during which it sold songs at half-price, it averaged a million songs sold per week. It's rosy-cheeked and grinning because "its market share rose to 20% from 10%," but perhaps more importantly, because it claims that "Apple's 70% share... dropped to 60%." And indeed, we could consider that a success-- if it weren't for the fact that Real lost $2 million during those three weeks by selling songs below its cost. Using any math which we've ever encountered, if you're losing money on each item sold, you're generally financially better off if your market share goes down, not up. In other words, Real's celebration is essentially "We're not just losing money-- we're losing it faster! Hooray!"

Okay, fine, we understand the "loss leader" concept: sell something at a loss to rope in the buyers, then make the money back on increased sales of something that's actually profitable. But since every song Real sold during the promotion period was below cost, there was nothing to offset the loss, unless maybe it saw a big upswing in rental music subscriptions or something. The idea is a little more sound moving forward, as Real intends to continue to offer its top ten songs at the loss-leading price of 49 cents apiece, while everything else in the store goes back up to 99 cents. But since there's no physical trip to the store influencing the convenience factor and no shipping costs to encourage buyers to bundle their purchases together, why wouldn't someone buy just the cheap songs from Real and then get anything else they want elsewhere?

Apple, meanwhile, says "liar, liar, pants on fire," claiming that Real's market share figures are wrong anyway; faithful viewer Peter sent us a MacMinute article in which Apple insists that "during the last three weeks [it] did not see any drop in [its] market share, and [its] sales grew each week." Heck, even if you believe Real's figures, they weren't all that great anyway; a million songs a week? That's only a quarter of the number that Apple sold, and Apple did it at twice the price-- and actually made money on each song instead of losing it. Geez, think about it for a second: Apple sold a million songs a week when the iTMS debuted, and that was when its audience was restricted solely to Mac users running Mac OS X. So Real has, conservatively speaking, a potential market ten times the size, and yet only managed to tie the iTMS's original sales figures by cutting prices in half and losing $2 million in the process. People actually buy stock in this company?

And don't forget, the whole point of Real's half-price promotion was to lure iPod owners who wanted "freedom of music choice." If nothing else, we'd consider this definitive proof that Real's oft-repeated premise-- that there are zillions of irate iPod users out there just clamoring for the option to buy their music at a store far suckier than that irritatingly seamless and easy-to-use iTMS-- is a crock of steaming brown stuff. Since Apple still hasn't blocked Real's "Harmony" software that makes Rhapsody songs compatible with the iPod, for three weeks iPod users had freedom of music choice (well, the Wintel-using ones did, anyway; Rhapsody still isn't Mac-compatible), and they appear to have stuck overwhelmingly with iTunes, despite paying twice the price for their music by doing so.

As for Real's post-promotion sales, well, how much do you want to bet that Real won't be crowing about its market share anymore when next week's figures come limping in? We're not even remotely convinced that Real's increase in market share didn't evaporate overnight when the sale ended, meaning that the company most likely burned through another $2 million and has nothing sustainable to show for it except that big $2 million-shaped hole in its corporate checking account. According to USA Today, "Glaser says the finances will work out in the long term." Well, you know what they say: you gotta spend money to lose money. And Real seems to be doing an admirable job of both.

Viewers with enough long-term memory left to remember the late '90s may recall a steady march of iMac copycat systems emerging from many a Wintel manufacturer's R&D department (also known as "that guy with an Apple brochure and a Xerox machine"). Who could forget those heady days when iMac trade dress lawsuits flowed like hot and cold running water? But it was over a year after the iMac made its first public appearance before the first ill-conceived clones started to show up, so if you're wondering what sort of "homages" to the iMac G5 design the Wintellians will come up with, you may be waiting a while to find out.

Or will you? Because even though the iMac G5 was only unveiled less than two weeks ago, faithful viewer David Poves spotted a CNET article about something interesting on the show floor at, of all things, the Intel Developer Forum: an "all-in-one PC with a striking new design built around a white flat-screen monitor"-- a 17-inch widescreen LCD, in fact, perched on a curved "foot." Sound familiar? No, Apple didn't unveil the iMac P4; sorry, Mac OS X-on-Intel conspiracy theorists. This is a completely separate Wintel all-in-one system made by a Korean company called Lluon, who shipped the unit to Intel "several weeks" ago, so "it's definitely not a quick copy of Apple Computer's latest creation." Still, the resemblance is striking, at least in a broad sense, so apparently Apple and Lluon had a Newton-Leibniz parallel-discovery kinda thing going on.

Of course, if you dig a little deeper and find pictures other than CNET's you'll discover that the resemblance isn't all that uncanny after all; take, for example, the photos of the Lluon device posted to the Cult of Mac blog, as forwarded by faithful viewer Small Paul. The thing is still vaguely iMacish from the front, but that rear view-- yikes. There's, like, things hanging off of it or something, and the sheer bulk of that stand throws the aspect ratio of the display all off-kilter. Usually, as the oh-so-deep-and-complex people we are, we try not to place too great an emphasis on looks, but if we woke up handcuffed to this thing, we'd definitely consider gnawing through our own wrists just to get free.

More importantly, though, you can get a sense of how different the two designs really are; while both the iMac G5 and the Lluon system pack the computer behind a 17-inch widescreen LCD display, Apple built everything into the display housing itself, whereas the Lluon's innards are actually in that stand-thingy to which the screen is attached, which makes it look bulky and awkward. Also, in the CNET picture, we think you can see the Lluon's power adapter on the table behind it; Apple built the power supply right into the screen, which is obviously far more elegant than having that generic black plastic brick hanging off the back.

By the way, did we mention that from several angles, the Lluon is soul-killingly ugly? Because that's a pretty significant difference right there.

Anyway, we bring it up not only because it's an interesting coincidence, but also because it illustrates just how good Apple is at this stuff. Some people are complaining that the iMac G5's industrial design is too "blah" and that "anyone could have come up with an all-in-one design that packs the system's innards behind the screen." And maybe there's a grain or six of truth to the latter assertion, as the Lluon certainly seems to indicate. But we thought you should see what happens when your average Wintel designer tries to cobble together a product that obviously sprang from the same premise as the iMac G5. After studying the Lluon for a while, go take another look at the iMac; sure, it may not be as iconic or as original as the original Bondi Blue wonder, but we think you'll have a newfound appreciation for just how impressive a machine it really is.

Oh, and don't worry; the Lluon will only be sold in Korea, so you probably won't ever encounter one in person. If you do, though, shield your eyes and run.

Speaking of the iMac G5, given that delays have plagued each and every single G5-based product that Apple has rolled out since the chip first surfaced last year, is anyone going to keel over in shock if they hear that Apple's hot new consumer desktop might not be available quite as early as the company originally indicated? Because if so, you might want to go stand over a bunch of pillows or something. Or bubble wrap-- the thick kind with the really big bubbles. Roll yourself up in a few layers of that. We'll wait.

All set?

Okay, so it turns out that iMac G5s might not be available quite as early as Apple originally indicated.

Ah, the sound of well-padded unconscious bodies gently hitting the floor. Now that those guys are out cold, the rest of you can chew on the latest iMac availability report over at MacBidouille, which claims that the very first customers to preorder iMacs at the Apple Store are being quoted a September 26th ship date-- a bit later than the "mid-September" Apple quoted when the system was unveiled, but not by much. If you're hoping to buy from a reseller, on the other hand, you'll probably have to wait a bit longer: reportedly Apple's biggest distributor lists October 5th as a likely date for "real availability." While MacBidouille might just be talking about availability in France, AppleInsider clarifies matters somewhat by stating that "Apple Authorized Resellers who are seeking prompt shipments of the new iMac may have better luck bobbing for apples in the arctic."

Yes, kiddies, just like with every other G5-based products Apple has ever introduced, availability of the iMac G5 will apparently be pretty limited; you didn't really believe that IBM had fixed all of its production problems, did you? But Apple reportedly will be sticking to its mid-September ship date for at least one of its distribution channels: certain strategic Apple retail stores (SoHo, North Michigan Avenue, The Grove, San Francisco; you know, the ones with glass staircases) are said to be expecting their first iMac G5s "anytime after September 12th." So if you're lucky enough to live near a flagship store, you just might be able to get your hands on an iMac as early as Monday.

As for Apple's less-swanky retail stores, AI claims that none of them seems to be expecting any iMacs for over two weeks, and some are figuring on a wait of nearly a month-- and if that's true, than the October 5th date for third-party resellers seems overly optimistic at best, if not downright crazy-cakes. Then again, who can say? Maybe all of these reports are wrong, IBM fixed its problems, G5s are plentiful, and iMacs will miraculously sprout everywhere Macs are sold as early as next week. But we sure aren't counting on it, and all we can say is, if we walk into a CompUSA on Monday and see stacks of iMacs just sitting there for purchase, we hope we'll have our big roll of bubble wrap handy. Because you can bet we'll need it.