The very fact that you're tuning in to watch AtAT at all implies strongly that you aren't averse to layout out a chunk of change to buy a computer, right? Meaning, you saw the value that a computer could add to your life, and you went ahead and bought one. But there are plenty of people out there who haven't made that leap, and one significant reason is that buying a computer involves spending a lot of money-- even if you're getting a super-cheap lame $699 PC clone system, that's still a lot of money when considered in "home appliance" terms. Especially since a computer today still isn't exactly a "need to have" appliance, like, say, a refrigerator is. So it can be really tough for some people to justify dropping close to a grand (or lots more) on something they've lived all their lives doing fine without.

And that's where Gateway comes in, with its Your:)Ware program. You've probably seen the ads, touting it as a way to get a computer by making low monthly payments instead of by plunking down a couple of grand on your credit card. In addition, in a couple of years you can trade in the system towards a new model. Sounds great, right? Well, for the buyer, to a certain extent it is-- he or she gets a computer (albeit a Wintel) for maybe $40 a month. But Gateway's the real winner, because their interest rates are right up there with most credit cards; when you buy a Your:)Ware system, your monthly payments are figured based on an annual percentage rate of at least 14.9%. Do the math, and you'll see why Gateway's smiling. So should Apple leap into the ring with a similar concept? That's the subject of Robert Morgan's latest RFI Report, which discusses the many benefits of setting up an "iMac for $29.95 a month" program. Apple could attract lots of first-time computer buyers who have so far stayed away from the game because of the high cost, while also raking in the interest on the loans. The customers get a solid, easy-to-use computer for a low monthly cost. Everyone's happy.

Interestingly enough, whereas the RFI Report discusses such a low-monthly-payment lease program as a good idea worth pursuing, Mac OS Rumors is reporting that just such a program is all set and ready to roll; according to them, a new loan program from Apple will "offer up iMacs on lease for $1 a day, " or $29.95 a month, starting this holiday season-- which is really at most a month away. Is Apple really ready to launch such a program? Imagine a huge television ad blitz announcing that people could sign up for the program (pending credit approval, of course) at any CompUSA or Best Buy and walk out with an iMac, ready to rock. Sure would make for an interesting Christmas, hmmm?

It's allegory time again, kiddies... Let's say that you're a subscriber to TV Guide. Now suppose that your subscription is just about to end, so TV Guide sends you an offer to resubscribe at a special low price. You like TV Guide, and you find it invaluable when planning your weekly television-watching activities, especially since the edition you receive includes all the programming for the eighty channels you get via WayTooMuch Cable. Since you'd like to continue receiving the schedules for all your favorite cable channels (not to mention all those great articles about which of the latest fashions are showing up on Ally McBeal), you write out your check, pop it in the envelope, and send it off. A couple of weeks later, the first issue of the new subscription arrives, but there's been a mistake; you've received the edition for the town just north of you, which uses VerriBig Cable instead, and therefore all the channel listings are wrong-- they've got the Surgery Network listed as channel 38, when for you it's actually 52. And since VerriBig doesn't get the Conspiracy Channel, you're deprived of the listings for your own personal favorite cable network. That in itself would be more than just a minor annoyance, but it gets worse: unfortunately, the whole issue is also entirely in Greek.

Puzzled, you call the TV Guide people and say that you were a subscriber to the WayTooMuch edition of the magazine-- specifically, the English version-- but you seem to be receiving the Greek VerriBig edition now instead. The operator then tells you that "there was no error," but that all previous subscribers of the English WayTooMuch version are being sent the Greek VerriBig edition instead; since WayTooMuch Cable covers such a small area, that edition has been canceled due to "lack of demand." When you complain that you don't have VerriBig Cable and-- more importantly-- you don't understand Greek, you are told by the operator that they "weren't responsible for this action."

Sound unlikely? Well, sure it is, but allegedly something darn similar just happened with Microsoft Bookshelf. According to a MacInTouch reader, Microsoft sent out special offers for Bookshelf subscribers to upgrade to Encarta for a special low price. Unfortunately, all Mac users were sent the Windows version of Encarta 99-- on purpose. Instead of notifying Mac users that no Mac version would be available and they should keep their money, Microsoft purposely sold them a version they can't use, then claimed they weren't responsible for the action. What are they hoping? That now that some poor Mac user has shelled out a few bucks for some Windows-only software, they'll shrug their shoulders, ditch the Mac, and go buy a Wintel PC? OR maybe they're hoping that said Mac user will go buy Virtual PC; remember, since it includes a Windows license, Microsoft still makes money with each Virtual PC sale. Hmmm... Really slimy? Truly ingenious? Both? You be the judge. Now excuse us, but we're off to mark the week's "must-see TV" with a yellow highlighter.

And in today's episode of "Redmond Justice," Microsoft lawyer John Warden gets to catch his breath after some four days' worth of strenuous cross-examination of Netscape head honcho Jim Barksdale. Warden painted a dire picture of Microsoft as the poor victim of a Netscape-government conspiracy to trump up antitrust charges and get the Redmond software maker out of the browser market. But now it's the government's turn at bat, and up first was Department of Justice attorney David Boies who "systematically rebutted" Microsoft's claim that Microsoft was "set up" by Netscape. Computer Reseller News has more details about the day's ongoing drama.

Boies apparently covered a lot of ground in one day. Challenging Microsoft's recent claim that the infamous June 1995 meeting (at which it is alleged that Microsoft illegally tried to divide the browser market with Netscape) was a setup by Netscape, he produced several internal Microsoft email messages sent a few weeks before the meeting. Those messages reveal Microsoft's growing concerns that Netscape could win the browser wars, and their intention "to move Netscape out of the Win32 Internet client arena," which was, of course, the topic of that fateful meeting. Boies put forth that if the meeting two weeks later was really a Netscape setup, they must have been crafty enough to hack into Microsoft's email servers and plant those messages, too. In addition, he addressed that mysterious 3 AM email message from Netscape's then-CEO Jim Clark sent nearly six months before. Microsoft contends that the message, which offers to work together, was the natural precursor to the June meeting, but in a videotaped explanation, Clark himself claims that the message was "a moment of weakness and fear on the part of a small company looking into the eyes of the world's most powerful software company." Pretty scary, huh, kids?

And finally, as if any of us really needed it, we received candid behind-the-scenes confirmation that Internet Explorer is Steve Jobs' "browser of choice" (and, more importantly, the new default browser for the Mac OS) because otherwise we wouldn't have Office 98. A handwritten note from Apple's chief money guy Fred Anderson to Barksdale was entered into evidence, over Microsoft's objections. In that note, Anderson apologized to Barksdale for the Internet Explorer deal, and more specifically for not telling Netscape about it before it was announced to the world in August of last year. (Oooo, harsh!) Anderson claimed that Apple needed to switch to IE "or [they] were dead," because otherwise Microsoft wouldn't provide Office for the Mac. So there you have it: the real reason for the switch had nothing to do with which browser is actually better-- and you probably have your own opinions on that front-- but rather whether or not the Mac platform could stand a chance without Office. Oh, the complexities...