Hey, remember all the flak flying around when Apple moved to its new (cough) "Microsoft-like" support structure in 1997? It marked a big change for Apple, who had previously always been able to boast free lifetime technical support for all of its customers, via the (800) SOS-APPL toll-free number; once the switchover took place, however, Apple customers were to be charged for phone support beyond the first ninety days of ownership. Suddenly, tech support became an argument against getting a Mac, instead of one in the Mac's favor. But what made things even worse was that Apple wasn't just sticking its new customers with a tech support bill-- previous customers, who bought their Macs with the understanding that help would always be a free phone call away, were suddenly informed that they would be charged $35 per call for technical support from that moment on. (Presumably, in this context, "Microsoft-like" can be interpreted to mean "callous, unfair, and profitable.") That's when the lawsuits popped up...

Enter the Federal Trade Commission, who stepped in to set things straight. They charged Apple with "deceptive advertising," citing an ad campaign touting the "Apple Assurance" program, which told prospective customers that if they bought a Mac, they'd have free access to technical support for as long as they owned the product. The "Apple Assurance" ads ran from September of 1992 through April of 1996, so Apple's changing of the rules is hardly fair. And Apple's argument that customers still have access to free technical support via the Internet doesn't help much when the problem with your Mac is that it can't connect to the Internet. So guess what? According to a Reuters story, Apple has settled with the FTC, and is reinstating free technical support for Mac owners who purchased during the ad campaign. In addition, they've agreed to refund any $35 charges that they've collected from customers who should have gotten their help for free.

Before everybody starts jumping up and down with glee over the prospect of free tech support, it's worth pointing out that Apple is very likely not restoring the old complimentary SOS-APPL-style service plan across the board. Rather, this FTC agreement is almost certainly limited to people who purchased their Macs during the four-year period when Apple ran the "Apple Assurance" advertising campaign-- iMac and G3 owners, if you're expecting difficulty, keep those credit cards by the phone. But who knows? Maybe someday Apple will be in a position once again to differentiate their products as not simply the easiest to use, but also the easiest-- and cheapest-- to fix.

As you all know, the Super Bowl isn't just the Big Game-- it's also the time when a whole bunch of nifty new commercials debut. People who have zero interest in the outcome of the game itself tune in anyway just to catch the new ads. Apple, however, for whatever reason, has chosen instead to show a commercial that's already been seen. Granted, it's never been broadcast on television (and it fact it was originally never meant to be shown on TV), but Apple claims that a quarter of a million people have downloaded the QuickTime version of the "Internet commercial" from their web site. And they further claim that it was the "thousands of emails" they got in response that prompted them to show the ad during the Super Bowl.

Now, granted, even if we assume that every single person who downloaded the HAL 9000 ad showed it to at least one other person, we're still only talking about maybe a half million viewers. That's a tiny drop in a really big bucket, given that the Super Bowl pulls in about a hundred million viewers. Still, for maximum effect, it behooves Apple to ensure that as few people as possible have seen the HAL commercial before it hits the airwaves this Sunday. That's why, as Je MacUse (one of our personal favorite Mac sites, by the way) points out, Apple's HAL page has undergone a subtle transformation: the commercial is no longer available for download. In its place is a short audio-only movie featuring the voice of HAL intoning a hilariously out-of-character monologue: "Hello, Dave. You know how much I enjoy our conversation. But I'm busy preparing for the Super Bowl right now. Please return after the game."

Is anyone else picturing the HAL 9000 mainframe slipping into shoulder pads and a helmet? Perhaps we've found the next big animated progression for the Bud Bowl: ditch the computer-generated 3D beer bottles, and suit up a bunch of computers to duke it out on the field. Imagine helmeted iMacs and Yosemites going up against a collection of beige Wintels. And since HAL 9000 would be on the Apple team, with a linebacker like that, I don't much fancy the Wintels' chances. Perhaps it would generate plenty of footage for Fox's upcoming special, "Football's Goriest Supercomputer Sports Injuries." Ooooh, that's gotta hurt...

Score one for the privacy protectors, who were appalled by Intel's latest ploy to include a trackable serial number in every Pentium III. Such a scheme would allow e-commerce sites to verify one's identification, sure, but it would also allow the collection and sharing of every user's browsing history, for instance. Imagine that you have a Pentium III system (we know, we know-- but just pretend, for crying out Pete's sake) and you enter a contest at some site. You enter your name, address, phone number, email address-- all that fun stuff. And the server also takes down your Pentium III's serial number. Now let's just say that the site in question isn't too respectful of personal privacy, and decides to share that information with other sites for "a modest fee." Then those sites turn around and share the info with their friends, etc. The ensuing chain reaction eventually might mean that lots of sites not only have your personal information, but they know your computer's ID, so as soon as you connect, they know who you are. Suddenly anonymity is dead, and sites can track who you are and what you do on the Internet, without your knowledge or consent. Really, it's not a very far-fetched scenario.

That's why several privacy groups began organizing Intel boycotts. According to InfoWorld Electric, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy International, and Junkbusters banded together to fight the Pentium III ID scheme by proposing that prospective customers refuse to buy Intel chips until the privacy issue is resolved. And it didn't take long for Intel to sit up and take notice: a subsequent article notes that Intel has agreed to ship their Pentium III's with the ID number scheme switched off by default. (Originally their plan was to have the tracking function on, and end-users would have to deactivate it manually each and every time they booted their system.) However, it's not certain that the coalition of privacy watchdogs will find this arrangement satisfactory-- though it's certainly a step in the right direction.

Intel is scheduled to meet with the privacy folks again on Thursday, though we're doubtful that any concessions will be made beyond the decision to ship the processors with the ID numbering deactivated. The real danger, of course, is that the chip-numbering scheme turns into an industry standard-- at which point Mac users might have to worry about their G4's, as well. We're not all that worried, though; the sheer amount of noise the ID proposal has raised is probably a good indication to chip makers and e-commerce sites alike that people value their privacy more than being able to buy a sweater over the Internet.