AtAT's latest demographic data on our viewing audience suggests that several of you have been messing with computers long enough to remember back when the Macintosh "desktop publishing" revolution was in its early stages. Do you remember what happened? Suddenly it seemed like everyone and their grandmothers were putting together their own newsletters, since it could all be done on a single Mac and printed right to a laser printer. No messy cutting and pasting, no haggling with the local print shop, etc. And if you recall, the vast majority of those "do-it-yourself" newsletters looked like ransom notes. People used every font available, just because they could. More recently we saw the same kind of anarchic design disasters with the growth in popularity of the World Wide Web, which made anyone with a computer, an Internet account, and a copy of Pagemill into a publisher. In both instances, lots of people with absolutely no design training (or inherent design sense) violated just about every rule of legible and pleasing layout. It was publishing anarchy-- and, truth be told, it was pretty cool, because it got people trying new things. And after a while, the excitement of freedom died down for most people, the truly ugly creations either went away or got prettier, and all was right with the world.

Why do we bring this up? Because we expect a similar paradigm to infect the personal computer market. Apple opened the doors with the iMac, showing the computer manufacturing world that not only would people accept an unconventionally-styled computer, but that they'd also line up in droves to buy one. So now the rest of the industry is jumping on the bandwagon, as evidenced by Intel's recent "fashion show" of "new computer styles." Pat Gelsinger, the veep of Intel's desktop products group, says that "the point is that beige minitowers aren't the only form factor that the PC industry can deliver." (Hmmm, we wonder where he got that idea?) Consequently, Intel hosted this shindig at which multiple vendors (not including Apple, of course) showed off their latest attempts to cash in on the public's thirst for computers in cool enclosures.

Now here's where the DTP and web anarchy scenarios come into play: according to a Reuters article, the kinds of designs companies are coming up with don't share much in common with the years of design thought and consideration that went into the iMac or the new G3's. The makers of many of the systems at the show apparently didn't think, "we need to craft a functional, friendly system that invites the user to explore and have fun." Instead, it seems they sat down and said, "Let's make a computer that looks like a bunny and see if people buy that." Yes, a bunny. There were also computers shaped like fish, Aztec pyramids, superheroes (!), and the Sydney Opera House. Again, it's the exuberance of anarchy rearing its head as the manufacturers are freed from the constraints of the beige box (though without the "anyone can join in" dynamic, and driven by dollar signs instead of creative expression)-- but it sounds to us like the new designs are different for difference's sake, instead of striving to accomplish an overall synergy of form and function. And besides, even if the new designs are all looks, though we haven't seen it ourselves, we have a hard time believing that a bunny-shaped computer is really all that stylish. As the article points out, "the fashion papparazzi were noticeably absent." Well, heck, we can't say we're all that surprised...

After taking a look at a Computer Daily News article, we have some good news and some bad news. The good news is, Apple Computer "finished strongly in fifth spot" for overall sales, only under 1000 computers short of the tied third place sellers, Hewlett Packard and Acer. Compaq, unsurprisingly, was first, capturing 14% of the market, followed by IBM with 9.4%. Sure, Apple's 6% may not look terrific in comparison, but it's still a solid performance, and it shows growth is still the word of the day.

The bad news is that these figures pertain to the Australian market. Well, okay, that's not exactly bad news-- after all, Australia's a great, big country and Apple should be thrilled to be fighting for third place there. It's just that we'd seen other web sites mistakenly report this data as if it were based on U.S. sales figures, which would be fantastic, if not just a little out of whack given the recent PC Data January reports. Remember, the "classic" iMacs slid into fourth place last month here in the U.S., and the flavored iMacs didn't even make the top 15; we don't see how it would be possible for Apple, then, to have magically have fallen just short of third place in overall sales. But it sure as heck is something to shoot for.

In fact, we're finding Apple's increased popularity in overseas markets to be a very encouraging sign. For instance, it was recently pointed out that Apple finally captured the number one spot in Japanese retail sales a few weeks ago, propelled to the top by the overwhelming success of the iMac there; Apple recently announced that as many as 60% of Japanese iMac buyers are new to the Mac platform, which is exactly the kind of thing we love to hear. Number one in Japan, vying for number three in Australia-- say, things are looking up. We haven't even seen Apple referred to as "beleaguered" in the press, lately; that's probably the one sure sign that the darkest days are well past us all.

In "Redmond Justice" news, everything old is new again as maverick government attorney David Boies (cue boyish glance at camera and sparkle off of teeth) continues to rip Microsoft's defense witnesses into shreds of organic material identifiable as formerly human only via expensive and time-consuming DNA tests. Dental records show his latest victim to have been Microsoft exec Dan Rosen, the highest-ranking Redmond rep present at the notorious "Don't Screw With Us" meeting of June 21st, 1995. The government alleges that at this meeting, Microsoft threatened Netscape with oblivion if they didn't concede the web browser market for computers running Windows 95, slotted for release a few months later. Rosen tried to paint the meeting in a positive light, but according to a Reuters article, Boies soon left Rosen's credibility in tatters.

Rosen's big trip-up centered around the first time he had access to Netscape's version of the Navigator web browser for Windows 95. When questioned by Boies, he claimed that it was first made available to him in "July 1995... after the June 21st meeting." At that point, Boies confronted Rosen with email he had written to a fellow employee, which included the question, "Can I borrow/copy the Netscape Win 95 new client they gave us?" That email was dated May 11th. Oops. But Rosen claimed that he had never actually received a copy of the browser he requested, and in addition, it was only a "test version that did not work," which his colleague had gotten at a prior meeting with Netscape. Fair enough. Except that Boies point-blank accused Rosen of making up that detail on the spot. "No, I remember it," insisted Rosen. "You're sure it was May and not April?" asked Boies. Rosen answered in the affirmative-- at which point Boies confronted him with yet more Rosen-penned email, in which he wrote: "Do you remember who took the Netscape Win 95 browser they gave us during our last meeting?" This email was dated April 27th. Big oops.

After a "moment of silence in the courtroom" as Rosen mulled this over, he conceded that, yes, he had been present at the meeting with Netscape in April when the browser was handed over. And after that we have to imagine that his continued denial that Microsoft ever threatened Netscape holds a lot less credibility. Score another one for Boies, in a trial that's starting to look like a shutout. But it sure makes for great TV, doesn't it?