Okay, so Phil "Marketing Dude" Schiller didn't actually come right out and say that "print is dead," but he came darn close. According to a Macworld article, at the NAB press conference, he reportedly got on his soapbox and postulated that "desktop video is now bigger than desktop publishing." As evidence, Phil rattled off some numbers about the number of digital camcorders available these days, the booming sales of the iMac DV, and the admittedly impressive percentage of iMac DV owners using those happy little space eggs to edit their home movies.

Huh? So one in three U.S. iMac DV owners is using iMovie, and the numbers are even higher in Japan. Does that really mean that, right now, more computer users overall are editing wedding videos than cranking out school newsletters? We think Phil might have been a little too liberal with that free Las Vegas booze the night before, because personally, we just don't see it. Maybe in a year that'll be true, with the prices of digital camcorders coming way down and the web making printed newsletters increasingly irrelevant. But as the article's author Christopher Breen rightly points out, Schiller's overly-exuberant remark may well reveal a fundamental aversion to dead-tree technologies that's spreading through Apple's Cupertino campus. Have you noticed that Apple products never come with a printed manual anymore? Paper is passé-- long live digital ink. (And video, of course.)

So there you have it: the conceit that the age of the printed word is over and done. And lest you think that's just an Apple thing, have you read Andy Ihnatko's latest column? On the whole it tackles the issue of the infamous "Bill Gates in a sweater" commercial, but in passing, Andy notes that in the latest issue of Brill's Content, there's a four-page ad for the e-book-strategy "Microsoft Reader," which actually claims that "in the not-too-distant future paper newspapers will cease production and printed books will only be popular as collectibles." Wow. Does that mean that our gag-gift copy of The Road Ahead by Bill Gates (purchased by a friend for one dollar at Buck-A-Book) might actually be worth something someday?

Surprise, surprise; a nonprofit organization called the Web Standards Project is miffed about the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer. According to an Associated Press article, this organization feels that IE 5.5 (which is due to appear for Windows soon, despite the fact that we Mac users only just got version 5.0) "does not adequately support the software standards on which the World Wide Web was built." Pardon us while we pick our jaws up off the floor. Jeffrey Zeldman, the head of the group, says that Microsoft's browser still doesn't properly support HTML 4.0 or Cascading Style Sheets 1, and that "if Microsoft does not fully implement these standards, their users will not be able to properly use some sites on the Web."

Ha! Right. Apparently Mr. Zeldman's living in a perfect world, where monopoly abuses are the stuff of fairy tales and bedtime stories. The real-world translation follows: "If Microsoft does not fully implement these standards, webmasters will re-code their pages to work with IE, because after Microsoft's illegal bundling of IE with Windows, the number of people using it is too big to be ignored." What's really funny is that Microsoft could hardly care less; in reaction to Zeldman's comments, a Microsoft product manager said that "the company never intended to support all of the Internet standards approved by the World Wide Web Consortium." Like it or lump it.

Now here's where the obligatory Mac angle gets worked in: apparently it's only the Windows version of Internet Explorer that has these problems. According to Zeldman, the Mac version of IE has "complete and well-implemented standards... We look at the blueprints, and we don't see these standards in Microsoft's blueprints for IE for Windows, which is odd since they did a great job for the Mac." For once, we Mac users get the better Microsoft product. How crazy is that?

Good gravy-- just when you thought the whole "Redmond Justice" thing couldn't possibly get any more dramatic, along comes the New York Times to inject a near-lethal dose of political intrigue into the storyline. As noted by faithful viewer Stephen White, the Times has revealed that Microsoft hired a lobbyist to spin the case to George W. Bush. Surprising? Hardly. But here's the thing, see; the lobbyist Gates is paying happens to be Ralph Reed, whose firm, Century Strategies, "is one of Mr. Bush's top consultants." In fact, Reed "frequently appeared on television" during the primary race to speak on behalf of the Bush campaign. And now it's come to light that the man has been on the Microsoft payroll for over a year, all the while presumably whispering in Dubya's ear that the whole Microsoft case is without merit, a crime against innovation, yadda yadda yadda. The plan was so simple; if Bush gets elected this fall, he makes a few calls, and bickety-bam-- "Redmond Justice" is history.

Now, lest we become mired in a plotline involving a "vast right-wing conspiracy," we're going to ignore Mr. Reed's past as the head of the Christian Coalition-- working that into the mix is too easy, it's bush league, and it's been done to death before. Instead we'd like to focus on the fact that Century Strategies reportedly organized a "detailed plan" to undermine the government's case against Microsoft by getting senior Bush supporters all across the country to "write letters to Mr. Bush saying they believe the government's case is misguided, and that the American people oppose it." Only "influential" shills were recruited, and Century's regional contractors were actually getting paid $300 for every letter they brought in. So does this go beyond Microsoft paying a trusted Bush advisor to put in a good word for the company every now and then? Oh my, yes.

For what it's worth, in a follow-up to the original story, the Times reports that Ralph Reed has apologized for his part in the lobbying of Dubya. "It is an error that we regret," says Reed, and he promises "not to lobby [Bush] again on behalf of Microsoft or anyone else." (That's what's known as the "whoops, we accidentally took a slew of money and abused our advisory position for over a year" defense, in case you're filling out the score card.) But has the damage already been done? According to AppleLinks, Dubya commented in February that "as President, the question should be innovation as opposed to litigation." Oh, great-- Dubya's chanting the "i" word. Looks like he's a Redmond pod, alright. So does this mean, as AppleLinks suggests, that a vote for Bush is a vote for Microsoft? Hey, that's between you and your ballot. But it may be worth noting that Reed has admitted to lobbying people other than Bush for Microsoft, too. And since Gore switched from his Mac to a Wintel laptop a few years back, we're wondering just how deep the conspiracy goes.

But the truly horrifying implications of all this dirty laundry coming to light may not have dawned upon you yet: to help ease the PR black eye this scandal may cause, Microsoft may subject us all to yet another besweatered Bill Gates commercial. Run! Run for your lives!!