So is it, or isn't it? As faithful viewer Tony McDaid kindly informed us, somebody emailed The Register a line drawing purported to be a representation of the next-generation iMac that we're all expecting next month. But you folks are all too familiar with how this stuff works-- the vast majority of the "exclusive leaked pics" out there are fakes originating from pixel-pushers with too much time on their hands. Indeed, if The Reg's graphic is The Real Thing, then why haven't Apple's lawyers fired a shot from their well-worn Cease And Desist cannon? They're usually right quick about that sort of thing. After all, it's not like they're hard at work on the Future Power lawsuit anymore...

Furthermore, while we admit that line drawings generally aren't all snazzy and eye-poppingly glorious, we're still a little skeptical that Apple would replace the current iMac's design with one that's so unabashedly ordinary. We're looking at a two-piece system, here: a rectangular, flat pizza box base unit with ports on one side and the removable drive on the other (which brings to mind nothing more striking than the lovable but plain Macintosh LC), and a flat-screen LCD display which looks essentially like a PowerBook screen with the traditional iMac "foot" underneath. Unless it glows in the dark and hovers six inches above the tabletop, if Apple's hoping to capture the imagination of the computer-buying public with a design like this, perhaps it's time to send Jon Ive on a much-needed extended vacation so he can recharge.

Oh, but wait-- is that a stylus clipped to the edge of the screen? Suddenly it all comes clear: Apple is downplaying the new iMac's visual design in order to dazzle people with function, instead. Allegedly the screen isn't just detachable; it's a full-fledged tablet-style WebPad which runs on its own battery, can wirelessly transmit and receive data to and from the iMac's base, and contains its own Quartz imaging engine. The upshot is that a user can grab the screen of his or her iMac, take it into the living room, plop down on the couch, and use the stylus to view and interact with applications that are actually running on the iMac itself.

Sound familiar? Well, it should, because this is a nifty convergence of at least three sort-of-separate and kind-of-distinct rumors: the flat-screen Mac OS X iMac, the "iPad" Mac tablet capable of "screen-sharing" with another Mac, and the Quartz "thin client" scenario from a few months back. Oh, and don't forget the heavily substantiated InkWell handwriting recognition rumors; isn't it interesting that we haven't seen that module pop up yet? ZDNet's screenshots last summer looked real enough to us (though again, you have to wonder where the lawyers are hiding if the slideshow is indeed genuine).

So in this scenario, the iMac will basically be an "iPad" bundled with a matching low-end screenless Mac base unit, while iPads would also be available separately for customers who want mobile tablet-style access to their Power Macs as well. It certainly sounds like one heck of a plan for total world domination, assuming it's even remotely true-- so we have to ask again: is it, or isn't it?

Picture this: you've got two corporations, Company A and Company B, and they both compete in the same market. Company A was first out the door with its product, and makes proprietary hardware and software systems that cost a ton of money, but a certain segment of the market consists of staunch supporters who (sometimes snobbishly) insist that you get what you pay for. Company B, on the other hand, competes with newer software that's perhaps not quite as nice, but is available for far less money and offers customers the ability to choose from a greater variety of hardware. Many people are defecting to Company B's product because it's much cheaper up-front, and as far as they're concerned, it generally gets the job done just fine in most circumstances. Consequently, Company B is gaining fast on Company A.

By now, you're probably thinking Company A is Apple and Company B is Microsoft, circa 1995. But allow us to blow your minds: we're actually talking about video editing systems, and so Apple is cast as the brash young upstart Company B, who's looking to steal marketshare from Avid, the Old Guard Company A. Holy Role Reversal, Batman! How's that for a surprise ending? It's like we've gone from "soap opera" to "Twilight Zone," here. (But don't go calling us "Rod.")

Yes, when faithful viewer Helen Balasny tipped us off to a Salon article about "Apple's moviemaking revolution," we thought we were going to find a story about how iMovie has brought video editing to the masses via $899 iMacs; instead, we found an engrossing tale about how Apple's high-end video software, Final Cut Pro, is the "cheapest, quickest possible way" for many filmmakers to edit their projects. Cheap? At $1000 bucks a pop? Well, yeah; when the industry standard is an $80,000 Avid system, you'd better believe that Apple's option is cheap-- especially when students can pick up a copy for $250. Plus, Final Cut Pro on a PowerBook G4 makes for a very compelling mobile editing rig, while it's considerably less convenient to drag around a few hundred pounds of Avid gear. (Forget about asking for the middle seat; you'd need a chartered jet.)

It's an interesting read, especially to those of us who aren't exactly in on the whole high-end video editing game. If you're used to Apple being criticized for providing closed architectures and expensive equipment, it's a real trip to see the company cast as the good guy. Take this quote: "They announce upgrades to their system, then don't make it compatible with older versions, so what you just bought often becomes quickly obsolete... It's quite a racket. They know that they're the only game in town, so they take advantage of it." Believe it or not, he's talking about Avid, not Apple. And you've got organizations like WGBH switching to Macs with Final Cut Pro because they're "cost-conscious" and "always looking for anything that's going to be cheaper." Spooky, isn't it? Don't miss this chance to see how the other half lives.

Prepare to be shocked: according to a survey mentioned in a Wired article kindly sent to us by faithful viewer Daniel M. Dreifus, "one in every four computers has been physically attacked by its owner." "Okay," we hear you reply, "so what?" So, that's not the shocking part. The shocking part is that the researchers, knowing full well that over 90% of desktop computers out there are running Microsoft operating systems, are somehow still surprised by these findings. Go figure.

Seriously, British PC manufacturer Novatech (who ran the survey) claims to have been somewhat startled when its "lighthearted look" at "little technical bloopers" revealed a "much darker story": fully 25% of the survey's 4200 respondents confessed to "physically attacking their computers." Sadly, Novatech doesn't elaborate on the type of abuse that these computer users directed at the sources of their frustration, but Wired fills the gap: a computer shop owner reports that the most commonly observed sign of an abused computer is a battered keyboard "from people smacking down... with an open hand or sometimes a fist." The most typical punishment meted out is a "sharp slap delivered to the monitor or the hard drive case." That was certainly the downfall of William Vincent, who thusly managed to kill his hard drive completely when his Dell crashed and he started beating it like a-- well, like a dead Dell. (Of course, that was just mistake number three. Mistake number two was not saving his work regularly; mistake number one was buying a Dell in the first place.)

Perhaps someday someone will do a study correlating violence against computers with the operating systems that said computers are running, but we're going to go out on a limb here and guess that the occurrence of physical Mac abuse is disproportionately low; sure, you always hurt the ones you love, but who could really hit a system that smiles at you when you start it up? (Conversely, who could suppress the urge to smack the living bejeezus out of a computer that makes you click "Start" to shut it down?) Heck, in recent years the percentage of Mac-related computer abuse has probably gotten even lower; the machines are now just too darn pretty to beat up. In light of this discovery, perhaps it's all just coming down to natural selection, and Macs are evolving to avoid vicious user-delivered beatdowns. And you thought they were designed in labs...