You know that old saw, "be careful what you wish for"? We're thinking that Apple's marketing department might want to take that advice a little more seriously now that its ad copy has apparently come true, with disastrous consequences. Those of you mourners still looking for a scapegoat on whom to blame the passing of the Power Mac G4 Cube, we're happy to report that we've found one for you: whoever penned the Cube ad that said the product "looks like it belongs in the Museum of Modern Art." Because as we all know, dead things go in museums, and, sure enough, the Cube really did find its way into MoMA's collection-- just prior to its demise.

No joke: according to the New York Times, Apple's cubic-- or is that Cubist?-- interpretation of its (slightly) more conventional Power Mac G4 boasts such a stunning design, the museum recently "acquired" one for its design collection. Granted, this isn't the first Mac to wind up in the hallowed halls of MoMA; the original 1984 Macintosh led the charge. Neither is the Cube likely to be the last, and indeed, the Cube was inducted along with "six other Apple products" whose identities aren't revealed. Still, we can't ignore the extraordinary coincidence that first Apple's own ad touts the Cube as looking like it belongs in MoMA, then MoMA adds the Cube to its collection, and then the Cube disappears from Apple's price list. (Here's hoping that the Deco-looking Quicksilver isn't part of the collection, because we don't want it to vanish before we have a chance to buy one.)

This whole issue of "tempting the fates" aside, Steve Jobs (certainly the Cube's spiritual daddy) states that he and the rest of Apple are "surprised and honored" by the Cube's acceptance into MoMA. According to Steve, while the creation didn't enjoy much success as a commercial product, "that was not a failure of design; it was a failure of concept. We targeted the Cube at a professional audience. We thought they would rather have something small on the desk than expandibility and we were wrong. It was a wrong concept-- fabulously implemented." And that, folks, is of course why we love Apple so much: the company makes mistakes, sure... but they're spectacularly well-executed mistakes. Congrats to the Cube for its induction into MoMA; we think it's finally found its market.

On a vaguely-related side note, we guess we can stop wondering whether or not Apple employees tune in to AtAT; it's only been a week since we pointed out the use of the redundant phrase "rounded circles" on the Cube page, and now it just says "circles." Clearly the gods on Mount Cupertino are listening. So let's try a little experiment, shall we? (ahem...) "Gosh, it sure would be nice if we found a fully-loaded Quicksilver on our doorstep tomorrow morning!"

"Gee, AtAT, how come you haven't worked Microsoft's latest QuickTime-crippling IE upgrade into the script yet?" That's what we're hearing from dozens of fans. (Well, maybe minus the "gee" part; perhaps we need to cut back on our "Leave It To Beaver" intake.) True, the issue first surfaced two whole weeks ago, and we haven't touched it yet, but that's because Microsoft's latest "mistake" is so obviously an overt anticompetitive sleazoid move, we figured everybody already knew the score. But then we overheard somebody state, without the tiniest hint of irony in his voice, that he felt Microsoft's latest QuickTime "oops" was an honest mistake and not part of some massive conspiracy to undermine Apple's media technology. And geez, we certainly couldn't let that pass without comment.

For those of you who have no idea what the heck we're talking about, faithful viewer Scott Naness has kindly pointed out a handy CNET article which describes the phenomenon. Here's the gist: Microsoft's most recent Service Pack for Internet Explorer (the Windows version) breaks the QuickTime plug-in completely. Why, you ask? Because after the Service Pack is applied, IE 5.5 (and the upcoming IE 6) no longer supports plug-ins at all. Instead, Microsoft is-- try not to die of shock, here-- pushing its own ActiveX technology as "the" way to link web content to desktop applications. Heck, we're actually stunned the company didn't pull a move like this sooner; it managed to antitrustify Netscape into irrelevance ages ago, so it was inevitable that any sort of Netscape technologies (like the browser plug-in) would soon be shown the door.

The problem appears to be that Microsoft kinda sorta neglected to mention this little architectural change to anyone-- particularly Apple, whose QuickTime media software is probably now regarded by millions of IE for Windows users as a steaming pile of nonfunctioning garbage. Meanwhile, Apple is now scrambling to "fix" QuickTime so that it works with Microsoft's new "No Plug-Ins Allowed" browser. And yet there are apparently still people out there who feel this was an honest mistake on Microsoft's part.

Evidently said people have forgotten that nearly three years ago, Apple software veep Avie Tevanian testified in the "Redmond Justice" trial that Microsoft threatened to cease development of Office for the Mac unless Apple "knifed the baby" by dropping QuickTime for Windows completely. They also seem to have forgotten Avie's claim that when Apple refused, Microsoft had deliberately introduced error messages into Windows so that QuickTime for Windows users would be prompted to switch back to Microsoft's own "ActiveMovie" software instead. (Shades of the Caldera rogue error messages; same sleazeball tactic, different competitor to squelch.) It is also quite possible that said people are on some serious drugs; who can say? Meanwhile, Microsoft promises a fix "soon," by which time thousands of Windows users will have already purged QuickTime from their systems. Hey, somebody sue these guys for antitru-- oh, yeah. Never mind.

While we hardly like to characterize the Federal Appeals Court as some sort of "Antitrust Nazi," we can't pass up this chance to summarize its latest message to Microsoft thusly: "NO STAY FOR YOU!!" Yes, kiddies, "Redmond Justice" is back in full swing, and the appeals court continues to surprise and delight fans of antitrust drama by shaking off its early characterization as a Microsoft-friendly entity and instead sending Bill's minions running for cover. True, the appellate court threw out Judge Jackson's ruling that Microsoft should be split in two-- but it did assert that Jackson was right to rule that Microsoft was a monopoly who had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The appeals court therefore kicked the case back to a (non-Jackson) district judge to rule on a punishment.

Microsoft claimed (through tightly-clenched teeth) that this ruling was a victory-- but immediately appealed to the Supreme Court and begged the Court of Appeals not to boot the case back to a new judge until the Supreme Court had decided whether or not to step in. Hey, kids, can you say "stall tactic"? We knew you could. Well, guess what? As noted by faithful viewer Andy Van Buren, that rockin' appeals court just pulled a Fonzie and told Microsoft to sit on it. According to a Reuters article, Microsoft's request for yet another delay has been denied, and a lower court will begin deciding the company's punishment in a mere week's time.

Granted, even without the delay Microsoft so transparently tried to score, the company will likely still be able to get Windows XP out the door before any remedy can take effect, but that's largely up to how the lower court handles the next phase of this marathon case. (Wow, does anyone remember when "Redmond Justice" was supposed to be short?) In any event, we're heading into the home stretch, now, so start planning those Series Finale parties...