So we've had this theory we've been kicking around for a while that every entity in the universe is karmically allotted a specific portion of respect, and there is therefore a "conservation of respect" in play with each said entity. The upshot is that, overall, nobody can ever garner more or less than his or her predetermined Respect Constant over any given period of time. We have no idea if this is true or not, but the idea came to us when we realized that while Apple usually garners tremendous levels of respect from its customers, it tends to get snubbed pretty badly by financial analysts. Upon further reflection, though, we're thinking that's less a sign of some cosmic balance of respect and more likely an indication that Apple's customers are just generally a whole lot smarter than the suits on Wall Street. Occam's Razor, and all that.

Besides, there are occasionally exceptions to the general rule. For example, according to a Reuters article, Apple just received a big, jiggly heap of respect from the brokerage firm UBS Warburg, who upgraded Apple's stock from "Hold" right past "Buy" and firmly into the Promised Land of "Strong Buy" territory. That's a pretty spiffy vote of confidence. Better still, Warburg also upped its Q3 earnings estimates from 14 cents per share to 16 cents per share, bumped its Q4 projections from 16 to 20 cents, and significantly raised its estimates for both fiscal 2002 and 2003. Lastly, Warburg's 12-month price target for AAPL just went from $23 (which was admittedly looking a little low, considering that Apple's stock has been trading higher than that for about a month, now) to $30.50. Zowie, it's like a big Apple smoochfest going on with those guys.

Given that uncommon show of approval from Wall Street, if our half-assed theory of Conservation of Respect holds true, we expect we'd witness a sudden palpable net decrease in admiration from Apple's typically-loyal customer base. And while that would undoubtedly be a crying shame, something tells us it might be a reasonable trade-off-- especially given the fact that Warburg's upgrade sent AAPL twenty cents higher today when the rest of the NASDAQ went in for a slight tumble. After all, who wouldn't trade a little customer respect for some financial success? Heck, our entire economic system is practically built upon the principle.

However, if Mac fans are suddenly going to experience a sudden dip in enthusiasm for Apple, we expect it'll show up as an abnormally low average entry in our quarterly Beat The Analysts contest; usually AtAT viewers tend to estimate Apple's quarterly results on the high side, so if we run the numbers in a week and notice that our viewing audience uncharacteristically predicted that Apple would post, say, a $400 million quarterly loss (as opposed to the analyst consensus of a $35 million profit), well, maybe there's more to this whole respect-balancing thing than we thought. The contest is open now and will run until noon EDT on Wednesday. Enter now, and if you feel an inexplicable urge to lowball your estimate, don't fight it-- after all, it's all in the interest of science.

You want to know the real reason why Apple only has 5% of the computer market, while Intel and Microsoft have their claws in the rest? One word: innovation. Yup, it's the fact that Intel and Microsoft keep cranking out new and innovative products while Apple keeps playing catch-up. Really, how is the Mac ever going to win any serious market share while Apple just sits there stagnating even as Intel and Microsoft are hard at work on stunning new breakthroughs like a "software-based access point" for 802.11 wireless networks?

Naw, we're just yankin' your chain. But the bit about the Wintel wireless access point is 100% true; faithful viewer Matthew Smith turned us on to an EE Times article about how Intel is "designing a technique for turning PCs into low-cost access points for 802.11 wireless networks," which could "reduce the price of a consumer access point from $250 to about $100." The idea is apparently to stick a wireless networking card into a PC and then run software that makes the computer act just like one of those wireless routers that are all the rage among the kiddies these days. Microsoft's getting in on the act by 1) coming up with the clever name "Soft Wi-Fi" (which, we are assured, is neither a quiescently frozen dessert nor a new addition to the Teletubbies cast) and 2) planning to "detail its own take on the initiative" at the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference next week. This is clearly some cutting-edge stuff, people.

Now, apparently we're missing something pretty major, here, because we had to check the article's date stamp about eight times to verify that it was indeed published yesterday and not three years ago. Correct us if we're wrong, but doesn't everything that Intel and Microsoft are trying to do here sound exactly like Apple's Software Base Station for AirPort? If you had a second AirPort-capable Mac and didn't want to buy a $299 AirPort Base Station, you could buy a second $99 AirPort card and run Apple's software to make that Mac an 802.11 access point so it could wirelessly share its Internet connection or access to anything on its wired network. (Well, as long as you were running Mac OS 9-- it's still not officially available for Mac OS X, though there are workarounds.)

However, if you're at all shocked or appalled that the words "Apple" and "AirPort" aren't mentioned even once in the article (perhaps in the context of "Apple managed to pull this off with AirPort over two years ago, so we're not sure why Intel's version is still 'early work' that's 'not ready for prime time' and why the company's mighty engineers still 'don't have anything [they] plan to release soon'"), then you're obviously new to this whole "tech press" thing. But don't worry, you'll eventually get used to it. Heck, we all did.

It seems like we've been hearing about it for at least a couple of decades, now, so by this time everybody must know what .NET is, right? It's that... thing. You know, that Microsoft thing. With the XML and the interoperability and the web services and the hey hey hey and the framework glavin. It's going to revolutionize the way that people use computers. It's going to enrich the lifestyles of all human beings by delivering "seamless, compelling experiences." It's both a floor wax and a dessert topping. Now aren't you glad we got that settled?

Look, if you're still not entirely sure what .NET is, don't develop an inferiority complex, or anything; just about everybody who claims to know what Microsoft's been flapping its gums about for the past couple of years is actually just faking it. (The sheer number of web sites containing the question "What Is .NET?" ought to provide a little perspective on the breadth of the mystery.) The sad truth of the matter is that only two people on the entire planet actually know and understand what .NET is supposed to be-- and, interestingly enough, neither of them works for Microsoft. No, we can't tell you their names, because if their identities were ever to be revealed, they would surely be captured and tortured by Microsoft operatives desperate to learn just what the heck this .NET thing is that they're supposed to be working on. Because, you know, since Microsoft has repeatedly stated that .NET is a "make or break" strategy for the company, they should really get moving on that.

Well, don't fret, because if things continue they way they're going now, there's a reasonable chance that you'll never need to know what .NET is... or, rather, what it was going to be, before it got redefined into obscurity. Now don't get us wrong, here-- .NET isn't a .NOT, at least not quite yet. But one of the biggest chunks of the .NET strategy just got deep-sixed because nobody wanted in. While drowning in all of the .NET hype, you may have heard of "Hailstorm," which was eventually dubbed ".NET My Services." If we're decoding the buzzwords correctly, Hailstorm was a majorly huge chunk of the .NET strategy that was supposedly going to allow companies to develop web sites and applications that could "access key pieces of personal [customer] data" for ostensibly better customization and greater ease of use.

There's just one teensy little problem with Hailstorm: according to an article in The Register pointed out by faithful viewer Jens Baumeister, no company actually wants to use it. Apparently Microsoft has admitted that "the consumer end of Hailstorm is for the moment no more," because all of the banks, credit card companies, etc. have told the Redmond Giant that they'll sit this one out. The Reg surmises that this is because said banks don't like the implications of putting all that sensitive customer data in the hands of a company where even the coffee mugs have security leaks, or maybe because they don't like the idea of Microsoft skimming cash for something they could implement themselves.

We here at AtAT, on the other hand, strongly suspect that the banks and credit card companies refused to sign on with .NET because they still don't understand what the heck it is, and Microsoft's reps weren't able to explain it sufficiently because they don't know what it is, either. Meanwhile, both sides are pretending they know what it is, and so the whole thing's a big, stinking farce. Good times. Anyway, assuming that this Hailstorm setback doesn't mean that .NET will eventually get derailed completely, we thought we'd propose the following as the official Mac user stance on Microsoft's mystery technology: "I don't even know what .NET is, but if there isn't decent Mac support for it, I'm going to raise holy hell." Whaddaya think? Too long to put on a bumper sticker?