My, but there are a lot of bitter and frustrated Mac users out there, and all over something as seemingly trivial as the number of buttons on a mouse! We haven't seen such borderline-violent reaction to a newly-announced Apple product since the intro of the long-forgotten (make that long-repressed-all-memory-of) Amelio-era Apple Home Surgery Kit. ("Version 1.1: Now With Anesthetic!") Apparently Apple's decision to ship its first wireless mouse with only one button and no scroll wheel has a lot of people reaching for their Angry Hats. We haven't seen such a high obscenity content in AtAT correspondence since that time viewers failed to understand that when we referred to them as a "miserable pack of mouth-breathing pinheads", we meant it in the best way possible. Or it was ironic. One of those two, we forget which.

Well, the last thing we want to do is get caught up in a flame war of biblical proportions, but we figured we'd at least state for the record that we still think Apple probably has some pretty good reasons for sticking with a single mouse button as the Mac standard. Now, granted, Apple's track record in mouse design choices isn't exactly spotless; the original iMac hockey puck has actually inspired major hospitals to name entire Ergonomic Injury wards after it, or at least to erect huge, scary statues of the thing in the main lobby as an object exercise in cautionary fear. That said, regardless of whether or not you personally can't see fit to operating your Mac without at least three mouse buttons and a scroll wheel, we'd ask to you consider the possibility that Apple has some valid justification for putting its power users through the single-button blues. And no, we don't think the justification is necessarily "because Steve said so"; don't forget, Steve's NeXT computers had two-button mice, so clearly the man isn't as averse to multiple mouse buttons as some people might have you believe.

First and foremost, the Macintosh platform is still about simplicity-- simplicity and accessibility. Sure, things have gotten more complex over the years, largely out of necessity, but the drive to manage complexity, allow it only when necessary, and shield the user from it as much as possible is still a palpable vibe emanating from One Infinite Loop. And while you may find two mouse buttons to be a perfectly straightforward interface to navigate, we can assure you that a significant chunk of the population does not, Windows's 95% market share notwithstanding. Let us remind you that you also apparently find a net-based Mac-centric soap opera entertaining, which means you are not normal. (In so many ways.)

Let us clarify: we're not saying that the vast majority of Windows users are constantly misclicking buttons and accidentally deleting their hard drives via unintended trips to contextual menus. What we're saying is that, all other things being equal, most "regular" people would be more comfortable using a single-button mouse (and software designed to work with it) than a multiple-button mouse and its inherent potential for confusion. Sure, in the Windows world everybody eventually muddles through. The difference is, we think, Apple doesn't want its customers just to "muddle through."

The inherent problems with a multiple-button interface would likely become evident to you if you had spent eight years training people to use software that requires a three-button mouse, as one member of the AtAT staff has. The trainees were, for the most part, brain surgeons and physicists; not exactly the bottom of the barrel as far as smarts are concerned. And yet, trying to remember and access multiple functions strewn across three different mouse buttons (functions that, of course, also changed drastically depending on context) often tripped these folks up worse than Nike's infamous "One Shoelace, Two Shoes" marketing gimmick in the mid-'80s. Given this anecdotal evidence, we have every confidence that Apple has reams of data from usability tests indicating that, for most people, a single mouse button is ideal.

It's almost certainly ideal when it comes to maintaining a consistent and accessible interface across third-party applications for the platform. Have you ever noticed the difference in the interfaces of the average Windows software and the average Mac software? We've found Mac software to be far more predictable, and we're convinced that part of that is due to the enforced simplicity of the single-button mouse. By requiring developers to design their interfaces for one button, Apple ensures that they don't just bury half of the software's crucial functions in poorly-organized middle- and right-click contextual menus.

Not that there's anything wrong with contextual menus, of course, assuming they're implemented properly; after all, there's a reason why Apple added them to Mac OS 8 and kept them through Mac OS X. But there's also a reason why Panther's Finder is gaining an Actions menu, which apparently just echoes what the contextual menus would list; a novice might be able to guess that clicking on a folder and then clicking Actions will show a list of actions to choose. It's rather more intuitive than right-clicking (or control-clicking, for that matter).

But let's get something straight, here: none of this is to say that Apple shouldn't make and offer a three-button mouse with a scroll wheel. There are clearly complex professional applications which benefit greatly from the addition of a few extra mouse buttons; likewise, most 3D games are practically unplayable with Apple's single-button mouse, assuming you want to play longer than about three seconds. Then there's the whole "Switch" factor; we don't doubt for a second that Apple has lost some sales because potential Wintel switchers just couldn't get past the single-button mouse, and that's a problem; Mac OS X supports multiple mouse buttons, so it's a real shame if the company is losing potential market share increases for such a goofy reason. We'd love to see Apple release a more full-featured mouse, because with Apple's design team it might turn out to be the best such device on the market.

And yet, we still happen to agree with Apple's apparent conclusion that the standard for the platform should be the classic single-button design, so that the Mac can retain its legendary intuitiveness and ease of use. So what's the answer? Well, far be it from us to presume, but what we think might work best is the following:

• A single-button mouse and keyboard in every iMac and eMac box;

• An aluminum multi-button scroll mouse and keyboard in every Power Mac G5 box;

• The ability to choose wired or wireless versions of either mouse (or even none at all) on all build-to-order Macs at the Apple Store; and

• The option to upgrade/downgrade/remove the included mouse when buying any Mac at an Apple retail store.

What do you think, sirs? Imagine walking into an Apple retail store and buying an eMac with a wireless multiple-button mouse upgrade; the staff just opens the eMac box, yanks out the individually-boxed wired basic mouse, tosses in a retail-boxed wireless "pro" model, and adds the price differential to your bill. If you don't want a mouse at all because you've already got your beloved 32-button UltraDeth 3000 mouse with twelve scrollwheels and its own zip code, they just pull out the included mouse and ring up a $20 discount or whatever. (Of course this would all apply to keyboards, too.) It may not be perfectly practical, but it sure would be neat; most Macs (including all those not sold directly by Apple) would still come with single-button mice by default, so developers would need to continue to support them-- but power users can pick any mouse they want and not be forced to pay for the single-button jobbie that would just go straight into the junk drawer when they got it home.

Of course, none of this means squat unless Apple actually builds a multiple-button mouse, right? Well, they probably will. Notice that the new Apple Wireless Keyboard and Mouse are white and match the consumer-grade iMac, eMac, and iBook perfectly. Notice also the lack of the word "Pro" in the title. Is it really so far-fetched to think that Apple has aluminum wired and wireless "Pro" keyboards and mice in the works? Or that the new Pro Mouse will boast more than one button? And hey, didn't Steve use a multiple-button mouse to show off how well Exposé worked with it? Indeed, Mac OS Rumors claims "very nearly 100% certainty" that "two-button mice with a scroll wheel-like third button are on their way. Count on it."

So before you form the lynch mobs, consider the Wait and See approach, because there are clues that Apple's got a multiple-button mouse in the works; who knows what's holding it up. Personally, we blame Motorola. It just seems easiest.

Speaking of Motorola, now that we've blown a good eighty percent of today's episode rambling on incessantly about mouse buttons like some twisted Disney rodent apparel fetishist, why not use our last few remaining breaths to spit out something about the Motorola Conspiracy Theory of the Week? Paranoid scenarios involving Apple's oh-so-cuddly G4 supplier are usually limited to the obvious, i.e. "Nobody's that incompetent; they're screwing up G4 production on purpose as payback for when Steve Jobs killed Mac OS licensing and thusly torpedoed the Motorola StarMax, sticking the company with millions in losses on the failed product." This week, though, there's a little twist on the classic: Motorola wasn't a lone nut in the book depository; there was a second shooter out behind the grassy knoll. Da da da dummmmmm!

Earlier this week, faithful viewer Tom Kilbourne tipped us off to an Associated Press article about a Legion of Doom-style hookup that just makes us go "hmmmm"; it seems that Motorola has joined forces with Microsoft-- ostensibly to work together on so-called "smart phones" with Moto hardware and Micro software, but who are they kidding, right? You know, we always suspected that Motorola was Solomon Grundy, a little too dim to be planning this subtle (well, relatively subtle) revenge against Apple on its own, but if Microsoft was pulling strings behind the scenes like the Lex Luthor we know it to be, well, that just makes a whole lot more sense.

The cover story is that Microsoft's new smartphone embedded operating system will drive next-generation Motorola phones that will allow users to "manage personal information and synchronize their email, calendar, and contacts; browse the Web; download and listen to digital music; and view video clips." You know, pretty much all the stuff that the Handspring Treos did a year ago, so it shouldn't be too hard to pull off. But that's only to be expected, since presumably in order to keep the alliance going without arousing suspicion, the companies will actually need to produce these things, but they would want to spend as little time on them as possible so they can devote their energies to making Apple miserable. The real question is, when they hit store shelves, will Apple support these phones in iSync? Oooh, the irony.

Then again, if this isn't an anti-Apple conspiracy team-up and Microsoft and Motorola really are just working together on mobile phones, there's a decent chance that when the fourth quarter rolls around, Microsoft will be tapping its foot and wondering why that big 'ol shipment of MPx200 Motorola smartphones hasn't shown up yet...

Since we've officially fallen into the sinkhole of anti-news known as the During Expo, Post-Stevenote phenomenon (DEPS) and the only stuff floating around on the Mac news sites consists of third-party software update announcements and new product press releases, we've decided to use what little time we have left in this episode to try to make amends to Steve Ballmer. If you tuned in yesterday, you'll recall that our pledge to lay off Microsoft's CEO-- since he had some kind and thoughtful words for Apple, you see-- lasted about as long as a kumquat squaring off against a steamroller. But we feel bad about that, and since then we've been meditating to focus our mental energies. Plus we drank a bunch of raw eggs (well, the equivalent amount of Ener-G Egg Replacer, anyway) and ran up and down a big flight of steps outside while wearing sweats and raising our fists over our heads in triumph as inspirational movie music played. We're ready to give this another shot.

By an astounding coincidence, faithful viewer americanuck just happened to forward us an article at The Inquirer, which shamefully derides Mr. Ballmer for his performance at Santa Clara's Churchill Club where he praised Apple for doing "good, innovative work." It seems that The Inquirer isn't buying Ballmer's claim that recent virus outbreaks and worm... er, outcrawls has "humbled" Microsoft "in some ways"-- because he reportedly went on to chide Microsoft's customers for not installing the thirty security patches that Microsoft releases each day. It seems that he made the claim that his "mother-in-law's computer wasn't bothered by worms and viruses because she had turned on a security switch in Windows XP," so clearly if a user gets smacked down by a worm, it's his own fault for not being even as technically savvy as Ballmer's wife's mama.

Then again, since we have very little actual background on Mrs. Ballmer's-wife's-mama, we probably shouldn't fall into the classic traps of ageism and sexism by just assuming she knows nothing about technology. For all we know, she could be a brilliant scientist for whom the baffling ordeal that is Windows security management is as trivial a task as memorizing the full sequencing of the human genome. After all, we've all seen the results of her remarkable success in the fields of animal husbandry and interspecies breeding.

NO! No, that was directed entirely at the mother-in-law! That... that was not an insult to Steve Ballmer!

Sigh. Okay, no, no, of course, you're right-- it was. Nurtz. Guess we'll try again tomorrow. Back to the incense and the egg replacer...