Bitter much? That's the question to ask the guys from Exponential Technology, Inc., whom you may remember as the company who was going to push the PowerPC into the stratosphere with its 533 MHz x704 processor. Well, as things turned out (or didn't), the x704 failed to live up to its promise, Apple (Exponential's biggest investor) pulled out of the deal, and Exponential closed its doors. It wasn't a pretty sight. But what really isn't pretty is this deliciously catty tell-all article, in which Exponential's CEO Rick Shriner is quoted as saying, "I feel badly that the Mac is dying and going away, but after experiencing this betrayal, I think, the sooner the better." Meow!

The article is definitely worth reading, even though it seems to contain some factual errors (the Mach 5 604e's aren't G3's, are they?) and a decidedly "Apple is dead" slant. As far as AtAT's official take on the whole thing, we feel sorry for Exponential, but we don't think Apple did anything they shouldn't have; the x704 was late, when it finally became available, it wasn't as fast as it was supposed to be, and the latest Mach 5 604e's from Motorola were definitely faster, probably cheaper, and probably used a lot less power. In a critical juncture in which Apple's fighting for its life, they're expected to bet the farm on an unproven chip? (Not that Apple hasn't made such goofy decisions in the past, but still.) Even if cloning hadn't been squished, we don't see any reason that the cloners would use x704's when better alternatives were readily available. The whole thing is one big fiasco, but hey, what's a soap opera without a little tragedy now and again?

If you thought MacUser getting absorbed by MacWorld was an indication of the Mac's further decline into obscurity, well, to a certain degree, you're absolutely right. And if you saw the recent announcement that MacWEEK's print edition will be changing its name to eMedia Weekly to reflect its coverage of Windows as well as the Mac, you probably thought that was another sign of flagging Mac market share-- and again, you'd be right. But the thing is, it's not just Mac magazines that are shutting down. According to CNET, Byte magazine is closing its doors after 23 years.

CNET's interpretation of this shutdown is that Byte is the latest print magazine to get hit by declining ad revenue, as more and more advertising dollars go towards internet banner ads and other electronic marketing systems. In a business as fast-paced as the computer industry, it's not surprising that print magazines are finding it harder and harder to compete with online publications; given that magazine issues are often prepared months before they hit the newsstands, it's increasingly common that they are filled with incorrect information by the time anyone gets to read them. The web has no such time lag, being an instant-gratification publishing method. Plus, web sites are usually free to readers instead of five bucks a copy, and the publishing costs are minuscule compared to those of putting out a real dead-tree publication, we bet.

So the thing to remember is, there are several factors that led to the demise of MacUser and the changing of MacWEEK, not just sagging Mac market share. Then again, there's also the conspiracy theory approach to the latest news, which involves linking Byte's admission that Power Macs are faster than Pentium II systems to their sudden shutdown. Suppose Intel pulled a few strings to keep them quiet?

Those wacky feds are at it again! This time they're going after the other half of the "Wintel" hegemony, as the Federal Trade Commission prepares to launch an antitrust lawsuit against Intel for allegedly using their 85% share of the personal computer processor market to squelch competition in the chipmaking field. The recommendation for the suit could come as early as tomorrow. A Bloomberg News article has the gory details.

If this Intel suit comes to pass, expect its structure to echo that of the current conflict between the Department of Justice and Microsoft; first, they'll probably file a small suit focused on a specific instance of anticompetitive behavior, and they'll extend that case outward into a broader antitrust case over time. The FTC case against Intel will most likely be springboarded off of the current private suit by Intergraph, who sued Intel for witholding technical information to prevent Intergraph from competing successfully in the graphics chip market. In addition, the FTC suit will probably address the way in which Intel has been changing the motherboard interface for its chips (the Pentium II apparently uses a proprietary connector) in what seems to be an attempt to force other chipmakers out of the running.

While we at AtAT are always happy to bring another lawsuit on board, we've gotta say, this one looks to be kind of dull, despite its potential far-reaching consequences. After all, when you've got Microsoft up there in court claiming flat-out that they don't know how to uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows 95, that's real entertainment value. Somehow we just doubt that we're going to see anything that interesting come up in this possible Intel case. C'mon, guys-- surprise us!