Wow, look at the line of companies waiting to complain about ways in which Microsoft has unfairly prevented them from competing in the software market! It goes darn near all the way around the block! And who's next to file a grievance? Why, it's RealNetworks, those wacky guys who brought us RealAudio and RealPlayer. Let's watch as chief executive Rob Glaser, a former longtime Microsoft employee himself, tells Orrin Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee that Microsoft released rival internet sound and video software that, when installed, causes RealPlayer to stop functioning. Flip channels over to Reuters for the whole sordid drama (but be sure to flip back!).

Glaser would appear to have an airtight complaint; he demonstrated a system loaded with RealPlayer and showed that everything worked properly. Then, as the committee watched, he installed Microsoft's competing Windows Media Player product. When he next tried to run RealPlayer again, the system simply displayed a Microsoft error message. Sounds pretty clear-cut, right? First product works, competing product is installed, first product no longer works. Yet immediately after this simple concept was demonstrated live to the committee, Microsoft waited for Glaser to leave the room and then, in a grand display of their internationally-renowned unmitigated gall, released a statement "denying that its product disables RealPlayer." Despite the fact, of course, that the whole committee had just seen it happen.

But as if that all weren't entertaining enough, Microsoft (who wasn't even actually present at the proceedings) obliged by injecting a serious soap opera slant into the whole matter; shortly after Glaser's demonstration, one senator produced an affadavit from Microsoft executive Paul Maritz. It contained a sworn statement by Maritz claiming that Glaser had "promised not to testify" before Hatch's anti-Microsoft committee if "an agreement between the two companies" could be reached before the hearing was scheduled to start. Hmmm... Is Microsoft accusing RealNetworks of deliberately sabotaging their own product not to work after Windows Media Player is installed, in order to claim anticompetitive action on Microsoft's part? The plot thickens...

Recent speculation of a serious G3 shortage in the coming months would appear to be unfounded, at least if Apple is to be believed. According to a MacWEEK article, Apple spokeswoman Nathalie Welch officially pronounces that Apple "foresees no shortage" of desktop systems in the near future, even if those August 1st price cuts increase demand.

The article also states that only three desktop models are in production right now, one each in flavors of 233, 266, and 300 MHz. Previously, Apple had more configurations flowing into the channel, but they recently quietly discontinued them in order to let the inventory be bought up before the release of its new pro-level G3 systems, now expected in September. If it all works out, Apple's looking at what could be the most successful transition to a new product line in its mottled history; older Power Macs should be just about gone in time for the introduction of the iMac for consumers and the new pro machines a few weeks later. No huge inventory of discontinued machines sitting in warehouses to be written off at the end of the quarter.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that Apple is trying to avoid a "run on the bank" by assuring us all that there are plenty of G3's to go around, when in fact supply may be drying up faster than the spiked punch bowl at Mac the Knife's annual Christmas Party and Holiday Bingefest. It may all be a ploy to prevent panicked buyers from exacerbating the situation by trying to stockpile as many Power Macs as possible before there are none left to be had, even for ready money. You'll have to judge for yourself. If you were planning to buy a new Power Mac in August, should you move up your plans, or just assume that supply won't be a problem? I guess what we're asking is, do ya feel lucky, punk?

So, did Apple really conspire to force MacWEEK to change its focus? That's the question put forth in a recent WIRED News article. Conspiracy theorists the world over whisper that Apple was hacked off one too many times by the weekly Mac publication, who frequently ran high-profile stories revealing information about Apple projects that Apple wanted kept under wraps. Indeed, we at AtAT weren't the only ones who frequently referred to the magazine as "MacLEAK;" an ex-staff member even recalls Cupertino dumpster-diving forays meant to uncover top secret info in Apple's garbage. (Instead of just emptying their Trash, we suppose Apple should have been Burn-ing their documents.)

A 30% decline in advertising revenue was reportedly a huge factor in MacWEEK's decision to rechristen their print publication as "eMediaWeekly," which will focus on digital content creation in a platform-agnostic manner. The drop in advertising dollars resulted in part because of the Mac's shrinking market, but primarily because of the sudden guillotining of the cloners, who, since they had Apple doing most of their R&D, had plenty of funds to funnel into buying big splashy ads in MacWEEK designed to cannibalize Apple's existing market base. (Not that we didn't like the ads-- Power Computing's were brilliant, in particular.) And in addition to ad revenue going bye-bye, MacWEEK also had to contend with Steve "Steel Clamp" Jobs' crackdown on corporate moles who were leaking sensitive information to the press. Once the flow of juicy info all but dried up, MacWEEK had to rethink its direction. And Apple fully admits that they're pleased about that.

So was it a secret conspiracy or not? As you are all painfully aware, we at AtAT are the undisputed masters of finding conspiracies where only the most tenuous of indications exists. (For those of you who still don't believe that Bill Gates is tracking your online shopping habits and frequently-visited web sites via hidden functionality in Internet Explorer, just wait. The truth is out there.) And yet, our "Oliver Stone sense" just isn't tingling on this one. Sure, Apple's happy that MacWEEK won't be broadcasting their trade secrets to the rest of the world anymore, but who wouldn't be? To see a conspiracy here, you'd have to believe that Apple plugged its leaks and killed the cloners all as steps in an elaborate and fiendish plan whose ultimate goal was the elimination of MacWEEK and the exacting of their revenge. Hmmm, actually, on second thought, that's not half bad...