Hmmm, what's this? It seems that the New York Times has gotten cold feet about letting its online counterpart serialize a novel. According to a ZDNet article, the reasons given are pretty much what you'd expect from the intentionally-stodgy and tradition-focused NYT: The deal's not dead yet, but it's definitely on hold, as the NYT rethinks the consequences of letting its web edition stray further and further from the mold set forth by its long-standing print edition. Apparently the suits at the Times feel that serializing a novel online would compromise the orthodox reputation of the famous newspaper.

We're not at all sure we buy that excuse for the sudden change in plans regarding the novel. The argument that the NYT web site shouldn't wander too far from the "orthodoxy" of the print edition seems a little bizarre to us, but then, we consider it a moral requirement never to read a newspaper that objects to a funnies section on principle. Considering that the dead tree edition only just added color recently, and also foisted the absurdly inappropriate slogan "All the News That's Fit to Print" onto the web edition, we think it's a poor move to restrict the web site to standards that already seem a little too stringent even for the print version.

But here's the fishy bit: the Times has rarely balked at letting the web edition experiment in the past, in order to stay relevant in the online medium. The web version has had comics, original articles, excerpts from novels, and other niceties to keep surfers interested. So why balk at an online novel serialization, which seems hardly more scandalous than allowing (gasp) comics? Well, it turns out that the novel is "loosely" based on the author's experiences at Apple Computer, and it includes two characters that bear a striking resemblance to Steve Jobs and John Sculley. Suppose that our favorite interim CEO made a few phone calls?

Apparently Apple wasn't kidding when it declared war on grey market resellers a short time ago. In a recent news update, SoftClub revealed that, as of August 15th, it will no longer be selling new Apple equipment. The reason? Pressure from Apple's lawyers forced SoftClub to reshape its business strategy, as it "cannot afford to engage Apple in legal matters." Therefore, SoftClub will continue to sell refurbished and discontinued models, but in a couple of weeks, new systems will be a no-no.

We aren't at all familiar with SoftClub or the people who run it, but it is a self-described "small, family-owned business," which certainly implies that it's not the kind of company that can spend thousands on legal fees to resolve an actual lawsuit. That's precisely the kind of company with which big, corporate legal muscle is most effective as a threatening tool. It certainly appears that Apple is getting what it wants with respect to restricting the sale of new Macs and other equipment to "authorized resellers" only.

We at AtAT fully understand Apple's attempts to ensure that equipment be sold through the right channels, but we're a little concerned about the overall consequences of declaring open season on the grey marketers. In the short term, Apple maximizes its own profits from the sale of new systems while making sure that the customer buying experience is acceptable. But what are the long-term effects of such a campaign? SoftClub derived most of its revenue by selling new Apple systems, and now they are forced to consider selling "inferior" Wintel products in order to make up for the income loss. We don't pretend to know why SoftClub isn't an actual authorized reseller, but regardless, it sounds a bit edgy when a vendor who likes Macs is basically forced to sell Wintels instead. Hopefully when Apple gets a bit stronger, it won't be so difficult for people to sell new Apple equipment.

Yeek, just as Apple seems to be getting its own act together by correcting lots of long-standing corporate problems, an article in the San Jose Mercury News reveals that those problems may simply have migrated to Netscape, instead. You know the problems we're talking about: the "not invented here" syndrome, the utter lack of advertising, the unyielding belief that the better product will prevail. Those classic problems are being repaired at Apple, but now it sounds like they may be contributing to Netscape's continuing decline.

While fewer than 5% of Netscape's employees used to be on Apple's payroll, the ones who were seem to be populating some important positions within the company. Unfortunately, several of those positions involve shaping the direction of Netscape's marketing, and observers note a distinct attitude that Netscape's products will succeed entirely on the basis of their technological superiority. And, of course, we all know how well that strategy worked at Apple... And with Apple, it was pretty darn clear that they had (and still have) a palpable technological lead over their competition. With Netscape, it's definitely not as clear; for instance, several AtAT viewers rave about Internet Explorer 4.01, citing impressive features lacking in Netscape's browser. (We're still too paranoid to install it on a mission-critical machine, but we'll probably give it a whirl when it comes pre-loaded on our iMac.)

There are rumors that Netscape is looking to hire an "executive who knows the media business," who could perhaps kick some marketing into high gear before Netscape gets so marginalized it can't claw its way back into the game. Just look at how hard Apple has to struggle, after years of neglecting its marketing strategy. Hopefully "Appleitis" isn't a highly contagious marketing syndrome, or there are going to be a lot of high-tech companies in for a world of hurt...