On Monday afternoon, Apple released a fixer-upper to address screen distortion and flickering problems with some 27-inch iMacs. So far, the response has been mixed. Some who had the problem report that the symptoms are gone, while others still report them. I never had the problem, but ran the update anyway without any adverse impact.

In its release notes, Apple also suggests: “If your screen remains black after applying the updater or if you continue to experience image corruption or display flickering after successfully completing this update, contact AppleCare or an Apple Authorized Service Provider.”

This makes it clear that they don’t expect the firmware update to address all of the problems, but it’ll be up to the repair centers to deal with the rest. It may require replacing your iMac’s flat panel display or the entire computer, and that’s up to your dealer. I suppose if you just bought your iMac, getting another will be easier, particularly if you bought it direct from Apple, but a fix is a fix.

Now it’s also true that firmware upgrades are rather draconian in nature. It’s not as if you can back out and reinstall the older version, as you can with an OS or app upgrade (although I suppose it is possibly in some cases), so if the upgrade fails, your Mac is toast. That said, I haven’t heard any complaints so far, except from the people for whom the fix isn’t successful. I also notice that the number of reports of troubles in Apple’s discussion forums has dropped considerably in recent days, which seems to indicate that fewer and fewer people continue to experience problems with their new iMacs.

Make no mistake about it! I’m one of those inveterate early adopters. I tend to install most everything that comes my way in terms of a needed upgrade, particularly because I want to speak about them in a knowledgeable fashion on the radio show or in a Night Owl post. While a few upgrade files from third-party products haven’t fared so well, I have not encountered any difficulties with Apple’s products, even in the dark days of System 7 where mediocrity ruled.

My hard-worn advice, however, is for you to observe caution unless the update contains a critical fix that is seriously impacting your workflow. It’s usually a good idea to check the various troubleshooting sites — or even Apple’s forums — to see if there are any reports that the update breaks more than it fixes. Even if the file shows up in Software Update, you aren’t forced to run it. You can simply wait for those responses to pour in and accept the installation later on.

Understand, however, that someone, somewhere, will report a problem with just about anything that’s released. On occasion, it’s not so much a defect in the update as with a single or small number of systems that have had an unknown number of changes or ongoing abuse. There’s really no way to know, as the messages are usually not clear about such matters, so it’s best to look at a number of comments before you decide something is fatally flawed.

While there are some folk remedies in preparing for an upgrade, what you should do is pretty simple. You can’t really do anything about a firmware update that might, in a rare circumstances, brick your Mac, other than to have a backup on an external drive or network share in case the computer requires repair to undo the damage.

When it comes to software updates, performing a backup first ought to be sufficient. Unfortunately, Time Machine, while a great idea, doesn’t really give you an rapid way to roll back an entire system should the update fail. Individual files or applications, however, can be restored. Maybe that’s the feature that Apple ought to consider for 10.7. There was actually a third-party utility that promised to perform a rollback in the days of the Classic Mac OS, but it never worked properly.

Nowadays, you can use your Time Machine or a clone backup to restore your Mac completely, but it can take several hours to accomplish. But a recent backup is far better than no backup.

You may also want to run the Verify Disk function in Disk Utility to make sure your hard drive is healthy. But repairing disk permissions is of questionable value. If you do have a permissions issue, it would previously manifest itself by being unable to launch or properly use an application or open a file. Just doing so won’t cause any harm, but it won’t really make the update process any safer.

If you wish to run Repair Disk Permissions after the update, I suppose that won’t hurt either, though there’s little chance it’ll make a failed update suddenly function. As to those various repair utilities, such as Cocktail and Leopard Cache Cleaner, there are things they fix that might help make your Mac run more reliably, particularly if you have done lots of system tweaks. But I would check the documentation first to make sure that you are running fixes that will really make a difference.

In the end, I remain pretty confident when it comes to Apple. They certainly screw up from time to time, and maybe more than we like. But if something breaks, they will usually do the right thing and make the needed repairs to your hardware or software.

I can start this discussion with just one word, and that’s iTablet, or iPad, or whatever Apple will choose to call that presumed tablet-based computer. But the question remains whether there’s a need for such a product in the real world, regardless of the rampant speculation and all those rising expectations.

It’s not whether or not it would be a cool product, but whether it would be cool enough for millions of people to buy during its first year on sale. If that’s not the case, it makes little sense whatever for Apple to build them, and I don’t pretend to know the answer. I’m sure that Apple will do the appropriate level of market research to decide what direction to take.

As for me, an Apple tablet just isn’t high on my agenda, unless it would be a suitable replacement for my 17-inch MacBook Pro. Alas, since the screen size estimates are closer to the 10-inch range, I need plenty of convincing. The things such a product would do well, such as being able to display books and magazines, don’t interest me all that much. I’m still a print guy, so I don’t think I’m necessarily the target user.

However, Apple has a habit of taking existing product categories and making them seem new and different. A couple of months ago, I didn’t seriously consider replacing my Mac Pro with an iMac; that is, until the 27-inch version came out with the option of an Intel quad-core i7 processor. Suddenly the equation changed for me, meaning that my biannual desktop system upgrades will be a whole lot cheaper, not to mention the greatly reduced heat buildup in my office.

The iMac has been the hero of Apple’s fall product lineup, with the NPD Group reporting huge sales increases, and that, probably more than any lingering screen display glitches, is the cause of the ongoing product shortage. Besides, Apple has just released a downloadable fix for the 27-inch iMac line that “updates the graphics firmware on ATI Radeon HD 4670 and 4850 graphics cards to address issues that may cause image corruption or display flickering.”

Now that Apple has the form factor in place, no doubt 2010 will see continued performance boosts as newer Intel chips come out. I’m also wondering whether Apple will amaze us all and provide room for a second internal drive, and perhaps an eSATA port for high performance external devices in the next revision. That is if they don’t simply jump to USB 3.0 instead, which will offer backwards compatibility with existing devices.

The Mac Pro will likely get its overdue upgrade early in the new year, as soon as those six-core Intel chips are out. The rest of the improvements are apt to be incremental, perhaps with the addition of USB 3.0 and/or eSATA ports for extra devices. It’s also possible Apple will throw out the baby with the bath water and build a new version that uses the latest developments in miniaturization to install the same guts in a much smaller case. It would surely be the politically correct thing to do, plus it’ll make the product less daunting to transport.

Since Apple revised the note-book form factors last year, I expect changes will also be mostly of the speedbump variety. As Intel gets more and more low-power quad-core chips into production, some will surely find their way into certain MacBook Pro configurations. Yes, there are quad-core mobile chips out now. You can get them on some PC note-books, but you have to put up with higher heat generation and significantly reduced battery life.

I do not expect to see Apple adhere to my suggestions and make the expanded life battery easier to remove. As some of our commenters have suggested, Apple is protecting the environment by forcing you to go to a dealer for a battery replacement, so they can dispose of the spent batteries in the safest fashion.

The fourth generation iPhone will like be here by summer. There are already reports that Apple has reserved the end of June for the start of the WWDC, a good place to introduce the newest iPhone and OS 4.0.

As to the iPhone upgrade, perhaps the biggest expected change will be a multicore chip, with more internal memory, as opposed to increasing maximum storage to 64GB. At the same time, I would hope Apple will manage to increase battery life some, although it’s not bad now. The huge story though, stems from the belief that Apple’s exclusive deal with AT&T will expire around that timeframe, which paves the way for other carriers to carry the iPhone.

Therein lies the tale. Will Apple build a CDMA version tailored to the requirements of Verizon Wireless? Or just provide a version that will operate with the compatible GSM network on T-Mobile. While T-Mobile doesn’t have the 3G coverage of AT&T, where they do apparently offer more reliable service, not to mention charging a lot less money. Do we really need Verizon?

Past the tablet computer, genuine Apple innovations remain an open question. Will Apple find a way to make Apple TV come into its own, or even accede to the requests from some that they build a large screen TV? Certainly the 27-inch iMac takes us far into that direction.

Then there’s Mac OS 10.7. As Snow Leopard approaches its first year anniversary, you have to expect Apple to be readying its successor. More to the point, it will clearly be a feature upgrade, and thus maybe it’s time we bring back the Night Owl’s official 10.7 wish list.

In a little over two and a half weeks since first setting up a 27-inch iMac, custom ordered with the Intel quad-core i7 processor, I have to say that I’m not suffering from any of those niggling bugs reported by some. The images don’t flicker, there’s no band of yellow or other indications of potentially defective hardware.

I can also understand why this new model lineup has been hugely popular with Mac users. At a time when note-books were getting all the love, surveys have shown a tremendous demand for the iMac. Most people who have them are just getting things done rather than fretting over problems.

However, nothing is perfect, and I’ve found a few minor glitches along the way.

One that is particularly troubling is the way my Bose Companion 5 multimedia speaker system, which connects to the USB port, is handled when the iMac drops into sleep mode. Sometimes it’s fine, sometimes the sound just switches off because the speaker has been placed in its own idle mode.

Continue Reading…

A friend and colleague suggests to me that the reason you have antitrust lawsuits is not to protect the public’s interests, but to give lawyers lots of highly-profitable work. While I understand the need to earn a living, especially in these troubling times, that comment raises the question whether anyone benefits from going after companies that are allegedly abusive.

Just recently, the European Union accepted Microsoft’s ballot box proposal, where customers would be able to easily select and install alternative browsers. That was designed to protect the unwary public in Europe from having Internet Explorer forced down their throats and conclude an antitrust action. While I am certainly in favor of freedom of choice, it does appear the marketplace is already speaking when it comes to browsers.

Consider that Internet Explorer, which once held an over 90% share, is now down to approximately 60% overall without ballot boxes. That means that 40% of Internet surfers have decided to let their fingers do the walking and they have selected Firefox, and in lesser numbers, Google Chrome, Apple Safari and Opera. It doesn’t appear that the tepid updates to Internet Explorer have been able to stem the tide, just as Microsoft’s new Bing search engine hasn’t halted Google’s growth path.

This isn’t to say the ballot box concept is bad. But it’s restricted to the countries that are part of the EU. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, they still have to make their browser voices heard the old fashioned way. You have to wonder that if this idea is such a good one, why wasn’t it expanded to the rest of the planet? What about the authorities in the U.S.? Oh yes, they ave. already settled with Microsoft, and that wasn’t an option they considered. Oh well, maybe they need some new lawyers to enter the fray and devise some new schemes on billable time.

That takes us to Intel. After agreeing to pay off rival AMD to the tune of $1.25 billion, including legal fees of course, to end a lawsuit, up comes the U.S. Federal Trade Commission with their own wide-ranging complaint.

According to the FTC, Intel has engaged in all sorts of illegal trade practices that, among other ills, prevent customers from benefiting from better graphics chips and hence higher-performing personal computers.

Is any of this relevant in the real world?

Well, consider the state of Intel’s integrated graphics. Apple used to ding PC makers when they built products with what they regarded as inferior graphics capabilities. That was until lesser-priced Intel-based Macs were outfitted with the very same chips.

Now to be fair, basic 2D graphics performance was fairly decent with those chips, until you decided to try a little gaming. Then anything beyond a basic app would choke the graphics processor. Apple’s solution was to replace Intel’s integrated graphics with the NVIDIA 9400M, which has proven to be a revelation. Even the cheapest Mac mini has become a decent performer when it comes to modest gaming, even though you sacrifice some of your built-in memory for display purposes.

However that design may be an endangered species. It has been reported for months that NVIDIA and Intel are embroiled in a licensing dispute over whether those graphics chips can be used with newer Intel CPU designs. Intel says no. NVIDIA says yes, but unless a contract is signed it won’t happen.

Part of that ground is evidently being covered by the FTC action, so if it’s successful, it may well be that the 9400M and its successors will continue to be used in low-end Macs. If not, Apple will be forced to choose inferior parts from Intel, or go to discrete graphics, which will increase production costs somewhat. In the end, if Apple picks the latter, it means lower profits, or a higher retail price. In other words, you pay for Intel’s refusal to continue to license its chip designs to NVIDIA.

There have also been reports that Intel might also be using that strategy as a wedge to force NVIDIA to sell out to them. Up till now, Intel was rated dead last when it comes to graphics chips prowess. This would give them a great opportunity to build a quality product portfolio and perhaps dominate the market even further at the expense of AMD and its ATI subsidiary.

Now if this is Intel’s strategy, I don’t like it. A company shouldn’t be forced to sell out because of such draconian measures, particularly when it involves a dominant player in an industry. While I’m not fan of government intervention, I am also not in favor of using corporate muscle in a way that ultimately hurts customers by restricting choice and perhaps forcing them to pay more for what they buy.

On the other hand, if the past is a guide, Intel will have its high-priced legal eagles thrust and parry to get the best deal they can, after delaying the proceedings as long as possible. So maybe the customer will benefit somewhat in the end with superior products at a lower price. But it’s also possible any settlement will have, at best, a token effect, except for the huge paychecks those lawyers receive.