Weblog of a “Switcher”

Wow, I really never ever expected to see Apple kill Wal-Mart in Music sales to become #1. Wal-Mart is so frecking big and can afford to undercut anyone to make sure they held the lead that I just never ever thought it would happen.

This really makes me wonder if record labels are going to reconsider their position on DRM with Apple.

According to ars technica and the NPD Group, sales numbers for the month of January were: Apple 19%, Wal-Mart 15%, Best Buy 13%, Amazon 6%.

Way to go Apple! Now, I wonder how soon before you get brought to court for being a monopoly. You know it's inevitable.

Update (3pm): AppleInsider reports that the following month (February), they fell right back behind Wal-Mart. However, they also sight:

Given Apple's ongoing and rapid ascent in the retail rankings, it's likely only a matter of months before the company completely erodes whatever lead Wal-mart currently maintains to become the definitive No.1 overall.

So maybe in a couple of months this will be for longer than a single month.

Update (3:30pm): OK, now I just don't know who or what to believe.

Apple posted a press release sometime around 2pm stating that they were #1 in US Music Sales for both January and February. So, I'm stumped. Can anyone shed any light on this?

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Amazon, Apple Music, Ars Technica, Best Buy, Drm, Group Sales, Monopoly, Month Of January, Music Sales, Npd Group, Record Labels, record sales, Sales Numbers, Wal Mart, Wow

I have to admit; as much as I wasn't happy with ars technica's article that I wrote about in my previous post. Mr. Foresman does make a valid point:

Being able to quit Software Update during an update is just not a good idea.

This is a bug, plain and simple. Once the update process has begun, one of two things should happen:

1. The Quit Software Update menu item should be disabled
2. If the user attempts to quit, a dialog should appear telling them that an update is in progress and either...
1. not allow them to quit.
2. allow them to quit, but when it is absolutely safe to do so.

Allowing the user to quit while in the middle of an actual update script is just not a good thing. No matter what is being updated.

Now, the question that comes to mind for me as a software developer, is this something that can be reported as a bug to Apple, or is this something that would go into a feedback bucket. If the later, I get the feeling that it would never get addressed.

I now ask that any developer that is a part of the Apple Developer Program that reads this, could you please make sure that Apple knows about this problem so that it can be addressed. This is really a problem that needs to be fixed and can be fixed fairly easily. There really is no excuse for someone to be able to do serious damage to their installation of OS X just because they accidentally quit Software Update. Thank you in advance!

To Mr. Foresman, please accept my apology for being so harsh on your post at ars technica. Maybe a sensational headline like that will get the attention of someone at Apple and that is certainly a good thing.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Apology, Apple Developer, Apple Software, Ars Technica, Developer Program, Dialog, Excuse, Feedback, Os X, Sensational Headline, Software Developer, Software Update

I usually find most of the articles on "ars technica" pretty informative and well researched. However, this latest bit of "reporting":

An errant Command-Q could leave your Mac unbootable:
By Chris Foresman | Published: March 25, 2008 - 03:02PM CT

Command-Q to Quit. Many of us know that shortcut so well that it's used without conscious thought. The shortcut is even honored with its own t-shirt. But an unfortunate MacOSXHints reader ran into some trouble when he hit Command-Q while installing the latest Safari update.

The update was being installed remotely using Screen Sharing. Software Update was showing the progress before rebooting, so Chris Platts hit Command-Q to quit Screen Sharing. However, the keystroke was sent to the remote machine, causing the update to quit. Since Safari 3.1 included a major WebKit update, applications that relied on WebKit started crashing after the aborted update. Oops.
A manual install of the update package cleared things up. But if an OS X update had been in progress, it could have rendered the machine unbootable. Until Apple puts some kind of protection in place, you'll want to keep your hands off the keyboard while updates are in progress."

Leaves me to wonder if they let anyone willing to write report on their site. I almost get the impression that this author "Chris foresman" has only just started using a Macintosh.

I have been using a Mac since May of 2006. My memory of security updates and OS updates are that they are done in such a way that it's impossible to quit Software Update in the process of the update. Maybe not the download, but the actual update itself. In Leopard, I have seen Software Update download the update, then reboot the computer to do the actual install after the system boots back up but before the OS actually starts up.

If Mr./Mrs. Foresman had actually been using a Mac for longer than a week, I think he/she would actually know this fact and not be reporting that it's possible that an errant Command-Q could destroy your OS
I'm actually surprised that Software Update allowed him to quit his update for Safari 3.1. I thought that when I updated that, my system rebooted and finished the update the same way an OS update does. However, I can't say for sure because I wasn't paying that close attention to the update. Plus, I don't go around pressing Command-Q when I'm doing something as important as a software update anyway.

I do run updates via Screen Sharing to my MacBook which is upstairs. I usually let the updating computer kill the connection to screen sharing or I'll close the window with the mouse. I just don't quit Screen Sharing by trying to use Command-Q. Maybe this is because I use "Chicken of the VNC" and Command-Q doesn't work to quit that program unless you have all connections to other computers closed.

Anyway, I hope that ars technica reads the comments about this questionable post and maybe reviews future articles from Mr./Mrs Foresman before he/she is posted on their site. Articles like this make sites like ars technica look a little amateurish. Much like my blog.

(Via ars technica.)

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Apple, Ars Technica, Author Chris, Keyboard, Keystroke, Macintosh, Macosxhints, March 25, Memory, Mr Mrs, Os Updates, Os X, Platts, Safari, Security Updates, Sharing Software, Software Update, System Boots, T Shirt, Unbootable

Another Get a Mac ad: are they even trying anymore?: "The tone of the commercial also makes Time Machine seem a bit like you will never lose anything again, when in actuality if you create a document and delete it in the same hour Time Machine wont save you, no matter how many cables Mac has coming out of him."

(Via Ars Technica: Infinite Loop.)

This is actually a good point made by Charles Jade (Wasn't he a private-eye from Alpha-verse?). If a user creates a document minutes after Leopard's Time Machine finishes it's backup, then 45 minutes later, he accidently deletes the file and want's to get the file back. He's S.O.L. I guess that's one thing that Microsoft Windows Vista has over Leopard. Vista uses a file versioning system similar to CVS or SubVersion where every time the file is changed, a record of the changes made to the file is recorded. This way, Even if the file was created, then deleted by accident immediately afterward, you would be able to recover the file. Of course you have to have Vista Business or greater in order to take advantage of this feature. Vista Home Premium doesn't have a way of recovering the file. (What were they thinking!)

Even with the above mentioned flaw in Leopard's Time Machine, it's nice that there is a backup system that is basically invisible to the user. Just plug in an external Hard Drive and tell Leopard that it's a Time Machine drive and your finished.

My concern is mostly things like iTunes and iPhoto getting it's data files corrupted. I used to do a daily backup that would overwrite the backup everyday. So if I didn't notice the corruption quick enough, I would loose the files. With Time Machine, I can go back to just before the file was corrupted to recover the file and I'll be good to go.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Actuality, Ars Technica, Backup System, Cables, Corruption, Cvs, External Hard Drive, Guess, Infinite Loop, Iphoto, iTunes, Leopard, Microsoft, Microsoft Windows Vista, Private Eye, Subversion, Time Machine, Vista Home Premium