I've been catching up on podcasts lately (spending a lot of time in the car driving between jobs) and, last night, I caught part of the [latest episode](http://macnotables.com/archives/2006/674.html) of [MacNotables](http://macnotables.com/), which featured host Chuck Joiner, [MacObserver](http://www.macobserver.com/) editor, Bryan Chaffin and insufferable know-it-all [Andy Ihnatko](http://www.cwob.com/yellowtext/) all reacting to Apple's Showtime announcements of last week. They discuss many things, but what sticks out in my mind is a comment both Bryan and Andy made regarding the distribution of feature films through the new iTunes Store.

Basically, both Andy and Bryan said that they don't see why anyone would buy movies in this way, at this price. Andy feels that, for just a little more money, customers can get the extra content found on an DVD and that the chief benefit of the iTS, purchasing single tracks of music instead of entire albums, doesn't apply to movies. Bryan chimed in, saying that he thinks digital video is a good idea, but that Apple's prices are too high.

I wonder what the two of them think of Disney's [announcement](http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060919:MTFH56918_2006-09-19_16-45-09_N19399790&type=comktNews&rpc=44) today that they have:
>...sold 125,000 movie downloads worth $1 million in revenue through Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes online music store during the offering's first week.

That seems like a lot to me. I guess people *do* like it. Let me say this: I didn't buy a single one of those 125,000 movies.

My math says that 125,000 x 52 = 6,500,000, is a lot of movies. That's one movie for each resident of El Salvador, for example. Or, put another way, three movies for every Kuwati citizen. How about this: If you stacked that many DVDs up, the flat way, the pile would be a hair under 58 miles high.

Obviously, *someone* is buying them.

First there was Apple... and it was Good.

Then, Steve Jobs announced the Macintosh... and it was Very Good.

Then came a dark time, a time when Steve was thrown out from Apple and other, *lesser* men did their best. But, sadly, their best was not good enough, so things were no longer Very Good. They weren't even Good. They were the opposite, actually, and many pundits began to countdown the days until Apple would fall.

Then, gloriously, Steve returned to Apple and brought with him the iMac. Things were, overnight, Good again. And, as time passed, Apple released (in no particular order) G3's, G4's, G5's, new iMacs, even newer iMacs, Power Macs, iSights, MacBooks, and, most famously, the iPod. Then things were, once again, Very, Very good, and many pundits began to predict that Apple would achieve a success unlike anything which came before.

But... um... things are different now. I know that Apple is currently riding a huge wave of success. I know that Jobs is a media darling and that, when Apple announces that new iPods will have higher capacities and come in different colors, the news makes the main stream media. I know that Apple's online music media store is the most successful on the internet and that it seems as though they can do no wrong.

Then why do I have this ucky feeling in the pit of my stomach?

I can remember precisely when the feeling first appeared. In January of 2005, at Macworld Expo, Steve [unveiled](http://news.com.com/Apple+unveils+499+PC/2100-7354_3-5532008.html) the Mac mini, a sub-$500 computer that shipped without keyboard, mouse or display. At the time, I remember being impressed by the low price but, when I examined the specifications, I realized that, in lowering cost so far, Apple had sacrificed too much; that the mini was an underwhelming computer, a loss-leader – dare I say it? – a gimmick.

The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that nobody would ever really want to use the mini for any realistic purpose. Sure, some techno-geeks might build one into their home theater, and some inexperienced computer novice may walk into an Apple retail store to check out the whole "Mac thing" and end up with an impulse mini to replace the eMachine they use to check their email. But, really now, do *you* know anyone who uses a mini for day-to-day computing?

I disagreed with his vitriol at the time, but now I think that [Bill Palmer](http://www.billpalmer.net/2005/01/apple-can-take-its-idiot-box-and-stick.html) was right about this all along. I'll just come out and say it: I think that the mini was a mistake. Apple caved in to pressure (the source of which I will get to in a minute) to compete in the bargain-PC category and released an under-powered machine designed to be cheap, as opposed to good.

I spend a lot of time in Apple retail stores and see a lot of people buy Macs. And, yes, I have seen some of them buy minis. But, consider this: Apple retail store employees encourage customers to buy AppleCare along with their machines (which makes a lot of sense. I own AppleCare on each of the Macs in my life) and most customers follow this advice. However, in all the time I've spent in stores, I've *never* seen a customer buy AppleCare for a Mac mini.

This suggests to me that the only reason anyone ever buys a mini is because of its price. It's usually the customer with no money who skips on the AppleCare. If you don't believe me, head down to your local store and ask. Here's the point: the mini is a lousy product that nobody would ever buy if they could afford a more expensive machine.

Why am I discussing this now? Because I'm afraid that the announcement of the iTV points in the same direction. Both the mini and the iTV are products that people have been clamoring for for a long time. Lots and lots of people wanted Apple to make a cheap computer and lots more want an Apple set-top box. But, I've always said, Apple doesn't just make things because people want them. When Apple tries to give the people what they want, you end up with stillborn crap like the ROKR and the mighty mouse, not magical gear like the iPod.

Apple's strength has always been in designing products that we don't even know we want until we see them. Nobody clamored for hard drive-based MP3 players, but the iPod was a runaway hit. Nobody complained on message boards for free photo-cataloging software, but now *everyone* uses iPhoto.

There have been products for runners to use to track their progress for a long time. But, in three months, Apple sold 450,000 Nike+iPod kits. Almost a half-million of them in ninety days! That's remarkable when you consider the fact that, the day before they were announced, people would have scoffed at the idea of a product that required you to purchase new shoes and an MP3 player just to do what a $19 pedometer has been able to do for fifty years.

But when people clamor for an iApp to make websites, we get iWeb, a mediocre application that can, sort of, make nice sites, as long as you want one that looks a certain way and is hosted by .mac. When people beg for products, Apple has to abandon the creative process that is its most powerful asset and instead design things according to focus group input. As a matter of fact, iWeb is a great illustration of this idea: People asked for it, and it's just OK. Nobody saw GarageBand coming, and it's the best-of-breed, a revolutionary product.

Now, it's possible that all I am really saying is that Apple is more impressive with products that nobody expects. That when there are no expectations to meet, new products are more impressive. But, I don't think that's the case. I think that Apple is always going to be more successful when they have the initiative. When new products are designed on Apple's terms, not anyone else's.

The iTV may be the greatest thing on earth. But, if it is, I'll be surprised.

Seth has said before, many times, that MacMove is not a news site. There are plenty of sites online which cover Apple news, Mac news, iPod news, etc., *ad naseum*, so we here at MacMove try to avoid that arena, focusing instead on information that will help you use your Mac more effectively.

That being said, I'm going to write something news-related and hope that Seth doesn't mind.

[Ed. note: So far so good. -Seth]

Right now, as I write this, the MacWeb is beside itself in frenzy, because of Apple's special Media Event scheduled for today. Apple has announced that, "It's Showtime!" and, despite the facts that 1) nobody really knows what that means and 2) Apple will tell us all in due time, later today, everyone is still running around in circles, trying to interpret which of the [rumors](http://www.tuaw.com/2006/09/11/tuaw-its-showtime-predictions/) (iTunes movie store! "Real" video iPod! Flying MacBooks! Steve Jobs is a Broadway producer!) is most likely to be true.

I don't care about any of that. [Ed. note: Me neither! -Seth] As I've said, in due time, the news will be announced. What I do care about, though, is a serious news story that's been lost in the shuffle because, unfortunately, it's complex.

I'm referring to the recent uproar over a supposed demonstration of a hack that makes Macs vulnerable to attack via wireless networks.

I don't want to take the time rehash the whole thing, because John Gruber, who has been investigating this story for some time, has posted an excellent series of pieces on his weblog. You should head over to his site, [Daring Fireball](http://www.daringfireball.net), to read his [most recent essay](http://daringfireball.net/2006/09/lies_damned_lies_and_macbook_wifi_hacks) on the subject, then click through his links to read the background.

For those of you too lazy to do so, here's a brief synopsis:

1. A couple of guys demonstrated the ability to log in to a MacBook wirelessly, from another computer. However, the MacBook they targeted was using a third-party wireless card and not the internal Airport card.

2. They then demonstrated that they could create, rename and delete files on that MacBook via their wireless, remote connection.

3. There exists some controversy on the web as to whether or not they actually did what they demonstrated, though Gruber believes that they did. However, the question which bothers Gruber (and me, and others) is this: Can they reproduce the attack on a MacBook using the stock, internal Airport card?

4. Gruber issued a [challenge](http://daringfireball.net/2006/09/open_challenge) to the would-be hackers, betting them a MacBook (US $1,099) that they couldn't hack their way into an fresh-from-the-box MacBook that they had not prepared in some way.

The news that people seem to have missed is that Gruber's challenge has gone unanswered. Now, thankfully, the original "demonstration" didn't get much play in the general media. That is, CNN didn't run any top-of-the-hour headlines that Macs are vulnerable to attack. However, among the geek community online (of which I am a proud member), that is exactly what many people think.

Now, Gruber admits that the fact...
>that they didn’t accept the challenge does not mean they haven’t found an exploit that works against the built-in MacBook AirPort card...

But, from where I sit, it's looking like the hacker's inability to "put their MacBook where their mouth is" is to be interpreted as an admission of defeat. I really hope I'm not wrong about this. But, for the time being, I think we can all assume that Macs are safe from this threat that most people never heard of to begin with.

Tell your friends.

MacMove reader **Isaac** asks:

>My mother just inherited my brother's old iBook, with a new hard drive. How do we go about moving all of her music from her desktop PC to the iBook?

That's a good question - one that lots of people ask. So, we're going to tackle it right here on the site!

##Basic Outline##
The process is pretty simple. In basic terms, all you are going to do is copy the folder containing the music from the PC to the iBook. Now, there are some details to take care of, but the process itself is straight-forward.

Let's deal with the actual transfer first. A music library is nothing more than a folder containing sub-folders which hold music. Now, there are probably a lot of songs in your Mom's music library, so we're talking about *a lot* of data; probably gigabytes. So, we're not going to just email these files or put them on a CD. But, not to worry: there are two different methods to move this much data between computers, and both are pretty simple.

##Options##
One choice is to create a network between the two machines (if you don't have one already) then use file-sharing to move the music. Another is to use an external hard drive as a temporary home for the music files.

The first solution takes some doing. It's not hard, but it is complex. Luckily, Apple has a walk-through available [here](http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107083). So, that's that. The other option, an external hard drive (which Isaac ended up using) is much simpler. Just place all of the music onto the drive from the PC then copy it onto the Mac (remembering to then remove it from the external drive once you verify it's all working on the iBook). You see, Macs can use the same external hard drives that Windows PCs do, so that's a piece of cake.

##Get Organized##
Now, there is a setting in iTunes that will make this all easier: In the Advanced tab of the iTunes Preferences window, select the "Keep iTunes Music folder organized" checkbox. This is probably already checked, but make sure. This setting will automatically place all of the music files on your computer (Mac or PC) into a formal structure of folders and sub-folders for you. I can't think of any reason why this would be a bad thing, and it makes the migration of your music much easier.

##The Move##
Once you have verified that your music is all in once place, the transfer is a snap. Where is that "one place?" Well, your iTunes Music folder is a folder named "iTunes Music" in ~/Music/iTunes/ (where the tilde "~" represents your home directory). In Windows, the default location is: \Documents and Settings\username\My Documents\My Music\iTunes. Simply copy that folder ("iTunes Music") onto your external drive and then onto the second machine from there. Then, on the new computer, place it exactly where it used to be, so iTunes will know where to find it.

NOTE: if there is more than one folder with the name "iTunes Music" in that magic spot, your computer will balk. Like the Highlander, there can be only one... iTunes Music folder. So, before you blindly copy your music onto the second machine, make sure you have moved or renamed the folder that you're replacing. If you don't, it will be erased to make room for the new one.

Everything should be fine, as long as you haven't launched iTunes on the second machine anytime during the transfer. Once the files are in place, go ahead an launch the program; it should see the new iTunes Music folder at startup and –presto!– you've got your old music library on your new machine.

As always, if anything here is unclear or you run into problems, let us know, via email or in a comment. Good luck!

David Morgenstern, a writer over at eWeek, [thinks](http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1995591,00.asp?kc=EWEWKEMLP080306WBS1) that if you take Apple's amazing [Q3 financials](http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jul/19results.html) and add the promise of upcoming product announcements, you get the promise of what he calls a "windfall" for Apple over the next year-and-a-half:

>Along with the new Intel models, the Mac market will be bolstered early in 2007 by the arrival of Mac OS X "Leopard" (v10.5) and later in the spring with Intel-compatible versions of major Mac software platforms, such as the Adobe Creative Suite 3 products.

He goes on to contrast this exciting time for Apple with the fact that Microsoft's increasing [delay of the launch of Vista](http://news.com.com/Vista+debut+hits+a+delay/2100-1016_3-6052270.html), making an observation that I can personally corroborate; I have seen this exact scenario play out at my local Apple Retail store:

>With Vista missing the holiday and back-to-school seasons, many customers are buying Macs. A family in my neighborhood has been all PC since the PC XT. But the eldest son is going off to college and says he wants a Mac. It's the vanguard of a new generation gap. He's never owned a Mac but he's gotta have one—a good sign for Apple.

The article is a good read, with solid business analysis and an interesting review of Apple's last two major transisitons tossed in for good measure. Check it out!