This is nonsense and misleading news and it's unbelievable Autoblog bought it hook, line and sinker. The BMW press release says 1900 M cars were "delivered" in November 2008. "Delivered" - that's an interesting choice of word, isn't it. Is "delivered" the same as "sold"? Note the the rest of the press release talks about cars being sold but suddenly shifts to this opaque "delivered" language when it talks about November 2008. I'll bet good money that "delivered"
means just that, the numbers of cars that were handed over to customers in November and NOT the number of cars actually sold or sales contracts signed in that month. Given that the entire BMW operation, M division included, saw its sales fall 25.4% in November 2008 compared to last year, it's highly unlikely that M sales also didn't take a hit. Shame on BMW for putting out this misleading puff
piece and slap on the wrist for Autoblog for buying this cock-and-bull story without appropriate skepticism.

And once again, Apple apologists believe any story no matter how implausible it is. "Automated e-mail systems" is REALLY the reason for the stonewalling and back-up-back-down seesaw? Neither Apple or Nullriver communicated by email before this incident? They're only now suddenly discovering that their email servers are trashing each other's emails? Neither Apple & Nullriver have phones? Absolute poppycock. You believe this then let me show you my dog who regularly eats my homework. Nullriver obviously got Apple angry for its legitimate yet public and vocal disapproval of Apple's high-handedness. Apple pushed back and Nullriver is backtracking. It's not good business to bite the hand of your master who controls your distribution channel.

Of course, Apple apologists deliberately miss the point when they say the application was "obviously" illegal and Nullriver shouldn't have been surprised that it was pulled. If it was so obviously illegal, then why the heck did Apple put it back up for sale over and over and pulling it? That fact alone blows a hole in the notion that this app was plainly forbidden.

And besides, entirely separate from whether this app was illegal or not is the basic courtesy to a developer to provide an EXPLANATION. If it was a a violation, then Apple should have said so immediately.

Does no one understand the concept of a post-holiday lull? OF COURSE sales dropped from January to February! Sales of EVERYTHING drops from January to February. It's ridiculous to compare sales from month-to-month because there are too many variables. The useful comparison is year-to-year, Jan 2007 sales vs. January 2008 sales. That's what companies do when they report their earnings: it's not meaningful to compare 1st quarter results versus 4th quarter results, the only comparison that's valid is the SAME quarter from different years. Jesus Christ, so much handwringing over nothing!

Wow. Just wow. I am flat out blown away by the ofuscation, obliviousness and abject self-justification in TUAW's original post. I had always thought this site had some measure of perspective about Apple but this post fulfills every stereotype about Apple fanboyism. When Microsoft does it, it's bad. When Apple does it, it's fine, why are you complaining, Apple software is good for you, you should be grateful Apple is pushing its great products onto you. I am simply stunned by some of the pathetic excuses endorsed by TUAW. Among them:

1) Two wrongs make a right. I love this one. Even if what Apple does is bad, hey, Microsoft does it even WORSE. So there. Shut up and don't complain about Apple. Because you know, Microsoft is even more evil.

2) Apple software is so good, who care if you didn't seek it out? It's good!

3) Because Apple announced it was going to do this, it's therefore OK. Um, does at TUAW see the huge yawning gap in logic here? If a practice is bad, announcing you're going to do it doesn't make it any better. Right. I'll buy that, along with the bridge spanning the East River.

TUAW mentions but never responds to Mozilla's point that a so-called "updater", which is commonly understood to mean a program that keeps software you already have installed up-to-date, now adds software that you don't have installed. I guess even TUAW was too embarrassed at trying to twist the English language and justify how it's OK for an updater to add new, unrelated software to the system.

Good job, TUAW, for fulfilling every caricature about Mac zealotry!

Copa, +1.

How many times have we seen Joystiq criticize CNN or Fox News turning to Jack Thompson as an "expert" every time a teenager shoots someone? Yet, when Thompson offers M&A financial advice, a subject matter on which he indisputably has ZERO expertise, it's news? When Old Media does it, it's wrong. When Joystiq does it, it's upholding the sacred principles of journalism.

Ludwig Kietzmann:

Joystiq's response is circular. Essentially, it boils down to, because Jack Thompson has garnered a lot of press in the past, anything he says or does, no matter how irrelevant or tangential, is hereafter newsworthy. This is the same kind of logic that leads to press coverage of Britney Spears' trip to Starbucks. I happen to think Spears' custody or mental health issues are newsworthy and should be covered by the press because they touch on a whole bunch of legal and social issues. But trips to Starbucks or Fred Segal aren't newsworthy, they're gossip. The fact that Britney Spears was involved doesn't make them any more newsworthy or any less gossip. They're fine for sites that are devoted to gossip but not for self-proclaimed "news" sites.

The same goes with Thompson. Some of his stuff is newsworthy. Most aren't. Thompson's offer to lend his expertise and support to help close a complex, multibillion takeover offer? I'm sorry but when did Thompson because an authority on mergers and acquisitions? Hey, I have some thoughts about Microsoft and Yahoo. If I send out a press release, can you cover that too?

And the "you can choose to ignore it" reply is a BS dodge and obfuscation. The issue isn't whether the item can be avoided easily; it's whether the item meets the standards that merit whether or not it should be published on a site practicing good journalism. If Joystiq wants to traffic in gossip, that's fine. But Joystiq can't have it both ways, wanting the access and respect accorded professional journalists, which carries the obligation of exercising the judgment of professionals, and also traffic in gaming gossip muck.

Why doesn't Joystiq exercise its editorial judgment and stop reporting on every move by Thompson? Isn't it obvious to the brain trust that he does this for publicity and attention? Is Joystiq starved for real news or is it lazy? His statements and actions are no more newsworthy than the crackpot who files a lawsuit suing the CIA for staging the moon landing. Just because a nut files lawsuits and shoots off rants doesn't mean it has to be covered. I'm sure Joystiq gets lots of emails from crazies which it chooses wisely and appropriately to ignore. So why does Thompson get a free pass? The fact the sun rose in the east this morning isn't news. Neither is Thompson writing a letter to a gaming company. So why does Joystiq report the latter?

I'm more baffled by the requirements you must start watching the movie within 30 days. If there's a reasonable reason for the 30-day window, I have yet to hear it. Why should it matter when I start to watch a movie renting it? Unlike with physical copies, keeping the movie on my computer for two months doesn't hinder anyone else from renting it as well. Apple and the studios get their money upfront at the time of rental. And the movie still expires within X number of hours/days after it is begun.

Xbit Labs doesn't know what it's talking about. Assuming that the transfer covenant doesn't contain other restrictions, an interested buyer of AMD can easily get around it by structuring the deal so that legally, AMD is the acquirer or it's a merger of equals (assuming that the covenants don't contain other restrictions). This is a trivial "problem" and Engadget is foolish for blindly endorsing it.

Tony,

I think people are surprised because not implementing rentals on older iPods seems closer in spirit to Apple making iTunes Plus tracks available only on certain iPods. Plus, this is different from what Apple has ever done in the past because, for the first time, it's restricting HOW you can buy stuff on iTunes. Before, you were restricted on WHAT you could transfer - if you didn't have a video-capable iPod, you obviously couldn't transfer a tv show onto it. But now, certain iPods can buy and rent but other iPods can only buy? That's like saying this model iPod can only buy individual episodes but it can't buy the season pass. It really fragments the cohesiveness of the iTunes experience.

Now, if it turns out the reason older iPods can't rent is because they're missing an authentication chip, then it is a hardware problem and there's not much Apple can do firmware-wise to fix it. But it's still a shame that the rental model uses a system that requires a hardware component not available the vast majority of video-playing iPods out there. And that's because of the beloved MPAA. Just when DRM finally seems to be dying with music, the movie industry is still obsessed with it and look at the stupidity it produces; fragmented markets and alienated consumers.