People who want to run Windows on a Mac are blessed with a difficult choice: Both Fusion and Parallels are outstanding pieces of software. But Parallels has outperformed Fusion in recent speed tests. If VMware’s claims are realistic, Fusion just eliminated performance as a major difference between the two products.

The upgrade is free for Fusion 3 owners, $39.99 for users of previous versions, and $79.99 for new customers.

Until now, almost everyone who’s either reported the tablet as fact or riffed on it as a possibility has assumed it will run the iPhone OS. And that still seems like by far the most likely scenario, since that version of Apple’s OS is optimized for devices that do have touch and don’t have a physical keyboard. But who knows? It’s not unthinkable that Apple might release a Mac tablet, even though it would require the addition of all sorts of touch functionality. If nothing else, OS X already assumes the presence of a high-resolution screen and supports thousands of resolution-independent applications. Unlike the iPhone OS.

Even though a touch-screen Mac would be very different from the pen-based Windows Tablet PC platform that never caught on, it would have one thing in common: the challenge of providing tolerable alphanumeric input without a real keyboard. I’d be surprised and impressed if Apple were to figure that one out.

Oddly enough, I asked Steve Jobs about the possibility of touch-screen Macs myself–on behalf of a Technologizer reader–at last October’s MacBook event, the last Apple product launch that Jobs has presided over to date. And…he didn’t rule the idea out. He just said that Apple had experimented with it and failed to come up with anything pleasing. Which is what he says about any idea up until the day that Apple announces a product based upon it.

Anyhow, here’s the “photo.”

Today, Microsoft announced that it’s working on a new version of Office for the Mac for release by the holiday season of 2010–and that it will dump Entourage for the first version of Outlook for the Mac OS X [there was a previous version of Outlook I'd forgotten which never made it to OS X; this is the first modern one--thanks for correction in comments, Jeff] There was a time when the fact that Mac Office users got Entourage rather than Outlook was widely considered a pro, not a con, and I’m sure some Mac users won’t be happy with this development. But despite any remaining Entourage virtues, e-mail and calendaring are by definition functions which involve working with other people, and with so many Office for Mac users being small fish in large ponds inhabited mostly by Outlook users, consistency probably makes sense. (Although Microsoft said during today’s announcement that Outlook for the Mac will be distinctly different from the Windows edition; if it follows the pattern of other Mac Office apps, it’ll likely be a somewhat simpler program with fewer hardcore business tools.)

The news about the next version of Office for the Mac confirms that Microsoft isn’t planning to discontinue the suite out of lack of interest or desire to make trouble for Apple and Mac users–which isn’t really news, but which seems to be a persistent fear in the back of some Mac fans’ heads. (I’ve heard some worry that Microsoft intended to ditch Office for the Mac once it releases browser-based editions of the major Office apps next year.)

I’m still curious whether Office 2010 for Mac will include integration with the Office Web Apps, and whether it’ll adopt a full-blown version of Office for Windows’ Ribbon interface. (Office 2008 for Mac has a sort of halfway-there version of the Ribbon.) Microsoft didn’t say anything about these questions today. Me, I’d vote for a Mac Office that bore at least somewhat more resemblance to the Windows one, not just for consistency but because Office 2007′s interface is superior to that of Office 2008.

The company did announce some tweaks to the lineup of Office 2008 versions: On September 15th, it’s replacing the current standard edition of Office Mac with a new one called Office Mac 2008 Business Edition, which includes a version of Entourage with better Exchange connectivity; features to let Mac users work with SharePoint and Office Live Workspace services; and new business-oriented document templates. The Home and Student Edition is sticking around, but the Special Media Edition one that bundles its Expression Media graphics package is going away.

The current defacto standard used by PC makers to measure notebook battery life is MobileMark 2007 (MMO7). This piece takes a look at the basic facts behind the notebook brightness settings recommended by MM07, comparing that to some typical home electronics devices and the average settings some consumers are using for their notebook displays.

The facts about MM07 and notebook display brightness

MM07 requires the following: “The display brightness should be measured for a white screen while on battery and be set at the lowest possible setting, no lower than 60 nits.”

So what is a nit?  Wikipedia defines a nit as a “candela per square meter.” Think of a “nit” as a unit of measure of brightness.

How does 60 nits compare to brightness of other home electronics?

To see what 60 nits relates to in real-world usage, we tested some typical home electronics devices  without changing any settings, other than shutting off “auto adjustment” on the phones.

Here are the test results:

The lowest nit measurement observed was at least two and a half times brighter than the MM07 brightness level of 60 nits on which notebook battery life is measured.

To see how nits relate to notebook screen brightness, we tested a few notebook PCs to see what the “max nits” measured when the screen was set to the highest setting.

As you can see from the figures below, the MM07 requirement was between 20-30 percent of the sample notebooks’ maximum screen brightness.

What notebook display brightness setting do consumers use?

These results were interesting enough to prompt an informal poll of Twitter and Facebook users asking about the display brightness setting on which they place their notebooks. The responses are both qualitative and quantitative,.

Quantitative: Neowin actually placed a poll on their community website asking the question, “What brightness level do you run your notebook?”  More than 1,100 community members voted in a few days, and according to Shane Pitman, Editor-in-Chief, “Polls require a member account, and to be logged in to said account. Provides accountability, keeps people from voting multiple times.”

The results were overwhelming in that 75 percent of the Neowin community member respondents kept their notebook display brightness between 61 and 100 percent.

Qualitative: These responses were as valuable as the quantitative as they gave insight into why they did this.  Some comments gave insight into the folks who use their notebooks at very low display settings.

The following question was posed on Twitter  “Research question: what display brightness do you run your notebook at? (Please RT)”.  Here is just a sampling of public tweet responses.

• “On the machines I see, normally I prefer to have them fully backlit with the slider up to around 75% or so.”
• “I run my laptop at maximum brightness unless the battery is really low, or I have an external screen. “
• “Now running MBP 15.4″ 3.1 at 75% brightness with auto adjust turned ; but was at 100% without auto adjust til you asked! “
• “90 – 100% brightness, 90% of the time. “
• “depends entirely on my battery level and surroundings. “
• “Research question: what display brightness do you run your notebook at? (Please RT). I run full bright 95+% of the time. “
• “oh sorry :), 100% unless I’m running low on battery, where I bring it down to a minimum, I’m guessing 50%, but thats rare“
• “usually around 60-70%“
• “i don’t use them much, mainly desktop, but i either have brightness at full or minimum: latter at night and if battery low“
• “When running laptop on battery, i set brightness to 25-40%, when plugged in -100%.“
• “100% brightness. Left default setting (and I appreciate it that way… old eyes). “
• “slammed up to full when possible, monitor screens vary though“
• “mine is usually as bright as I can make it. I hate dim screens. “
• “max brightness notwithstanding battery impact. “
• “I lower my screen brightness to the lowest, usable level that’s comfortable. It’s all about the battery life. ;) “
• “Agreed…I think mine is usually around 30% or so. “
• “it varies by location due to lighting levels. Usually around 30% or 40%. Never > 50% when on battery. “
• “ME: 90 to 100% on AC, about 50 % on battery when I’m watching movies and about 20 to work. “

We also received some really interesting responses related to interpretation, explanations, tools and resources on brightness after asking about “60 nits”.

• “not all that hard. Need 800+ nits to read screens in direct sun, 30-150 for night highway signs: http://bit.ly/cjxJB“
• “60 nits = table in an office with 300 lux illumination: http://bit.ly/FvoKe BTW sRGB calibration target = 80 nits. “
• “oh and here’s a Kodak guide on how to use a digital camera and gray card as an ad-hoc nit estimator: http://bit.ly/1IMLK3“

The Bottom Line:

• The MM07 test requires a 60 nit or higher display brightness. To maximize battery life benchmarks, systems are set at the minimum allowable 60 nit level. This setting is thereby integrated into this battery life benchmark that is then used in notebook PC advertising to consumers.
• Worst case, the display brightness of many home electronics is 2.58 times more than the MM07 nit setting requirement.  Based on the small set of notebooks tested, MM07’s 60 nits equated to around 20-30 percent of the maximum notebook brightness.
• Unscientific querying on Twitter and Facebook says many classes of users crank their screen beyond 61 percent, and many at maximum brightness.  Some self-selected a lower brightness setting to conserve battery life.

Does MM07 use realistic notebook brightness setting in its battery life tests that consumers make buying decisions from?  You be the judge.   Whether you agree or disagree, what are your thoughts? And here’s a quick poll:

The white paper’s author, Endpoint Technologies’ Roger Kay, blamed some of the data problems on production gaffes by Microsoft. Microsoft has posted an updated version of the paper with updated specs and at least one clarification (it now makes clear that the $149 copy of MobileMe it’s talking about is the Family Pack version). Strangely, Microsoft hasn’t updated the inaccurate chart in the blog post that links to the white paper.

I said in my original post that I didn’t think Kay’s conclusions would be different if the white paper had gotten the specs correct, and I was right: They haven’t changed. And even though the tables now seem to have their specs right, there are multiple places where the math behind his calculation of the “Apple Tax” remains more partisan attack than honest attempt at analysis. Can anyone explain to me, for instance, why he he adds a hefty $750 to the Mac setup for five years’ worth of MobileMe for two computers when MobileMe, which is available for both OS X and Windows, is simply no more mandatory on the Mac than it is on Windows?

Oh, and the paper still has one relatively minor cost attached to the Mac setup–a $99 charge for the iLife Family Pack–which I think is simply indefensible no matter how partisan you might be. Kay doesn’t factor the cost of creativity software into the Windows PC setup in the first place–the theory is that the imaginary family in his scenario has already paid for it for an older computer–but he also doesn’t tack the cost of an upgrade on. Apparently the fact that he has his Mac-owning family upgrading their software after two years but not their Windows counterpart doing so constitutes part of the “Apple Tax.”

I can’t imagine that many people who actually reads the white paper (even in its new, more accurate form) who might consider buying a Mac instead of a Windows PC are going to take the case it makes very seriously. And those people who wouldn’t consider buying a Mac don’t need convincing in the first place.

Fortune’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt has theorized that Microsoft’s Mac attack constitutes a trap, and “the Apple press” (of which I don’t wanna be counted as a member) is taking the bait by responding and carping about it. Given that Microsoft is pouring so much money and resources into arguing that you can buy Windows PCs for a lot less than Macs–a point which is obvious to anyone who steps foot inside a computer store, and which helps to explain why Windows’ market share remains huge and the Mac’s continues to be quite small–I wonder whether it’s Microsoft that’s fallen into a trap. I mean, responding to the anti-Windows taunts in Apple ads in kind probably feels really good, but I’m still not sure just who Microsoft’s current round of Apple-bashing is meant to address.

In last week’s story, I came to the conclusion that the MacBook Pro’s pricing wasn’t out of whack with its Windows-based rivals–if there was a “Mac Tax,” it was matched by some of the other machines I looked at. Judging from the almost 200 comments on my story to date, a lot of Windows users thought I was unfair to Windows, and a lot of Mac types thought I gave the Mac short shrift. I choose to take discontent from both camps as a sign that I did a decent job overall. But I wanted to come back and address one gripe that came up repeatedly–that I compared the MacBook Pro against high-end, workstation-class laptops.

I don’t think I made a mistake by doing that. The MacBook Pro is Apple’s highest-end notebook, with specs that were similar in most respects to the Windows systems I compared it to. (And when the Windows machines outclassed it–as some did with graphics, for instance–I noted so.) Several commenters contend that the MacBook Pro is a consumer notebook, but that’s not really right: It’s Apple’s only 17-inch notebook. If you’re a business customer and want a 17-inch Mac notebook, it’s the one you’ll buy.

But the fact remains that most other computer companies divide their product lines into business and consumer lines in a way that Apple doesn’t, and that the consumer systems tend to be cheaper than the top-of-the-line corporate models. So here I am comparing the 17-inch MacBook Pro again–this time against consumer-class models. This isn’t a replacement for my earlier comparison, but a complementary piece. I’m guessing I’ll fail to make everyone happy this time, too, but Lord knows I’m trying…

Let’s begin with my traditional mini-FAQ, repeating some items from last week’s story as appropriate:

Q. How did you choose the laptops?

A. I went back to the configure-to-order sites of three Windows-centric manufacturers in my earlier story–Dell, HP, and Lenovo–and picked big-screen laptops from their consumer lines, then configured them to get as close as possible to the base MacBook Pro’s specs. These still aren’t bargain 17-inchers like the HP Pavilion that Microsoft commercial ingenue Lauren bought, but they’re considerably cheaper than the ones from last week. (I skipped Sony this time around, since the model I liked at in the previous article was pretty consumery already.)

The laptops in this article include Dell’s Studio 17…

And HP’s HDX 18t Premium…

Not to mention Lenovo’s IdeaPad Y730…

…and, inevitably, Apple’s 17-inch MacBook Pro.

Q. Are you going to tell us which machine is the best value? Or the best one overall, regardless of price?

Nope–this isn’t a hands-on review. There’s tons of stuff I’m not attempting to assess, including most issues relating to industrial design. Nor am I accounting for the fact, for instance, that two screens that sound like they should be similar based on specs can look quite different when you lay your own eyeballs on them. I admit without hesitation that this is a superficial comparison, but it’s more than most people who talk about the “Mac Tax” or lack thereof are doing.

Q. Best Buy has some consumer machines that aren’t quite as well-equipped as the ones here, but they come close–and they’re much, much cheaper. This Dell, for instance. How come you didn’t include them?

A. Because I’m trying to configure Windows laptops to be as close to the MacBook Pro’s specs as possible, since that’s the best way to determine if there’s a Mac Tax hiding in Apple’s prices. But I may come back to look at some of those Best Buy systems in a future story.

Q. Are you saying that comparing one Mac to four Windows PCs can tell us whether Macs in general are more expensive than PCs in general? For instance, the Mac Mini looks underpowered and overpriced to me.

A. Nope–like I say, I’m trying to be as specific as possible. Draw no conclusions from this article about any other Mac models. Or, for that matter, any Windows laptops which I don’t mention here.

Q. Aren’t you aware that Windows laptops have Blu-Ray and eSATA and DVR capabilities and HDMI and embedded mobile broadband and a whole lot of other nifty features that you can’t get from Apple at any price?

A. Of course–some of the notebooks here have some of those features, in fact. It’s good fodder for a more general conversation on the relative virtues of PCs and Macs. Did I mention I’m doing some articles on that topic for PC World? For this story, however, I’m simply trying to figure out whether Apple is charging a lot more than its Windows-using rivals for the features it does offer on the 17-inch MacBook Pro.

Q. Isn’t it obvious that OS X makes Macs inherently superior to Windows computers? (Or, if you prefer, that Windows makes PCs inherently superior to Macs?)

A. I feel strongly that the biggest difference between a Windows PC and a Mac is the operating system, but I’m willfully ignoring that question in this comparison and focusing on the hardware question. You can’t compare OSes without immediately delving into opinions and subjectivity and personal preference.

Q. Do you really expect me to read this entire article?

A. Well, I’m an optimist, but I’m also a realist. So here’s an executive summary: The MacBook Pro fared the best in my comparison, but it also goes for a thousand bucks more than the costliest Windows consumer laptop I looked at. It’s still on my list of recommended possibilities for folks who can afford to shell out $2800 for a computer–for OS X’s virtues as much or more as for its impressive engineering.  But I wish that Apple made a less luxe 17-inch MacBook Pro at a lower starting price that more people could afford.

If you’re still with me, click on to the next page, and we’ll begin an in-depth comparison of specs and features.

I haven’t returned to this issue since last October, but the moment Microsoft put it at the heart of a major national TV commercial last week, the blogosphere started debating it all over again. I continue to think it’s worth trying to answer the question in a very specific and unemotional way. The specific part is important because asking whether Macs are more expensive than Windows PCs is like asking whether Audis are more expensive than General Motors cars: It’s a meaningless question without context, since the answer is entirely contingent on the models you choose. And the unemotional aspect of my research tries to strip out any bias based on anything but the computers at hand. (Note that in the commercial, Lauren sets off a powder keg of controversy the moment she says she’s not “cool enough” to own a Mac–me, I want to judge computers, not people.)

In the end, those comparisons are all about collecting fresh data on the “Mac Tax”–the notion that you pay a premium for Apple computers compared to similar Windows PCs. Or, as Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer recently put it, “Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment—same piece of hardware—paying $500 more to get a logo on it?” And since the 17-inch MacBook Pro is the Mac that Lauren nixes in favor of a far cheaper HP Pavilion, it’s the one I’ll look at in this story.

First, as is my wont, a mini-FAQ on this project:

Q. How did you choose the Windows laptops?

A. In a perfect world, I’d select at least one computer from every major manufacturer. But these comparisons get unwieldy when they involve too many systems. So I picked notebooks from Lenovo and Sony, since those companies’ machines tend to be most similar to Apple’s in terms of features and industrial design, and added models from Dell and HP, the two largest PC companies in the U.S. Working at the configure-to-order sites of the PC companies in question, I chose machines that were similar to the base MacBook Pro, then tweaked the configurations until they were as close as I could get them.

Let’s meet our laptops. Starting with Dell’s Precision M6400 Mobile Workstation…

This is HP’s EliteBook 8730W…

Here we have Lenovo’s ThinkPad W700…

And Sony’s VAIO FW (Daniel Craig not included, as far as I know)…

I also selected a 17-inch Apple laptop–which turned out to be pretty easy, since there’s only one. That would be the 17-inch MacBook Pro.

For the record, I didn’t check the prices of the system until after I’d compared their specs–I didn’t want anyone to be able to accuse me of rigging my research, consciously or unconsciously, to make Apple look good.

Q. The Dell, HP, and Lenovo you picked look like mobile workstations, aimed at businesspeople who need a lot of power. The MacBook Pro is a consumer machine, so it’s not a logical comparison.

A. They are mobile workstations, but they also come closer to matching the MacBook Pro in terms of CPU and graphics than most consumer laptops. And the MacBook Pro is an unusual notebook with a split personality that’s a little bit business and a little bit consumer. (If you can call any notebook that costs nearly $3000 a consumer product, that is.)

Q. Best Buy has some machines that aren’t quite as well-equipped as the ones here, but they come close–and they’re much, much cheaper. This Dell, for instance. How come you didn’t include them?

A. Because I’m trying to configure Windows laptops to be as close to the MacBook Pro’s specs as possible, since that’s the best way to determine if there’s a Mac Tax hiding in Apple’s prices. But I may come back to look at some of those Best Buy systems in a future story.

Q. You’re going to try and convince us that Lauren should have bought the MacBook Pro, aren’t you?

A. No, no, no! She said she wanted a fast notebook with a 17-inch screen for under a grand. There are plenty of Windows machines that fit the bill, and no Mac that comes close. You can quibble with whether the HP Pavilion she bought was her best option, but unless you want to tell Lauren that she should settle for a 13-inch display instead of a 17-inch one, she unquestionably made the right decision in buying a Windows computer. There are tons of reasonable Windows laptops for under $1000, but only one Apple notebook in that range at all–the most basic MacBook.

Q. Are you saying that comparing one Mac to four Windows PCs can tell us whether Macs in general are more expensive than PCs in general? For instance, the Mac Mini looks underpowered and overpriced to me.

A. Nope–like I say, I’m trying to be as specific as possible. Draw no conclusions from this article about any other Mac models. Or, for that matter, any Windows laptops which I don’t mention here.

Q. Aren’t you aware that Windows laptops have Blu-Ray and eSATA and DVR capabilities and HDMI and embedded mobile broadband and a whole lot of other nifty features that you can’t get from Apple at any price?

A. Of course, and it’s good fodder for a more general conversation on the relative virtues of PCs and Macs. Did I mention I’m about to start work on some articles on that topic for PC World? For this story, however, I’m simply trying to figure out whether Apple is charging a lot more than its Windows-using rivals for the features it does offer on the 17-inch MacBook Pro.

Q. Isn’t it obvious that OS X makes Macs inherently superior to Windows computers? (Or, if you prefer, that Windows makes PCs inherently superior to Macs?)

A. I feel strongly that the biggest difference between a Windows PC and a Mac is the operating system, but I’m willfully ignoring that question in this comparison and focusing on the hardware question. You can’t compare OSes without immediately delving into opinions and subjectivity and personal preference. And hey, neither Steve Ballmer nor Lauren seem to factor operating systems into their take on all this, either–so at least I have company.

Q. Could you do me a favor and tell me your conclusions now, so I don’t have to click through the whole darn story and read thousands of words?

A. Sure, but only because it’s you. I found that the MacBook Pro had some features the other machines didn’t, and lacked others they did have, and was competitive overall, even when you ignore its operating system and treat it as a hunk of hardware. It cost less than the Dell, about the same as the HP, and $350 more than the Lenovo. And it was $1200 more than the Sony–although that machine was the skimpiest of the four. All in all, the MacBook Pro is priced nearer the high end of what you might pay for a similar Windows laptop than the low end, but if there’s a Mac tax it seems no worse than the Dell Tax or HP Tax–in this case, at least.

Anyhow, enough preface–let’s start comparing computers.

A very quick rundown of some of what’s new:

–The iMac line now includes an $1199 20-inch model and a flagship $1499 24-inch model with 4GB of RAM and  640GB of hard-disk space that begins at the same price as a more spartan 20-inch iMac previously did, both with the Nvidia GeForce 9400M integrated graphics that first showed up in last fall’s new MacBooks;

–rumors about a Mac Mini with five USB ports were boring but true–the new Mini has ‘em, along with Nvidia 9400M graphics and both DVI and Mini DisplayPort (it now has the ability to drive two monitors at once). And Apple says it’s the most energy-efficient desktop in the world;

–AirPort Extreme wireless routers and Time Capsule router/storage devices do simultaneous 2.4-GHz and 5-GHz dual-channel networking, and offer a guest login feature;

–the high-end Mac Pro line now starts at $2499 ($300 less than before), sports Intel Nehalem Xeon CPUs and Nvidia GeForce GT 120 graphics (ATI Radeon HD 4870 is optional), includes both DVI and Mini DisplayPort video output, and features an “updated interior provides easy access to all components within the Mac Pro for hassle free expansion.”

Whew–that’s a lot of overhauling–all of it reflecting Apple’s classic strategy of improving the specs at a given price point and doing some price cuts without going anywhere near the lowest pricetags in the Windows world. (Folks who keep guessing the company will go cheap all of a sudden should remember this: In certain respects, Apple is a profoundly predictable company.) It’s not the least bit surprising that Apple simply rolled all this stuff into the Apple Store rather than holding a press event and attempting to create maximum hoopla. Putting even Phil Schiller onstage to discuss these new desktops wouldn’t have been worth the effort.

Which brings up a question: Does this mean there won’t be any more strikingly newsy new Apple products in the near future? And the answer, of course, is who knows? We’ll presumably see a new iPhone in the not-too-distant future, and there’s a good chance that it’ll be a more notable upgrade than any of these new desktops. Apple TV is probably due to be reinvented at least a little. And the fact that Apple has recently updated all of its desktops and laptops doesn’t mean that there’s not a chance that it’ll introduce an all-new computer of some sort soon. Not a garden-variety netbook, surely…but a non-netbook that can compete with netbooks is plausible enough.

One fact about Apple product rollouts: The fact that it does a bunch of them on one Tuesday doesn’t mean it’s not saving more introductions for just a few Tuesdays into the future.

On the other hand–and here’s a bit of profound analysis–I think we can deduce that the rumors about an Apple event on March 24th to launch new desktop Macs were false.

Just for fun, I’ll end with a comparison of the backsides of the spy-shot Mac Mini that some folks rejected as an obvious Photoshopped fake and the Mini which Apple did, indeed, release today…

As the quality of Apple scuttlebutt has nosedived, I’ve become more interested in the culture of Apple rumors than in most of the rumors themselves. With this article, I’m beginning a series on the Apple Rumor Game. And it makes sense to begin with a no-nonsense guide to judging those rumors as they crop up.

Is it possible for an educated Apple fan to figure out which product gossip is worth paying attention to, and which is is a waste of perfectly good brain cells? Yup, by simply divvying up the “evidence” that such gossip is based on into the obviously specious, the questionable, the possibly plausible, and the fairly solid.

I’m not writing this piece because I’m particularly good at gauging the veracity of Apple rumors or making Apple predictions of my own. My track record is iffy at best, and sometimes I avoid the whole matter by simply refusing to make any guesses about what the company’s got up its sleeve. I’m compiling the analysis below as much for my benefit as for yours–if all I do is remember everything I outline here, I’m more likely to speak with uncanny accuracy about Apple rumors in the future than if I rely on instinct.

So let’s consider the tea leaves that are most often used as evidence of Macs, iPods, and iPhones to come, shall we?

Tea Leaves You Can Safely Ignore

“Leaked Ads.” I’ve never seen an Apple product that was outed by advertising, with the possible exception of instances in which spy photos of Apple banners at Macworld lead smart observers to make intelligent guesses. Any other ad you see for an unreleased Apple product is a fake, and while the best ones are a lot of fun, they’re useless as indicators of what Apple is working on. If they had any value, we’d all be carrying the phone shown below in our pockets:

Photorealistic renderings and other concept art. Such as the touchscreen iPod below. Same deal as with ads: Very entertaining and very meaningless. Apple presumably has mockups of unreleased gadgets lurking somewhere in Cupertino, but it manages to keep them under wraps. I think almost all of us get that by now.

Patents. Apple patents are a blast to rummage through, and provide some insight into ideas that the company has fiddled with in its labs, at least–like the bizarre 1990s Frankenstein of an office machine below. But they’re hopeless when it comes to figuring out what products might show up at the Apple Store. There are just too many concepts that never lead anywhere, or take a long time to amount to anything, or emerge in a form which is impossible to divine from the patent in question.

Another problem with treating Apple patents as as a guide to upcoming Apple products: The company is good at filing those patents that might tell you something when it’s too late for rumormongers to get any use out of them. The images below are from a patent it filed just a few days before it introduced a particular product at Macworld Expo San Francisco in January 2007, and therefore didn’t show up in patent searches until there was nothing top-secret about them:

Tea Leaves That Are Inherently Questionable

Anything predicted by analysts–and it doesn’t really matter how confident they sound. As a group, they just have too a lousy track record, and a nasty habit of presenting their guesses as something other than guesses. (How come? I plan to tackle that question in a future story.) Whether or not an article reporting on an analyst’s predictions is willing to take them seriously is irrelevant.

Many, many stories that state that Apple will do something. The kind that use telltale phrases like “has learned.” There are just too many Apple sites that are willing to present possibilities (and sometimes impossibilities) as realities.

Stories that involve Apple responding instantly to current trends. In its own strange, unexpected way, Apple is a conservative outfit, one that is often among the last to jump on a bandwagon. (It’s a smart strategy, given that so many tech bandwagons promptly march down dead ends.) The original iPod Shuffle didn’t show up until the market for very basic flash-based MP3 players was already seemingly saturated, and the Mac Mini came years after Windows desktops had gotten dirt cheap. So given that the whole netbook fad is scarcely over a year old, it was less than likely that Macworld would respond at last month’s Macworld Expo.

Stories that involve Apple slashing prices to go after market share. It’s not that Apple never lowers prices to move more product–but pundits knowingly say it’s going to happen far more than it really does.

Anything that involves Apple releasing an array of major new products all at once. As Macworld Expo approaches, Apple fans often have visions of jam-packed keynotes dancing in their heads–an iPhone Nano and a new Mac Mini and a new iMac and a touchscreen Mac and new software. In reality, Apple’s resources are far from unlimited, and it’s rare for it to release more than one true biggie at a time. Even rumors involving two significant products arriving simultaneously usually turn out to be fiction. Remember, Steve Jobs is famous for pretending that minor products are an event’s big news so that the one truly major product can be his “one more thing.” He does that at least in part because he has to.

Rumors where the math and/or basic logic don’t seem to add up. For several reasons, I was instantly skeptical about a December rumor that Wal-Mart would sell a $99 iPhone. I was right. Then again, in December, 2007 I was equally skeptical that it would sell a flash-based subnotebook. In January, it released the MacBook Air, with flash as a pricey option. (At least I prefaced my doubt by saying it was dumb to try to figure out what Apple would or wouldn’t do.)

Poorly-sourced, unlikely-sounding news from unlikely sources. I’m not saying that a publication like the UK’s Daily Mail declares that Apple is about to release an iPhone Nano with a display on the front and touch-wheel control on the back, it’s far safer to assume it’s wrong than to believe it.

Following months of legal wrangling and a false start, Mac clone maker Psystar may finally get its day in court. A U.S. federal judge has ruled that Psystar will be given the opportunity to amend its counterlawsuit against Apple, filed after that company sued Psystar over its OS X-running PCs, to focus on alleged copyright abuses instead of antitrust law violations.

On Friday, Feb. 8, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup signed an order that will allow Psystar’s countersuit against Apple to continue. If Psystar provides it allegation that Apple misused its copyrights to block out competition, other PC makers would be free to preinstall the OS onto their machines, Judge Alsup noted.

Apple sued Psystar in July 2008, accusing it of breaking copyright and software licenses laws by preloading Intel-based PCs with Mac OS X 10.5 without its blessing. The company has also accused Apple of modifying Mac OS X to crash on non-Apple systems. Psystar began selling the Mac clones in Apr. 2008.

Psystar’s original complaint accused Apple of violating antitrust law by tying its Mac OS X operating system together with its hardware, exclusively, but the court rejected that argument in November 2008.

Intellectual property law is always tricky and controversial, so lawsuits such as these should be ruled upon to clarify uncertainty (and by the highest court of the land). Until the laws themselves are reformed, this kind of uncertainty will persist.

My take is that when a company, or individual, is granted intellectual property by the government, they are essentially given a monopoly. The question is: Has Apple abused its monopoly? I don’t think that it has.

If Apple sold Mac OS X standalone, and then modified its license or software to intentionally excludes other manufacturers, that would be wrong. Apple creates it own hardware, and software for that hardware, and there is nothing wrong with that.