I found Ning after getting out of Facebook because I still wanted a social network for my friends. I signed up for Ning only to find out that it will no longer be free starting in July and decided it wasn’t for me. While I was able to delete the single group I had created I found that the only option I have to get rid of my account is to deactivate it. This is worse than Facebook’s method of hiding the Account Deletion page and then making it take 14 days before it actually happens, but not by much.

The rationale here seems to be that once you are a member of the site, its tantamount to self destruction to let that member leave for whatever reason. They must have thought that they would simply fix whatever issues the member is having and that everything would be good. In the case of deactivating your account in Facebook, they assume you simply don’t understand how to use the site, and try to redirect you to the Help Center to educate you.

I don’t see this as acceptable in any way, shape, or form, especially in the context of a social web site where people share their personal information, current location, photos, thoughts, and ideas with their friends. If you are done with a service, you should be done with it, and that service doesn’t have the right to archive your personal belongings when you don’t want them to remain there. I’ve read Facebook’s Terms of Service, and here’s the first and salient section (the links in this section are to pages owned by Facebook):

Date of Last Revision: April 22, 2010

This Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (“Statement”) derives from the Facebook Principles, and governs our relationship with users and others who interact with Facebook. By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement.

1. Privacy

   Your privacy is very important to us. We designed our Privacy Policy to make important disclosures about how you can use Facebook to share with others and how we collect and can use your content and information.  We encourage you to read the Privacy Policy, and to use it to help make informed decisions.

2. Sharing Your Content and Information

   You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

   1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (“IP content”), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
   2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
   3. When you use an application, your content and information is shared with the application.  We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information.  (To learn more about Platform, read our Privacy PolicyAbout Platform page.) and
   4. When you publish content or information using the “everyone” setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
   5. We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).

All in all, I think that these terms of service are pretty good, as legalese goes. What they fail to cover, however, is anything regarding the deletion of your user account. Indirectly, of course, Facebook claims that you own your content, which suggests you can control the ultimate status of your account. Why, then, can I not delete my account?

That is a question for Facebook to answer, and any other company that chooses to employ this kind of policy.

The straw on the proverbial camel’s back was the Free iPad offering. I don’t fall for these scams and I don’t know anyone who would, yet Facebook joined me to a Fan Page which not only linked me to this group without my permission, but also spammed all of my friends. This is unconscionable behavior and I will not tolerate it.

Prior to this particular event, Facebook could not stop screwing around with their privacy policy and kept opting people in to things that members weren’t asked about. Facebook has also modified the privacy settings to make them difficult to use. You can’t even cancel an account without having to wait 14 days!

While I have no proof, I could easily speculate that their financial partners have been putting pressure on them to monetize the site somehow. After all, those Ziinga people have been pounding out millions of dollars in revenues from Facebook members, and I don’t think FB sees any of that. Word is that Facebook is going to change how that all works, and that Ziinga could be creating their own network in reaction.

The time has come. Symantec has officially come out and stated that there is an active malware infection potential for Mac OS X in the wild. Many people unfamiliar with the superior operating system have claimed that the Mac wasn’t getting noticed because it was too small a target. Now Symantec is saying that Mac OS X isn’t any more secure than Windows. I can take the former statement, even though there has never been less than 30 million Mac users in the last 10 years (this is a non-verified datum point, but I’m pretty confident I’m relatively close). There are far more Apple product users now, so I’d have to say that its extremely unlikely that anyone, anywhere has no clue who Apple Inc. is. That just seems ignorant.

That leaves us with the latter statement, that Mac OS X is as secure as Windows is. That’s like saying a Lamborghini Murcielago and Tata Nano are equal in capabilities because they are both cars. The very simple fact of the matter is that Windows is a sieve because it was designed that way. Microsoft has developed a load of scripting interfaces for Windows to facilitate developer diversity, they stick hooks to these technologies in everything, including IE, then they integrate IE into the OS, and literally millions of exploitation points are born. As long as a user’s IE security settings are turned down enough to allow scripts developed by legitimate programmers to run, there are plenty of holes into IE for malware to slip in.

Mac OS X only offers a few scripting technologies, and those are locked down and not made accessible to the web browser. Magically, all of those potential security holes that IE presents are gone. In fact, there is only one hole into which a hacker can gain some limited access to the Mac OS X system, and it is the most complicated and difficult to manage exploit potentials on the planet: the human being. That’s right, us. In order for a virus to get on to a Mac OS X system it needs to trick the user into believing that its of real value to the user. These Mac virus developers have used a trick which works well on Windows users called, among may stupid and weird names, the Fake Codec. Users are tricked into downloading a fake video player which they need to watch porn.

Does the fact that people can be gullible and susceptible to offers of free stuff constitute the body of logic which says that Mac OS X and Windows 7 share the same level of exploit-ability? That would be ridiculous and far more than unscientific. Apple takes a far larger measure of care in making Mac OS X secure than Microsoft does with Windows, that has been clear for well over two decades of Windows viral infections starting with really early boot sector viruses. Of course, that was back in the days of the floppy and there were a few for the Macs back then, too. I’d like to get back to the point about human gullibility, however, because there is a more insidious and frightening source to be aware of.

Remember how I started this piece mentioning that Symantec has reported an active Mac virus roaming the wild? Yeah. Symantec makes anti-virus software and said software makes this millions upon millions of dollars every year… in the Windows market. Symantec makes practically no money on the Mac OS X market, so it would be important, as Apple’s market share grows, for Symantec to work hard to exploit that market potential. Are you hearing any parallels here? I’m not suggesting that Symantec is fabricating these viruses in order to create a market, but its clear that Symantec would love to get another 50 million users paying $30 a year. That would almost certainly make a great deal of people very rich.

There are two quotes I’d like to pull from the article published over at MacObserver:

Between July 1 and December 31, 2004, Symantec documented 13 vulnerabilities affecting Microsoft IE, nine considered high severity. Six vulnerabilities were reported in Opera and none in [Apple's] Safari browser. The report called the zero number of confirmed Safari vulnerabilities “somewhat surprising given the increasing popularity of Mac OS X,” but suggested that as the browser grows in usage, so will the attacks.

Mr. Cole said the classic and basic rules still apply to fend off virus and hacker attacks. “Keep your operating system up to date, your browser to date and your virus definitions up to date,” he said. “If you do that, your chances of having problems are minimal.”

Mr. Cole is some guy from Symantec named David Cole. I’d like you to now go and read that article from which these quotes are taken. Knowing what you know now, I think you will find it very interesting, and quite transparent.

Now, here are the tips you need to keep yourself safe:

1. Unless you need to, never go to a website you’ve never heard of.
2. If you don’t already know a website’s address, look it up in Google. Don’t try to guess it.
3. Don’t click on any ads. You are a consumer. If you want something, look it up at your favorite stores.
4. Never run any programs or open any archives where the source cannot be verified.
5. Never open attachments until you have verified a) that you know the person who sent it and b) that they actually sent it to you.
6. Get your software from reputable sources like Apple, the Apple Store, Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, etc.
7. Don’t believe every claim or statement you read.
8. Don’t assume that because someone is smart about computers they are also ethical.
9. Never use your credit or debit cards unless the vendor is confirmed and the page is secure.
10. NEVER, EVER, EVER RUN YOUR MAC WITHOUT A PASSWORD.

That password is your Mac’s key to its security. If there is no password, there is still some protection, but not enough to really cover your ass in case something happens. Your Mac asks you to enter your password when a program requests that something important be changed in the delicate places of your OS. Without that permission, it can’t get in. If you don’t use a password and typically click those request dialogs away, then it is a foregone conclusion that you will allow a virus into your system.

If you are thoughtful and deliberate, it will be a cold day in hell that you get your Mac infected.

Am I an Apple fan boy? Sure as hell am! I’m not ashamed to admit it, just like I’m pleased to admit that I was an LA Kings fan back when Gretsky was still on the ice and McSorley was cracking skulls. Apple, since Steve Jobs return in 1997, has fostered a steady and relentless growth, smoothly taking the few bumps along the way in stride and never missing step (i.e., Cube, HiFi, build quality issues). Now Apple, the company the press couldn’t stop using the word ‘beleagured’ to describe, is now a powerhouse in the mobile media and smart phone industry segments, and has been steadily growing their computer systems market share.

This is not the kind of market Apple can simply take over. People are invested in hundreds, even thousands, of dollars in PC gear and software and they won’t simply dump it all because Apple says boo. Considering that, it was brilliant that Apple started up the iPod industry and reshaped the music market single-handedly. I’m betting Jobs knew that they couldn’t grow on computers alone because Microsoft had the 90% marketshare. Then Apple came out with the iPhone to show people what a real computer can be like, another brilliant stroke. How can people not wonder how easy a Mac is to use when they love their iPhone.

Companies look to see maybe a 1% response rate on their marketing material as a gain, but that material isn’t a product in itself. Salespeople have to convert those prospects into customers. Apple’s sales material is the iPod and iPhone, and people are paying to get those slick, digital pamphlets. Now, however, Apple is showing us two new possibilities with a single product, the iPad. Either they are showing potential converts that there is now an easier path to Apple fealty  or they are showing us all a very likely possible future of computing. I’m leaning towards both being true, and potentially, a third or fourth reason I’m not smart enough to figure out yet.

The biggest problem we are going to face as we march into the future of technology is wrapping ourselves around the concept of what computing is to us. Computer technology has grown steadily since the personal computer hit the scene in 1977 with the Apple I. When Apple rolled out the Mac in 1984, it created the desktop publishing market which showed everyone what a desktop computer could do, and the market grew from there. In general, though, there’s little about daily computing which requires as much raw horsepower we have grown towards.

There are some industries which demand such power, like the CAD/CAM users in architecture, engineering, and in the entertainment industries like music, video games, and movies, but what about email, web browsing, word processing, spreadsheets, and even multimedia-strong stuff like presentations, listening to music, watching movies or streaming web video requires 8GBs of RAM, a quad-core CPU, and 1GB of video RAM? The last thing I need to read an email is a $3,000 PC workstation when I’ve been pleased to read it on my BlackBerry for years.

I have a strong feeling that these are some of the arguments Apple has been making with itself in order to justify the development and eventual release of the iPad. Remember how I opened this piece with saying that Microsoft is stupid? Apple’s iPad is your proof. Microsoft can’t engineer itself out of a paper bag and is only in the lead because they were able to get away with questionable marketing practices before the FTC and the Federal government had enough smart people to catch on, and by then it was too late. With Windows 3.11, Windows 95, and Windows NT floating around the corporate workplace, companies who had invested millions in custom development were unable to turn the ship in time to miss the iceberg.

Over time, Microsoft made strong efforts to make it clear that basing your business on the Microsoft platform was not only smart, but essential. You could do it with other systems, but the Mac was too girly and UNIX was too complicated. You practically NEEDED Microsoft to make your business run, and corporate America lapped it up because Apple wouldn’t counter, the UNIXes were pleased with their massive government contracts, and people didn’t know any better. Now we have a computer culture built on the idea that more powerful makes things work better. Even Apple has had to play that game, since its core to the American consumer and cannot be displaced.

So, Steve Jobs comes along and says something like, “We can’t dig them out because they are too entrenched, so we need to flank them and catch them in places they are unfamiliar.” The first place turned out to be the mobile media market, and Microsoft is completely inept in that space, even when they build their own hardware, the completely miserable Zune. Apple built the mobile media market when there was very little action in that space, but when they entered the mobile phone market there were already a large number of players there, including Microsoft. Microsoft had even managed to carve out a good chunk of that market for itself since Palm was unable to fix its own problems.

Apple, confident with its 75% marketshare in mobile media with its killer iPod and with eyes on making it better, saw an opportunity in the mobile phone space. I suspect that the iPod Touch was the next iteration of the iPod for Apple, and that they saw the possibility that it might work as a phone, too, and worked on that for a few years until they perfected it. One look at the smartphone market when Apple rolled out the iPod you could clearly see that there was chaos and a lack of clarity, with RIM on top with its BlackBerry, which has changed little in 10 years. Palm was the same, with its languishing Treo line on a platform from the previous decade. Microsoft was doing well because companies like HTC built their own UIs on top of Microsoft’s super-old UI. Not exactly a set of barn burners.

It was clear how badly people wanted a good phone when lines for the first day of iPhone availability were massive. The millions of iPhone users are speaking with their wallets and Apple managed to make up 35% of the smartphone market in about two years, a shockingly strong growth rate, and that number grows. The question arises, now that we are aware of the iPad, what Apple’s intentions have been with the iPhone. My spidey-sense tells me that there is a chance that Apple is guiding the computer-buying public in a direction which requires less power, offers more perceived speed, takes up less space, and handles everything the average user needs.

I look at the iPad and I don’t see the slick industrial design, light weight, durable finish, and clean interface. I see the reality that most people spend their time in email, browsing the web, watching and/or listening to media, reading, playing games, and other relatively low-level activities. I don’t see the problems with multi-tasking since it is an illusion. We are capable of paying attention to only one thing at a time. We can change focus to several different things, but we can already do that with the purportedly non-multi-tasking iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad simply by switching applications and being placed back right where we were when we left. I don’t see needing an in-built camera, since I’d rather use a real camera to take pictures. Do you really want your history to be captured by a crappy little phone cam?

I am convinced that the iPad will be a huge hit for Apple and that later this year, or sometime next year we will see the introduction of something like the iMac Mini, a stationary iPad with a 12-15″ display which is designed as a sort of kiosk for the home and which will likely be around $750. We might even see the demise of the Apple TV in its current form, where its next iteration might be a simple storage bay and connectivity hub for the UI which lives on an iPod, iPhone, or iPad. You can’t tell me that would not be near the ultimate in home theater.

I don’t have an oracle’s vision into the future, and like any pundit I can only read the tealeaves of the past to try to discern the hazy comings of mankind, but I think Apple has left us a rather clear trail of its past efforts and, from them, I think I can see where we are going. We need only be bold enough to say to ourselves that we are willing to entertain the possibility that Apple has it right and Microsoft, despite being the biggest, doesn’t.

I could, without question, rage on about the rampant apathy amongst so-called community support boards when regular contributors are faced with an issue they are unfamiliar with or that a coder believes they have satisfied the burden of documentation by installing a wiki, but just pointing out these related issues will remain sufficient. I speak instead of the lack of simple documentation of configuring a passwordless SSH client session in Dropbear inside of Busybox.

The situation is simple. I’ve been testing VMware’s pleasant ESXi virtualization platform and have started to look into associated projects and management tools. One such tool is OpenQRM, what appears to be a very promising open source project which was born of commercial roots. It employs PHP and MySQL for its web-based interface and has a rather extensive plug-in architecture which supports, among a host of others, VMware’s ESX/ESXi. In order for OpenQRM to see these servers, however, I must enable passwordless SSH.

Enabling SSH itself was simple, as I can follow instructions and they were easy to find. I should note that the free version of ESXi, which we are testing, does not include the console in the same way that ESX does, but it is there and it is unsupported. It turns out that SSH in ESXi is handled by Dropbear, and open source SSH client and server. The console session itself is provided by the small and annoying Busybox, which appears Unix-like, but isn’t.

It might surprise you to learn that I’m not a programmer, and beside that point, I’d be shocked if even programmers could figure out how to use a command line tool without having some kind of documentation. This is a failing I see over and over again in open source, and its a huge blockade to the overall adoption potential for the platform. There’s no question that Linux is powerful and capable. Android and Ubuntu prove that handily, but those development teams have spent a lot of time and money creating unified experiences which don’t exist by default in the Linux world.

So, without documentation and the lack of access to the developer of Dropbear, how can I get done what I need to get done? I’ve posted my query on several different sites/forums and have combed the web for any hint of information about how to do this and I get either nothing or something for OpenSSH which doesn’t work for Dropbear.

Why would VMware choose to compile Dropbear into ESXi instead of OpenSSH then? Its not like its a component of Busybox. They could have just as easily compiled OpenSSH into it and I might have been able to move forward from this issue. For now I’ll have to set this rather important project aside and work on other projects, most of which are not open source. I find that a shame, really. I want to promote open source as I feel its critical to the technological growth of society, but if the open source community doesn’t want anyone to know how to use their stuff, we’re going to keep having adoption issues.

On the other hand, if open source continues to allow groups like Nokia (Maemo), Google (Android), and IBM (Foundation Server) build closed, inaccessible tool sets which perch legally on top of the GPLed Linux kernel then big business will have found the loophole around the GPL and will eventually kill open source dead. RedHat does it. SugarCRM does it. Novell bought SuSE and kind of does it. These huge companies are going to eventually lock everyone out of usable Linux. Do we really want that?

“But take a look at what the public is buying en mass – Apple. Why? Because they place an importance on aesthetics few other companies can match.”

Ignoring the fact that he starts a sentence with “but” and misspells en masse, he’s telling his readers that Apple’s sales are based on aesthetics. Really, truly and honestly? Maybe I shouldn’t take it personally. After all, he could just be writing poorly overall, and that alone could cause his point to be lost in the maelstrom of unedited copy. I’d like to think that were the case, but I have a feeling its not. Could it be that there are people out there who don’t understand that Apple is about utility?

I feel that a brief recap of what Apple is would not be wasted on those who don’t get it, and even for some who do. Apple is a hardware company. They make computers and consumer electronics. This is the exact same market companies like HP, Dell, Sony, Toshiba, and others play in. Unlike these other companies, though, Apple has long recognized that their customers don’t want to look like dorks lugging around a load of gear.

So, while the exterior of Apple products remains attractive and sexy, the inside is a very different animal. Apple works hard to prevent most users from having to install drivers and fiddle with loads of extra configurations. They also design the interface to get out of your way. In Mac OS X, when I click on an application icon in the Dock, I get that application. In Windows 7, I get a sub-list of windows thumbnails I can pick from, giving me an extra step and forcing me to take longer because I need to squint at them. Ymmv.

I’m going to wrap up my rant there, but I’ll end on the old saw about the so-called “Apple Premium” that a lot of people think you pay to get something from Apple. You don’t. Plain and simple. You will pay the same for an equivalent machine from Dell or HP. The point is that Apple doesn’t make cheap shit like Dell and HP do. So, as my daughter would say:

Take that, Thomas Jefferson!

No.

I’m not saying that Apple should be allowed to continue its current, as Mark puts it, “walled garden strategy”. No company should be allowed to control that much of any market (ahem… Microsoft!) while at the same time controlling the reins of the entirety of said market. I submit, however, that Apple is not stupid and there are reasons to believe this.

1. Apple has been slowly and methodically winning back market share from Microsoft and has made itself an extraordinarily powerful entity with some very cunning market and product moves. Apple’s core (no pun intended) business has always been computers, but their bread and butter is the iPod. They know that. They also have no intention of blowing this position with a ridiculous claim of Anti Trust.
2. Apple won the record industry by hobbling music with DRM. Now that’s mostly gone, so you can put your iTunes music on any player that supports AAC, and most of them do. It may not be as seamless to sync a non-iPod, but its not that hard, and would be a very hard position to try and win with that in court.
3. Apple only controls a very small portion of the desktop and laptop market, despite being the top retailer for such systems now quarter after quarter. Apple’s very sharp lawyers need only indicate Microsoft’s marketshare and previous Anti Trust issues compared to their own marketshare to indicate how ludicrous the concept is that they are a monopoly.
4. Apple does use and contributes greatly to open source projects, most notably Darwin which lies at the core of its own OS, Mac OS X, and supports a number of open source initiatives. Most recently with the arrival of the iPad it has stated that the device specifically supports the ePub standard, which you can read about at WikiPedia.

Again, Apple is not stupid. They have, in my estimation, cleverly positioned themselves to be in that unique place where they are wanted and deemed needed, but aren’t required. That, I believe as I am not a lawyer and simply don’t know, is likely the difference between being an industry giant and being “invited” to Anti Trust depositions.

So it must be that Apple doesn’t have a corporate identity which it can expose to the world. Any good company which serves enterprise has a clear identity. They certainly get banged around a lot by competition, but you can’t buy an identity like Cisco has, very well known for their enterprise switching equipment. Cisco made complex networking solutions when people needed them, and that built their identity for them. Apple, so far, has chosen to completely ignore the fact that it even sells servers. The XServe is like Apple’s red-headed stepchild.

Its not that Apple doesn’t make a distinction, though. They have recently unveiled a version of the Mac Mini which is designed to be a tiny, desktop server, but that doesn’t give them enterprise cred. It gives them cred with the SMBs who were already using Mac Minis as servers. Now you can just buy one all ready to go. That’s fine, really. Its not much of an identity, but Apple seems to think they can get by with that. Meanwhile, they have these ridiculously kickass XServe’s sitting around with no real market identity around them and no real marketing campaign to push them. The XServe isn’t even that expensive, as servers go.

So, my question is, why does Apple deserve to sell servers? Why don’t they just shut that one-horse town down and move on to the CE space where they really want to be. I have a feeling they might, but I’d like to see them try before just giving up. All they need to do is get the word out that Apple servers are prime for small to medium sized virtualization projects, MAMP-based server farms, and are a fantastic alternative to a Windows-based domain controller in Mac shops. I have to say, though, that its telling how many Mac shops I see which have Windows-based servers.

I can’t really imagine that Apple is pleased with that. I have a feeling that Steve Jobs just puts it out of his mind and acts like its not there. That kind of treatment didn’t work for the red-headed stepchild, either.

Now, as you may have noted, I got a few points wrong, and I freely admit that. It just goes to show that you shouldn’t try to second guess Steve Jobs. Jobsian Law dictates that no other individual or group of individuals in any combination will ever determine the combination of thoughts in Mr. Jobs head.

One thing I was pleased to guess right on the nose, though, was the price. I did say US$500, and WHAM! (just like in the presentation), it starts at US$499. I had a very strong gut feeling that the price point which “leaked” was a smokescreen, a red herring if you will, to get enough information out there, but give everyone a real jolt when the real price was revealed.

If you’ve watched the keynote as I have, you will detect a very strong reaction to the real starting price. Mssr. Steve was right about the pundits, and he fooled us all. I’m just glad that it didn’t work the other way around. To see this super slick device pass for US$1,500 would have been heartbreaking.

There is one thing I would like to say about one of my predictions. It is a giant iPod Touch. I don’t know yet how I feel about that yet. I watched the keynote and the video and I’m pleased with the result, but did it really have to be a SuperSized iPod Touch (just add US$499, please!) and not something new and revolutionary? Its possible I’m just re-judging it. Listen to MacBreak Weekly over at TWIT.tv. Episode #177 is a special recap of the day and they have some interesting thoughts.

Now, for what it will NOT be. The Apple _______ (you fill in whatever you think it will be called) will not be a jumbo iPod. That’s just too much, and people would expect it to be a phone first and foremost. Whatever it is may actually have mobile telephony capabilities, but that won’t be the centerpiece. The Apple ________ will not be a full-on tablet Mac. Microsoft has clearly proven over and over and over and over again that people simply don’t want tablets which are really PCs without a keyboard. Steve Jobs knows this and will not make that mistake. I’ll bet that it can’t even be hacked to run Mac OS X, since it will likely be running on a chip from Apple’s acquisition of a few years back, PA Semi, and fabless chip maker which builds multi-core x86-compatible CPUs.

The Apple _______ will also not require a costly wireless subscription. It will come with integrated 3G or better, ala Amazon’s Kindle. However, it will be on a faster network, probably T-Mobile since they can leverage (and correct me if I’m incorrect here) GSM/GPRS’s ability to operate independently of a voice network so they can just pump data. Content vendors will pay for this network through their ad-based revenue and Apple will get a cut. Simple and clean, just like the App and Music Stores. Finally, the Apple _______ will not be a gaming device. Sure, there will be some casual games for it, but Apple has clearly positioned the iPod/iPhone as the gaming rig. Hell, they’ve come right out and said it. I know that Apple has made statements only to reverse them, but I don’t think so in this case.

That pretty much sums it up. Now we’ll just have to wait until tomorrow to find out for sure. Who knows, they may announce 32″ and 42″ TVs with integrated Apple TV systems. Despite how cool that would be, it would be a serious letdown.