Saturday, March 29, 2008

Apple execs sell $75M in shares, settle with tax man

Published: 05:00 PM EST

Three Apple executives this week combined to cash in on over $75 million in restricted stock units that had vested, while several others settled with Uncle Sam.

With the exception of Apple chief executive Steve Jobs and newly appointed General Counsel Daniel Cooperman, each member of Apple's executive team was forced this week to address restricted stock units that had recently vested and were set to expire, regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show.

Senior Vice President of Retail Ron Johnson, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing Phil Schiller, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering �Bertrand Serlet, and Senior Vice President of Applications Sina Tamaddon each converted 250,000 restricted stock units to shares.

In order to meet their tax obligations on those shares, each exec decided to net-share settle, or surrender, 113,659 shares at $139.53 a piece to cover those costs. They each retained the remaining 136,341 shares.

Apple's Senior Vice President iPod Division Tony Fadell made a similar move on 100,000 restricted share units, converting them to stock, then disposing of 45,750 at $139.53 to pay his taxes. He retained the remaining 54,250 shares.

Meanwhile, Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer and Senior Vice President Industrial Design Jonathan Ive saw 250,000 and 200,000 restricted stock units vest, respectively, which they then converted to shares. Both execs used a portion of those shares to pay the tax man, but then sold the remaining shares in keeping with prearranged stock-trading plans.

Oppenheimer disposed of 136,341 shares on the open market at prices between $138.74 and $139.79 for a net gain of approximately $19 million, while Ive sold 109,216 shares at prices between $138 and $140 for a profit of $15.2 million.

Finally, Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook converted 300,000 vested stock units to shares and then sold all of them on the open market in following a prearranged stock-trading plan, at prices between $133.79 and $140.76 per share.

Cook's net profit totaled nearly $41 million before taxes.

Exploring Time Capsule: theoretical speed vs practical throughput

Published: 08:00 AM EST

Time Capsule, announced earlier this year, is a base station with an integrated hard drive and power supply. The previous segment of this series exploring Time Capsule in depth looked at the differences in members of the AirPort family. This segment, the second of six, compares the differences between the hypothetical maximum data transmission speed and typical real world performance of Time Capsule's SATA, USB 2.0, Ethernet networking, and WiFi Wireless networking interfaces.



Related AppleInsider articles:* Exploring Time Capsule: how it fits into...
* Answers to Time Capsule reader questions
* Early adopter issues: MacBook Air and...
* First Look: Time Capsule, AirPort, and Time...
* An in-depth review of Apple's 802.11n AirPort...

In Theory, Theory and Practice Are the Same. In Practice, They Are Not

The theoretical speed rating of a given wired or wireless connection can be betrayed by a number of factors, from the overhead of the protocols involved to signal interference. Network data throughput is usually measured in megabits per second, which are an eighth of a megabyte per second. Disk speeds are typically cited in megabytes per second; here, I'll list both numbers to make it easier to compare disk and network throughput speeds.

SATA, or Serial ATA, has a theoretical maximum of 1200 Mbits/sec (150 MB/sec). However, existing hard drives can't even deliver data that fast; top disk output speeds are closer to 40 to 100 MB/sec, depending on whether the data is being read from the inside or outside of the disk platter, the disk spin speed, and other factors.

USB 2.0 has a theoretical maximum of 480 Mbits/sec (60 MB/sec). A USB hard drive is typically a standard ATA or SATA drive attached to a USB bridge chipset. The actual speed of the USB interface depends upon the performance of the chipset used as well as the performance of the computer the drive is attached to. That's because USB transfers most of the heavy lifting to the host computer's CPU.

USB has a faster theoretical maximum than Firewire 400 (400 Mbits/sec; 50 MB/sec), but Firewire 400 is actually much faster than USB because it uses smarter peer to peer interface hardware rather than pushing low level work onto the PC host's CPU as the simpler master to slave architecture of USB does.

On a Mac, Firewire is typically around twice as fast in real world transfer rates, with USB hitting around 18 MB/sec and Firewire reaching 35 MB/sec throughput. Windows' implementation of USB has historically been faster than Mac OS X's, with Windows' USB reaching throughput closer to 33MB/sec. That also explains why Firewire is more popular on the Mac than on the PC side; it's simply far more dramatically faster than USB on the Mac, while Firewire offers less of a noticeable boost in Windows. Macs also have Firewire Target Mode, which PC users lack. For more details on why USB is faster in Windows compared to the Mac, see the footnote: USB Performance in Windows vs Mac OS X at the end of this article.

Time Capsule doesn't use Firewire; it's USB only. There are two reasons for this. First, USB chipsets are cheaper than Firewire, because they do less (USB peripherals have less intelligence on board and transfer more work to the CPU). Second, Time Capsule and the AirPort Extreme are both designed as wireless network appliances, so the difference in performance between attached Firewire and USB drives typically wouldn't be noticeable. Test results presented in the next segment bear that out.

In reality, USB doesn't simply run at a given speed. The performance of a directly connected USB drive can be affected by a number of issues, from the performance of the host computer to interference caused by other USB devices on the same bus, to the overhead related to the drive's file system.

Ethernet Networking introduces even more complicating factors. There is the overhead of Internet Protocol addressing, as well as the file sharing protocols used, such as AFP on the Mac or SMB used by Windows, neither of which play into direct, non-networked protocols such as USB. There are also architectural issues such as the quality of the cables used and the performance of any switches (or old fashioned hubs) involved. All of these issues eat into the theoretical raw data transfer rate of Ethernet.

Fast Ethernet has a theoretical speed of 100 Mbits/sec (12 MB/sec), while Gigabit Ethernet has a theoretical speed of 1000 Mbits/sec (120 MB/sec). That suggests a double speed advantage of Gigabit Ethernet over USB (60 MB/sec), but neither protocol hits its maximum. In reality, a typical USB connected disk is roughly equal to or lesser than the throughput of a shared drive attached over a Gigabit Ethernet network.

Wireless Networking has all the complexity of traditional wired networking with the additional complications of signal strength issues such as radio interference and barriers, as well as additional overhead related to wireless transmission that commonly halves its real world throughput over the theoretical raw data rate.

- 802.11b has a theoretical speed maximum of 11 Mbits/sec with a typical transfer rate of around 4.5 Mbits/sec (0.5 MB/sec) with an ideal signal.
- 802.11g has a theoretical speed maximum of 54 Mbits/sec, with a typical transfer rate of around 23 Mbits/sec (2.5 MB/sec) with an ideal signal.
- 802.11n has a theoretical speed maximum of 300 Mbits/sec, with a typical transfer rate of around 74 Mbits/sec (9.25 MB/sec) with an ideal signal.

As the signal strength of a wireless network drops, the connection speed is automatically renegotiated and slower and slower rates until no connection is possible. The transfer rates of wireless networking make it ideal for browsing the web, as most US residents have a connection speed of around 1.5 Mbits/sec for DSL, or from 3 to 6 Mbit/sec with cable Internet service. Any version of WiFi is much faster than that.

However, very fastest wireless networking is required to perform intensive data transfers such as Time Machine backups, general file sharing, and media streaming, particularly if more than one client is using the network at once, or if one user is trying to do more than one thing with their wireless connection, such as backing up files while streaming audio to Apple TV, for example.

A Visual Speed Comparison

This chart shows the relative difference in throughput of the interfaces described above, with theoretical raw data rates in blue, and typical real world throughput in red. Note that these real world numbers are ideal peak maximums, not the average throughput users will see at all times. As detailed above, there are lots of factors that can eat into the actual real world performance. Time Capsule has performance limitations of its own, which are related to its design to primarily serve wireless clients. An upcoming segment will detail what Time Capsule itself can do.

Direct connection interfaces, such as SATA and USB, commonly deliver closer to half their theoretical maximum raw data rate, but as interfaces and drive mechanisms improve, the real world data throughput will rise. Ethernet networking interfaces, such as Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet, can hit peak transmission rates close to their maximums, but suffer from greater overhead compared to a direct connection interface.

Wireless networking throughput depends more on external factors to reach its full potential. Ideal signal strength is critically important to reach anywhere near the high end of real world throughput numbers. There are other factors that make a huge difference in wireless performance; Time Capsule and AirPort Extreme both support new features unique to the new 802.11n wireless networking protocol, including the use of multiple antennas (a technology referred to as MIMO) and the use of the 5 GHz radio spectrum. The next segment will look at the pros and cons of using this alternative frequency, which depending on the circumstances can either decrease signal range or deliver a major boost in your wireless data rate.

Time Capsule

Footnote: USB Performance in Windows vs Mac OS X

In addition to the cabling and protocol specifics, there are other reasons for Windows PCs to outperform Macs in USB transfers. The testing done by BareFeats in the article USB 2.0 versus FireWire compared 2004 PowerPC Macs against 3 GHz Pentium 4 PCs; since USB pushes much of its work to the CPU, the speed of the host made a big difference in how fast USB performed on the two platforms.

Their testing also revealed that the first generation of the PowerMac G5 delivered poor I/O across the board, scoring lower than even the mobile PowerBook and low cost eMac in both Firewire and USB. That indicates that the theoretical expectations for USB (or any protocol) are nearly meaningless when compared to the actual speed of the disk, processor, the implementation of the protocol itself, and other factors that might cause interference or otherwise eat up the expected maximum throughput speeds. In other words, USB does not ever run at its maximum theoretical speed rating.

Additionally, Windows file sharing and disk protocols are simpler than on the Mac, because Windows handles and presents less metadata. This lightness makes for faster disk operations at the expense of the sophistication of the Mac's higher quality file icons, richer file type and creator codes, and other features missing in Windows.

There are other factors that affect cross platform throughput as well; Mac OS X suffers some degree of overhead from new features such as Spotlight indexing, while Windows PCs are typically burdened with running anti-virus scanning software that peels away a significant edge in performance. Clearly, there are lots of factors to account for in making direct performance comparisons, and neatly presented numbers can easily hide those details in a misleading way.

Previous articles related to Time Capsule and its AirPort Extreme cousin:

Exploring Time Capsule: how it fits into Apple's AirPort family
An in-depth review of Apple's 802.11n AirPort Extreme Base Station
Apple Time Capsule unboxing and preview
A Look Inside Apple's New Time Capsule
Answers to Time Capsule reader questions

Apple begins widespread testing of Mac OS X 10.5.3 Update

Published: 10:20 AM EST

Apple Inc. this week began testing Mac OS X 10.5.3 Update, a third maintenance and security update to its relatively new Leopard operating system that already bundles over 75 bug fixes and code corrections.

The Mac maker on Thursday informed its vast developer community of the availability of Mac OS X 10.5.3 Build 9D10, a pre-release copy of the software update featuring a focus list spanning some two dozen core components.

Among those components in need of evaluation, people familiar with the matter tell AppleInsider, are AddressBook, AppleScript, Audio, Back To My Mac, Dashboard, the Dock, DVD Player, Finder, Graphics, iCal, Mail, Portable Home Directories, Printing, Rosetta, Spaces, Spotlight, Time Machine, and VoiceOver.

In a set of developer notes reported to have accommodated the update, Apple is also said to have listed 75 code corrections that have already been baked into this first external build, including two aimed at critical memory leaks within CoreAnimation and iCal.

Other fixes target Dashboard, iCal alarms and syncing, Installer App, Spotlight indexing, PDFs within the Preview App, Mail alarms, Spaces, Stacks and the Dock.

Mac OS X 10.5.3 is presumed for a release sometime in April or May.

Apple releases Aperture 2.1 with new plug-in architecture

Published: 12:20 PM EST

Apple on Friday released Aperture 2.1, an update to its post-production photography workflow software that introduces an open plug-in architecture allowing photographers to more easily use specialized third party imaging software directly from within the application.

Available today as a free update, Aperture 2.1 includes the Apple-developed plug-in, Dodge & Burn, which adds brush-based tools for dodge (lighten), burn (darken), contrast, saturation, sharpen and blur.

Over the coming months, third party software developers will deliver image editing plug-ins for localized editing, filters and effects, noise analysis and reduction, fisheye lens correction and more, according to Apple.

�The image quality in Aperture 2 has won over the most demanding photographers,� said Rob Schoeben, Apple�s vice president of Applications Product Marketing. �Now, thanks to our open plug-in architecture, users can access an entire industry�s worth of imaging expertise without ever leaving Aperture.�

By clicking on one or more images within Aperture 2.1, users can choose from a menu of installed plug-ins and apply specialized imaging operations to either TIFF or RAW images. Apple is also working closely with key developers to bring the most requested plug-ins to Aperture such as:

* Nik Software�s Viveza plug-in, powered by U Point technology, which provides a powerful, precise and easy way for photographers to selectively control and adjust color and light in their digital images

* PictureCode�s Noise Ninja plug-in that delivers advanced high ISO noise analysis and reduction

* Digital Film Tools� Power Stroke plug-in that features a simple, stroke-based interface to quickly mask and intuitively perform targeted adjustments

* The Tiffen Company's Dfx plug-in that provides an expansive suite of creative filters and effects

* dvGarage�s dpMatte plug-in, which is a high performance chroma key tool for creating seamless composites, and the HDRtoner plug-in that enables the selection of multiple photos to create a single high dynamic range (HDR) image and

* Image Trends� plug-ins that include Fisheye-Hemi to quickly and effortlessly correct fisheye lens distortion, ShineOff which automatically removes shine from faces and PearlyWhites that automatically whitens and brightens teeth.

Aperture 2.1 is available immediately as a free software update to current Aperture 2.0 users. Full system requirements and more information on Aperture can be found at here. Information and availability for third party imaging plug-ins can be found here, here and at the Aperture community site AperturePluggedIn.

Apple researching autostereoscopic 3-D display hardware

Published: 10:00 AM EST

Apple has been conducting research on a new breed of display hardware that would employ autostereoscopy to produce three-dimensional images that can be viewed by multiple users without the need for special headgear or glasses, AppleInsider has discovered.

The technology would consist of a projection screen having a predetermined angularly-responsive reflective surface function which would produce depth perception to the viewer even though the image is produced by a flat device, according to a filing with United States Patent and Trademark Office.

"Modern three-dimensional (3D) display technologies are increasingly popular and practical not only in computer graphics, but in other diverse environments and technologies as well," Apple said in the 25-page filing. "Growing examples include medical diagnostics, flight simulation, air traffic control, battlefield simulation, weather diagnostics, entertainment, advertising, education, animation, virtual reality, robotics, biomechanical studies, scientific visualization, and so forth."

While common forms of such displays require shuttered or passively polarized eyewear, those approaches have not met with widespread acceptance because observers generally do not like to wear equipment over their eyes, the company said. Such approaches are also said to be impractical, and essentially unworkable, for projecting a 3D image to one or more casual passersby, to a group of collaborators, or to an entire audience such as when individuated projections are desired.

As a result, Apple proposes a three-dimensional display system having a projection screen with a predetermined angularly-responsive reflective surface function. Three-dimensional images would be respectively modulated in coordination with the predetermined angularly-responsive reflective surface function to define a programmable mirror with a programmable deflection angle.

This form of technology would cater to the continuing need for such practical autostereoscopic 3D displays that can also accommodate multiple viewers independently and simultaneously, the company said. Unlike 3D glasses or googles, it would provide simultaneous viewing in which each viewer could be presented with a uniquely customized autostereoscopic 3D image that could be entirely different from that being viewed simultaneously by any of the other viewers present, all within the same viewing environment, and all with complete freedom of movement.

Apple 3D display filing

According to the filing, this form of display could include a 3D/stereoscopic rendering engine that renders 3D images and may be implemented in firmware, software, or hardware. The 3D/stereoscopic rendering engine could also be part of a graphics card, code running on a graphics chip's graphics processor unit, a dedicated application specific integrated circuit, specific code running on the host CPU, and so forth.

"The 3D images that are rendered by the 3D/stereoscopic rendering engine are sent to a 3D/stereoscopic display through a suitable interconnect, such as an interconnect based upon the digital video interface (DVI) standard," Apple said. "The interconnect may be either wireless (e.g., using an 802.11x Wi-Fi standard, ultra wideband (UWB), or other suitable protocol), or wired (e.g., transmitted either in analog form, or digitally such as by transition minimized differential signaling (TMDS) or low voltage differential signaling (LVDS))."

Apple 3D display filing

A display interface and image splitter inside the 3D/stereoscopic display would divide the 3D images from the 3D/stereoscopic rendering engine into two 3D sub-images, namely a left sub-image and a right sub-image. The left and right sub-images would be modulated (including being turned on and off) in respective image modulators to enable and control optical projection by a projector of the left and right sub-images respectively into the observer's left and right eyes

"The observer's brain then combines the two projected optical sub-images into a 3D image to provide a 3D viewing experience for the observer," the filing explains. "The deflection into the observer's respective left and right eyes is accomplished using a projection screen. The projection screen, in combination with image data properly modulated [...] forms a mirror device that is a programmable mirror with a programmable deflection angle."

Apple 3D display filing

Broadly speaking, Apple said, this combination constitutes the projection screen as a programmable mirror that is a spatial filter, because the combination operates to cause light to reflect from the projection screen to the observer's particular left and right eyes as a function of the spatial locations of those respective eyes, and otherwise does not reflect light -- as if the light were filtered out.

A digital signal processor (DSP) in combination with a 3D imager would also determine the correct location of an observer with respect to the projection screen. Characteristics about the observer, such as the observer's head position, head tilt, and eye separation distance with respect to the projection screen would also be determined by the DSP and the imager.

"The 3D imager may be any suitable scanner or other known device for locating and determining the positions and characteristics of each observer," the company went on to say. "Such characteristics may include, for example, the heights of the observers, head orientations (rotation and tilt), arm and hand positions, and so forth."

Apple 3D display filing

In some embodiments, the 3D imager may be configured as an integral part of the projector, which could be configured to directly illuminate the observer as well as the projection screen. An appropriately located light sensor would then be positioned to pick up the illumination light that is reflected from the observer, determining his or her position relative to the display.

Apple added that the 3D imager and the light sensor could also provide a means for observer input: "For example, the volume in front of the projection screen in which the observer is positioned may be constituted by the 3D display system as a virtual display volume that is echoed as a 3D display on the projection screen. The virtual display volume can then be used for observer input. In one embodiment, the observer can then actuate, for example, a 3D representation of a button to activate certain features on a virtual active desktop. Such an active desktop would be represented virtually in the virtual display volume and, by virtue of the 3D projection on the projection screen, would appear to the observer as a 3D image in the virtual display volume in the immediate presence and proximity of the observer. Other human interface behaviors are similarly possible, as will be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present disclosure."

In concluding its filing, originally submitted back in September of 2006, the Cupertino-based company asserts that such display technology is "straight-forward, cost-effective, uncomplicated, highly versatile and effective, can be surprisingly and unobviously implemented by adapting known technologies, and are thus fully compatible with conventional manufacturing processes and technologies."

Rumor: Digg founder claims 3G iPhone to do video chat

Published: 10:00 AM EST

Digg founder Kevin Rose, whose first-generation iPhone rumors fell short of their mark last Spring, is citing different sources this year in predicting that the 3G version of the handset will boast video chat capabilities.

During a 90 second segment of his weekly Podcast show "Diggnation" this past Friday, Rose told viewers that Apple may be restricting third parties from authoring applications that run in both the foreground and background partly because it doesn't want a competitor to its own mobile iChat application that will do just that.

More specifically, he claims that a 3G version of the iPhone hardware due in a few months will employ two digital cameras situated back-to-back -- one on the front side of the unit behind the transparent touch-screen, and a second one on the back of the handset as it exists today.

Combined with the mobile iChat application, the front-mounted cam will pave the way for live video conferencing over AT&T's high-speed 3G wireless network with computer-based iChat users, as well as other second-generation iPhone owners, according to Rose.

In the week's leading up to last year's iPhone introduction, the Digg founder cited sources in saying Apple would introduce the handset with a slide-out keyboard, two separate battery compartments, and make it available for both CDMA and GSM networks -- all of which turned out to be false.





Despite those misses, Rose has made some accurate predictions in the past, most notably his last minute reports of an iPod nano ahead of the player's inaugural release in 2005.

Microsoft hints at Office, voice recognition iPhone apps

Published: 12:00 PM EST

Microsoft Corp. has been taking a long hard look at Apple's iPhone software developers kit (SDK) since it was released earlier this month in hopes of profiting from the thriving mobile platform by releasing a few native applications of its own.

The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant is already the largest software developer for Apple's Mac platform outside of the Mac maker itself, with Fortune's Big Tech blog estimating that its Mac Business Unit generates revenues in excess of $350 million and profits of over $200 million each year.

Add to that the firm's expertise in its proprietary Exchange email protocols and business email systems, and it's almost a certainty that Microsoft will be among those bearing fresh wares for Apple's iPhone and iPod touch a bit later this year, Tom Gibbons, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Specialized Devices and Applications Group, told the business publication.

"We do have experience with that environment, and that gives us confidence to be able to do something,� he said. �The key question is, what is the value that we need to bring?"

Gibbons' team of Mac developers, which actually resides in Mountain View, Calif., just a few miles from Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, is reportedly weighing its most viable options for an initial native iPhone application, which appears as if it will fall within the Office family of productivity applications.

"It's really important for us to understand what we can bring to the iPhone," he said. "To the extent that Mac Office customers have functionality that they need in that environment, we're actually in the process of trying to understand that now."

In addition, Mike McCue of Microsoft's recently acquired TellMe voice recognition unit told Fortune that his team is also excited about iPhone development assuming the SDK will allow third party software to tap into voice recording and location-based features.

"If the SDK supports these things," he said, "we�re absolutely going to get a version out there as soon as we can, get TellMe out there on the iPhone."