Slashdot Mirror

According the IDC report (Wednesday, July 18, 2007):
"Apple's U.S. Mac market share rises to 5.6 percent in Q2
U.S. shipments of Apple's Mac computer line grew 26 percent during the second quarter of 2007, according to just released data from market research firm IDC."

Maybe I'm biased, but the IDC report seems a little more objective, to me. Saying that apple market share is flat because internet usuage statistics seems like an odd way to count.

If 15% of the new laptops sold this year are Apple, it really doesn't matter whether you decide to go and put Windows or Linux on it, from a market share standpoint: Apple is still selling 15% of the new laptops sold this year. This is something I think a lot of people (not speaking about you or the person you were replying to, per se, just in general) don't get: the hardware market is Apple, Dell, HP, Gateway, etc., not Apple and "Everybody Else" as one huge collective. Having said that, it's my suspicion that there are very few people who buy Macs with the intent of putting something other than OS X on them, simply because -- as you noted -- you can get other laptops for less from other companies. My MacBook Pro is a great laptop and I think it's relatively price-competitive for all it does, but if the set of "all it does" that was important to me personally didn't include "be a Mac," I'd have almost certainly gone with something else. At any rate, this all strikes me as somewhat dubious. According to IDC, Apple's overall market share has grown by 26% in the last quarter and it's the #4 computer hardware vendor overall, and this is a more telling statistic than the idea that, out of all the computers shipped, the number of ones using Mac OS X dropped fractionally -- this simply means that, overall, there was slightly greater growth in PCs in the last quarter than in Macs, even though Apple did pretty well.

This is inaccurate and contradicts pretty much all expectations and current indications. In fact, 5.6% is an INCREASE. The Mac has gained marketshare. Albeit, it is still a niche player and always wil be as long as Apple is in the premium market.

For example:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/07/18/appl es_u_s_mac_market_share_rises_to_5_6_percent_in_q2 .html Mac market share rises to 5.6%

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ 14057/ Predicting great increase in marketshare.

Or: http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/07/18/macs.have.5 6.share.in.us/ Mac marketshare shoots up 26%

Even reviewer Harvey Rosenfield, who is usually very kind to Apple, was quoted as saying 'some of them might be waking up now, wondering who they got in bed with.'"

The number one design choice I don't get so far is the non-replacable battery. From the tear-downs it seems like a trival (and relatively inexpensive) bit of engineering to have altered the back shell to allow for a clip-in battery. Is Apple really that desperate for their cut of battery replacements? They could even have designed around a smaller battery trusting that heavy users would buy a backup anyway.

at&t seem to be quite out of it with regards to how their own systems work, to the point where they have to make things up (or make wild guesses) when they don't understand why it isn't working. So far there is at least one solution to work around at&t's incompetence, but there's no telling if it applies to your situation.

MS Office for Mac is definitely NOT a stagnant product. Back in January, there was a preview for MS Office 2008 for Mac at MacWorld. It will be a universal binary, which is great news for Intel Mac owners.

While I also think Apple has focused a lot recently on the iPhone (for good reason), they did update their Mac Pro line recently. Furthermore, if you notice on sites like http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/, every long drought has brought about a significant update. New enclosures, processor generation jumps (i.e. G4 to G5).

I would be more concerned if there wasn't a notebook update. Desktops are "dying" so to speak for consumers which is where Apple targets. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/06/22/appl e_snatches_14_percent_of_may_notebook_sales.html Apple notebooks updates come out about the same time as other PC manufacturers (in terms of shipping actual product and not just announcing).

This push for the iPhone will in fact help Mac users and possibly standards users. If the iPhone is very successful, Safari / web standards compatibility will be a requirement. I don't have to keep wondering when the top hit list will ever change over (http://webkit.org/projects/compat/hitlist.html). More services will open up for the Mac; for instance, push IMAP instead of proprietary Blackberry protocols may become standard which would allow desktop apps to take advantage of. Better synchronization support for OS X. H.264 may become a "de facto" standard which would stop the Windows Media only sites I keep encountering. There are many reasons for you to care about the iPhone as a Mac users that aren't directly related to the phone.

People who just tend to focus on Mac OS X are missing the bigger picture. I may not get an iPhone but I understand and do care about its success. And its coattails may not be limited to just Apple. Everyone benefits from a more open and standards based web. It might just take an iPhone like phenomenon (or hype machine) to nudge webmasters and other parties in the right direction.

I would hope that the Aqua interface elements get a reworking before the final release. They look absolutely out of place in the new unified interface scheme. If they simply copied over the iPhone style Leopard would look a whole lot better. Take a look at them side by side and tell me which you prefer.

Accounts are that Apple has long been telling the major labels that DRM is not workable from the beginning. For evidence to this point, look no further than EMI's CEO, who stated that they knew Steve Jobs' views on DRM long before his open letter calling for DRM-free music. From the press conference where Jobs and Eric Nicoli announced the deal:

"Q: It's a pretty radical step, Eric. How did you reach the decision to do it? Was it Steve Jobs' letter that convinced you? Was it the internal surveys you've done? What was the moment in which you said, "Damn it, we're gonna go DRM-free?" And will the extra sales be enough to compensate for the declining physical sales?

A: We've always known Steve's view on the subject, long before his open letter."

The full transcript is here: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/04/02/jobs _talks_new_itunes_functions_drm_and_video_ipod_sto rage_transcript.html

Wow. 47,000 sales. Truly amazing. Clearly Blu-Ray has won.

Of course, Cars sold 5,000,000 DVDs in 2 days . The direct-to-DVD movie American Pie Presents: Band Camp sold over 1,000,000 copies in its initial week. (Sorry I can't find anything newer; studios seem pretty secretive about these numbers.)

Conclusion: If you're looking for a "winner", DVD continues to crush both Blu-Ray and HD DVD without even noticing. The Blu-Ray and HD DVD numbers are minor and insignificant. Nothing useful can be deduced from these numbers. Declaring one a "winner" over another based on this sort of data is foolish. When one or the other starts selling a million of copies of a movie in a week, I'll pay more attention.

I read something over at AppleInsider that I thought was salient. Rather than claiming it as my own, let me quote Hattig here:

Apple are stating the displays support millions of colours using a 6 bit per channel display in conjunction with dithering. This is how all budget LCD panels and laptop panels work. The dithering works pretty well, most people don't notice it. The graininess appears to be a graphics chip driver issue (someone above mentioned that rebooting into Windows fixed it) rather than a display issue, or it could be a problem with the Intel graphics hardware (there's enough problems there already, this wouldn't surprise me).

Imagine temporally dithering each component (R, G, B) in a 6-bit panel. Flickering between two adjectent values simulates the value midway between, effectively giving you a 7-bit panel. 2^21 = 2 million, which would meet Apple' definition. If you altered the timing you could simulate an 8-bit panel as well, which is probably what TN panels do to get 16m colours.

I was always surprised how bad the colours on my MBP look compared to the same colours on my 19" CRT. Now I know why they look so bad. Here is a better article about this case. Both articles don't mention iBooks and Powerbooks. Do they use 'normal' screens? I had an iBook once and I always thought the iBook had a (much) better screen than the MBP.

Regarding resolution independence:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/10/24/reso lution_independence_in_leopard_confirmed_by_apple. html

'I make fifty cents just for showing up, and the other 50 cents is based on my performance.'

You're simply wrong. You can trademark the appearance of a UI; here's a link to one of Apple's trademark filings.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/07/05/appl e_filings_reveal_potential_ipod_redesigns.html

Go look up "trade dress".

I predict that it's only a matter of time before someone uses the trademark loophole in GPL v2 to make GPL code non-redistributable.

And again, it can be made arbitrarily hard to remove logos and brand names from software, if you have a mind to do so.

According to research firm Gartner, worldwide PC shipments totaled 57 million units in the first quarter of 2006, representing a 13.1 percent increase over the same period last year. But in that time, Apple's share of the worldwide market slipped from 2.2 percent to a mere 2.0 percent, the firm's data shows.

'No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get. In the case of music, Apple got out early. They were the first to really recognize that you couldn't just think about the device and all the pieces separately. Bravo. Credit that to Steve (Jobs) and Apple. They did a nice job. But it's not like we're at the end of the line of innovation that's going to come in the way people listen to music, watch videos, etc. I'll bet our ads will be less edgy. But my 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune.'

It's obviously expensive, that's bad. They will make more money than us ... someway I don't understand. We have a mobile operating system and are fairly successful in pushing it into mobile devices. I'll leave out how much just our software raises the price of a mobile device ... because it's probably pretty significant $50-$100. We dropped the ball on music and we're currently dropping the ball on a billion phone sales by making them more expensive without providing the customer with the strange benefits I don't understand but Steve Jobs thinks is obvious. I'm sure Microsoft will come out ahead here. Oh, and I can't wait until my uncle squirts Tom Dooley by The Kingston Trio all over me. We're smart, we chose to target the old people who buy and return a single piece of fruit and are electronically hip and are retiring as opposed to the foolish spending youths of today--why do you think we colored it brown?!

Once the iPhone is released in June, there will be a big discrepancy in the number of people who currently say they will buy the $500 iPhone from those who actually do. There will also be a big discrepancy in purchasing numers between different demographic age groups. Young people will care less about the actual functionalities of the product and more about the hype and "coolness" of it. Older business users are the exact opposite. Because of this, I think it would be a waste of AT&T's resources to market towards business users (for the first generation iPhone anyways). There have been quite a few polls from different research firms showing a wide range of interest in the iPhone. Change Wave Research: "9% of the population that is somewhat to very interested in getting the iPhone" http://www.intomobile.com/2007/03/23/most-people-d o-not-want-an-apple-iphone.html Lets Talk: "52% of the surveyed users answering that they will NOT buy an iPhone" http://www.intomobile.com/2007/03/18/current-music -phone-users-dont-want-an-iphone.html PiperJaffray: "85 percent of high school students said they were already familiar with the multi-function Apple gadget, and of those students, 25 percent said they'd be willing to buy one at the previously announced $500 entry point." http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/04/09/high _school_teens_say_theyll_plunk_down_500_for_iphone .html

As a longtime Mac user and a fan of Apple products in general, I'd like to congratulate the winner of this contest. Too many Mac users now seem lost in willful ignorance of the fact that tasteful, thoughtful design alone doesn't render a system bulletproof. Thus, I applaud any honest efforts to increase the public awareness that yes, shit-happening potential exists, even on a Mac.

(I said honest efforts. That guy who claimed the AirPort hack is still a raging tool.)

Another point to emphasize—and which, curiously, seems always to be overlooked on Slashdot—is that an uninvited guest doesn't need root to ruin your day. As long as he or she can rm -rf ~, or better yet, yank all your most intimate personal documents and send them flying across the internets, root's just gravy. So let's not pretend this Safari vuln is harmless.

Really though, how on earth are you supposed to guard against attack through vectors not yet publicly known, without either (a) suffering a crippled functionality, or (b) being badgered into clicking "Continue" out of habit? The best approach I've seen is the one adopted by Google's anti-phishing plugin (and for those of us who can't stand Firefox, Leopard can't come soon enough). It's intuitive, unobtrusive, and cuts straight to the heart of the problem: making sure you're visiting the wholesome, trustworthy site you think you're visiting.

But even with the Google phish alarm installed, if you make one little mistake—if you step out of line for just a second—you could be hosed. Or what if someone figures out how to inject an attack on a "safe" bulletin board? You're hosed. Hell, maybe someday Google blows it like a Taco Bell restaurant inspector. Hosed.

So can it even be done, this cake thing, with the eating? Or is our best hope to just pray to Jobs the Mac never becomes mainstream enough to attract attention from the big-league black hats?

I'd say Vista was failing badly and it's hurting computer sales.

Well... Mac sales in the U.S. are up 30% over last year.

Seems to me the "Leopard Delay" (as also reported by AppleInsider.com http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/04/12/appl e_delays_leopard_release_until_october.html and gizmondo.com http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/official-apple- delays-leopard-iphone-is-priority-1-251911.php) is merely a hack of Apple's site. I took these screenshots recently: http://home.arcor.de/gitsax/Bilder/Bildschirmfotos /Bild%203.jpg http://home.arcor.de/gitsax/Bilder/Bildschirmfotos /Bild%204.jpg http://home.arcor.de/gitsax/Bilder/Bildschirmfotos /Bild%205.jpg Only one shows this "news".

The Macbook (and around 70% of all other portables) is made by Taiwanese company Quanta Computing along with your iPod. Apple products are about as American-made as Grass Jelly.

Q: It's a pretty radical step, Eric. How did you reach the decision to do it? Was it Steve Jobs' letter that convinced you? Was it the internal surveys you've done? What was the moment in which you said, "Damn it, we're gonna go DRM-free?" And will the extra sales be enough to compensate for the declining physical sales?

A: We've always known Steve's view on the subject, long before his open letter.

As much as I like the Mac, it's marketshare has not increased significantly over the years, and has dwindled a bit with every major technology change they've made

Mac sales growth up over 100 percent in January
Net Applications: Apple's Mac 'market share' continues rise, hits 6.38% in February 2007

Apple believes they sell superior hardware. Apple believes they sell superior software. If follows, if these things are true, and you ignore any mitigating factors, that Apple stands to make the most money by decoupling the sales of these things. Break down barriers to entry for your superior products. Let PC users buy the superior OSX without having to invest in Apple hardware at the same time. Let Windows users buy superior Mac hardware to run Windows. Let people who want the best of both buy Macs and run OSX on them.

Previously, the mitigating factor in running Windows on a Mac was that Macs ran on PPC processors, and other than Windows NT 3.51, Microsoft didn't make any OS that could run on them. Slashdot posters frequently said how Apple runs a closed system and would never let other OS's, especially Windows, compete on Mac. But as soon as Macs went x86, Apple didn't just allow Windows on Macs, the released Bootcamp.

Apple doesn't sell OSX for PC's, but it has nothing to do with being scared of the competition or being addicted to consumer lock-in. Apple doesn't want the hardware or technical support headache that would come with trying to support every one of thousands of x86 machines on the market. Yes, this is an issue of control- Apple's main selling point in OSX is user-friendliness, and they don't think they can maintain that if they had to deal with the sort of driver issues Windows and Linux have. But they don't try all that hard to lock OSX out of other platforms. They just don't support it. With no hacks or tricks, OSX will install on some Thinkpads just by inserting the disc and clicking "install." Maybe clicking the "install" button constitutes "serious hacking" to you, but to most of us, it's Apple's regular user-friendliness. The peripherals pretty much all work by default too, unless you get the Intel wireless card. Don't configure your laptop with that, and buy any one of a dozen third party wireless cards, plug it in, and you'd be all set with a fully functional non-Apple OSX machine running the latest release of Tiger. If Apple were serious about blocking OSX PC use, they'd be using the trusted computing module to lock down the OS to their hardware. At the very least, they'd keep up on news, know that OSX installs on Thinkpads, and they would have crippled that with any one of the last 7 OS updates since it became public information. But they don't; instead, they put a note that says Please don't steal.

There's no analog mitigating factors for music sales. Apple thinks they have the best music management program with the best store, and the best players. Again, they'd like the revenue of selling music to people with other players, and they'd like to sell players to people who use other stores- sales of popular products do best when you reduce barriers to entry, not when you increase them by locking products together. There's no fear of difficulty supporting MP3's on other players, and there's no difficulty playing other MP3's on the iPod. You say Apple wants to lock-in people who bought Fairplay music? The iPod's still gaining market- why wouldn't Apple want to be able to go after customers who were already locked-in to other stores more that they'd fear losing customers they already had? That's the way things go when you reduce barriers for the market leading product.

Any time Steve Jobs comes up on Slashdot, someone gets moded +5 for saying that he's lying, and he secretly has evil intentions opposite to what he stated, and that this is secretly in Apple's favor because they want bad things. Others get moded up for saying that, sure, Steve Jobs is on the right side of this issue, but that he has no morals and doesn't believe in what he's saying, he's just doing it because it's in Apple's, and thus his, financial interest. If so, why does he also take moral stands in public statements that are patently against Apple's interests?

3G iPhone could arrive overseas by early 2008 http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2520 Expect higher prices at release: TFA 1% of 26% buy sight unseen,or .26% World usage "estimated at 2.14 billion in 2005" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone Over 5 million,buy sight unseen,2005 numbers. So first year 10 million looks like cake.Hotcakes, actually. Early production/distribution will fall short of demand,driving ebay crazies The retail increase will be promoted/accepted by inclusion of widgets of some kind. If it has simple Vid Phone setup, the pretty girly girls will all Need That. Gauranteed. Apple's target,he top 1% do not care about costs. Certainly not cost in Hundreds. It is all junk, a thing to flaunt, to show off. That will be enough. The peasant classes will tag along. This is a complete no-brainer.

The next release of OS X will have resolution independence. It's been just beneath the surface for a few releases now. Resolution independence allows text, icons, and everything else to be scaled to look "right" on high-resolution, small scale screens, or on normal resolution, ultra-large screens.

Some links about this.

If Ballmer wants Mac users to help subsidize Vista for the rest of us poor sods that run ugly beige boxes, I'm all for it. It will be up to them to decide whether or not it's worth it. And if it's not, I'd suggest they rush to CDW or whatever and get a copy of XP as soon as possible. They'll be able to use it until 2011 or so.

And besides, why would Mac users need Vista at all? That would be a direct contradiction of their own mantra.

.... All you need is love.

And $8.7 Billion USD in cash. But that's a lot harder to rhyme.

According to this article, it looks Apple's working on a hot-swappable iPod which would probably address at least one of the bugs involved here. Either way, Apple should have worked this out before Vista came out; there's a lot of cash from Windows users in their coffers.

Word is Apple's cooking up a solution for that:
AppleInsider | Apple working on hot unpluggable iPods

The surprising thing to me is that it took so long for this to happen. What's the use of plug-and-play devices if you still have to manually dismount them before you go?

I've been using products from the likes of IBM, HP, Sun, Novell and Microsoft in commercial environments for the last 30 years without having any of those kinds of problems. And as an I/T professional I could give a shit about what the "community" happens to take into it's head about what's good for it, from my perspective avoiding legal problems is a Good Thing. I've never had to contend with the threat of a lawsuit invalidating my license for implementing a solution on Solaris or Windows.

Asteroid is apparently firewire audio interface for Garageband. Basically, so you could plug in a keyboard, guitar or microphone and record. I'm not exactly sure why this is such a big deal, seeing as M-Audio sells the same thing in both USB and firewire.

Once they put out their spreadsheet program it is quite likely that the Microsoft Business Unit will be broken up and assigned to Windows products.

I guess this explains why they've never done a spreadsheet...if Microsoft stopped making Office for Mac, it would cripple the Macintosh platform and probably depress sales tremendously. Apple knows it -- hence why the advertise that the Mac will run Office -- and so does everyone else (iWork didn't sell very well, heck, it couldn't even outsell Word Perfect).

Not to be conspiratorial, but if you're right, I'd sooner believe that Apple planned a spreadsheet and pulled it out of iWork, essentially scuttling it in order to save the Mac as a platform, rather than believing that they're going to implement one and take on Office directly.

There are thousands, if not millions, of users who can only get away with using Macs, despite their advantages in other areas, because they run a native version of Microsoft Office and thus can be argued to be "100% compatible." Without a native version of Office, the Mac's marketshare would evaporate -- either with users switching back to Windows in order to get "real Office," or to Linux, because it would then be just as good (or bad), and significantly cheaper.

There is Office, and there is everything else. iWork is not Office, therefore it is, to most people, no better or worse than any number of 'alternative office suites,' some of which are free. I think it's a great program, but unless it supports ODF and ODF catches on in a big way (like, the U.S. government mandates it as the One True Format, not bloody likely) it's competing in a niche that's been dead for years.

I'm hardly a MS fanboy: I have a dual-proc G5 (last of the great PPC Space Heaters) at home, sitting next to a Linux workstation that I bought no-OS. I've never purchased a copy of Windows in my life, and don't plan to. But if Office didn't exist for Mac, I'd probably have to bite the bullet and get one, because it's just not practical to not speak the lingua franca of the electronic-document world, with perfect fluency. I despise the fact that DOC, and not an open standard, has become entrenched, but that's the situation users have to deal with.

Rather a lot, judging by how the FCC "announced" the Zune and the wireless Mighty Mouse.

Rather a lot, judging by how the FCC "announced" the Zune and the wireless Mighty Mouse.

Old news.

It might be amusing to add a GPS system. Then, write an app that, on receiving a certain type of SMS from Apple, proceeds to start phoning the police asking for help, and posting its position and a picture of its surroundings to a website. Screaming for help might be another nice touch... or perhaps just making the sound of police sirens as an unsubtle hint.

Yeah, it's a problem; however, there are enough easy solutions that I'd be surprised if Apple doesn't stuff one (or more) in by deployment time.

Old news.

It might be amusing to add a GPS system. Then, write an app that, on receiving a certain type of SMS from Apple, proceeds to start phoning the police asking for help, and posting its position and a picture of its surroundings to a website. Screaming for help might be another nice touch... or perhaps just making the sound of police sirens as an unsubtle hint.

Yeah, it's a problem; however, there are enough easy solutions that I'd be surprised if Apple doesn't stuff one (or more) in by deployment time.

I doubt this. But then, Wired has always been even bigger Apple shills than Slashdot is.

Apple's laptop market share doubled in the first half of last year from 6% in January 2006 to 12% in June 2006. I don't know what their market share is up to since 6/06 but predicting 20% for 2007 doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Apple Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller in July and Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said it again at the beginning of this month.

"absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we're not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot."

"Apple ... is very pleased with Parallels software and didn't feel the need to compete with its own version of embedded virtualization."

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2277/

Because blogs are a way to reach audiences that are not reached through traditional marketing outlets

Yeah, because Apple has a real problem "reaching audiences." I mean, who ever heard of an iPod? They seem to think that TV commercials and word-of-mouth alone will sell the things.

they increase the amount of feedback you receive from your customers, and they provide a way to mine your user base for ideas.

If only there were some website where Apple could gather user opinions and feedback.

-- Brian Boyko
-- Professional Blogger.

It shows.

Apple Insider (no, I am not affiliated with them) has a better summary here.

Some info on the patent itself is at: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2275 From the article: "The initial concept consisted of a desktop computer holding multiple songs with an interface that allowed a hotel guest to select three songs and play them on an electric grand piano."

You would be completely right, except that Apple has been looking at wireless capabilities for quite some time now, based on its 2003 patent application:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=745

Microsoft's inclusion of wireless capabilities in the Zune may pressure Apple to follow suit if this feature proves to be an actual selling point rather than merely marketing hype, but no one should be left with the impression that the idea of wireless capabilities somehow never crossed anyone's mind at Apple. My bet is that when the folks at Apple do wireless they do wireless right.

As for built-in FM tuners, well, that's hardly Microsoft's idea. Apple has obviously decided that most people don't care, and they seem to be right. Besides, FM tuners are for *live* radio, which has become less and less relevent with the advent of podcasting. If we can listen to our favorite music and radio programs on our own schedule, who cares about a FM tuner, especially one that probably gets crummy reception? I listen to a lot more radio with now, via podcasts, than I did before I got my iPod.

How's that podcast listening experience on the Zune? Ha ha. Well, Microsoft will come around eventually and integrate podcasts into the Zune software, but the ball is in their court . . .

4.8% in July, with a strong upwards trend.

6.1 % US market

multiple sources report the share of the notebook market at 12%.

Questions?

That vision of Ballmer, with his little, bald, slightly-pointed head, looking like he was popping with joy while talking about his squirting content, I really didn't need.

And for those wondering, the splash screen of three women in distress isn't our contributor's stab at a knee-slapper. It's the official installer backdrop chosen by the Redmond, Wash. folks to appear for each and every customer who installs a Zune.

In distress? They look quite happy to me...

VNUnet article
Apple Insider post
Apple's Developer Overview site