bbc.co.uk Navigation

Rory Cellan-Jones

Apple's "brave" price rise

  • Rory Cellan-Jones
  • 3 Mar 09, 17:10 GMT

Without the usual fanfare, Apple unveiled an upgrade to its entire range of desktop computers this afternoon. But UK customers were quick to notice one thing - they were expected to pay higher prices. At a time when world computer sales are expected to see their fastest drop in history, this is what a senior civil servant would describe in conversation with a reckless minister as a "brave" move.

From now on, Apple's entry-level computer, the Mac Mini, which comes without a screen or a keyboard, starts at £499 - as compared to £391 before today. The 20in iMac now costs £949 - the old price was £782. Right at the top of the range, the brand new 8-core Mac Pro costs £2499, but the quad-core costs £1899, up from £1712. Apple told me that buyers were getting a lot more in terms of specifications than the previous models offered - but I pointed out that my first desktop cost me £1500 in 1995 for a computer which had marginally less memory than me on a bad day. We all know the rules - wait six months to buy a computer, and you get something with a higher spec for less cash.

So what's Apple's reasoning? In a word, the pound. The company says it has fallen 25% against the dollar over the last six months, and that's why UK customers are facing price rises where others are not. It's true that Japanese electronics firms - notably Nikon and Canon - have also raised prices in the UK because a strong yen and a weak pound was making it impossible to make money. But UK consumers will point out that Mac prices didn't fall when you could get $2 to the pound last summer.

Apple has once again proved that anyone who thinks they're going to follow the rest of the computer industry down the low-margin netbook road is living in a fantasy world. But I'm not convinced that eager customers will be storming the UK's Apple Stores to buy the new desktops. After all, you could get two netbooks for the price of a Mac Mini and still have change. So, as I said, a brave move - let's see what the sales figures say about its wisdom a few months from now.

Rory Cellan-Jones

Historic day for Broadband Britain?

  • Rory Cellan-Jones
  • 3 Mar 09, 15:40 GMT

"This is a very significant day in the deployment and history of Britain's communications," said Ofcom's chief executive, trying to gee up a roomful of sleepy hacks in a conference room this morning. Ed Richards, the impossibly youthful looking boss of a very powerful regulator, was obviously excited about an announcement which he says will "clear the way" for investment in superfast broadband. But should the rest of us care? Well yes. This news is significant for three groups - BT, Virgin Media and anyone who's interested in getting a faster broadband connection.

BT was cock-a-hoop, rushing out a happy statement just minutes after Ofcom's announcement. The telecoms giant had warned it wasn't going to spend billions on a new fibre network if the regulator wouldn't allow it to make a decent return. It had two worries - the price it could charge other firms to use its network and the fact that existing regulation meant it would have to send two sets of engineers to 8000 fibre cabinets across the country, vastly increasing the cost. Openreach - the BT local network division - is run at arm's length, treating the firm's own retail broadband business as just another customer, so when anything happens at exchanges two sets of engineers are involved. Now Ofcom has, in its own words "varied BT's undertakings", so that Openreach can do the whole job. More significantly, BT can charge its rivals whatever it likes for access to its new network. So now it's promised to press ahead with its investment in fibre-to-the-cabinet, with the rollout of 40Mbps broadband starting early next year.

Virgin Media got two things today - it was left alone by Ofcom and also got a glowing endorsement from the chief executive. The regulator was in no hurry to order Virgin to open up its network - and Ed Richards was keen to point out that the cable operator was already way ahead of BT: "People say nothing is happening in the UK when it comes to super fast broadband. That just isn't the case- it's unfair to what Virgin have done. By the end of this year 50% of the UK will be covered with superfast broadband before BT have started."

So it sounds like there was good news for consumers too. By 2012, 40% of the UK will have BT's 40Mbps service, and 50% will have 50Mbps Virgin cable broadband - and although the two firms will overlap a lot, that means well over half of the UK should be in the fast lane. But two problems remain - how much are we going to pay, and what will happen to the large numbers of people who still won't get access? Ed Richards said he'd be surprised if consumers weren't willing to pay a premium for a fast product - but the market would limit the cost :"You're not going to be able to charge £300 a month, when customers can still get 10-20Mbps for just a few pounds." And he pointed out that the take-off of mobile broadband would also mean there was plenty of competition.

But what we haven't learned today is how we can stop a new digital divide opening up. "We don't know how far the market will take us," said Ed Richards, "but the market is not going to provide super-fast broadband for 100% of homes." That will be the subject of phase two of Ofcom's deliberations - but may be more of a question for Lord Carter's Digital Britain report. We still have no idea of the cost of bringing in a "Universal Service Obligation" to make sure every home can get at least 2Mbps, so working out how to give 50 or 100Mbps to every home in the UK is going to involve an awful lot of head-scratching.

The debate has already started - the Country Landowners Association said Ofcom had failed to understand the needs of rural communities, and the effect of deregulating broadband would be to create such a gulf between town and country that "the rural economy could find itself on its knees".

As we found on our Broadband Britain tour last year, speed is an issue which really gets people worked up. And nothing gets them more agitated than the fact that everyone else seems to be accelerating away into the distance. So prepare for a long and bloody broadband battle.

Darren Waters

Microsoft still searching for solutions

  • Darren Waters
  • 3 Mar 09, 14:34 GMT

Anyone who thinks that search is a 'done deal' ought to remember that half of all Google's engineers work in the field of search. The future of search is the line on the horizon that is forever beyond our grasp.

MicrosoftFor some, that horizon is further away than for others. Take Microsoft, for example: it is expending an enormous amount of effort in trying to close the gap between itself and Google because there is a lot of money to be made from search.

But Microsoft remains a very distant competitor in the race. In the latest comScore figures for search in the US, Microsoft claims 8% of the market, while Google has 63%.

In the past it has tried offering money back to users who use its search engine to look for and buy products online.

Its latest effort - albeit an internal search engine right now - is called Kumo. Kara Swisher, over at All Things Digital, has some screenshots and analysis.

She's not alone: an internal memo about Kumo has managed to fall into the hands of lots of different tech sites, which might suggest Microsoft is putting out feelers in terms of audience response.

Kumo is the planned successor for Live Search, Microsoft's current search engine and the one failing so obviously to put a dent in Google.

The biggest changes would appear to be grouped searches around topics, and the ability to drill down and refine searches in a left hand pane.

Over at Search Engine Land Danny Sullivan notes:

"This type of classification or "drill down" into results isn't new. It's years old, tried by players such as Clusty, not to mention Google offer types of refinement right now plus Yahoo talked about this type of task-based refinement being in the works."

He concludes: "I don't mean to downplay the features shown. This is a testing site, and we're only dealing with screenshots, rather than playing with how the refinement actually works. Perhaps it will be killer.

"Certainly, Microsoft should be experimenting with both new and old ideas and is in a good position to do so, since unlike Google, it doesn't run the risk of potentially scaring off users with something they might find weird or scary (since it has so fewer seachers than Google)."

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk