All Things Digital

Well, Apple Insider isn’t paying much mind to the sudden closure of its Mac rumor site brethren earlier this week. Citing the same sort of “people familiar with the matter” that got Think Secret into trouble, the site today reports that Apple plans to adopt Intel’s upcoming ultra-mobile Silverthorne chip in “not one but multiple products currently situated on its 2008 calendar year product roadmap.”

Silverthorne, part of Intel’s “Menlow” Mobile Internet Device platform, reportedly runs as fast as a second generation Pentium M processor, but consumes between half a watt and two watts of electrical power–about a tenth of the power consumed by a typical notebook processor. No wonder Apple’s said to be interested in the chip. It would appear to be perfect for a number of devices rumored to be secreted away in its product pipeline–the FlashBook, the multitouch Newton, the Mac tablet.

That said, we’ll likely not see it popping up in a 3G iPhone, though at first glance it would make sense there as well. “According to several iPhone teardowns, Apple is likely using the Samsung S3C6400, or some special equivalent built just for them, in the iPhone,” explains News.com’s Tom Krazit. “That chip is based on the ARM1176 core, which at 620MHz consumes just 279 milliwatts. That’s running all-out, whereas most of the time you’re actually going to be drawing much less power than that. Silverthorne, by contrast, will consume 500 milliwatts of power at minimum, and probably only when it’s doing nothing in idle mode. Those numbers just aren’t going to work in a phone, especially an Apple phone, if the company really is so concerned about power consumption that it has held off on releasing a 3G iPhone until the power consumption of that modem improves.”

When Daily Variety broke the news that Pixar had hired writers for the pitch that became the 2007 release ‘Ratatouille,’ Steve Jobs tracked the reporter down at the Sundance Film Festival, demanding to know her sources and threatening to fire the film’s writers. He called her on the private line of a rented condo–a number she had not given out to anyone. She still doesn’t know how he found it.”
–Daily Variety, June 18, 2006

Apple’s long-running war with the Fourth Estate–well, the Black Bag ops portion of it, anyway–has finally claimed its first victim. Think Secret, a Mac rumor site Apple sued for misappropriation of trade secrets back in 2005 after it pre-announced the Mac mini and the iLife ’05 software suite, has agreed to cease publication as part of its settlement with the company. “Apple and Think Secret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides,” Think Secret said in a statement. “As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published.”

A bit of an about-face for Think Secret and its 21-year-old publisher Nicholas Ciarelli, who up until this point had fought the suit tooth-and-nail, painting it as an effort to chill free speech and Apple as the tech industry’s version of the Nixon-era White House for filing it. “Apple’s lawsuit is an affront to the First Amendment and an attempt to use Apple’s economic power to intimidate small journalists,” Think Secret said in a 2005 Anti-SLAPP filing. “If a publication such as the New York Times had published such information, it would be called good journalism; Apple never would have considered a lawsuit.”

Probably not. And it would never consider a suit against analyst Gene Munster, who’s essentially Piper Jaffray’s version of Think Secret. So why settle? We may never know, though in his statement, Ciarelli seemed to suggest he simply wanted to get on with his life without the specter of Apple legal hanging over him. “I’m pleased to have reached this amicable settlement,” he said. “[I] will now be able to move forward with my college studies and broader journalistic pursuits.”

UPDATE: The Think Secret camp describes the settlement as a loss for Apple. “It’s clear that Apple filed the lawsuit with such fanfare, but then stopped the entire litigation because they thought they were going to lose, and that they’d end up paying [Nick] a lot of money for it,” Ciarelli’s lawyer, Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky LLP, told Computerworld. “This shows that lawsuits like Apple’s can be stopped dead. … Other companies are going to realize that if they try something like this, there will be an uproar, and groups like EFF will do what it takes [to represent defendants]. … I would have loved for Apple to go forward on this. Apple would have caved, which they should have in the beginning.”