Minor earthquake shakes Bay Area

Joshua Sabatini, The Examiner


SAN FRANCISCO - A 3.4-magnitude earthquake about two miles east of Berkeley briefly shook the Bay Area late Friday afternoon, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The earthquake, which rumbled at 3:46 p.m., apparently caused no damage in The City but was felt there. Both the San Francisco Fire and Police departments said no emergency calls came in following the quake.

BART followed usual protocol and stopped trains for five minutes to make sure there was no damage, which there wasn’t, and then resumed service.

The quake originated from the active Hayward Fault, which was responsible for a series of other quakes felt in the Bay Area in December.

Stephanie Hanna, spokeswoman for the USGS, said it was a “little quake,” but should remind people of the need to prepare for larger ones. She said experts predict the Hayward Fault will result in a major quake about every 150 years and the last one was in 1876. The fault is often described these days as “locked and loaded,” she said.

Steve Sarver, owner of San Francisco Soup Company, said employees and customers at their location in the Westfield San Francisco Centre never knew a quake occurred. “We didn’t feel it.

There was business as usual,” Sarver said.

Leilani Lynch, who was eating a sandwich at Café Corbis on Hayes Street at the time of the quake, said the shaking was barely detectable. “It was only a couple of seconds. A small rumble and that was it. I wasn’t even sure it was an earthquake,” Lynch said.

Beautiful S.F. has a few notably ugly buildings

Ken Garcia, The Examiner


SAN FRANCISCO - A group of American citizens recently weighed in with their thoughts on the top architectural gems in America, and San Francisco was rightly honored with some of their monumental achievements on the list, notably the Golden Gate Bridge, City Hall and the Fairmont hotel.

Of course, the Hyatt Regency hotel on Market Street also made the cut, showing that taste is a relative thing and that the difference between the Eiffel Tower and a towering eyesore can be the configuration of a few large beams.

But all the best lists in the world can’t compare to the compilations of the worst, and for every Jefferson Monument there is a monument to bad taste. In that regard San Francisco’s landscape is particularly rich, for while Chicago may be the cradle of architecture in the United States, San Francisco is more of a modern footstool, scarred by a generation of poor planning and unsightly structures that fail to stand the test of time and any other test.

I am hardly an arbiter of architectural taste — I have always thought that the Transamerica Pyramid was a distinctive gem, putting me in the group that did the recent survey by the American Institute of Architecture. But that would probably place me near the bottom of the pile among my fellow San Francisco-philes — the late Herb Caen couldn’t resist a regular slam of the building and many people view it as a towering geometric mistake.

I would have voted for the Conservatory of Flowers as one of the finest structures in America, but either the survey participants weren’t shown a picture of it or it somehow didn’t make the cut based on other criteria, such as “no Victorian greenhouses allowed.”

Yet a “worst of’’ list would probably have more of a consensus among the locals, where the primary differences would focus not on which well-known buildings qualified for public condemnation, but in which order. While most people will have a pet peeve on their roster of offending structures, I’ll bet these would be near the top of many lists.

SUTRO TOWER: This metallic pox on San Francisco’s landscape is not only The City’s highest-reaching structure, it’s also the ugliest. How this humongous erector set ever got placed right in the middle of our graceful city of hills should be the topic of a book someday on the worst planning gaffes in American history. Built to hold television and radio transmitters, this unsightly behemoth actually ruined airwave signals prior to the advent of cable. Residents near the tower have been fighting additions to this beast for years, and one can only hope that future generations will one day see the light — not the blinking ones near the top of the tower — and hold the biggest civic demolition party ever when they take it down.

HALL OF JUSTICE: It seems somehow fitting that a concrete slab used to process and hold law-breakers should itself be a crime, and this is one of the most egregious offenders in a lineup of losers. The building at 850 Bryant is so dark and dreary and downright ugly that it makes you wonder how the architectural design managed to slip through the handcuffs of city planners to blight the South of Market area. In terms of its sheer aesthetic appeal, the hall is strictly an emergency response.

FEDERAL BUILDING: Consider this the Hall of Justice’s more-evil twin, another big, unsightly box built by and for bureaucrats without any regard to form or function. Over the years this building has been the focus of nearly every form of protest imaginable — but the biggest protest should have taken place when this building was under consideration by the city fathers. The new federal building has received early praise for its “green’’ aspects, and while the jury is still out on its overall likability, anything would be an improvement on the original.

FOX PLAZA: This civic misfire makes the list for two reasons — for the objectionable structure that it is, as well as for the beautiful one that it replaced. Our more recent arrivals probably don’t know that this development got its name from the old Fox theater, which at one time was one of the most ornate and expensive show palaces built in the United States. Mention this theater to old-timers here and you will likely get a rueful, teary-eyed response. The Fox Plaza’s only saving grace is that it’s just far enough from the Civic Center to not mar the graceful synergy of our beaux arts showcase.

There are many other qualified candidates — and some too obvious (Candlestick Park) to include. But it’s the only list these sad structures should be on, besides the endangered one.

Mayor honors same-sex marriage anniversary

Bonnie Eslinger, The Examiner

SAN FRANCISCO - Although a recently revealed affair with a married woman has been a public setback for Mayor Gavin Newsom’s political career, on Monday he was able to redirect press attention to the widely lauded move he made three years ago this week on behalf of gay civil rights.

At a press conference held in his office, Newsom, along with three same-sex couples, went back in time to remember the firestorm of excitement and controversy that ensued in 2004, after Newsom authorized The City to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Feb. 12.

After an injunction to stop the marriages was granted on March 11, 2004, San Francisco’s city attorney filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging the constitutionality of laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

That case is now before the state’s Supreme Court, which is expected to hear the matter by the beginning of next year.

Although in March 2005 a California trial court ruled that to deny marriage to homosexual couples violated their constitutional right to equal protection, in October of last year, the state’s appellate court upheld a law approved by voters in 2000 that limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Nationwide, 26 states have legal bans against gay marriage. On Monday, conservative groups in New Jersey launched a petition drive to amend that state’s constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

Massachusetts is the only U.S. state to allow same-sex marriage; it is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and South Africa.

Two attempts have been made to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, in 2004 and 2006, but both efforts failed to garner the legislative votes to move forward.

Newsom said it was President Bush’s words against gay marriage, in his January 20, 2004, State of the Union address, that inspired him to authorize same-sex marriages in San Francisco.

Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that when she received a call from Newsom’s office saying he wanted to enlist the group’s help in giving out marriage licenses, that it launched “a transformative and powerful series of events.”

The organization is now representing 11 couples who are plaintiffs in the California marriage case.

The first same-sex couple married in San Francisco on Feb. 12, 2004, was Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, an elderly lesbian couple who had been together for 50 years.

Newsom said they were specifically chosen for the honor.

“What we intended to do ... was put a human face on this issue,” he said. “A narrative of a life of 50 years dedicated to constancy and love and devotion, which was the life of those two.”

Newsom said he has never regretted the controversial action, which some people say caused a backlash that resulted in gay marriage bans across the country. Newsom pointed out that in that same time frame, civil unions and domestic partnerships — which offer gay couples some of the rights provided within marriage — are gaining mainstream acceptance.

“I don’t think there’s ever a wrong time to do the right thing,” Newsom said.

Couples go to court seeking nuptials

Paula Cooper and Jeanne Rizzo had already been together for 18 years when they walked into San Francisco’s City Hall three years ago, with friends and family in tow, for their March 11 appointment to get married.

“We live as a family, little league games, preparing for college, the death of loved ones,” Cooper said.

Nonetheless, Cooper said she was “overwhelmed” by the feelings inside of her.

But when the couple, with the teenage son they had raised together, got to the appropriate city clerk’s counter, they saw a sign announcing that the state’s Supreme Court had just put a stop to San Francisco’s gay marriage spree.

Cooper and Rizzo are now plaintiffs, along with 11 other couples, in a case facing the state’s Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the state laws that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Three of the couples spoke at a press conference Monday about their relationships and their desires to be married.

John Lewis and his partner of 20 years, Stuart Gaffney, were one of the first couples to be married, and proudly held up their pink and blue city-issued marriage license.

Jewelle Gomez, 58, said she’s old enough to remember the civil rights movement for African-Americans and compared the struggle to the fight for gay marriages. Sitting next to her partner of 14 years, Diane Sabin, she was dismissive of domestic partnership laws that offer same-sex couples many of the same provisions as marriage.

“Just as it was then, separate is not equal,” Gomez said.

San Francisco Mayor admits affair with staffer, apologizes

Bonnie Eslinger, The Examiner

SAN FRANCISCO - It was a quick and somber statement that lasted two minutes but put to rest months of rumors and 24 hours of drama that had seized the corridors of City Hall. Facing a crush of cameras and reporters at a press conference Thursday morning, Mayor Gavin Newsom admitted that he had an affair with a former secretary — the wife of one of his top advisers.

Newsom’s confession confirmed media reports that surfaced Wednesday of his sexual relationship with Ruby Rippey-Tourk, the wife of Alex Tourk, who until resigning Wednesday was Newsom’s re-election campaign manager and is his former deputy chief of staff.

Although the affair reportedly occurred about a year and a half ago, Rippey-Tourk, 34, had recently confessed the affair to her husband as part of a rehabilitation program she’s going through for alcohol and substance use, according to a friend of the family, Sam Singer, who is also acting as her spokesman. Since Newsom was out of town last week in Davos, Switzerland, Alex Tourk waited until this week to confront the mayor and quit the Newsom re-election campaign Wednesday afternoon.

Tourk, 35, was part of Newsom’s inner circle of advisers, having run his election campaign four years ago and then ascending to deputy chief of staff. Often referred to as a dedicated and loyal Newsom aide, Tourk had designed and implemented one of the most successful programs of the mayor’s term, Project Homeless Connect, which allowed one-stop shopping of services for homeless individuals. The program is being copied on a national level.

In addition to working together, Alex Tourk and Newsom were friends, having known each other for 10 years.

“They were friends. They went to dinner together. They went to ballgames,” said political consultant Eric Jaye, who is also working on Newsom’s re-election campaign.

The mayor’s press office released a statement Wednesday afternoon in which Tourk said he was leaving for “personal reasons,” but the affair had not been a secret to some City Hall insiders who leaked the full story to members of the media upon hearing of Tourk’s resignation.

“I’m deeply sorry that I’ve hurt someone I care deeply about, Alex Tourk, his friends and family. That’s something I have to live with and something I am deeply sorry for,” Newsom said on Thursday at the press conference.

After making his statement, Newsom walked out of the room, without taking any questions from reporters.

News of Newsom’s confession, notably, did not fuel a fire under his political critics, who responded to questions about the affair with restraint.

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin called the situation a “very sad, unfortunate, personal matter.”

Supervisor Chris Daly said the incident has put a spotlight on the issue of Newsom’s integrity.

“No one was more loyal to Gavin Newsom than Alex Tourk. The most important things in politics are trust and respect,” said Daly, who also expressed concern about the legality of Newsom’s actions, since Rippey-Tourk was a subordinate.

Although others within City Hall echoed Daly’s thoughts that Newsom’s former appointments secretary had grounds for a sexual harassment lawsuit, Singer said she had no intention of pursuing any legal action against Newsom or The City.

“She considers this a personal matter,” Singer said.

If the relationship was consensual, there are no legal grounds for a sexual harassment claim, said Art Hartinger, a former deputy city attorney who now works in private practice. According to San Francisco Administrative Code, although consensual romantic relationships between a supervisor and a subordinate “may create a potential for conflict or an appearance of impropriety,” they are not prohibited.

Nonetheless, Newsom’s relationship with Rippey-Tourk, which reportedly occurred during the breakup of his own marriage, was not just personally reckless, it was politically rash, said Corey Cook, a political science professor at San Francisco State University.

“There are affairs, and then there’s cheating on your close friend who’s directing your re-election effort,” said Cook. “Everyone in City Hall knew all three of the people involved. The bigger story on this, is how does he be mayor tomorrow? How does he deal with the Board of Supervisors? How does this affect his ability to do his job and interact with his staff?”

After the press conference, his spokesman, Peter Ragone, said the mayor’s top advisers are united in their support of Newsom. He also said the mayor has no intention of resigning and will move ahead with his re-election campaign.

Fighting our way out of plastic bags

The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper, The Examiner

SAN FRANCISCO - Plastic bags, ubiquitous plastic bags, unsightly plastic bags — everyone uses them and everyone has an opinion about them. It’s not surprising, then, that these symbols of consumerism have evolved into yet another political issue in The City, betokening the long if oversimplified war between the Board of Supervisors and the business community.

The clash has been oversimplified because, no doubt, some businesses will comply with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi’s effort to ban stores from including the convenient little carrying bags in their shopping experience. Many merchants, after all, have complied with a similar ban on Styrofoam-style containers.

Mirkarimi’s frustration is understandable. A pact Mayor Gavin Newsom struck two years ago with large grocery stores to cut plastic bags from their transactions by 10 million — 95 tons of waste, by some estimates — failed to be completed by its December 2006 due date. The supervisor’s impulse is to make it mandatory, requiring merchants to convert to “environmentally friendly” bags.

It’s a pity, though, that the board might leap to the bag ban without considering alternatives. This could be less environmentally friendly than it seems. The “paper or plastic?” query, so often mouthed by the baggers at the checkstands, goes back at least two decades.

That courtesy was the merchants’ voluntary response to mounting concerns about our overwhelmingly plasticized society. And it was true: Plastic bags did lots of nasty things. They clogged sewage systems, they piled up in nonbiodegradable and costly ways, and they harmed small animals on land and water. They also, on the plus side, found their way into thrifty household uses.

Environmentalists’ hopes that the problem would go away by the 21st century, obviously, came to naught. Still, the first law of ecology is that you cannot change just one thing. Intricate interrelationships change as a consequence, sometimes less desirably.

The issue prompted the late economist Warren Brookes to investigate what would happen if grocers converted entirely to paper, a prospect that even now excites the anti-plastic lobby. What he found, not too many steps into his research, was a tree-to-pulp-to-paper industry that fouled the environment no less than plastics.

Almost certainly, those revoltingly polluting saw mills have cleaned up measurably since Brookes reported on them. But imagine what would happen if, by political fiat, paper bags supplanted plastic everywhere. Some shoppers did so contemplate, leaving the callow checkstand baggers befuddled when they answered: “Plastic, please. Let’s save a tree.”

Meanwhile, the grocers, also understandably, convinced Sacramento to prohibit cities from levying taxes on plastic bags. Mirkarimi’s forced conversion, nonetheless, would exact yet another cost on merchants in The City — a tax in kind just when business is reeling from the health care and sick leave impositions.

If plastic bags are piling up on the sidewalks, at least maybe those foot patrols can enforce the anti-litter laws.

Net Flix to be delivered on the Internet

MICHAEL LIEDTKE, The Associated Press


LOS GATOS, Calif. - Netflix Inc. will start showing movies and TV episodes over the Internet this week, providing its subscribers with more instant gratification as the DVD-by-mail service prepares for a looming technology shift threatening its survival.

The Los Gatos-based company plans to unveil the new "Watch Now" feature Tuesday, but only a small number of its more than 6 million subscribers will get immediate access to the service, which is being offered at no additional charge.

Netflix expects to introduce the instant viewing system to about 250,000 more subscribers each week through June to ensure its computers can cope with the increased demand.

After accepting a computer applet that takes less than a minute to install, subscribers will be able to watch anywhere from six hours to 48 hours of material per month on an Internet streaming service that is supposed to prevent piracy.

The allotted viewing time will be tied to how much customers already pay for their DVD rentals. Under Netflix's most popular $17.99 monthly package, subscribers will receive 18 hours of Internet viewing time.

The company has budgeted about $40 million this year to expand its data centers and cover the licensing fees for the roughly 1,000 movies and TV shows that will be initially available for online delivery.

Netflix's DVD library, by comparison, spans more than 70,000 titles, one of the main reasons why the mail is expected to remain the preferred delivery option for most subscribers.

Another major drawback: the instant viewing system only works on personal computers and laptops equipped with a high-speed Internet connection and Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system. That means the movies can't be watched on cell phones, TVs or video iPods, let alone computers that run on Apple Inc.'s operating system.

Despite its limitations, the online delivery system represents a significant step for Netflix as it tries to avoid obsolescence after the Internet becomes the preferred method for piping movies into homes.

"This is a big moment for us," Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings as he clicked a computer mouse to quickly call up "The World's Fastest Indian" on the instant viewing service. "I have always envisioned us heading in this direction. In fact, I imagined we already would be there by now."

Besides preparing Netflix for the future, the instant viewing system also gives the company a potential weapon in its battle with Blockbuster Inc. As part of an aggressive marketing campaign, Blockbuster has been giving its online subscribers the option of bypassing the mail and returning DVDs to a store so they can obtain another movie more quickly.

Since its 1999 debut, Netflix has revolutionized movie-watching habits by melding the convenience of the Web and mail delivery with a flat-fee system that appealed to consumers weary of paying the penalties imposed by Blockbuster for late returns to its stores.

After first brushing off Netflix as a nettlesome novelty, Blockbuster has spent the past few years expanding a similar online rental service that provoked a legal spat over alleged patent infringement.

Netflix has been able to maintain its leadership so far, building so much momentum that the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., abandoned its efforts to build an online DVD rental service in 2005.

In the last three years, Netflix has signed up nearly 5 million more subscribers to become increasingly profitable. Although Netflix won't report its 2006 earnings until later this month, analysts believe the company made about $44 million last year, up from $6.5 million in 2003.

Despite the company's growth, Netflix's stock price has dropped by more than 40 percent over the past three years, shriveling to $22.71 at the end of last week.

The erosion largely reflects investor misgivings about Netflix's long-term prospects.

Once it becomes more practical to buy and rent movies within a few minutes on high-speed Internet connections, few consumers presumably will want to wait a day or two to receive a DVD in the mail. If that happens, Netflix could go the way of the horse and buggy.

Online movie delivery already is available through services like CinemaNow, MovieFlix, Movielink, Vongo and Amazon.com Inc.'s recently launched Unbox. Apple Inc. also is emerging as major player, with hundreds of movies and TV shows on sale at its iTunes store and a new device that promises to transport media from a computer to a TV screen.

But none of those online services have caught on like Netflix's mail-delivery system, partly because movie and TV studios generally release their best material on DVDs first. The studios have had little incentive to change their ways because DVDs still generate about $16 billion of highly profitable sales.

Like already existing online delivery services, Netflix's "Watch Now" option offers a lot of "B" movies such as "Kickboxer's Tears." But the mix also includes critically acclaimed selections like "Network," "Amadeus," "Chinatown" and "The Bridge On the River Kwai."

The studios contributing to Netflix's new service include NBC Universal, Sony Pictures, MGM, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Warner Brothers, Lion's Gate and New Line Cinema.

"We are going into this with the knowledge that consumers want to watch (media) in various ways and we want to be there for them," said Frances Manfred, a senior vice president for NBC Universal. "For now, though, we know television is the vastly preferred option."

With its eight-year-old service on the verge of mailing out its billionth DVD, Netflix has been in no rush to change the status quo either.

But Hastings realizes Internet delivery eventually will supplant DVD rentals shipped through the mail, although he thinks it will take another three to five years before technological advances and changing studio sentiment finally tip the scales.

By then, he hopes to have 20 million Netflix subscribers ready to evolve with the service.

Apple wants a bigger bite

Ellen Lee, San Francisco Chronicle

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has ushered in a new era at the Cupertino technology company, jumping into the cell phone market with the highly anticipated iPhone and cementing the company's role in the rapidly changing digital media landscape.

Jobs, speaking at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco on Tuesday, unveiled the iPhone, which combines the iPod, a cell phone and an Internet handheld device into one slim, portable gadget. He also announced Apple TV, a set-top box that will allow consumers to move music, photos, television shows and movies from their computer to their living room televisions.

Both products underscore the broad shift the company has made in recent years from computers to consumer electronics as it aims to become a core element in the digital future. To emphasize this philosophical shift, Jobs even said the company was dropping the word "computer" from its corporate moniker.

"From this day forward, we're going to be known as Apple Inc.," Jobs said before a roaring crowd.

Much of the symbolic importance of Jobs' words was overshadowed by the introduction of the iPhone. About 21/2 years in the making, the sleek little device is poised to make a big impact in the mobile digital marketplace.

"It's the best iPod we've ever made," said Jobs. "No matter what you like, it looks pretty doggone gorgeous."

Weighing in at less than 5 ounces, with a 31/2-inch screen, the iPhone looks like an iPod without its well-known scroll wheel. It has no conventional buttons and instead uses touch-screen technology for navigation. It runs Apple's Web browser, Safari, and operating system, Mac OS X.

The iPhone, which also features a 2-megapixel camera, will be available in June through an exclusive, multiyear partnership with AT&T's Cingular Wireless, pending approval by the Federal Communications Commission. The 4 GB version will cost $499 and the 8 GB version $599.

Those prices could be prohibitive in the cutthroat mobile phone market, analysts said.

Consumers will have to purchase a two-year cell phone service plan to even buy an iPhone, said Glenn Lurie, Cingular's president of national distribution. They might also want to purchase a monthly data plan to take advantage of the iPhone's Internet tools, although the Internet features also are available wherever there is wireless Internet access. Current Cingular data plans cost between $9.99 and $39.99 per month.

Cingular CEO Stan Stigman, appearing alongside Jobs, said the cell phone carrier entered into an agreement without even seeing a design for the iPhone. The two have been partners in the past, introducing a Motorola cell phone that incorporated Apple's iTunes software. But that phone, like other cell phone and digital music player combinations so far, was not popular because it proved difficult to use and held a small number of songs.

Jobs also brought Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang and Google CEO Eric Schmidt onto the stage, though not at the same time. The Internet companies will supply e-mail, mapping, search and other Internet services to the iPhone.

Yahoo will supply a special e-mail service that acts like a BlackBerry and "pushes" the e-mails to the iPhone, so that the user receives the latest message instantly. With Google, whose CEO sits on Apple's board, the iPhone will have Internet search functions and mapping -- including satellite images.

Jobs called the iPhone a revolutionary device that will leapfrog current technology. He said the company expects to sell about 10 million of them next year, which would account for 1 percent of the 1 billion cell phones sold each year around the world.

"Even if they get an itty-bitty share of the market, it translates into" a large number of cell phone sales and opens a new, large market opportunity for the company, said Van Baker, an analyst with research firm Gartner. "It's not just a computer company anymore."

But unlike the MP3 player market, which the iPod has dominated even with the entrance of rivals such as Microsoft Corp.'s Zune two months ago, the cell phone market is much more fragmented. "There is not one device that everyone buys," said telecommunications analyst Jeff Kagan.

Jobs used all his showmanship skills to give the iPhone a good first-day boost from the stage of Macworld. In an Alexander Graham Bell moment during his keynote speech, Jobs made the "first" call on his iPhone to Apple's famed designer, Jonathan Ive.

"I can't tell you how thrilled I am to make the first public phone call with iPhone," Jobs said to Ive.

Jobs also used the iPhone's Google mapping feature to find Starbucks coffee shops near the Moscone Center, where Macworld is being held. He prank-called one of them, ordering "4,000 lattes to go," and then hung up.

Wall Street lapped it up. Shares of Apple rose more than 8.3 percent Tuesday to $92.57 per share. Meanwhile, among its competitors, Palm, the Sunnyvale maker of the Treo smart phone, fell nearly 5.7 percent to $13.92 per share, and Research in Motion, maker of the popular BlackBerry handheld device, dropped 7.85 percent to $131 per share.

Before it is released, the iPhone still must clear a few hurdles. It must be approved by the FCC, which reviews all wireless phones sold in the United States. Apple also will have to settle a name dispute with Cisco Systems, which last month introduced a family of Internet phones it called the iPhone, a name it trademarked.

In a statement, Cisco said it had been negotiating with Apple for several years over the iPhone name and that it expects Apple to sign an agreement to use the name shortly.

An Apple executive said that the company felt it could use the iPhone name because Apple's product applies to a cell phone, while Cisco's product refers to its Internet phones.

The iPhone announcement was the crowning moment of Jobs' keynote at Macworld, an annual event at which he kicks off his company's biggest trade show and also uses the podium to launch new products.

The other product he introduced, Apple TV, is a set-top device that wirelessly beams content from the computer to the television, allowing consumers to download movies and music via the Internet and enjoy them on their home entertainment systems. Users will be able to stream content live from up to five computers as well as program a computer to transfer material automatically onto the Apple TV's 40 GB hard drive.

Apple TV will cost $299 and arrive in stores in February.

In other news, Jobs said that Apple has reached 2 billion music downloads since introducing its popular iTunes music service, selling 58 songs a second. It has also sold 1.3 million movies since launching the movie download service with Disney last fall.

To keep those numbers rising, Jobs announced a new partnership with Paramount to include the studio's movies on iTunes. Also, the number of films available on iTunes will be increased from 100 to 250.

"This is a day I've been looking forward to for 2 1/2 years," Jobs said Tuesday. As he wrapped up the keynote with a live performance by rock musician John Mayer, he added, "I didn't sleep a wink last night. I was so excited about today."