But really, if the Eddy awards are open to Web sites, which require a "host" program to make them work, then I don't see why we shouldn't have an entirely new assortment of winners next year. For instance, I'm going to nominate for an award--it is, hand's down, the best dictation program I've ever used. What, you say it's not out for the Mac? (Yes, I know about , which uses Dragon's engine...but Dragon is simply amazing.)

Hulu, the Eddy award winner, as seen on Linux in Fusion, another Eddy award winner.Ah, but why should that matter? Hulu isn't really for the Mac either, is it? To use Dragon on your (Intel-powered) Mac, you just need to first install its Mac-based helper application. In this case, that'd be Fusion or Parallels, the virtualization applications. Once installed, you can then run Dragon within Windows XP Pro inside of Fusion or Parallels. What, that's cheating, you say?

How is this any different than Hulu and its required Web browser helper application? Both programs have a similar level of Mac specificity: none. In the case of Hulu, the browser does the hard work of presenting Hulu's interface to the user. In the case of Dragon, it's Fusion or Paralells that's doing the hard work. But in both cases, the end result is the same: you can use a piece of software on your Mac thanks to a native application serving as the final application's host. Hulu uses a browser for a host, while Dragon happens to use a virtualization application.

As this simple example shows, it's a slippery slope we slide down when we start recognizing "applications" that have absolutely nothing to do with the Mac as Eddy award winners. To me, the Eddy awards should recognize those programs that actually run natively on the Mac, not web sites that work simply because they're visible in a native Mac web browser. That doesn't mean Hulu's a bad web site--far from it, in fact. But it's not a Mac program any more than Dragon Naturally Speaking is a Mac program.--ROB GRIFFITHS

Web-based services deserve Eddys, too