The Mac Sucks!

According to CNET’s Leslie Katz, the iPhone 3GS has already been “jailbroken” so that it can run unapproved third-party applications. The jailbreak application is known as “purplera1n” is currently only available for Windows machines and requires the latest version of iTunes to be installed. A Mac version is expected soon.

The whole iPhone “jailbreaking” phenomenon is interesting for a couple of reasons. The most obvious of these is that it proves iPhone owners have an interest in running software on their devices that Apple and AT&T disapprove of. This suggests that although the iPhone is quite popular, it might be even more popular if Apple stopped controlling it so tightly. At the very least, it shows there is demand for applications that Apple thinks are “inappropriate” somehow.

Another reason iPhone jailbreaking is significant is that it provides an undisputed example of how a security weakness in Apple’s Mac OS X operating system could be exploited by a malicious coder. As Apple and its fans often proudly state, the iPhone operating system is based on the Apple Mac OS X operating system. In some ways, it could be argued that the iPhone and its OS are Apple’s most secure product. Apple controls the hardware completely. Users can’t upgrade it in any significant way, such as adding more internal storage or replacing the CPU chip. Apple controls, or at least attempts to control, the software in a similar manner. Apple installs all the OS upgrades via iTunes, controls what content gets stored on the device, and even decides whose applications are permitted to run on the device. In other words, that platform represents Apple’s best efforts to lock down its hardware and OS.

Still, in spite of Apple’s effort, the iPhone continues to be jailbroken. In security terms, the “hackers” are able to break through Apple’s security precautions, modify the contents of the device, and run unauthorized applications on it. This is exactly the same thing as if a hacker constructed a specially-designed web page to tempt Mac users into visiting it, then used a security weakness in Mac OS X to slip a virus, worm, or “bot client” on it. In other words, jailbreaking the iPhone (which runs OS X) is essentially the same as breaking into a Mac (which also runs OS X). (I know the iPhone OS is a “subset” of the full OS X software, but the principle holds.)

My point isn’t to suggest that OS X’s security is weaker than that of Linux or Windows. After all, the definition of “weaker” is subjective and could be misleading. I’m merely suggesting (as I always do) that although historically there have been few malware infections on the Mac OS X platform, that doesn’t mean the platform is immune to malware. Mac users should take the same types of precautions that other computer users do, such as making sure their firewall is enabled (it is disabled by default in Leopard!), that they have current antivirus software running, do most of their work in “non-administrator” and “non-root” accounts, and be careful about what they download. The fact that there is a Mac botnet active on the Internet is evidence that some malware writers are targeting and exploiting the Mac platform. The bad guys have made use of this botnet to conduct a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on certain web sites, so it’s not an idle threat. Make no mistake, there are people out there looking to exploit Mac users and gain control of their systems. Maybe there aren’t many, and maybe they’ve been quiet so far, but there may come a time when they become much more active and visible. You want to be proactive and prepared when that happens, rather than scrambling at the last minute to find tools to protect yourself. Some simple and inexpensive precautions now can protect you for years to come.

Glyn Moody posted “The Huge Hidden Cost of Microsoft Software” on June 30, 2009, on Computeworld UK’s web site, and a similar article on Slashdot. In the post, Moody discusses how various UK government organizations had to spend a great deal of money cleaning up the Conficker worm. Moody explains how this is a “hidden cost” of running Microsoft software in your environment, much as Microsoft and others have tried to claim there are “hidden costs” in running free open source software and Macs.

There are certain of Moody’s points I agree with. More malware exists for Windows than for Mac OS X and Linux combined. That’s just a fact. If the PCs in your organization become infected with malware like the Conficker worm, it can be extremely time-consuming and costly to clean up the mess. Again, it’s a fact. If you ran Linux or Mac OS X throughout your organization instead of Windows, a Windows worm like Conficker would be stopped dead because it can’t infect those operating systems. Fact. But the conclusion that this is a “hidden cost of using Windows” may be true to some degree, it’s not quite on target. Allow me to explain.

I work in a company with approximately 2,000 Windows PCs, maybe 50 Macs, a small number of Sun Solaris workstations, and a data center including Linux, Windows, Solaris, and mainframe operating systems. In an environment like this, with so many Windows desktops, you might be thinking I’ve had to clean up some massive infections.

Ironically, in my 20+ year career, the biggest malware mess I ever had to clean up didn’t affect Windows at all, and it wasn’t at the shop where I work now. The culprit was a little Classic Mac OS virus code-named “WDEF“. Infection via WDEF was very Mac-like. It “just worked”. If an infected disk was inserted into a Mac, it instantly infected the Mac’s hard drive. You didn’t have to run any programs or do anything. If you inserted a clean disk into an infected Mac, that disk became infected. The WDEF virus managed to find its way onto every Mac in our company and on to most of the floppy disks. I was able to trace it back to a disk a single employee (yeah, it was me) brought into the office from home. I can’t tell you how many hours I spent cleaning up that mess (we had only a dozen Macs but literally hundreds of floppies to scan). I only found it because I was showing a co-worker how Macs didn’t really need antivirus software by running a scan with a free tool called Disinfectant. It was very humbling to see it detect WDEF, in addition to being painfully ironic.

It was also a valuable lesson. Over the 10+ years I was a Mac user, I had downloaded lots of free Mac software. When I ripped the shrinkwrap off my first antivirus package (bought after the WDEF incident), I was shocked to see how many viruses had already infected my supposedly “superior” system. During my time as a Classic Mac OS user, I saw more viruses than I’ve seen since… even though I’ve primarily been a Windows user, and still download lots of free programs. Mine may not be the typical experience, but it’s a true story.

Moody’s stories and mine share a common theme – and it’s obviously not Microsoft software. Take proper security precautions, no matter what computer you’re using, or you will pay a price eventually. I’m willing to bet if you investigate any of those very expensive cleanup deals mentioned in Moody’s article you’ll find that certain basic security precautions were ignored that would have cost FAR less than the cleanup effort for Conficker eventually did. Maybe they merely needed a cheap hardware firewall to keep the worm from getting in, or a cheap antivirus package to detect and clean it, or just to deny administrator access to their employees. As far as I’m concerned, Microsoft may share some of the blame but the bulk of it lies with the organizations themselves. I can say that with confidence because our 2,000-machine Windows environment didn’t see a single Conficker infection. Not one. (And no, I wouldn’t be so bold or stupid as to say that we “never will”… only that we’ve made all reasonable precautions to prevent such an occurrence. That’s about as much as you can ever really say about your security.)

While Mac users have been relatively free of malware, viruses have existed for OS X, Mac malware has made it into the wild, and it has resulted in the creation of a Mac-only botnet. I’ll bet if you could find the owners of the Macs whose systems are part of that botnet, they’d tell you they don’t need antivirus software because they’ve got a Mac, and Macs are immune to that stuff…

Linux has been relatively immune as well, but it too has seen Trojans, viruses, and other malware. The threat to Linux is nothing compared to the situation on Windows, but that doesn’t mean there is “no” threat.

If you go through life with the assumption that your platform of choice is totally secure, completely immune to malware, and impervious to hackers, the odds are good that you’re going to find yourself very sadly mistaken one day… just like I did when I ran that disinfecting program on my Mac those many years ago. Good security is a “hidden cost” of owning a computer, no matter whose logo is on the box or whose is displayed when you start it up.

A while back, we discussed how Apple likes to market its products using “absolute” statements. For example, it talks about Mac OS X Leopard as “the world’s most advanced operating system“, iTunes as “the world’s most popular digital media player“, and the MacBook line as “the world’s greenest lineup of notebooks“. Their competitor Dell didn’t sit idly by and let Apple make that last claim without taking them to task.

Dell, which has been making what is described as “one of the most substantial efforts in the industry to produce more environmentally sound products and shrink its carbon footprint”, approached the Council of Better Business Bureaus’ National Advertising Division (NAD) to complain that Apple has no right to make such a bold statement. After examining the situation, the NAD claims that while Apple can legitimately claim that the MacBook line is greener than product lines from a specific competitor, their claim that the MacBook line is the “world’s greenest” has “potential for overstatement”. (This sounds like a nice way of saying “Come on, Apple, aren’t you exaggerating a bit? You’ve done some good work but don’t let it go to your head.”)

Later in the report, the NAD suggests that while Apple does have a very “green” product line, that it should adjust its advertising to make clearer that it’s comparing its products to a specific competitor or competitors, and it should avoid the reference to “world’s greenest” in the future. In typical Apple style, they interpreted this as a “clear victory” and thanked the NAD for “confirming that its MacBooks, as compared to all of the notebooks made by any given manufacturer, are the world’s greenest notebook computers”. Put more simply, Apple is going to go right on claiming its products are the “world’s greenest” even though the NAD has advised against making such a bold claim.

None of this negates any of Dell’s other points about Apple’s “green credibility”. Dell’s CEO Bob Pearson posted a statement about this back in December 2008. In that post, Pearson says that Apple isn’t taking part in any conferences or blogosphere activity on environmental issues and that Apple doesn’t seem to be doing much more than making “wild claims” and advertising, while companies like Dell are making a genuine effort to reduce emissions, eliminate unnecessary packaging, become carbon-neutral (which it did in 2008), and focus on energy efficiency. One example of Dell’s efforts is that it topped the TBR Corporate Sustainability Index Benchmark Report in May 2009. Apple, it should be noted, apparently didn’t make the top 10 on that report. Oh well, maybe next year…

Steve Jobs isn’t the nicest guy in the world. I think we all know that. He snubbed fan “Violet Blue” who only wanted a picture. He is sometimes described as “a risk-taking, short-tempered tyrant“. He banned the sale (in Apple stores) of all books by the publisher of one that critcized him. Once, he described an employee’s work as a “really lovely cake” with dog excrement for frosting. There are plenty more examples if you look for them.

While I respect Steve’s professional accomplishments (turning Apple around, getting Pixar going, etc.), I have very little respect for the man himself – largely because of his treatment of others. Regardless of that, I wish Jobs no ill will. I do NOT want to see him sick, injured, or dead. It was with a bit of mixed emotion, however, that I read yesterday’s CNET post indicating that Jobs received a liver transplant in Tennessee.

On the one hand, I am pleased to see that Steve is getting the treatment he needs. But there was something in that article that really upset me, and it ought to upset you too. CNET notes that “Steve Jobs, who has been on medical leave from Apple for the past six months, received a liver transplant in Tennessee two months ago, according to a report Friday in the Wall Street Journal. Earlier this year, Apple’s CEO was reported to be relocating from California to Tennessee, which has a shorter waiting list for patients seeking organs, the report noted.”

In other words, Jobs packed up some of his belongings, hopped a plane to Tennessee, and moved into a residence there. He stayed there long enough to qualify as a resident, and receive a transplant. He wasn’t retiring there, relocating Apple there, or planning to stay there permanently. He was there to get an organ.

What Jobs did, as far as I know, is not illegal. People move from state to state all the time, for any reason (or none at all). There’s nothing at all wrong with relocating.

Admittedly, what Jobs did wasn’t as unethical as paying off a third-world person to get a liver. And it wasn’t as bad as paying off the doctors in California to be moved up on the transplant list ahead of other worthy and compatible patients. I realize that. But the net effect of what Jobs did was the same as if he HAD paid off the officials in California. Instead of being at the end of the much-longer California transplant list, he paid money to move himself to Tennessee in order to be on a much shorter list. Someone without his billions wouldn’t have been able to do that. They’d have had to wait their turn and take the chance that they might die before the liver was found. That happens all the time. (Just read the comments on that CNET article.)

To be clear, even though I don’t like the guy, it doesn’t matter that it’s Steve Jobs doing this. I’d be upset if it was William Shatner, Bill Gates, Angelina Jolie, Heidi Klum, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or any other public figure doing it.

Today I read CNET’s coverage of the Opera 10 “Unite” service. To save you going to the link, the Opera developers decided that it would be a lot better for you to share your content with the world via your web browser rather than a third-party service like YouTube or Flickr. It does this by running a web server on your PC which other users access across the Internet. When I read this, I was immediately struck by several thoughts and questions:

• Why? Maybe if this was 1995, I could see the point of Opera Unite. Today, with well-known and (arguably) good services like YouTube, Flickr, and others out there, what’s the point of serving your media yourself? Why take the risk of opening your personal computer to the Internet, regardless of how careful and secure you are? If people really wanted to share their own content directly from their own PCs, wouldn’t a “real” web server like Apache make more sense? Maybe within a corporate intranet there might be some value to this, but even there, most companies have central servers for doing this sort of thing and would probably prefer not to have end user desktops doing ths sharing.
• What about security? CNET makes a point of mentioning that security experts are already concerned about Opera Unite. They have plenty of good reason. The only real protection in Opera Unite is based on passwords, and certain ways of sharing information put those passwords “in the clear” where anyone can read them. When asked if someone could get to resources on your PC that you didn’t explicitly share, an Opera spokeswoman said “Definitely not — unless they’re a hacker.” I wasn’t too worried that my friends and family would go looking for unauthorized data on my PC. It’s the hackers I’m worried about. Those are the ones who commit blackmail, fraud, and identity theft with your data. Your friends and family, not so much.
• What about that “whole new class of social services”? Opera Unite is supposedly extensible, allowing third parties to create plug-in modules to add functionality to it. Even if Opera itself is bulletproof, what are the odds all those third-party modules will be?

The Opera web browser itself, I like. It’s relatively light on resources, reasonably quick, seems to do a good job displaying web pages, etc. I’m not against people using it. Opera Unite, on the other hand, concerns me. It’s basically turning everyone who uses it into a web server administrator, without the requisite training in security. If it offers something you think you really need, then by all means go ahead and use it. But if you want my advice, I’d steer clear until it’s had a chance to prove itself in the real world.

If you really need your own web presence, look into third party web hosting. Some providers, like Godaddy.com, are relatively inexpensive and can provide the tools and expertise you need to get your content online without having to risk opening your personal computer up to the world. If you need absolute control over your content and want to host it on a box that belongs to you, at least invest in a separate machine to serve that content so that your personal data isn’t at risk if that machine is compromised.

According to a post on The Register, four U.S. Senators have asked the acting FCC chairman to review whether mobile phone makers should be allowed to enter into exclusive contracts with wireless service providers. The senators’ thinking is that exclusivity agreements may “unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition in the commercial wireless marketplace.”

Even though The Register reports that this is “a direct shot across Apple and AT&T’s shared bow”, I have to wonder if Apple itself isn’t behind this. At the recent Apple Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC), Apple indicated that it was AT&T’s fault that they wouldn’t have MMS support in the iPhone until late in the summer, and that tethering support was not likely to be coming from AT&T soon. It’s even said that “AT&T’s network has been commonly regarded as the iPhone’s weakest link for as long as there have been iPhones (especially 3G ones).”

There was talk a couple of months ago about Apple inking a deal in the U.S. with Verizon to distribute the iPhone. The problem with those rumors is that it would imply that Apple had a way out of its deal with AT&T. But sources in the USA Today article linked above indicate that the Apple/AT&T agreement is good until some time in 2010. To get out of that deal early, it’s likely that Apple would have to pay through the proverbial nose to get AT&T to let go.

But let’s imagine a completely hypothetical scenario. Let’s assume that Apple really is fed up with AT&T, and wants out of its agreement now. And let’s assume AT&T is unwilling to play along. At the same time, Apple would really like to hurt the Palm Pre and Sprint, arguably its closest iPhone competitor right now. How might it do that? In this entirely hypothetical scenario, Apple could approach some lobbyists to pressure the FCC into ruling that handset exclusivity deals are anti-competitive. How does this accomplish all of Apple’s goals?

If such deals were ruled illegal, suddenly the Apple/AT&T agreement is null and void. Apple wins. It can start selling iPhones to any carrier whose networks its device supports. AT&T might be hopping mad about this, but Apple would be free to sell the iPhone through any carrier, just like it theoretically wants to do. Not entirely coincidentally (I suspect) that DOESN’T include Sprint with its CDMA based network. Having dealt with carriers on multiple continents, Apple already has experience adjusting the iPhone to work with carriers other than AT&T, so adapting it for other U.S. carriers would probably be relatively trivial.

At the same time, killing handset exclusivity deals in general also kills the deal between Palm and Sprint. Instead of focusing its development resources on improving the Pre and making it more competitive with the iPhone, Palm will have to expend effort adjusting the Pre to work with other carriers (something it would have done eventually, but is now being forced to do sooner). This would be an unplanned change to Palm’s Pre business plan. This sudden shift in focus would likely set the development of new features for the Pre back by several months, giving Apple even more time to improve the iPhone (relative to itself and the Palm Pre) and market the iPhone to other carriers. Given that many feel the Palm Pre is what will save Sprint as a company, the timing of this senatorial interest in handset exclusivity certainly seems very suspicious. It would potentially leave Sprint with a handset stuck at today’s functionality level (which, while quite good, is not yet superior to the iPhone in many areas) and a handset which is no longer exclusively a Sprint offering.

Outside the U.S., the proposed FCC ruling would not affect Apple (since the FCC has no control outside the U.S.). Apple can continue having exclusive deals with foreign carriers as long as it likes, at least where such deals are legal. Again, Apple wins.

There really isn’t a down-side for Apple in this scenario… at least none that I can see. If the agreements stand, Apple keeps selling iPhones through AT&T until the agreement runs out next year. If they’re struck down, Apple can sell iPhones through any carrier it wants to work with, and the Palm Pre (and Sprint – who couldn’t sell the iPhone anyway) takes a hit in the process.

Remember, the scenario I’m describing above is entirely fictional as far as I know. I have absolutely no knowledge or evidence that Apple has anything to do with this sudden interest by the U.S. Senate in cellphone handset exclusivity. This is entirely speculation on my part… it just happens to be speculation that meshes well with known facts and observations.

About nine months ago, a security flaw was found in the Java Virtual Machine. The flaw allowed a malicious Java applet to execute arbitrary (read “unauthorized”) programs on your computer. This flaw affected all implementations of Java, including that on Windows, Linux, and of course Mac OS X. Because the implementations of Java for the “non-Macintosh” platforms come from Sun Microsystems, they were all fixed relatively quickly. The Mac version was finally fixed this week by Apple.

In the earliest days of Mac OS X, Apple bragged openly about how OS X would be a premier platform for Java. Just to show their commitment to Java, Apple penned an agreement with Sun Microsystems that prevents Sun from creating a Mac version of Java. Under the agreement, only Apple can release Java for OS X.

Apple having control of Java development for Mac OS X could actually be a good thing in some ways. For example, since it’s treated as an operating system component in OS X, Apple could be tweaking and tuning Java so that it performs optimally on their hardware and operating system. And, if Apple was keeping close tabs on Java security and patching its version quickly, Mac users would have the best of both worlds… a secure Java implementation that performs well on their OS and hardware. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been the reality – at least not for a while. As MacWorld’s Dan Moren reported back in May, “Apple should be more aggressive on security, rather than resting on the laurels of its safety record. That way, if an attack does come, the company won’t be caught with its virtual pants down.”

As Ars Technica and other sites have reported, Microsoft has made a step toward pushing its employees away from competitors’ mobile phones. Reportedly part of its cost-cutting measures, Microsoft has begun denying employee reimbursement for cellular data plans unless they’re using phones based on Windows Mobile. That means Microsoft will no longer be paying for iPhone and Blackberry data plans.

In the short term, this will no doubt help Microsoft save a few dollars. In the longer term, it’s likely to benefit Microsoft in a lot of other ways. For example, if its employees are “coerced” into using Windows Mobile phones as a result of this shift in policy, that should help the company understand where it can improve Windows Mobile in the future. Users familiar with the Blackberry will undoubtedly put pressure on their peers to develop for Windows Mobile the things they perceive to be superior in the Blackberry platform. Users familiar with the iPhone and other smartphones will put pressure on the developers to enhance the Windows Mobile experience in other ways. In the end, it may make Windows Mobile a much better competitor than it is today. As Ars Technica notes, “Windows Mobile 6.5 may include tons of improvements, but it’s still a long way off from putting Microsoft back in the game (not to mention it’s still not yet available), so even with the incentive to move to Windows Mobile, I doubt many Microsoft employees will make the switch anytime soon. Maybe next year, when Windows Mobile 7.0 is expected, Microsoft employees will start switching.”

Apple still wants its day in court with clone maker Psystar, even though their opponent has filed for bankruptch. Perhaps this is because Psystar is reportedly still selling Mac clones through their web site. Perhaps Apple simply wants to use them as an warning to others, like California based Quo Computer or the Russian and German companies selling Mac clones.

According to theappleblog.com, there is some indication that Apple has downgraded the SATA disk interface found in the latest generation of MacBooks relative to the previous generation. The new interfaces reportedly top out at 1.5 Gbit/sec versus the 3.0 Gbit/sec of the previous generation machines. To be fair, it would be hard to tell the difference in speed using today’s mechanical laptop hard drives or low-end solid-state disks (SSDs), but if you are the type of user who typically likes to upgrade to the latest and fastest technology, this may concern you. The highest-end SSDs today deliver better performance than these MacBooks would appear to support.

For many users, this alleged downgrade won’t be noticeable and probably saves Apple some money. Those who use their laptops for activities that are highly dependent on disk speed (such as video editing and photographic manipulation) may notice the decrease. Those who have had an eye toward replacing their physical hard disks with SSDs when the prices decline may also have a reason to be concerned (as this won’t allow those devices to deliver their best possible performance).

As theappleeblog’s Charles Jade reports, “Those considering a long-term purchase of a MacBook Pro, with the intent of upgrading to an SSD in the future, would do well to wait until more is known. As for those like myself who own unibody MacBooks bought before last week, this news puts a little salve on the burn of being without FireWire.”

The folks at ABC News present a comparison of the iPhone and the Palm Pre in a video segment. The comparison lasts about 10 seconds and basically indicates that they like both phones, but the iPhone’s app store gives it a big advantage over the Pre. The Pre’s app store contains very little right now, compare to the iPhone’s 30,000+ apps. The segment on ABC News features USA Today’s Ed Baig, who penned a comparison of the two devices on that paper’s web site. Here are a few of the highlights from the comparison:

• “I’ve been testing the Pre for more than two weeks and like it a lot. Pre is easy on the eyes. I can’t think of a more comfortable cellphone in my hand. It has a lovely screen for taking in YouTube videos or browsing the web. The ‘always-connected’ software foundation at its code, which Palm designed from scratch and calls WebOS, is slick and rife with possibilities.”
• The Pre allows you to bring in phone numbers, calendar entries, and email accounts from Google, Facebook, and Microsoft Exchange (Outlook) and consolidate them in one place.
• The Pre allows you to keep multiple applications open at one time and switch between them with a swipe of the finger.
• “…I encountered occasional sluggishness and bugs…I also longed for the visual voice mail feature of the iPhone… And I wish the Pre had more third-party applications at launch.” (Bear in mind that the first iPhone was buggy at launch and had no third-party applications until much later.)
• Sprint’s voice and data plans are priced aggressively. A monthly voice/data plan with 450 “anytime” minutes goes for $69.99. An unlimited voice and data plan goes for $99.99 a month. Plans include unlimited text, picture, and video messaging, plus Sprint GPS navigation and Sprint TV.
• “Pre is 3.9 inches high by 2.3 inches wide and two-thirds of an inch thick – shorter but thicker than the iPhone. The compact, slightly curvy design results in a screen that’s a tad smaller than the iPhone’s.”
• “As with the iPhone, the Pre has sensors that change the orientation of the screen when you turn it to its side. Another sensor makes the screen go dark when you hold the phone to your ear during a call.” (In other words, two of the same features found in the iPhone.)
• “You can sync Pre with iTunes, just as if it were an iPhone or iPod. Well, there’s at least one difference. You can’t sync music or video saddled with digital copy restrictions. Nor can you buy iTunes music directly from the pre.” (You can, however, buy MP3s directly from the Amazon MP3 store on the Pre… though for some reason you need to be on wi-fi to download it.)
• The Pre’s web browser, like the Safari browser in the iPhone, doesn’t support Flash video.
• “The Pre has a better camera than the iPhone, though that’s not saying much.”
• “…the Pre, unlike the iPhone, comes with an easily removable battery.”
• “Though a splurge at $70, Palm has come up with a nifty accessory called Touchstone that lets you charge the Pre without a cable, by putting it on top of the dock.”

As I said in my own commentary, the iPhone still has advantages over the Pre. It’s more recognizable (largely due to Apple’s seemingly 24×7 ad campaign), there are more apps for it (though that is likely to change over time), and it’s a more mature device than the Pre. On the other hand, the Pre has advantages as well. It’s got a hardware keyboard, a better camera, a swappable battery, a potentially cheaper service contract, and (based on the “anti-AT&T buzz” at the recent WWDC) it’s not tied to AT&T (though I know there are many people not fond of Sprint, either).

Here’s an older skit from G4TV’s “Attack of the Show” program which parodies Steve Jobs announcing the iPhone 3G (not the newer 3G S) and how Apple is going to help customers of the older iPhone blend in.

Found this older Saturday Night Live iPhone commercial parody on hulu.com today. I guess there really are apps for everything…

In my recent post on the Palm Pre, I suggested that Microsoft needs to get its act together with respect to Windows Mobile if it wants to remain in the market for long.  Reader “Joshua” commented that I did Windows Mobile a disservice in that article, and he may be right.

Windows Mobile is a very functional OS.  Microsoft provides some great development tools for Windows Mobile, comparable to those offered for the desktop version of Windows. 

As one simple example, the iPod Touch has a decent web browser, but it doesn’t allow you to download software or media files onto the device from the web sites you visit.  Windows Mobile allows that.  I don’t have to use a special sync software from Microsoft to get files onto the device.  I can put music or a movie on the phone without an “iTunes equivalent”.

My Windows Mobile phone incorporates a micro SDHC slot, which the iPhone and iPod Touch do not.  This makes it easy to shuttle pictures and other media between the phone and computer.  There are ways to do this with the iPod Touch and iPhone, of course, but there’s no SD slot.

But Windows Mobile has some significant issues.  Microsoft has addressed some of this in the upcoming Windows Mobile 6.5 update, though my phone as it is right now exhibits all the issues I describe below.

First, every Windows Mobile device I’ve ever used periodically wakes itself up.  I remember reading that it does this to perform maintenance activities, check calendar appointments, etc.  Why it has to activate the screen when it does this, I don’t know.  Worse, why it can’t always remember to shut off when it’s finished is inexcusable.  On the day I visited the Sprint store to look at the Pre, I pulled my HTC Mogul out of my pocket and it was completely dead.  It had been charged the previous day, so there was no reason for it to be dead, yet it was.  I’ve seen this on non-phone Windows Mobile devices going back several releases.  I’ve never seen it happen on the old Palm Pilots, the iPod Touch or iPhone, or Blackberry.  I recognize that this might be a hardware issue, but why isn’t Windows Mobile smart enough to realize that no one is using it and shut itself off before it drains the battery?

My Windows Mobile phone requires me to remove a “hidden” stylus in order to interact with some applications because their interface elements are too small to touch with a finger.  There’s no reason a modern smartphone OS should need a stylus.  This is addressed somewhat in Windows Mobile 6.5, but I suspect Microsoft will need time to sort out issues with this. 

Then there’s the mobile version of Internet Explorer.  Functionally, it’s at about the same level as the Windows (desktop) version of Internet Explorer was at version 3.0 (as opposed to today’s 8.0).  Apple has been making a killing in the consumer space with the iPhone because its browser is genuinely superior to Mobile Internet Explorer.  Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t really like Safari compared to Firefox, but “Mobile Safari” is way, way better than the crappy version of IE bundled on my phone.  The Skyfire browser for Windows Mobile is far better than Mobile IE, but even it isn’t as easy to work with as the iPhone browser.  (Skyfire is better in several ways, but not as easy to work with.)

While Windows Mobile does look “dated” compared to the iPhone or Pre, I don’t need the eye candy.  I’m more interested in having a smartphone that doesn’t randomly go dead, doesn’t require a tiny little stylus to be kept in it, and can display relatively modern web pages properly.  My current Windows Mobile phone fails those criteria.  In the end, I don’t much care which mobile OS my phone uses, as long as it works well.

Sam Dean at OStatic.com suggests that Linux should aim at delivering a Mac-like user experience. Dean asserts that “many Linux distros are offering a very graphical, Mac-like interface experience now. I’ve been using the new KDE, and it definitely does so. Matt Asay reports today in another post on how great a usability experience you can get in Red Hat’s just-released Fedora 11 operating system…[snip]… Moblin and Ubuntu Netbook Remix are also getting a lot of kudos for their easy, graphical interfaces, and both have bright futures in the red hot netbook market.”

Dean suggests that as our use of computers becomes increasingly browser-centric, this is opening doors for the Linux desktop. However, it is noted that “Desktop Linux still has some ground to make up when it comes to compatibility…[snip]… There are still too many problems with drivers and hardware compatibility with Linux, though. These problems will get ironed out. Linux has over one percent of the desktop market already, and if it can get to fix percent, it will be sitting right at the market share level that the Mac commanded for many years. There’s no reason an operating system has to dominate all desktops to usher in lots of innovation.”

It’s an interesting bit of thinking. I’m not sure I agree or disagree.

I’ve read a lot about the new Palm Pre phone lately. Since I had the day off, and I’m already a Sprint customer, I decided to go take a look at the phone at my local Sprint store. After spending about 10 uninterrupted minutes with the phone, here are my quick observations:

• The web browser in the Pre is based on WebKit, just like Safari on the iPod/iPhone. As such, it renders web pages every bit as well as Mobile Safari. And given the speed of the Sprint wireless network in my area, pages load impressively quickly, too.
• It only took a few seconds to get used to the interface, which is iPhone-like, though a little lighter on the eye candy (by which I mean it tends to use eye candy where it’s appropriate and only to the degree necessary to get a point across). In spite of that, I found it as fun to use as the iPod Touch.
• The screen is gorgeous, and made the iPod Touch screen seem a little bit “cartoonish” in comparison.
• The touch screen responds instantly to touches and gestures, though there is just the briefest hint of a delay between touching the screen and getting a response.
• The built-in GPS application was great, and is based on Google maps. It launched and displayed my exact location in a matter of maybe 2-3 seconds. It would definitely be useful in an unfamiliar location.
• I watched a sample video on the device. It played without any stuttering and the image quality was at least as good as what I see on my iPod Touch.
• The hardware keyboard looks cramped, but I found that I could actually “type” on it more quickly than I could the iPod/iPhone’s on-screen keyboard.
• The device had a solid feel, maybe not as solid as the iPod Touch, but more solid than my HTC Mogul (which is no slouch either). It’s light and comfortable to hold.
• The images people had taken in the store with the built-in camera were excellent. They were head-and-shoulders above anything I have gotten with the Mogul and certainly better than any other cell phone camera I’ve seen or used. I could actually imagine printing some of these pictures.
• Unlike my Mogul, which is a Windows Mobile device, the Pre connected instantly and effortlessly to the Sprint network. It usually takes the Mogul several seconds to “warm up” that connection.
• If Microsoft doesn’t get its act together, and quick, it may as well get out of the smartphone market. Between the Pre, the iPhone, and the Blackberry, I no longer see the point of Windows Mobile. If I had it to do over again, I would not be using this device… and I used to love Windows Mobile (before it was used in cell phones and Palm was its main competitor).
• Apple timed the new iPhone OS at the right moment, since it includes some of the things that make the Pre impressive, like multi-tasking. It’s very cool to have multiple phone apps running at once, just as it was once really cool to have multiple apps running simultaneously in “Classic” Mac OS. (Yes, I’m dating myself there.)
• The Palm Pre app store, compared to what Apple has right now, is pretty much just a “placeholder”. Apple definitely has the upper hand there. However, if Palm makes the SDK available free and encourages Pre developers, I see no reason just about any iPhone app out there right now couldn’t be written for the Pre. Granted, there’s not much there now, but it’s growing. The iPhone didn’t have 10,000 apps overnight.
• My local store has the Pre on a waiting list. I was told unofficially that they have 11 people on the list right now and get shipments of 20 units every few days. While people clearly aren’t camped out on the street to get the phone, there’s definitely an interest in it and it looks like Palm and Sprint have a success on their hands.
• Depending on your needs, you can get a data and voice plan for the Pre as low as $69.99 from Sprint. That includes their “unlimited” data usage plan, 450 “anytime” minutes, and unlimited night/weekend minutes… plus other features. For $99.99 you can have unlimited anytime minutes and unlimited data. That’s not bad when compared with the iPhone and AT&T.
• The Pre’s retail price is $549. If you’re an eligible Sprint customer, you can get the Pre for $199 at my local store after rebates and other discounts. At that price, it’s comparable with the iPhone (though not cheaper).

The above sums up the “positive” side of the Pre. I don’t have a lot of negative things to say about it, though:

• I know the Pre is primarily supposed to be a “cloud based” device, but I’d still like to see more local storage on it than 8GB.
• I’d also really like to see a micro SDHC slot (or two) in the device, as this would make it possible to download information or media from the Internet to the device and transfer it to a PC or Mac.
• The iPod/iPhone seemed a little tiny bit better at figuring out what link I was trying to tap on in the web browser, though I don’t think I actually got the wrong link in the Pre at any point.
• The built-in keyboard gets a lot of criticism for being small and oriented toward a “portrait” view only, and some of that criticism is definitely justified. While I found it easier to use than the iPhone/iPod keyboard, I can easily see where fatter fingers or bigger hands than mine would have a lot of trouble with it. The keyboard on my HTC Mogul is superior to both.

In the final analysis, I was very impressed with the Pre. In fact, in six months when I’m eligible to get the Pre at something closer to that $199 price than the $549 retail price, I fully expect to walk out of a Sprint store owning one. With any luck, the next-generation model will solve the keyboard, app store, and storage issues, making it a very worthy competitor to the iPhone.

Would I advise anyone with an iPhone to run out and get the Pre? No. I would admit that overall the iPhone is probably still the superior device. However, if you are looking for a smartphone and you’re not already an AT&T customer, you might want to visit your local Sprint store and give the Pre a test drive. If you don’t like it, well, there are always the Blackberry and the iPhone…

I’ve discussed before how Apple makes a bad habit of slipping extra software onto Windows systems as part of the installation of iTunes. For example, they “offer” you MobileMe, QuickTime, and Safari with iTunes. If you’re not careful, they’ll install these automatically as part of the update process – even if you didn’t have them before. Microsoft is starting to learn from Apple, it seems, including some of the “bad” lessons.

Back on May 1, Slashdot discussed that Microsoft made Internet Explorer 8 a “critical update” that could be installed by default (depending on your Windows Update configuration). Worse, the installation of that critical update also makes Internet Explorer 8 your default browser on Windows. To Microsoft’s credit, this settings change can be easily and permanently undone, so it’s not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. It’s just unfortunate to see Microsoft pushing Internet Explorer 8 on users so blatantly.

If you’re a home user, this may not be a big deal. In a corporate environment, it can be a problem. You may need an older release of Internet Explorer to use with an intranet (or third-party) application. You may have settled on a third-party browser for security reasons. Or you may simply not want Internet Explorer 8 on your office systems. Marking IE8 as a critical update and forcing it to the default browser is a problem in those situations.

Where I work, this fortunately isn’t a problem. We use a third-party system to manage security patches to Windows and disable the built-in Windows Update functionality. This allows us to control the updates that get applied, identify which machines are and are not patched, exclude some machines from a patch if it’s going to cause them compatibility problems, etc. Thus, in our environment, Internet Explorer 8 won’t go out until we’re good and ready for it. We can also use that system to automatically reset a user’s browser preference if need be, so they never even know Microsoft tried to force IE8 on them. Home users and businesses too small to own such a system, however, don’t have that luxury.

Before the Mac users chime in about how this kind of thing would never happen on Leopard, let’s just clear the air. When I was the company’s sole Mac administrator, I handled patch management for OS X. While it was possible to configure individual Macs to automatically receive all the “recommended” updates from Apple, that proved to be a problem on several fronts. First, Apple would automatically update Safari. That’s fine for most users, but if you’re doing Web design and QA, you may need a machine or two to remain with an older version of Safari for testing purposes. By default, Apple would update you. And in typical Apple fashion, there’s no built-in uninstaller functionality in OS X to make rolling back to the old version of Safari simple.

Similarly, if your job included occasionally producing digital video with QuickTime, the Software Update process could cause you some headaches as well. For example, imagine that you had installed the (hypothetical) QuickTime Pro Y.1 version. Apple marks the new Y.2 version as a “recommended update” for all users. If your Software Update settings are configured to automatically apply all recommended updates, you’ll automatically receive Y.2. Unfortunately, your QuickTime Pro license key only works for Y.1, so you lose all Pro functionality until you get the new version. In our environment, this was a huge problem because software purchases require approval by multiple levels of management and the legal department. They don’t happen quickly. Imagine the trouble you’d have if you needed to create a video using QuickTime Pro “right now” but couldn’t use the software because it had been automatically updated to an unlicensed version. It might take weeks to get the purchase approved. Unfortunately, in the case where this happened to us, Apple had in the meantime updated QuickTime Y.2 to QuickTime Y.2.1 and then Y.2.2. Apple only provided an uninstaller for Y.2, and that uninstaller did not work for the Y.2.1 or Y.2.2 releases. To resolve the problem, I literally had to go into the script code for the Apple uninstaller and modify it to remove the version checking. Fortunately, that seemed to work with no ill effects. If it hadn’t worked, we might have had to restore it from an old backup (this was pre-Time-Machine) or rebuild it. (This is a lot more work than we’d have had on Windows, where updates can normally be backed out via the Add/Remove Programs control panel.)

In other words, these “forced” updates aren’t just a Microsoft problem. Apple does them, too. I haven’t encountered the issue in Linux so far, but my Linux experience is still low compared to my Windows and Mac experience. It’s possible that automatic update installs in Linux could cause the same issue. This is an area where all the OS developers could be doing a better job.

While digging through my backlog of articles to discuss here, I ran across Computerworld’s March 25, 2009, article entitled “10 operating systems the world left behind“. In the article, Computerworld looks at 10 operating systems once greatly loved, now largely left behind and forgotten. What made the list? See below:

1. CP/M
2. Microsoft MS-DOS
3. Apple’s “Classic” Mac OS
4. Amiga
5. GEOS
6. IBM’s OS/2
7. NeXT
8. BeOS
9. Windows 95
10. X Window System (not technically an OS)

Calling some of these “left behind” seems a bit extreme.

Admittedly, I haven’t see anyone using or talking about CP/M, GEOS, or NeXT in a long time. However, I’ve seen MS-DOS driving a number of point-of-sale devices and diagnostic tools in places like the automotive industry. There are still some Classic Mac OS users out there – mostly in schools. And the X Window System, in the form of X11, is still a part of most UNIX and Linux distributions. It’s also an optional install in Mac OS X. That doesn’t seem “left behind” to me. Perhaps it was added to round out the list to “10″ instead of “9″?

I think my own “left behind” list would be slightly different:

1. TRS-80 DOS: This was once one of the most popular desktop operating systems on the planet, but today you don’t find a lot of people who even recognize the phrase “TRS-80″ much less have actually used it.
2. Apple II DOS: This was the de-facto standard back in the late 1970s through the early 1980s. It was widely used in business and at home. Today, there are still some hobbyists who use it but I haven’t seen it used in a “serious” business or home context for at least a decade.
3. CP/M: I remember when it was all the rage to run CP/M on your Apple II, TRS-80 Color Computer, or whatever device you had. It was a relatively UNIX-like OS at a time when desktop operating systems weren’t that UNIX-like.
4. GEOS: This Mac Classic style OS was a big hit with many users, but died out in favor of other GUI-based OSes including the Mac OS, Amiga OS, and others.
5. NeXT: I actually attended a NeXT demonstration by Steve Jobs in Pittsburgh back in the platform’s heyday. I remember being really impressed with its ability to multitask and handle media applications with ease. It made the Mac (Classic OS) system I was using feel dated and clunky. Unfortunately, NeXT boxes were priced at astronomical levels for desktop computers of the day and this, perhaps more than anything else, killed the NeXT in the marketplace.
6. Microsoft Windows 9x and Below: While these are still in use in many places, they’re no longer the dominant desktop platform. The “9x and below” category has virtually been eliminated in favor of Windows 2000, XP, and later.
7. IBM OS/2: While I still know one person who uses this, it no longer has any real “mindshare” anymore. It was superior to Windows in a number of ways, but never seemed to really take hold in the market.
8. Commodore Amiga: I’ve read about efforts to rekindle an interest in this OS, but it’s nowhere near as popular as it once was. There was a time when it was the gold standard in the television industry, providing a lot of special effects and title graphics for shows. Today, it’s largely a niche hobbyist OS.
9. Disk-based Copy Protection OSes: Back in the early Apple II days, it was extremely easy to copy software. Buy a couple of inexpensive floppy drives, a stack of blank disks, and you were ready to pirate anything. Manufacturers struck back by using some very tricky hacks to make disks difficult to copy, such as changing the rotation speed of the drive to write more information to the disk, using a laser to burn a spot on the media and make it unreliable, writing information to tracks spaced out of line with normal tracks, etc. Some even went so far as to build their software on disks that ran alternative and modified versions of operating systems that specifically attempted to combat piracy. This is something you don’t see these days. Oh, there is plenty of copy protection technology or “digital rights management” out there, but it’s usually part of the application or the operating system, rather than a whole new OS intended to thwart piracy.
10. Modified System ROMs: Decades ago, the equivalent to the BIOS was stored in a ROM chip. Hackers found that there were electrically-programmable ROM chips that could be substituted for the factory ROMs. This allowed them to modify how the system booted, how it responded to the reset button, etc. This was useful for things as trivial as adding your name to the boot-up screen, and as high-end as allowing you to take control of a system and analyze what a copy-protection scheme was doing. While not technically operating systems in their own right, they did bring you to a command prompt and allow you to perform some basic functions without loading a full OS.

How about you? What would you come up with?

PC World’s Brennon Slattery published “Three Reasons Why Android-Powered Netbooks Could Kill Microsoft Windows” a few weeks back. Slattery suggests that Google’s Android OS could kill Windows in the netbook space based on three factors: Money, Exposure, and Simplicity.

Slattery notes that Microsoft charges “hefty licensing fees” on the use of Windows, while Android is absolutely free to use. Thus, the use of Android rather than Windows could save manufacturers and consumers a lot of money – at a time when saving money is particularly important.

In terms of “Exposure”, Slattery says that it “might take a while” for Windows users to adjust to Android, but that Google has a trusted and highly recognizable name. As a result, people who are tired of paying for Microsoft products might be willing to take a chance on the Google name and use Android. This would allow Android to evolve into a “richer, more popular experience”.

Finally, the article explains that netbooks are primarily aimed at a “casual computing” crowd which may not be looking for a full desktop or laptop experience. Given this, Slattery asks, “What better OS than one originally designed for a device that fits in the palm of your hand?” Android could simplify the user interface and experience, making for a practical, easy to use device.

While I would like to see these speculations materialize into reality because it would continue to push Microsoft and Apple to innovate in the OS space, I’m not convinced Android will ever displace Windows from the netbook space. Here’s why. Initially, virtually all the netbooks shipped with Linux or some Linux variant. Many early netbook owners, being less technically savvy, assumed the devices ran Windows and were disappointed to find they could not run their favorite Windows programs on the Linux-based devices. Some returned the netbooks to the store, while others installed Windows on them. Microsoft, sensing a Linux threat, stepped in to make Windows XP licenses available at a lower-than-usual cost for the devices. Linux began dropping from its dominant position in the netbook space in favor of Windows. Other netbook users, being of a more Apple-centric nature, loaded modified Mac OS X distributions on the devices to give them an inexpensive, portable Macintosh computer. Relatively few stuck with the original Linux load.

Android may have a better chance at success than a “general” Linux build, only because Google took the time to polish the platform and give it the kind of eye candy seen in commercial products like the iPod. (I’m not suggesting they’re equals in this area, but rather that Android’s “eye candy” is arguably superior to that in, say, Windows Mobile or Windows XP.) An Android device that fits in somewhere between the current netbook design and that of a tablet-sized iPhone/iPod might have enough “wow factor” to it to capture the public’s attention and convince a few people to switch to it. This could generate a momentum that would make Android-based netbooks more of a standard than Windows.

However, this still doesn’t take into account the reason Linux lost the netbook crown. If appropriate applications aren’t released for Android to allow for seemless integration into VPN networks, Windows-centric corporate LANs, Microsoft-standardized intranets (based on technologies like Office Server, Sharepoint, and the like), etc., Android netbooks are likely to remain more a consumer niche item than a broadly accepted computing platform. Looking at the iPhone gives some indication of what Android netbooks are up against. In corporate environments (admittedly not a netbook stronghold), the iPhone still hasn’t quite done as well as the RIM Blackberry devices because those devices do a better job of fitting into corporate environments. Corporations can run their own Blackberry servers and be in control of their devices, while they can’t run “iPhone Servers” and control a fleet of iPhones. Blackberry devices integrate well with Microsoft Exchange Server systems (I know, Apple is doing well with this one now). In general, RIM has listened to its business customers and delivered the kinds of features they wanted and needed. I’m not saying that Android devices need to replicate the Blackberry at all, but rather provide a comparable level of integration because even though consumers may be buying the devices, many will need and want to connect to corporate networks at least occasionally. Windows-based netbooks do this with ease.

A little while back, Apple caused a stir in the technical community by alleging that its Safari 4 browser was the fastest browser available for Macintosh and Windows. Since then, a lot of articles have been written comparing the Safari browser to various others. The June 2009 PC World issue (on page 10 for those following along at home) is an article entitled “Browser Speed Showdown: Chrome is Golden” in which the page rendering speed of the Google Chrome 2 Beta, Mozilla Firefox 3.0.7, Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, and Apple Safari 4 Beta are compared.

In the comparison, the page load time for each browser is timed for several popular web sites, such as amazon.com, apple.com, and others. An average page load time is computed as well. The results of the comparison appear below:

According to the article, for each test they cleared the browser’s cache and then loaded each page 10 times per site, per browser, to factor out fluctuations in network traffic and to build a sample size large enough to identify trends. In addition, they threw out the two best and two worst scores for each test to reduce the influence of fluctuations and provide more consistent results. The measurements did not rely on the browser’s indication that it was finished rendering the page, but waited until all visual elements were loaded and ready to use.

The fastest result for each site appears in bold in the table, and the fastest overall average also appears in bold. As you can see, for the web sites tested, the Chrome 2 Beta beat all the other browsers in every test except one. It was also interesting to note that Firefox and Safari, which are normally considered “faster” browsers by many users, actually tied for last place in this particular test.

However, as PC World noted in the conclusion to its article “Many users won’t notice any performance difference in the browsers we evaluated. With fast broadband service, you likely spend little time waiting for pages to load anyway… All four of the browser we tested are pretty fast, so you should focus on which one seems most compatible.” It might also be useful to examine the feature sets of the browsers to find one that works most like the way you do, since page rendering speed isn’t that different among them.

According to The Register, RIM’s Blackberry Curve outsold Apple’s iPhone in the first quarter of 2009, according to a survey conducted by the NPD Group. Of course, it helps that Verizon was giving the phones away during February and March as part of a buy one, get one free deal. The Blackberry Curve also costs half what the iPhone costs, which no doubt helped its sales as well. Still, 3 of the top 5 smartphones in the first quarter of 2009 were RIM Blackberry devices, with the iPhone 3G and T-Mobile G1 being the other two.

According to The Register, Apple’s MagSafe power adapter “may be mag(netic), safe it ain’t” according to three plaintiffs who have filed a class-action suit against the company. The suit alleges that the 60-watt and 850-watt MagSafe adapters have been “negligently designed and manufactured” which can lead to the cable fraying and the power supply failing to work. The plaintiffs allege that even in normal use the power adapter’s cord becoes damaged where it attaches to the magnetic plug. Anecdotes are reported, including one user whose adapter’s cable began to melt, shorted out, and stopped working.

The complaint says that over 1,000 reviews of the adapter have been posted on Apple’s web store, with the “vast majority” reportedly being negative and warning Apple about the hazards of the adapter. The plaintiffs are asking Apple to either produce an adapter that doesn’t have the problems or refund the full purchase price of their laptops.

The Register points out that Apple had a similar issue with Powerbook G3 adapters back in 2001, and asks “is it that hard for the wizards of Cupertino to design and manufacture a laptop power adapter that doesn’t come back and bite them in the legal bum?”

CNET TV’s Buzz Report covered why the iPhone sucks. To quote the host of the show, Molly Wood:

“…here’s the thing. Now that almost everyone everybody who wants one actually has an iPhone, we’ve all come to the same realization. It kinda sucks. The new iPhone could cure cancer, and I still wouldn’t buy it because of AT&T. Plus, it won’t cure cancer. It probably could, but Apple won’t let it. So instead, it will cause cancer, and about a million stress-related diseases, due to how IT DOESN’T WORK! And this is actual news, not just a rant. Reports have been everywhere lately. Some combination of the iPhone radio and AT&T service is giving almost every customer everywhere fits of rage about this thing’s flaky service, its almost total lack of 3G reception, its slow to respond radio, and generally pathetic coverage range. And don’t get me started about how you’ll pay almost $100 a month for a phone that doesn’t work anywhere. I don’t care how many apps it has. People wanna call me. And text me. And they can’t. The Palm Pre could be about as good as X-Men Origins: Wolverine and I am still paying my early termination fee to AT&T with a smile on my face!”

Later in the show, she reports:

“Also this week, Apple is warning that its earbuds can give you an electrical shock in dry windy conditions. They say you should try to keep the phone in your pocket, not take it out too often, maybe use hand lotion, try wearing natural fibers, stuff like that.. not that their product is high-maintenance or anything. It just requires a new wardrobe… and cocoa butter.”

Sounds like the bloom is off the iPhone “rose” over at CNET TV.

According to a recent article, Apple was ordered to pay $19 million in damages for infringing on patents held by Opti, a technology holding company. The patents center around a cache memory technology called “Predictive Snooping” that Opti claims to have invented. Apple acknowledged that it used the technology but argued that the patents were invalid because the technology existed before Opti claimed to have invented it. Opti settled out of court with Nvidia over the same patents. A similar lawsuit has already been filed against AMD.

CNET’s Jim Dalrymple posted a story about a Mac clone maker named “RussianMac“. According to the post, RussianMac claims that OS X is preinstalled on its computers and that the machines are able to receive automatic updates from Apple. CNET also notes that German company PearC is essentially doing the same thing. After the big fuss last year about Psystar offering Mac clones in the United States, it’s not surprising to see some overseas businesses trying to cash in on the idea, too.

A couple of the comments below the CNET RussianMac article got me thinking about Apple’s position on the clone makers’ actions. To me, the Apple position is “interesting” in light of a few facts:

• The OS X GUI is based on concepts pioneered in Mac OS 9 (and below), which in turn is derived from work done for the Apple Lisa, which is based on work done at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) that “inspired” Apple.
• Mac OS X is based on BSD UNIX. UNIX can trace its history back as far as 1969 to a system called “UNICS” at that time. UNIX existed long before Apple shipped its first Apple I personal computer, let alone the Mac.
• A wide variety of the components in Mac OS X are open source, apart from the BSD UNIX pieces. Apple didn’t build Apache, MySQL, rsync, and a number of other tools leveraged by OS X. It merely “appropriated” these tools and rolled them into its product.
• One of the commenters to the article on CNET claimed that Apple’s tight control of the hardware allowed it to include support for a wide range of different printers. Actually, it was Apple’s purchase of the Common Unix Printing System (CUPS) from Easy Software Products that made that possible. Apple deserves credit for open sourcing CUPS, but not for creating it.
• Apple’s support for networking with Windows file shares is made possible by Samba, an open source suite that has existed since 1992, when Apple still sold Macs with what is now called the “Classic” Mac OS.
• In fact, a lot of Mac OS X components were “borrowed” from the open source community. I’m not suggesting that this is wrong, merely pointing out that many of the technologies in Mac OS X were added to it by Apple from previously existing projects.

So the entire history of the Mac revolves around Apple engineers buying and borrowing things they liked. They borrowed the GUI concept from PARC. They borrowed the core of OS X from BSD UNIX. They bought CUPS and added it to OS X. They added functionality to BSD from other open source products and NeXT. And yes, they developed code themselves (how much of the resulting product is their work, I’m in no position to speculate).

What Apple did to create OS X is nothing new. It’s very much like what Red Hat (and other companies) have done to commercialize the Linux operating system and market it. And just like those companies, Apple does release an open source version of OS X, referred to as Darwin. Darwin lacks the Apple GUI and other Apple-created components of OS X, but contains much of the same core code. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting in any way that Apple is doing anything wrong or illegal. It isn’t. What it’s done is not even that unusual. All I’m suggesting is that when Apple created its OS X product, it decided to use some of the open source software it felt was “best” for its operating system, along with a component or two it purchased and included into the OS. The rest, presumably, Apple built itself.

Because Apple built OS X, it has every right (legal and otherwise) to license that software and to charge for those licenses (at least as far as I know). But when you think about it, what the clone makers have done is not that different from what Apple did in creating Mac OS X. The clone makers purchased hardware components they felt were appropriate, combined them into a finished personal computer, and licensed what they felt to be the “right” operating system software for their machine – Mac OS X. This is exactly what they would have done to produce a Windows PC or a Linux PC (except that Linux would have been free of charge). The only difference is a clause in Apple’s End User License Agreement (EULA) that says you are not permitted to install the software on anything other than Apple-labeled hardware. Psystar’s, PearC’s, and RussianMac’s hardware isn’t Apple-labeled (although one wonders if the legal definition of “Apple labeled” would include a machine with an Apple logo sticker affixed to it – like the ones that ship with iPods and Macs), thus it violates the terms of the EULA and (perhaps arguably) means that the license is null and void.

Apple’s EULA is effectively tying its operating system to its hardware. Antitrust laws make it illegal to have “an arrangement or agreement in which a seller will sell a product to a buyer only if the buyer will also buy another product.” Before you dismiss that allegation out of hand, consider this 2007 case against IBM brought by hardware maker Platform Solutions Inc. (PSI). PSI alleged that by IBM tying the sale of its z/OS mainframe operating system to its mainframe hardware, it prevented PSI from entering into the mainframe market with its server products (which also ran Windows, UNIX, and Linux). IBM later bought PSI, possibly to settle the lawsuit. European company T3 also sued IBM for tying its operating system to its mainframe hardware, effectively giving it a monopoly in the mainframe hardware market, and preventing T3 from entering that market. Linux advocates went after Microsoft for a similar agreement with major PC manufacturers, because it was at the time impossible to purchase a PC without an operating system (specifically, Microsoft Windows). Microsoft’s argument was that this prevented piracy of Windows. The Linux advocates claimed that this was illegal tying, because they were planning to run Linux, not a pirated copy of Windows, and thus did not need a Windows license. As you may recall, Microsoft took a real beating for that (in the media if not in court). What makes Apple’s position so different?

One successful defense against allegations of tying has been when the two products are useless without each other. If Macs could only run Apple’s operating system and that operating system could not run on other computers, Apple could argue that the two are useless alone and thus the tying is a logical and necessary thing. However, today’s Macs can boot Windows and Linux. It isn’t strictly necessary to have OS X on a Macintosh anymore if you don’t want it there. And as lots of people have demonstrated, Mac OS X will run unmodified on hardware not created by Apple. So Apple’s tying of the two together could be alleged to constitute an illegal arrangement, with Apple trying to make someone who buys a Mac also buy OS X, and someone who buys OS X also buy Apple hardware. In fact, Psystar made just this argument early on in its fight with Apple but later dropped it in favor of a “misuse of copyright” claim which says Apple uses its EULA to unfairly prevent competition for Mac clones. (Apple has made counter-points to these claims, which you can read about elsewhere online.)

Do I really expect Apple to lose this fight against the clone makers? No. Apple has very deep pockets and lots of lawyers, so the odds that these (much smaller and presumably less-deeply-pocketed) clone makers will prevail is quite low. However, if Apple does lose the battle, it will be interesting to see how the computing landscape changes as a result. Would this entice competitors like HP, Dell, and Lenovo to jump into the Mac hardware marketplace? Would it force Microsoft to rethink its Windows licensing scheme to compete with Apple? It’s entertaining to consider.

I’ve heard some claim that Microsoft is behind the Psystar legal battle with Apple. If you think about it, however, Microsoft has the most to lose if Psystar wins. A Psystar win would mean that Apple would be required to sell OS X licenses to anyone who wants them, which could include the very same companies building Windows PCs today. Microsoft would be competing with Apple to get Windows licenses preinstalled on (hypothetically) HP and Dell PCs instead of OS X. Microsoft could be competing against Apple’s $129 Mac OS X packages, and would have to abandon (or at least adjust) its Windows price range to remain viable. A Psystar win could result in OS X decimating the Windows market. Maybe. OK, probably not, but again, it’s entertaining to consider.