The Mac Sucks!

It’s hard to quite know where to start talking about Creative’s new Zii device and Plaszma OS, after reading the details on Creative’s site. From a hardware perspective, it’s a handheld computing platform that rivals (if not exceeds) the Apple iPod Touch. It includes a multi-touch display, dual-core CPU, 256MB of RAM, accelerometer, ambient light sensor, two cameras (one VGA and one HD), audio hardware, 3D video hardware, WiFi, an SD card slot, HD video port, and more.

By default, the Zii uses Creative’s Plaszma OS, which is based on Linux 2.6. The device can also run Google’s Android OS, though it lacks any cellular phone technology. It’s based on a “StemCell” processor board that other hardware makers can acquire from Creative and incorporate into their own products. Because of this, we may see the Zii platform become the basis for a plethora of media devices and cellular phones from a variety of manufacturers other than Creative.

Right now, Creative is only selling the device as part of a Software Development Kit (SDK) package. The intent is to get developers excited about the device and writing applications for it. The SDK is priced at $399 US as of this writing, and includes a 32GB Zii device and programming tools. The device features an SD slot which can handle SDHC cards, allowing for up to 64GB of storage.

I’m not going to suggest that this device will be the “iPhone Killer” or even the “iPod Touch Killer”. However, it has a lot of potential to extend handheld multi-touch computing into areas that Apple isn’t really equipped to handle with its products. For example, defense contractors could build devices based on the StemCell technology to assist soldiers in the field. Handset manufacturers could build phones with better media capabilities. The device could also be used to develop Internet-based devices similar to the “tablet” Apple is rumored to be working on. Could it, with the right software, approach or overtake the iPhone/iPod? Sure. Do I see that happening in the short term (1-2 years)? No.

Even though I own an iPod Touch and really like the device (though its battery life is less-than-impressive when running Internet-heavy software and games), I’m very excited about the potential of Creative’s new platform. It promises all the hardware capabilities of the iPod Touch, with the added benefits of not being locked into a single “App Store” or hardware vendor. It remains to be seen if the device can deliver on its promise.

The folks at Google have decided to take a stab at developing their own computer operating system. Details are still a little sketchy, but they’re expected to release it in 2010 and are (confusingly) calling it “Chrome” (like the browser they released a while ago). Chrome is reportedly based on a Linux core, with what appear to be some Google-designed user interface elements.

PCWorld has posted a good, consumer-focused analysis of the Chrome OS on their site. It’s recommended reading if you’re curious about the new OS.

The PCWorld article makes a couple of good points. The most relevant to me is their argument that when it comes down to it, consumers really don’t care what OS is on their computer. What they really care about is whether that computer can run the software they want to run. PCWorld says this is one reason Linux was all but eliminated from the netbook market. Early netbooks shipped only with Linux, so people bought them because they wanted the devices. When Microsoft saw it was losing market share, it made Windows affordable enough for netbook makers to use. The familiar Windows label assured consumers the netbooks would run many of their favorite applications. Given a choice between a Linux netbook (which, while offering a wealth of free software, didn’t run Windows applications natively) and a Windows netbook (which would run Windows applications), consumers chose the Windows version because it was more familiar.

To some degree, I think this is the “battle for hearts and minds” that both Linux and OS X face. Consumers probably DON’T care that their computer runs Windows. However, they DO care that it runs the programs they’ve invested the time and trouble to learn, and they care about losing the files they’ve taken time to create. Apple has an advantage over Linux here in that many big-name applications like Adobe Creative Suite and Microsoft Office exist for Mac OS X, and work with the files as-is. While Linux has many good, free applications that are comparable (if not superior to) their big-name counterparts, most consumers aren’t aware of that. Even if they learn that those applications exist, some will still choose Windows because they’re worried about issues like file compatibility, having to re-learn an application, unfamiliarity with UNIX-like operating systems, etc. I think Apple’s relative success in the market is having something of a “halo effect” on Linux (i.e., Apple’s touting of OS X being a UNIX OS makes UNIX-like operating systems seem less “geeky”).

I’m not trying to put Linux down. It’s a great operating system, made greater by the fact that it doesn’t cost a nickel to own. It offers a wealth of excellent (usually free) applications and tools. It has the one of the most customizable user interfaces of any major desktop/server OS. It’s secure, stable, and reliable. I use it on a fairly regular basis, and I enjoy doing so. With WINE, you can even run many Windows programs (including some games) on Linux. But as good as Linux may be, it isn’t Windows, and it can’t run every program Windows can. For the average consumer, who thinks he or she needs that big-name Windows application, that’s a problem. (It may only be a perception problem, but in many cases perception becomes reality.)

Will Google’s Chrome OS make Linux somehow “more cool” or “more acceptable”? That’s the million dollar question. Having another hat in the operating system “ring” should make things more interesting, as it will challenge Apple, Microsoft, and the Linux developers to continue to improve. That’s a good thing for consumers, even if they don’t switch to an alternate OS.

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.

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.

If you’ve been reading this site for any length of time, you know that platform neutrality is a big part of what we’re all about. We don’t hate or love Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux, in spite of the site’s name. Operating systems are just tools to help us get something done with a computer. Each has its good and bad points.

Take Linux, for example. The “idea” of Linux is a great one: a free operating system that runs on a wide range of hardware and offers a plethora of free applications to go with it. It’s stable, secure, performs well, and can be an ideal computing solution for many people (probably far more people than are actually using it). When appropriate, we support, endorse, and promote the use of Linux on this site. But the key there is the word “appropriate”. While Linux is very appropriate for many people, it’s not appropriate for everyone, as much as we might like it to be.

Recent Linux distributions like Ubuntu have gone a very long way toward making Linux much more accessible to laypeople who have little interest in command lines, shell scripts, compilers, and daemons. As Artem S. Tashnikov reports, there are a number of things preventing Linux from gaining a much wider acceptance on the desktop. Tashnikov’s article does a great job of explaining where Linux is behind Windows and OS X at the desktop level. I won’t re-hash it here except to give a personal anecdote.

I’ve experienced his item 1 (and its sub-items 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) directly recently. When I read about a very interesting open source media system called “Boxee” I decided to put an older AOpen XC Cube PC I had to use that had been gathering dust. I installed Ubuntu on the box, updated it, and walked through the (largely command-line based) installation process. When it was finished, I launched the software and it looked great. But there was no sound. I dug through the forums online, both for Linux and Boxee, and managed to get a test sound to play. Unfortunately, the test sound hung the sound software and Boxee still didn’t play sound. Eventually, I gave up trying to make the ATI video card I had been using work and switched to an Nvidia video card that connected to my sound card directly. This improved the situation. I had sound in some videos but not others. More time spent in the forums and I still wasn’t able to get it to work. I found the Windows (alpha) version of Boxee and installed that. It worked and had sound, but crashed after playing a few seconds or minutes of video. I ended up abandoning the idea of a Linux-based Boxee system and built a Windows XP based XMBC system instead. XBMC crashes occasionally as well, but works for quite a long time between those crashes. Eventually I will probably look into why it’s crashing. But that’s not the point.

The point is that while troubleshooting the Boxee sound issue on Ubuntu, I learned that there are at least three different sound-making systems in Ubuntu. There’s the Open Sound System (OSS), the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA), and something called Pulseaudio. They don’t appear to interoperate well and each has its advantages and disadvantages.

That’s one of the good things about Linux that’s also bad. Because it’s an open system and anyone is free to contribute to it, you end up with lots of different ways in the OS to do the same thing. That’s good because it gives programmers flexibility to find an approach that suits them. But it’s bad because it means that different programmers working on sound applications may choose different (potentially incompatible) tools to do the same thing. An average user will have no idea why sound isn’t working. They’ll just know there’s no sound. Some will poke around long enough to find a solution. Others will walk away from Linux completely, assuming it to be defective and buggy.

To the credit of Ubuntu developers, I find that this distribution of Linux generally “just works” when I install it on the hardware at my disposal. Applications install fairly quickly and silently, and they too “just work”. It’s only when I start working outside the confines of the Ubuntu community and install applications that haven’t already been vetted by Ubuntu users (like Boxee) that I have problems. And having some skill in UNIX-like operating systems, I can often sort out the problems I have without help, and more often find the answers online. Examples like the Boxee example above are actually fairly rare for me, but they do happen. But I’ve always been a technical guy, so I can tolerate a fair amount of tinkering before I get frustrated enough to give up.

I’m not the mythical “average user”, though. They’re not going to be satisfied with having to look up instructions online, wade through command line stuff, configuration files, etc. They’re going to get up and walk away, or wipe Linux off in favor of another operating system like Windows or Mac OS X which (for their level of patience, skill, etc.) “just works”.

I’d like to say I have the magic answer to this dilemma, one that would help Linux to achieve a significant desktop market share, but I don’t. This kind of frustration is probably the flip side of having a completely open system. While there are plenty of “ills” in the closed source model used by Microsoft and Apple in their respective operating systems (I know, parts of OS X are open), those companies at least have the power to dictate things like “these are the only acceptable ways to do X if you want your application to work”. As a result of this level of control, randomly chosen Windows and OS X applications have a much higher chance of working “out of the box” than randomly selected Linux applications.

Linux is a good operating system, and is appropriate for many people and many different uses. However, that doesn’t mean it’s a good choice for every user. (For that matter, OS X and Windows aren’t good choices for every user, either.) Linux continues to grow and improve, but as Tashnikov notes in his article, it’s not readyto be everyone’s desktop yet.

ExtremeTech Editor Jim Lynch recently reviewed the PCLinuxOS 2009.1 Linux distribution for their site. He installed the OS in two different virtual machine environments for the review.

The installation, he said, takes about 10 minutes and is “simple and easy. There was a time when that was remarkable for Linux but these days it’s old hat.”

Lynch found the PCLinuxOS desktop “comfortable and easy” to use even for those who aren’t regular Linux users. The default installation includes a number of useful open source applications such as Firefox and The GIMP.

His experience was generally very positive. On the VirtualBox install he said that he had trouble with sound when watching videos on Apple’s web site. This did not happen on VMWare, however.

He concludes by saying that “PCLinuxOS is one of those distributions that you could probably set up for your mom or for a non-techie friend and then have it pretty much work for them with very little support headaches on your part. I’d definitely recommend it as one of the must-try distributions available right now.”

That’s quite a conclusion, and shows that Linux is continuing to make great strides toward usability and user-friendliness. Lynch gave PCLinuxOS 2009.1 a 4.5 out of a possible 5. Mac fans who think perhaps Lynch is biased toward Linux should read his review of Leopard, in which he talks about being a Mac user. He gives Leopard a 10 out of 10 in that review, which gives you some idea of what he thought of PCLinuxOS in comparison (whose 4.5 equates to a 9 out of 10).

The ITWire’s David M. Williams reported recently that the Linux Foundation launched a competition earlier this year for writers, film makers, and others to make their own advertisement to compete with Apple’s “I’m a Mac” series of advertisements. The winners have been announced.

Participants were told to illustrate their take on “I’m Linux” in 60 seconds or less. There was no requirement to mention the Apple or Microsoft ad campaigns. Submissions were intended to inspire others and share a passion for Linux. The grand prize was a free trip to Tokyo to participate in the Linux Foundational Japan Linux Symposium this October.

The winning entry was “What does it mean to be free?” by Armitay Tweeto, a freelance graphic designer and user interface consultant from Israel.

The runners up were “The Origin” and “Linux Pub“, followed by “The Future is Open” and “Challenges At The Office“.

PCWorld’s Keir Thomas raises some interesting points in his April 2, 2009, column entitled “Linux Needs Critics“. In fact, it is the same kind of thinking that sparked me to create this site several years ago.

I realized then that the mainstream media was in Apple’s back pocket. If Apple created a new iPod, even my local newscasters were talking about it (even though they didn’t talk about, say, new Intel CPUs, new Dell laptop models, etc.). Mainstream technology news sites like CNET unfailingly produced positive reviews for anything Apple put out, and it seemed like there was no one taking the “devil’s advocate” position, pointing out the flaws in Apple’s offerings. As someone who was once an unabashed Mac fanatic, I felt like it was practically my duty to present an alternative view of Apple’s offerings. It wasn’t that I wanted to “hurt” Apple or get back at it for some perceived wrong, but rather that in the midst of media coverage that glossed over the flaws in Apple’s offerings I felt that less-savvy consumers could be misled into believing that Apple products were as “perfect” as Apple advertising made them out to be. As a Mac Administrator (at that time, my responsibilities have since changed), I dealt with the down-side to Apple products on a daily basis.

In the beginning, my daily frustrations led me to write some intentionally inflammatory stuff. If I spent hours resolving some esoteric Mac OS X problem that wouldn’t have existed in OS 9 or Windows, I complained loudly. Over time, though, as I spent less time dealing with Apple “frustrations” and more time with Windows and Linux, my viewpoints began to mellow a lot and gel into their current state. Right now, I see myself as more a “critic” of Apple than an adversary, as I once did. I see the value Mac users find in OS X, and respect their point of view. At the same time, because I’m no longer a Mac fan as I once was, I exist outside the “Reality Distortion Field” and can see not just the good things in Apple products but also the flaws and shortcomings. There are lots of places you can go to read about all the wonderful things about Apple’s products, such as AppleTell, AppleInsider, Macworld, and the like. Those sites will give you all the reasons why you need to join them in their Mac fandom, and that’s fine. This site, however, is here to provide the counterpoint. We’re here to show you the opposite point of view: what’s missing from an Apple product, what might frustrate you about it, what might cost more, what you might lose by switching to one, etc. We do this for two reasons.

First, believe it or not, we want to serve as a resource for Apple to use when looking to improve its products. By showing the advantages of alternative products or weaknesses in Apple products, we can help Apple see where improvements can be made.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, we want to counter a lot of the hype out there about Apple products and provide information about the products’ shortcomings so that consumers are better-informed. We’re not out to stop people from buying Apple products. All we want to do is provide an alternative viewpoint for consumers to consider when making their purchase decision. If, after hearing what we have to say, the consumer goes on to purchase an Apple product, we’re just fine with that. It will mean they’ve made an informed, considered decision that Apple’s product is a good fit for their needs in spite of its possible flaws or shortcomings. Similarly, if our words point out something about a product that the consumer isn’t comfortable with, we’re happy to help them make a possible mistake by buying an Apple product they eventually grow unhappy with.

That’s basically what Keir Thomas is saying in the PC World article. He explains that within the Linux community (as within the Apple fanbase), people tend to focus on the good points about Linux and gloss over or ignore the bad points. There’s very little criticism of Linux within the community, and any significant criticism often degenerates into personal attacks or pressure to “hush” the criticism. That’s unfortunate, because genuine constructive criticism of Linux (or indeed of any technology) can help its creators fix the problems that prevent wider adoption.

Thomas’ article actually has us thinking that maybe this site needs a Linux counterpart… and maybe we should start it.

While visiting Doug Holton’s EdTechDev blog, I was struck by his post “The State of Ed Tech Funding for Schools” dated March 2, 2009. In it, Holton explains that Obama’s recent announcement that schools would receive $650 million for educational technology sounds like a lot of money, but boils down to about $11 per student. Even in this economy, you’re not going to get a lot of technology for $11.

Holton says that estimates indicate it would take $10 billion to fully wire schools, but that other ideas could cost less and have a greater impact on students’ education. For example, he says, “Give each student a netbook laptop (~$200)… If you limited it to students whose families could not afford to buy one on their own… the cost would be around $6 billion.” This cost could be further reduced by donations and other means such as not spending millions on textbooks and other “overpriced curriculum materials” and instead using open e-texts and open source software. As he puts it, “Do you really need to buy the full Microsoft suite and Adobe suite of applications thousands of times over when OpenOffice, Gimp, Inkscape, and other free software can do the same things?”

When I was in high school (back in the ’80s), the only computers we had were Apple IIs. When I got to college, there was a mix of Macs and shared systems like mainframes, UNIX, and Vax. My step-children went to a grade school where Macs were the standard. Now, they’re in high school and the standard has become Windows based PCs. In fact, my step-daughter has a school-issued HP tablet/laptop device running XP. In other words, Apple is pricing itself out of the education market. Holton’s blog shows enough evidence of that.

In the past, Apple offered significant discounts to schools and students. If you look at the education price lists on Apple’s site as of this writing, the discounts are pretty mediocre. For example, the low-end Mac mini is priced at $579 versus $599 for non-education customers. Financially-strapped schools, even if they wanted to buy Macs, would find it hard to justify a $579 computer when they can pick up others for much less from equally well-known PC producers. As Holton notes, a netbook would cost only $200-400 and would include a built-in monitor, keyboard, and mouse with the added benefit of being very portable.

What’s replacing Apple in schools, increasingly, isn’t Windows. It’s Linux. As Holton explained above, it doesn’t make sense for schools to invest in Microsoft or Apple products. They can acquire inexpensive, lowest-common-denominator PC hardware for a lot less than a Windows or Mac OS X solution, getting more bang for the buck. In fact, configured properly, Linux could be made to look and behave a lot like either of those more-mainstream options so that the “trauma” the students might experience in the real world is considerably less. Linux is at least as stable as OS X or Windows, and every bit as secure as either, so the schools aren’t really giving anything up to adopt it. It also helps them leverage older hardware longer.

Even Microsoft seems to be doing better for students than Apple. When I went back to college to get a second degree a few years back, one of the things I received (at no additional cost to me beyond my tuition) was a bundle of Microsoft educational software. That bundle included Windows XP, Office XP Pro, Visio, Visual Studio, and some other software. On the street, that bundle would have cost me hundreds of dollars. I wasn’t offered anything Apple other than some “educational discounts” on Apple hardware. Maybe the situation has changed in colleges since 2004-2005, but I was impressed then by Microsoft’s commitment to education. From Apple, I’m not seeing it.

I read an interesting article today on the EdTechDev web site entitled “Don’t Use Mac OS X as a Server” by Doug Holton. This January 31, 2009, piece explains why Apple’s operating system makes a poor web server. Holton’s reasoning includes:

• Apple excludes a lot of popular PHP modules from its OS X build. Adding these is “tricky” and requires recompiling PHP.
• Cron tasks can stop working after a reboot, a claim he backs up with a story and workaround. (I’ll admit that I never noticed this in my Mac admin days, but I also didn’t monitor it exhaustively.)
• LDAP isn’t standard on the Mac and doesn’t work with the php-ldap module used by many apps.
• Apple uses non-standard locations for standard configuration files, and uses cryptic XML files for many of its configuration details.
• Macs are usually “way behind” with respect to Java. Steve Jobs reportedly disavowed Java a few years after marketing OS X as “the premier Java development platform“.
• Macs leave behind a bunch of redundantly named files starting with a period when copying to other platforms.

Holton recommends Linux over OS X for web servers. That linked article, written by Johannes Truschnigg, says that the Mac lacks proper package management, default configurations of popular software are awkward, and OS X is “going astray from the ‘one true way’ of UNIX. Truschnigg does say that he likes OS X’s “Postfix” mail transfer agent and its manual pages.

On February 25, 2009, OSnews’ Thom Holwerda posted “Ballmer: Linux Bigger Competitor than Apple“. It’s an interesting piece from a few points of view. In Holwerda’s post, a slide from a presentation given by Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer shows that Microsoft’s biggest competitor to Windows is “unlicensed” or “pirated” copies of Windows, followed by Linux, then Apple.

As OSnews tells the story, “As much as I find Ballmer a rather annoying figure, he does score a major point here. About 300 million PCs were shipped worldwide in 2008. Round and about 9-10 million of those were Macs. Apple’s market share might be increasing, but it’s still relatively irrelevant compared to the bigger picture. As we said yesterday, Apple might be doing swell in the United States, but on a worldwide scale, Cupertino still falls a bit to the wayside. In any case, it appears that Linux (and piracy) is a larger blip on Microsoft’s radar than Apple, and it’s not hard to see why. With an economy that’s not doing very well, people will opt for cheaper products. Apple cannot offer those, but Linux and piracy can.” (Emphasis added by The Mac Sucks.)

We recently covered how CNET blogger Matt Asay, an admitted Mac fan, thought that just the opposite was true… that people would increasingly seek out the Mac because it represents a value in excess of its sticker price. The statistics presented in the OSnews article by Microsoft would indicate that people don’t seem to agree with Asay’s point of view. In spite of the economic climate we’ve been living in for a while now, Microsoft’s biggest threats are pirated copies of Windows (i.e., a “free” OS) and Linux (another free OS) – and not the Mac. It seems that “free” is more desirable in bad economic times when people have less disposable income. Go figure.

I will readily acknowledge, however, that Ballmer’s words and Microsoft’s actions are somewhat incongruous. On the one hand, Ballmer says Apple isn’t really a threat because they’re only a tiny part of the overall personal computer market. At the same time, Microsoft is launching a number of initiatives that are clearly an effort to replicate Apple’s business models: the Zune to compete with the iPod, the Zune Marketplace to battle the iTunes Store, and Microsoft Stores similar to Apple Stores. (Admittedly, not one of these is really a direct aim at the Macintosh or OS X, so Microsoft is at least somewhat consistent.) Will Microsoft be successful with any of its Apple-like efforts? I don’t know, but if you look at the articles linked in that earlier sentence it’s clear that people are finding things to like about Microsoft’s offerings.

It reminds me of the cola wars. Coke practically owned the soft drink market, but they tinkered with their formula to compete with Pepsi, a smaller competitor in terms of market share. Today, the phrase “New Coke” is often used as a derogatory term to refer to business disasters. In the cola wars, Coke eventually went back to the original formula that made it successful. One wonders if Microsoft will someday do the same thing. Maybe Vista was Microsoft’s “New Coke” and Windows 7 will take them back to a winning formula?

If you look at Microsoft’s history, it’s clear that they are serious competitors in the long term. Initial versions of Windows paled in comparison to the Macintosh of the day, but Microsoft gradually improved the operating system to the point that it (and Apple’s mis-management) nearly eliminated Apple from the market in the mid-to-late 1990s. Even with Apple’s sales growth of late, Microsoft is still the 600-pound gorilla in the personal computer OS market. The early Zunes met with a lot of derision, but more-recent reviews are comparing it very favorably with the iPod Classic. Even the XBox 360, which (like the Sony Playstation 3) has been beaten by the Nintendo Wii, still garners a fair amount of praise from developers and players when compared with the Playstation 3 from former market leader Sony. All of these indicate that while Microsoft may enter the market in a fairly weak position, its products slowly but steadily reach a point where they become “good enough” to be serious contenders for market leadership.

Perhaps that’s why Linux is a bigger threat to Microsoft than Apple. While Microsoft could always turn a battle with Apple into a price war, that’s not the case with Linux. Linux will run on older (i.e., much cheaper) hardware and cost nothing to install, compared to Windows, which will need relatively current hardware and of course a license fee (i.e., “not free”). In a tough economic climate, it will be increasingly difficult for Microsoft to convince customers to invest in new licenses and new hardware when there’s a free alternative that requires no new hardware and offers a lot of comparable software at no charge.

I recently read an article about the Touch Book, produced by a company called Always Innovating. The Touch Book is intended to be kind of a combination netbook PC and touch-screen tablet. Always Innovating says it’s a “laptop computer, handheld game device, e-book reader and video player” and “is the perfect all-in-one second notebook”. I’m not so convinced, though they’re not available yet and I haven’t had the opportunity to actually hold and use one.

The Touch Book does have some interesting features. The display and keyboard are actually discrete components that can be separated to reduce the device’s form factor. The display can be unlocked to serve as a touch-enabled tablet device, or locked to the keyboard to work as a netbook style PC. When fully assembled, it looks like this:

As illustrated below, the display can be removed and used as a tablet PC by itself (this picture is in the middle of the removal process, the display does fully separate from the keyboard):

The Touch Book specifications, according to the manufacturer’s web site, are:

• Dimensions: 9.4″ x 7″ x 1.4″
• Weight: 2 lbs. with keyboard
• CPU: ARM Texas Instruments OMAP3 chip
• 8.9″ 1024×600 screen
• 8GB micro SD card
• WiFi 802.11 b/g/n and Bluetooth
• 3-dimensional accelerometer
• Speakers, microphone, and headphone
• 6 USB 2.0 ports
• Battery life: 10-15 hours depending on use

Overall, this isn’t that amazing a feature set for a netbook. The 10-15 hour battery life is accomplished by incorporating two separate batteries into the device, one in the display and another in the keyboard component. Always Innovating claims that the TI ARM CPU is less power-hungry than the Intel Atom chip used in most netbooks today. On the other hand, they also say that used as a tablet, battery life is more like 3-5 hours.

The operating system used in the device is reportedly based on Linux. It features two modes of operation, a tablet mode for when the device is operating without the keyboard, and a standard laptop style mode for use with the keyboard. The interface is reportedly 3-dimensional in nature and doesn’t require the use of a stylus or similar device. (There’s a screen capture in the CNET article covering the device. The image there reminds me of the “Cover Flow” feature in the iPod and Safari.) It’s an “always on” device, similar in that respect to a cell phone, without a long boot-up process. Always Innovating claims that you can install other OSes, including Google Android, Ubuntu, Angstrom, and Windows CE on the device.

According to the FAQs, the device is suitable for editing basic office docukments, browsing the web, and watching YouTube videos. They claim that it will be able to play “up to HD video 720p in full screen”.

They expect to ship the Touch Book in “very late spring”. It will offer a 12-month limited warranty and a 15-day no-questions-asked return policy. At the time of this writing, the price is $299 for the “tablet only” version and $399 for the netbook version with the keyboard.

A company named Marvell Semiconductor is shipping an interesting little computer to developers, so that they can produce home automation devices, service gateways, and other types of small, inexpensive computer appliances. The device, known as the Marvell SheevaPlug (pictured at left) draws only 5 watts of power, comes with Linux, and features a completely open hardware and software design. The mini computer can run ports of several different Linux distributions, including Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, and Gentoo. It features a 1.2 GHz processor, 512MB of RAM, 512MB of flash storage, gigabit Ethernet, and USB 2.0 ports. It’s priced at $100 in small quantities and is said to be available in larger quantities at a price of approximately $75. This makes its price well within the reach of home hobbyists and experimenters.

There are already companies either planning or shipping products based on this design. Two companies have products that essentially turn the plug computer into a network storage device (it contains gigabit Ethernet) when a USB drive is attached to a USB port on the device. Another has used the device to create a home media server. Another is building an application that can move media content between devices in the home (e.g., from a PC to a DVR to an iPhone).

It’s an intruiguing concept, and it will be interesting to see what other uses the device is put to. I can already imagine a very nasty use. Given its size, capabilities, and low power requirements, it would be an ideal device to slip into a company’s officers, attach to their LAN and a handy wall outlet, providing a powerful and inexpensive network snooping tool and “server behind enemy lines” (i.e., the firewall)…

According to a post on the Ubuntu developer announcement list by Mark Shuttleworth, the Ubuntu developers are working on “Karmic Koala” (the name for the 9.10 release of Ubuntu Linux). The announcement carries the following interesting tidbits:

• Cloud Computing will feature in the server version: “Ubuntu aims to keep free software at the forefront of cloud computing by embracing the APIs of Amazon EC2, and making it easy for anybody to setup their own cloud using entirely open tools.”
• Energy Saving features will be added to the server: “A savvy Koala knows that the best way to conserve energy is to go to sleep, and these days even servers can suspend and resume, so imagine if we could make it possible to build a cloud computing facility that drops its energy use to virtually zero by napping in the midday heat, and waking up when there’s work to be done.”
• A prettier, more graphical boot process: “…the good news is, boot will be beautiful. The bad news is, you won’t have long to appreciate it! It only takes 35 days to make a whole Koala, so we think it should be possible to bring up a stylish desktop much faster. The goal for Jaunty [the release currently being wrapped up] on a netbook is 25 seconds, so let’s see how much faster we can get you all the way to a Koala desktop.”
• A netbook edition will be offered: “…the Ubuntu Netbook Edition will be updated to include all the latest technology from Moblin, and tuned to work even better on screens that are vertically challenged.”
• Improved visuals: “The desktop will have a designer’s fingerprints all over it – we’re now beginning the serious push to a new look. Brown has served us well but the Koala is considering other options.”

I’m curious to see how well they deliver on these promises.

CNET’s Matt Asay found that Microsoft is searching for a new “director of open source strategy, with a focus on the desktop” to “lead Microsoft’s global desktop competitive strategy as it relates to open source competitors”. Asay suggests that since Red Hat is relatively inactive in the desktop space that Microsoft must be focusing mostly on Novell and Ubuntu. Further, he says that “frankly, only Ubuntu is really changing the game around desktop enough for Microsoft to need to staff a position to counter the threat”.

A lot of the feedback I get from Mac fans who visit this site implies that they think Linux is a third-rate operating system, held together with duct tape and bailing wire compared to Mac OS X and Windows. Certainly, with Linux’s roots as a “garage project” by a largely unpaid development force, such a viewpoint is understandable. However, my experience with Ubuntu is that it’s easy to use, stable, secure, and in nearly all cases “just works”. (The only case I’ve found where it didn’t “just work” recently was my Asus Eee PC laptop, and by following a simple online tutorial I was able to fix the things that didn’t work in a matter of about 5 minutes.)

Microsoft definitely has something to fear with respect to Ubuntu and Linux in general. I would equate the security, reliability, ease of use, and overall appearance of a stock Ubuntu install with Microsoft Windows 2000. With some tweaks and additional software, it can look and feel a lot like XP or Vista. (For that matter, it can also be made to look and feel a lot like Mac OS X.) My experience with Ubuntu on most hardware is that it “just works” without any tweaking or tinkering needed. Linux has come a long way from its early days.

When you combine Linux with the WINE software, which provides binary compatibility with the Windows API (a fancy way of saying it lets you run Windows software without having to use a virtual machine or a copy of Windows), then Microsoft has a bit more to fear. While I’m not suggesting that Windows users should all dump their Microsoft licenses and start using Ubuntu and WINE, I would contend that there are many people for whom this would be a very viable and (perhaps most importantly) free option.

And when looking at the wealth of free software available for automatic download and install through Ubuntu, there are many very usable alternatives to Microsoft’s other desktop products. Firefox is certainly a worthy competitor to Internet Explorer (if not a superior one). OpenOffice.org could easily replace Microsoft Works or Microsoft Office for the majority of users I know. VLC is superior to Windows Media Player in many ways. And I could go on. The point is that Linux is a serious competitor to Windows.

In fact, apart from the hardware, Linux is a serious competitor to the Mac OS. Open source projects have done much to duplicate the look and feel of OS X in Linux. There are some packages on Linux that even provide eye candy that is superior to what can be found in Windows or Leopard (e.g., compiz). Like Mac OS X, Linux has a long reputation for being relatively virus-free and secure. Like OS X, Linux is a UNIX-like operating system (yes, I know OS X is an official “UNIX” operating system, which is what makes it “UNIX-like”). And I would venture to guess that the library of free and commercial software for Linux is of a size comparable to the library of software available for OS X. Again, I’m not suggesting that Mac users should all run out and dump their Macs for Linux boxes. But I am saying that if they were willing to invest the time, I think many Mac users could find that their computing needs are very easily satisfied by Linux. (Some obvious exceptions might be people who are heavy into digital video work, DVD authoring, and other high-end media activities.)

Bottom line, I think it’s smart of Microsoft to be looking for someone to help them understand and respond to the threat posted to Windows/Office/IE/etc. by open source software.

The LinuxHaxor.net site posted an article on February 3, 2009, entitled "iTunes Wishes it Could be Like Songbird" which provides screenshots of Songbird and a discussion of why Songbird is better than (but not a replacement for) Apple’s iTunes software for Windows and OS X.

According to the article, "Songbird is an open source media player powered by Mozilla’s XULRunner platform and developed by members who [have] previously worked on Winamp, Yahoo! Music Jukebox, Netscape Navigator, and Mozilla Firefox… Depending on the platform you install it on, packages are available for Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X, Songbird will install some core add-ons which you can decide to add/remove whenever you feel like, the feature that you have come to enjoy with Firefox all these years." 

Songbird apparently provides extensive information about the track you’re playing, iPod support to synchronize with Apple’s player, ticket and concert information about artists, and even an add-on that fetches lyric information for songs you are playing.  It can even be used as a tabbed web browser.

According to Slashdot, Microsoft and Novell have cooperated to bring the Silverlight technology to Linux. As a result, PCs running Linux should be able to view sites that use Microsoft’s Silverlight technology. The Linux runtime library for Silverlight is called “Moonlight” and is expected to be released within the next few days. A few version is already in the works.

Australia’s PC Authority magazine published an interesting interview with free software advocate Richard Stallman.  In it, Stallman talks about the difference between “free software” and “open source software”, OpenOffice.org, Firefox, the Asus Eee PC, and some related topics.  It’s an interesting read, if for no other reason than to see Stallman’s thought processes in action.

He states that to be truly called “free” the software must meet four basic criteria:

1. The user is permitted to run the program as they wish.
2. The user may study the source code and change it, making the program do what they wish it to do.
3. The user may redistribute exact copies when they wish.
4. The user may distribute copies of their modified versions when they wish.

Any software that doesn’t meet these criteria, Stallman says, isn’t truly “free”.  As you might guess, Stallman is against any software that doesn’t meet these criteria, including open source software.

According to the interview, someone gave Stallman an Asus Eee PC as a gift, but he refused to use it because it required him to agree to a software license.  I found it amusing that his solution to the problem was: “I asked someone to install a free GNU/Linux distro so the machine could be used.”  I’m amused not because Stallman stuck to his guns, which I respect, but that he had to ask someone else to install Linux on it.  What, he couldn’t boot it up from a GNU/Linux CD (that doesn’t have a EULA) himself?  Or does he simply refuse to touch anything that has proprietary software on it? Either way, odd.

I guess my own opinion on free, open source, and proprietary software is this… It would be nice if all software was free, or at least open source.  However, I also respect the right of the programmer to determine how best to benefit from the software they’ve created, just as I respect an author’s right to distribute their written work, or a musician’s right to distribute their music, or that of any other creative person.  If you believe that releasing your work as free software is the way to go, that’s fine by me.  After all, you created it.  If you want to release it as open source and retain certain rights as the creator, I’m OK with that, too.  And as someone who’s worked for software companies, I also respect the right to adopt a business model that allows you to control your work the way you want to.

Similarly, what I’d really like to see is that when a peripheral manufacturer decides that supporting the drivers for a given device is no longer worthwhile, that they release the source code for those drivers.  While I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a manufacturer to stop releasing updated drivers for a device they haven’t manufactured for several years, I also think it’s reasonable for the customer to want to still be able to use it.  Releasing driver source code could start a whole cottage ndustry of maintaining drivers for old, but still viable, hardware.

As reported on Slashdot and elsewhere, the Dutch Ministry of Finance sponsored a contest to design a new coin along the theme of “the Netherlands and architecture”. The winning design’s creator used Inkscape, The Gimp, Phatch, Ubuntu Linux, and other free software to create the coin design, making last-minute tweaks on an Asus Eee PC.

This is a significant milestone for Linux advocates, because it shows that free and open source software can in fact produce the kinds of award-winning, real-world designs normally associated with artists using the Apple Macintosh and Microsoft Windows.  As Ubuntu continues to work toward a “Mac-like” ease of use goal, we may see more designers adopting open source software in the future.

It’s important to note that Inkscape and The Gimp are available to both Macintosh and Windows users, as well as Linux users.  Phatch, as of this writing, is not yet available for Windows or OS X.  

According to an article on The Register, which in turn references a DigiTimes article, Eee PC manufacturer Asus is working on a smartphone based on the open source Android OS from Google. If true, this would make the second smartphone based on the new platform and the first one from Asus not to feature Microsoft Windows Mobile.

As we’ve discussed before, I don’t think Android is a significant threat to the iPhone, at least in both products’ current incarnations. However, I definitely do believe that Android and the iPhone represent a very significant threat to Windows Mobile. It’s said that the Android web browser handles Flash content that the iPhone cannot, and that it renders pages better than Safari on the iPhone and Internet Explorer on Windows Mobile. Based on my own experiences with the iPhone (not mine) and Windows Mobile (mine), I can definitely say the iPhone browsing experience is better than that on Windows Mobile. I’ve not yet used an Android phone, but it sounds like Google got a lot right for a “first draft”.

Long-term, the Android OS represents a clear and present danger for both Apple and Microsoft. The danger to Microsoft is clear. The Android OS is free to include in a smartphone, offers a better browsing experience, and a potentially large suite of free open source apps (eventually). If Microsoft wants to continue to have a presence in this market, they’re going to have to dramatically spice up the Windows Mobile experience or Google and Apple will kill them. I know that because I use a Windows Mobile based phone. It’s OK, but it’s not especially fun or impressive.

Even though I’m an Apple critic, I admit that the “iPhone experience” is superior to that of Windows Mobile. I have other issues with the iPhone, but in actual use it’s a decent little device. From what I’ve read, the Android experience is somewhere between that of the iPhone and Windows Mobile. It may not have the panache of the iPhone’s glitzy graphics, but it’s a solid performer with a web browser that can handle Adobe Flash content, making it a more-capable browser than the iPhone’s Safari. Long term, as the Android interface and devices mature, it could reach the point where it’s “exciting enough” to entice those who might be looking at the iPhone. The advantages Android has over the iPhone are that any handset maker can produce an Android-based phone without having to pay a penny to license the OS. This, at least in theory, should allow them to deliver more and better phone hardware at the same price point as an iPhone. (Note that I’m NOT suggesting the hardware they’re offering NOW is better, just that for the same price, it’s possible in theory they could.)

According to a post on Slashdot, Ubuntu Linux 8.10 outperforms Microsoft Windows Vista on the same hardware. This is especially interesting in light of an article we referenced the other day, where a study showed that Ubuntu has been getting slower with each new release.

An article on ChannelWeb entitled “Ubuntu 8.10 is the Real Deal” says that Ubuntu 8.10 “scores higher than Windows Vista in performance testing, does a better job than Windows in making wireless connectivity easy and, overall, leaves fewer reasons to stick with Windows than any other previous release of Linux… For anyone or any business not tied to Microsoft legacy desktop applications, Ubuntu 8.10 may realistically be considered a smarter choice in many scenarios.”

Ubuntu was said to install more quickly than Vista, scored higher in benchmarks, managed wireless connectivity more easily, and booted slightly faster than Windows Vista on the same hardware. The ChannelWeb article also notes that “Canonical continues to bundle key application software with Ubuntu, including OpenOffice.org, Rhythmbox (music management software that can integrate with MP3 players including iPods), FireFox 3.0, GIMP photo editing software and more.”

If you already own a PC, you might want to take a look at Ubuntu 8.10. It may pleasantly surprise you.

CNet in the UK has done some speed testing between the Apple iPhone and the T-Mobile G1 (based on Google’s open source Android OS).  In their first test, the G1 loaded a web page in about 12 second, while the iPhone needed 23.  A second test of a more-intensive web page again showed that the G1 was faster than the iPhone, leading them to say: “We can conclude that in our offices the T-Mobile G1 has the fastest page-loading times compared to an iPhone 3G or Samsung Omnia”.

According to Phoronix.com, Ubuntu Linux has been getting slower since version 7.04 (the current release is 8.10). Their benchmarks are based on the last three released versions of the OS, a specific test suite of their design, and a Lenovo ThinkPad T60 notebook. After 100 hours of running the tests, it appeared that Ubuntu got slower with each release, so much so that they’ve jokingly renamed the releases from “Gutsy Gibbon, Hardy Heron, and Intrepid Ibex” to “Gooey Gibbon, Hungover Heron, and Idling Ibex”. Phoronix plans to continue testing to see if they can identify the source of the slowdowns.

A recent visitor to this site posted an article on his own blog criticizing my suggestion that it might be easier to find and install an application on Linux than OS X, and that Apple will likely build an App Store into OS X after their success with the store on the iPhone.  I feel the need to respond to that reader’s comments.

In terms of the actual installation, if you already have the app in your possession (i.e., you’ve got a CD in hand or you’ve downloaded it off the web), then the critic may be right… it all depends on whether the Mac app in question is a “drag install” (which most are) or whether it has an actual “installer” (which is less common on OS X)… and what form the distribution of the Linux app happens to take.  If the Mac app is a drag install and the Linux app is only distributed as source code, then the critic is absolutely right, hands down, and I don’t argue with him.  But if we’re talking about the entire process from determining you need an application to the point of launching that application for the first time, I would argue that (on Ubuntu at least) it’s easier than on OS X in many cases to install a Linux application.

Let’s take the perspective of a prospective “switcher” from Windows (or Mac for that matter) to the Ubuntu distribution.  Let’s say that our hypothetical switcher wants to use a drawing program but doesn’t know what’s available for the platform they’re using now.  Starting from their newly-acquired computer’s desktop, what’s the process like on Ubuntu (the distro I happen to be most familiar with)?

First, the user might look under the Application menu to see what’s already there.  Let’s assume our user has done that and hasn’t found something they like.  (Note that by default, OpenOffice’s Draw program appears in the Ubuntu app menu. If the user liked that, they’d be done already.) 

The user sees the “Add/Remove…” option and decides to look there to see if they might be able to find the application they’re looking for:

Ubuntu brings up the Add/Remove Programs application for the user:

The user could browse down to the graphics section to look at what’s available, but let’s say they want to do a search instead.  They’re looking for a drawing program, so they search on the word “drawing”:

Note that the user has a number of application options available at this point.  The applications already installed on the system appear with checkboxes next to their names, telling the user that they’re already installed.  In this example, let’s assume the user likes the sound of the “Inkscape” drawing tool. They checkmark its name.

The user clicks “Apply” and Ubuntu confirms their selection(s):

At this point, Ubuntu begins downloading the application, any libraries or other packages on which Inkscape is dependent, and installs it all without further interaction with the user.  When it’s finished, it lets the user know:

The user can close out of Add/Remove programs by clicking the Close button or install additional software by clicking the “Add/Remove More Applications” button.  Assume the user clicks “Close” and goes back to the Applications menu.

The user clicks on Inkscape and about a second or so later, there it is:

That’s all it took for our hypothetical switcher to Ubuntu to find a drawing program, install it, and launch it.

Continue reading »

(I’ve had time to reflect on this post since yesterday. On reflection, I am not happy with how poorly communicated some of my thoughts were. When I read over it today, there were entire thoughts and sentences missing.  I’m still not entirely happy with this draft, but it will have to do for now.)

On TechCrunch IT, a post by author Nik Cubrilovic entitled “The New Apple Walled Garden” blasts the way Apple uses open source.

As he tells us in the post, dated at the time of the iPhone 3G release:  “Geeks and enthusiasts wearing Wordpress t-shirts, using laptops covered in Data Portability, Microformats and RSS stickers lined up enthusiastically on Friday to purchase a device that is completely proprietary, controlled and wrapped in DRM. The irony was lost on some as they ran home, docked their new devices into a proprietary media player and downloaded closed source applications wrapped in DRM.”  If you truly do support open source, open formats, and free software, voting with your wallet for the highly-locked-down iPhone 3G is worse than ironic. It encourages more of the same from Apple and others.

In a very real way, open source saved Apple from extinction.  In Mac OS 9’s final days, Apple needed to get a new OS to market, and their in-house projects weren’t bearing fruit.  By slapping a “lickable” GUI on FreeBSD, they had an OS that could compete with Windows again.  Without that open source code, the Mac might have died as a platform.  Many were sure it was going to.

It’s ironic that Apple’s flagship products owe their existence to open source and free software, given Job’s need for control. As Cubrilovic points out: “They built OS X on FreeBSD (a project I have enthusiastically supported, contributed to and been a user of for 10 years or more), they built Safari on KHTML, and are now using libraries such as SproutCore in MobileMe. They have taken open source and everything it built and leveraged it to get to market faster – yet they have now, with iTunes and the new SDK, built a layer on top of it that excludes others. For Apple, open source is great when it furthers their own goals, but not when using it with Apple software where it may further the goals of others.”  I know Apple contributes bug fixes back to the open source community, as it’s required to do in exchange for using the code.  But if you compare an install of the open source Darwin with an install of OS X, you’ll see just how much they do control and keep proprietary.

The problem isn’t that they use open source, or that they manage to make a profit from leveraging open source.  Red Hat does that. Ubuntu does that.  Lots of companies do.  The problem is that Apple behaves as though somehow UNIX was their idea, as though things like virtual desktops (a.k.a. Spaces) that have been around in UNIX for years were Apple inventions.  Wrapping a pretty GUI on something created by someone else doesn’t make it your innovation.

Contrast Apple’s approach with Google’s.  Google keeps its search engine code proprietary, but shares just about everything else it creates.  The Android phone platform, for example, is
about as open as you could expect it to be.  Google didn’t prevent users or developers from doing much, including modifying core features of the phone (which is a no-no on the iPhone). They were even up-front about the built-in kill switch to take down rogue applications and malware, while Apple kept theirs secret. Almost any app is fair game for the Android phone, while Apple alone decides what iPhone users can have.

Apple’s philosophy might best be summed up by Steve Jobs when he said: “I’ve always wanted to own and control the primary technology in everything we do.”  If he can’t own it, I guess locking it down and wrapping it in DRM is the next best thing.

Cubrilovic suggests that the iPhone App Store might serve as a model for Mac OS X:  “What is more worrying is what the next move could be. Now that there is an AppStore with applications in iTunes, why wouldn’t Apple move next to distribute all applications through iTunes – both desktop and mobile? There is no reason for them not to – the response to AppStore has been so enthusiastic that it is almost assured that you will start seeing desktop apps distributed in the same way.”  I agree that it seems logical Apple will distribute Mac apps through the App Store (or a similar mechanism) in the future, as an option.  It would serve them well from the point of view of convincing would-be switchers to move to the platform.  If you could walk into an Apple Store and browse an iPhone-like App Store on a new MacBook or Mac Pro, you’d come away with a good idea just what software is (and in some cases, isn’t) available for the Mac.  It would save you a visit to the web or your local computer store. Combine an App Store with the inability to install third-party software on the Mac (which could be enforced using the TPM technology already in Macs), and Steve Jobs would be in control freak heaven.

I’m not the first person to note that Steve Jobs is a control freak.  I tried to locate my original source for the following comment, but couldn’t.  I believe it may have been Steve Wozniak who said in an interview that if it had been up to Steve Jobs, there would never have been any third party software for the Mac.  Apple would have provided you with all of your software, because Steve thought only Apple could do it right.  Unfortunately for Jobs, but fortunately for the Mac, third-party “killer apps” like PageMaker, PhotoShop, and Illustrator convinced Jobs that third parties have something to offer.  It’s been said by many that Jobs views third party developers as a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.  Since he can’t have full control, maybe he’d settle for “some”?

Viewing the iPhone as a “proof of concept” to see if customers will stand in line and open their wallets for a closed, proprietary computing device, what’s to stop Apple from locking OS X and the Macintosh down the same way one day?  Nothing, really.  Think about the freedoms people gave away after 9/11 for the promise of protection from terrorists.  If master salesman Jobs pitches a locked-down OS X the right way, people might give him control… which is just what he craves.

Ultimately, it’s your wallet.  As for me, I’m voting against all that control by avoiding the iPhone.  And that’s unfortunate because it’s probably better than what I have now.

(Thanks again to reader level_81 for the link to the TechCrunch post quoted above…)