The Mac Sucks!

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.

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.

According to a report on CNET, Google had planned to include its own form of multi-touch technology in the Android mobile platform. At the request of Apple, however, the Android team removed that support from the device. While I respect the fact that Apple doesn’t want others to copy its specific multi-touch technology and gestures, it seems inappropriate to keep other manufacturers from developing their own multi-touch technologies. CNET’s Steve Musil says that “While the open-source Android can be modified to support multitouch with a few well-placed lines of code, one has to wonder why the feature wasn’t initially supported and when Google will officially do so.” It will be worth paying attention to the “brewing legal battle” between Apple and Palm over the Palm Pre.

In case it wasn’t enough that Apple restricts what developers can say about iPhone development in the iPhone SDK Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), and it wasn’t enough that Apple can apparently kick any application out of the App Store that it wants to (seemingly for any reason), the company now seems to be tightening its control further by indicating that even its rejection letters for iPhone apps are subject to non-disclosure, according to The Register.

Before I launch into the inevitable rant, let me make it clear that I understand what Steve Jobs and Apple are trying to do with the iPhone.  Apple realizes that the success of the iPhone is one of the cornerstones of its future.  Steve Jobs is a smart guy, and he wants to do all he can to ensure that the iPhone’s reputation mimics the Mac’s reputation as an easy-to-use, reliable, and “cool” piece of technology.  Controlling the overall “experience” from end to end helps achieve this.  I get that. I really do.

But there are two things wrong with what Apple’s doing.  The first is trying to censor what iPhone users can do with their devices.  Censorship is generally not a good thing. It’s downright evil.  App Store censorship and control over what iPhone developers are and aren’t allowed to say is wrong.  Would opening the floodgates unleash a bunch of crappy applications on iPhone owners?  Probably, until the marketplace weeds out the crap.  Would letting developers discuss their iPhone experiences result, at least in the short term, in a rash of criticism, security alerts, and complaints?  Most likely.  But would iPhone customers benefit from the freedom, increased choice, and inevitable bug fixes in the long term?  I have to think the answer is a resounding “yes”.  No matter how benevolent the censors at Apple may think they are, they’re hurting Apple and its image.

The second problem with Apple’s approach is that it’s straight out of the 1980s.  If you look at some of the most successful technologies today, you’ll find that many of them have one very important thing in common.  They are very open, extensible technologies.  Look at what people have done with Twitter, FaceBook, and FireFox extensions.  Consider what’s happened to Linux since its humble beginnings on Linus Torvalds’ hard drive.  Today, you’ll find Linux kernels running on laptops, hosting web servers, running televisions, powering hand-held devices, and a million other things.  Had Linus locked Linux down the way Apple is trying to lock down the iPhone, I seriously doubt anyone would be talking about it today, let alone using it.  Even FireFox, which is a great browser on its own, is markedly better when you couple it with the right extensions.  It may have still become as ubiquitous if it had been locked down, but I doubt it.  Would the Macintosh have ever taken off if companies like Adobe hadn’t invested in the development of PhotoShop, PageMaker, and the like? If you really think it would have, dust off an old Mac, load a copy of System 6.0, all the Apple-branded apps you can find from the era, and see how much desktop publishing you really could have done with it.  I’m not saying it would be useless, just that those third-party applications added a lot to the “experience” Apple began with.

As I’ve said before, the iPhone’s not a bad device out of the box.  Apple’s done a decent job with it.  Would I call it “insanely great”?  No.  But it’s a decent device.  If third parties were free to innovate with the iPhone to the extent they could with the Macintosh, it could certainly become “insanely great”… and it’d probably already have copy-and-paste.

Google seems to “get it” where Apple doesn’t.  They released the Android cellphone platform as open source, with an “app store” that doesn’t discriminate.  While time will tell whether Android will ever become “good enough” to be a serious competitor for the iPhone, Blackberry, and Windows Mobile, the stage has been set for third parties to innovate the heck out of that platform… and given Google’s wide-open approach, I think they will.  The more developers frustrated by Apple’s censorship, the more who are likely to “jump ship” to Android.  And let’s not forget that Google seeded the market with 50,000 free Android devices months before consumers could get their hands on one, which is probably a lot more than Apple has ever done to encourage third-party development on the iPhone.

According to CNET, the first phone to be built using Google’s Android operating system (also dubbed the “gPhone”) will be released Tuesday by the carrier T-mobile. More Android phones are set to arrive in the future.

The first Android phones, one of which is pictured on a developer’s blog, certainly don’t have the style and polish of the iPhone or RIM devices. But then, they’re first-generation devices and it make take handset manufacturers and developers some time to sort out just what form factor and functionality users want in their phones.

In the short term, at least, I don’t see the Android platform blowing Apple’s iPhone out of the water. I do, however, think it will manage to make a name for itself in the smartphone marketplace. Why?

• Being an open source platform, the Android phones can be manufactured by any vendor and sold by any carrier, unlike the iPhone and other proprietary platforms.
• Google has stated that it will make no attempt to control the applications released for Android, even if they replace existing functions. Compare this to the iPhone App Store approach where software must meet Apple’s unpublished criteria and not duplicate or augment existing iPhone functionality. This kind of freedom will attract developers and drive innovation in the marketplace. It may even give Apple a few ideas!
• Google will make no money off the Android platform itself, since it’s releasing the OS as open source and not collecting any kind of royalty on the handsets sold. This may give Android phones a significant cost advantage over the iPhone in the long term.
• CNET.com is speculating that the Android OS might be useful in devices other than phones, including automobiles or household appliances/electronics.

Somewhat reluctantly, I agree that the iPhone has made ripples in the smartphone market. It’s caught the public’s attention, and continues to grab the media’s attention, and has made the idea of smartphones somehow “less geeky” than they were in the days of Windows Mobile. However, Apple’s ultra-tight control of the platform limits some of the possible innovation possible by third-party developers. The Android platform will be free to emulate the “good” ideas inherent in the iPhone and come up with its own replacements for the features that are perhaps not so great, much the same way that Linux has lifted good ideas from Microsoft and Apple, and combined them with entirely new ideas. In the long run, this will help to keep Apple and other phone developers on their toes, and make sure the innovations keep coming.