Out of the Box

Those who say that desktop operating systems are irrelevant because the Internet is the center of the computing universe are too reductive (Using Ubuntu much, Mike?). Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo is, for the foreseeable future, more of a tactical move within the fast-growing and high-stakes online advertising battle vs. Google rather than some panacea.

That said, the other day I noticed that, of the 20 applications in my Start menu, I use 14 to interact with content over a local network or the Internet. The 14 are Internet Explorer and Outlook, Firefox, TiVo Desktop, Trillian, SlingPlayer, iTunes (where I regularly browse the store), Windows Live Writer, Slacker, Twhirl, XDrive Desktop, and VPN, wireless broadband and Wi-Fi utilities, Almost all of them are either available for the Mac or have quality Mac equivalents.

Share This

Ars Technica writes about an interesting new package being released by longstanding Mac and Windows developer Symantec that is surely a sign of the times. Symantec is bundling Windows and Mac versions of its Anti-Virus protection in one package for Mac users who are running virtualization software from Parallels or VMWare, One can now Seussically say that Norton clears for two.

I haven’t considered the ability to run Windows programs as a functional driver of the success behind in the wake of Apple’s Intel transition, (although the assurance that it can has probably removed some psychological barriers), pinning it down more to price/performance improvements. However, apparently Symantec believes that double-dipping Mac users will appreciate the extra, and perhaps proactive, security blanket even though, as Ars notes:

While we haven’t heard any reports of a virus striking a Windows VM and taking advantage of this Mac OS X directory access, it certainly is theoretically possible. There are also products like MacDrive which can grant read/write access of an entire Mac-formatted volume to versions of Windows from 98 on. Both of these situations could bring a Mac’s OS X boot volume into the sights of a malicious application.

I also continue to be surprised (but only slightly) that Apple has not included virtualization itself in the OS by simply buying Parallels or developing their own solution. Apple has supported other architectures before and advertised the Mac’s ability to run Windows on national TV (in two different commercials). Apple describes Boot Camp as an option that mazimizes compatibility, but the tradeoff in convenience is not worth it for most users. Besides, including virtualization software would allow Apple to make a stronger case for beefier Mac configurations.

Finally, speaking of Windows running on Macs, I seem to remember some statements from Microsoft that it would clarify its OS support of the hardware once Boot Camp became released code, which it now is. I suppose Microsoft has its hands full supporting Vista on machines that it has already certified, even those it perhaps shouldn’t have.

Share This

More favorable response is pouring in on the iPhone SDK, which significant capital will support, but John Gruber, whose Daring Fireball was a key inspiration for my Engadget column Switched On, points out that enforcement will have some challenges.

It leads me to another question. How easy will it be for applications to spread virally for the iPhone? I’d expect the App Store to support links and ratings, much like albums in the iTunes Store. Will iPhone applications, like other mobile ones, have the ability to share a demo or trail version with a friend or colleague? For that matter, will the App Store offer try-before-you-buy versions?

And speaking of the iTunes Store, isn’t it odd that the App Store, launching in June, will be available over EDGE, but the iTunes Music Store is available only over Wi-Fi? I have to think full-fledged games would be bigger than song downloads. That would lend credence to speculation that we can expect a 3G iPhone in June.

Update: Michael Arrington notes that when applications are not active, they quit — shades of early Mac OSes. Will we see a multitouch MultiFinder? And, again, would Apple allow a utility that would juggle multiple applications, the way Switcher did in early versions of Mac OS? He also notes John Gruber’s excellent question regarding whether Amazon would be able to deliver a version of its AmazonMP3 store for the iPhone. However, if it’s true that apps can write only to their own little sandbox, it looks like the answer would be no. Or, in any case, any such purchased tracks would not be synced back to iTunes. There’s no problem if you buy them on the desktop, of course.

Share This

If Apple was going to be excessively restrictive with its SDK, there would have been no point in publishing it, Apple noted at the introduction that it was a “platform company” (most of the time anyway). Combined with the $100 million iFund, it appears clear that we are witnessing nothing less than the rebirth of the Macintosh now shrunk to pocket size and inviting a new breed of developers to rethink mobile application development.

Perhaps, contrary to Michael Mace’s post on why smartphone development is dead, the reason is not the “combination of splintering platforms, shrinking distribution channels, and rising costs,” but rather that native applications haven’t been distinguished enough from what you could do in a browser or via platforms such as BREW. Other factors helping development are having the App Store on the device and available over cellular connections and not having to account for countless platform and screen size variations.

Of course, these are all conditions that make it easier to dip the fishing rod. There are still no guarantees that the consumer will bite. But from what we’ve been seeing iPhone users do in terms of accessing the Web and using their music features, they have high potential to create the most successful mobile smartphone application market we have seen.

Share This

Some may gawk that Apple chose to work with Microsoft on a corporate e-mail solution for the iPhone but, really, after Palm did (before it offered Windows Mobile handsets) Nokia licensed ActiveSync (in the days before it was Silverlight-friendly), there wasn’t much doubt that Apple would be amenable to doing so.

Despite now having the Exchange imprimatur, the iPhone probably won’t overtake Blackberry overnight, but its acceptance of Exchange indicates another setback for Blackberry Connect.  Still, even though many enterprises don’t have an up-to-date enough Exchange server to support ActiveSync, more of them will get there at some point. RIM certainly hasn’t helped its cause with recent (albeit brief) outage.

Despite it being positioned as the ideal enterprise mobile device, study after study has shown mobile e-mail as the killer application for these devices and you can effectively do that on a device that is a lot cheaper than an iPhone. Of course, if that’s what businesspeople are buying with their own money anyway, that could become a moot point. In fact, to some extent Apple is betting on that.

I’ve asked Apple representatives if Apple would allow a third-party Blackberry Connect application to be offered in the App Store or whether they might consider that a security risk. I should hear more on that later..

Update: RIM shows they’re down with cool consumer media, too!

Share This

Over at News.com, Coop joins the reaction to Apple’s “slam” of Flash, throwing in the Adobe reaction that both Flash and Flash Lite have been very successful, thanks so much. I’ve often marveled at how responsive Mac OS X feels on the iPhone. This was a thread that Jeff Atwood referred to in the post about Vista’s perceived performance. Jobs says simply that desktop Flash is too heavy for the iPhone, and that Flash Lite isn’t up to desktop performance. Essentially, he’s asking Apple Adobe to do the same thing Apple has done, which is to optimize desktop software for a mobile platform.

If you are an iPhone user, you have to read between the lines here because Jobs is essentially saying that Apple wants Flash on the iPhone (which is good news considering the scenarios I laid out as to why Apple might not) but just can’t accommodate it. That’s an engineering problem Adobe is motivated to solve given as iPhone sales grow and consumers do more mobile browsing on it.Adobe will get there. And let’s face it, few software companies have as long a history of supporting Apple technologies as Adobe.

We may not see it announced on the 6th, but Flash playback will come to the iPhone.

Share This

Over at Coding Horror, my  old friend Jeff Atwood has a great post about Vista’s file copying performance and why consumers perceive it to be slower than XP’s despite an improved algorithm and solid benchmarks. It’s yet another chapter for the operating system that is struggling against formidable competition, it’s predecessor, and abetted by a parent doing what it can to make its unaccepted child more popular while still supporting its older brother.

In any case, it’s great reading for user interface developers.

Share This

iLounge reports indendently confirmed rumors Apple will limit the distribution and capabilities of iPhone applications. The three rumors are that Apple will distribute applications only through iTunes, that Apple will pick and choose which are distributed, and that developers won’t have access to functions through the dock connector.

Regarding the first rumor, I believe that overall it is positive if true. The inability to track down mobile applications has been one of the major hindrances in smartphone application development. In fact, I suggested in a column for LAPTOP Magazine last year that Apple do exactly this to minimize the risk of malware. Also, perhaps down the line, Apple can bring these applications to what is now the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store for accessing improved functionality over he air..

The second rumor, that Apple will handpick which applications get to be released, is mixed news but, again, no surprise. On one hand, it will help ensure a good user experience. On the other hand, it of course limits choice. We’ll have to see how heavy a hand Apple takes here, but it’s probably a safe bet that applications that impinge on potential Apple revenue streams, including Skype, instant messaging programs, and other music store clients, will be excluded. I wouldn’t expect a Windows Live Messenger client any time soon.

The most disappointing is that developers won’t be able to access iPod functions via the dock connector, scuttling or at least complicating accessories such as keyboards.This one is somewhat curious as Apple has certainly done well collecting fees for the iPod dock connector in peripherals for older iPods. So at least Apple has some motivation to open this up at some point.

If the iPhone SDK rumors are true, it means that the iPhone and iPod touch will be far from a PC ecosystem, but at least it’s better than what was available before and movement in a better direction for Apple’s customers.

Share This

Last May, I posted a response to a Randal Stross piece that I thought unfairly compared Apple and Sony stores. However, his Digital Domain piece today on how Microsoft should buy a large business software company such as SAP instead of taking on Google has me scratching my head.

Mr. Stross advocates that, rather than taking on a strong and nimble competitor such as Google, Microsoft should stick to its knitting and acquire a large software company such as SAP as opposed to another strong Web player such as Yahoo!, which one of his sources characterizes as “an old-style Internet access, in decline, and at a premium.”

This is like a trainer recommending that a boxer with a black eye lift more weights to improve his arms..Buying SAP may lead to further consolidation in Microsoft’s strongest market, but it does little to help it gain ground on the Internet advertising gold rush that Microsoft fears Google will use to launch applications that compete with its cash cows. Following Mr. Stross’s advice would effectively mean withdrawal from the online space. There’s a case for Microsoft spinning off that business, but for now Microsoft still sees the Web as its manifest destiny.

If Microsoft were to buy an enterprise vendor to address the Google threat, it should be salesforce.com. Such an acquisition would enable Microsoft to make a stronger foray in software-as-a-service. It could offer real applications to counter what Google might only hope to build one day under the pressure of an offering that is difficult to shoehorn into its free, consumer-focused, ad-driven model

Share This

Lifehacker has an update to its story about installing Mac OS X on a PC, creating what it calls a Hackintosh. Apple frowns on such a practice. Its tight control of hardware is part of what enables it to advance the platform with greater agility than Microsoft.

Comments to the story report generally good success with the hack. One commenter notes that he would use the technique to test-drive Mac OS X before buying a Mac.

With Apple taking the offensive against Vista, it might further entice Windows users to switch by allowing them to trial Mac OS X without having to buy into the hardware first. Like many Linux installation CDs, the Leopard trial DVD could run from the disc but not allow any modifications to the hard drive or allow consumers to save files.

On the other hand, there might of course be driver issues as well as sluggish performance coming off the DVD drive and the last thing Apple wants to convey to Windows users is a slow, unreliable experience. Insert your Microsoft OS joke here.

Share This