First Look at Snow Leopard

This week I happened to see an install of Mac OS X Snow Leopard (v10.6.4) on a
Dell D620. My first impression was somewhat favorable, but read more below.

From an aesthetic perspective, it looks nice. However, Apple has adapted OS X to conform with the way their desktop interface has always been presented. A big part of this design forces the active Window's menu to be located at the top bar and "untied" from the window itself. This is just wrong, a bad design. Too bad they didn't correct it when they had the chance at the cretaceous/tertiary boundary layer - oops, I mean at the v9 to v10 transition. (Aside: It's funny that MS Vista and Windows 7 have somewhat copied this error and have removed perfectly functional menus in the name of a "cleaner" look. I am definitely in the "minimalist" design school, but removing the menu entirely is wrong, too.) From the Law: Every application that uses a menu should place it below its own title bar.

Continuing on, I downloaded some core and essential applications to make comparisons. I chose Firefox, Skype, and OpenOffice as representative cross platform applications. I found that each of these are truly cross platform and work the same way across all three platforms (Linux, Mac OS X, Windows). Notably, OpenOffice is now a native "Cocoa" application under Mac OS X and no longer requires the X11 layer. In the end all of these are equally "functional" and equally "beautiful" regardless of platform. This category is more or less a tie.

Next, I gave quicktime and iTunes the abiility to play ogg files with the quicktime component. (By the way, I think you need to logout after installing the xiph library thingy; otherwise, it doesn't become active.) When I wasn't sure this was working, I downloaded a more general sound program, sox. Interestingly, this program just segfaults. This is strange and smacks of direct breakage/interfence from Apple. Aye, there's the rub. I am not ready to trade one monopolist's tactics for the other's.

Continuing on, I took a quick glance around the environment to see if there was any thing which is driving the masses to switch in droves to the new and cool platform. The calendar application, iCal looks very nice. The Dashboard thingy is nice but I don't know how to set it into a usable desktop background mode. Its default behaviour "returns" it to the dock- what's the point of that? I had been more or less avoiding it, but finally opened iTunes, Apple's flagship application. I was immediately assaulted by the expletive-ing billboard that appears for Apple's "chosen". It is definitely in the Real Player, Microsoft Media Player school of design which copies the television metaphor for both passive activity, and ad supported content. Really, that's it? That's the greatest thing since sliced bread?

But just for the sake of argument, let's say you can ignore its flaws and its blatant commercialism, and you just want to use it as another "unix" platform and adapt it for your intended purpose. OS X (Darwin at its core) is a FreeBSD derivative, therefore, I assume you should be able to use "ports" to compile new applications from source. To do this, the first thing you'll need is a compiler. I found that you can get the tools necessary from something Apple calls xcode. But to get that, you'll have to register as an Apple developer first. Its's ironic when you jump through that hoop, the payoff is the GPL licensed toolset, with the gcc compiler at heart. (It's not clear to me if FreeBSD has its own compiler, or also relies on the GPL toolset.) Obviously, Apple doesn't have any qualms about taking "free" tools, and not worrying about giving back- either in the spirit or letter of the law.

I've seen enough. There is nothing compelling and I'll be sticking with Slackware.

Microsoft, the new IBM (minus the big iron)

Steven Vaughan-Nichols has an interesting take on the current realities at Microsoft. This echoes what I wrote in my blog here, that Microsoft's current culture may be too slow to adapt to changing market realities. The standard rule at Microsoft, "three tries to get it right" just doesn't cut it anymore. They did get Windows 7 out the door, but it's really a minor paint job over XP- just something to keep the monopolist's cash rolling in. Instead of all that wasted effort, they could have sold annual subscriptions to NT4, allowing "kernel" upgrades to Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc. Instead, they stuck with the sales/development model that they had chosen- the mind numbing choice of versions and the labyrinth at the heart of software assurance. It's hard to argue with success, but the money in technology can be a firehose or a dry creek bed. Where's WordPerfect's revenue stream now? Where's Novell's? The market moves on. Distractions, like marketing a new paint job for the OS every three to five years takes the eye of the ball- and doesn't lead to an overall market strategy. You can argue that monopolists don't need a strategy- that the money will just keep rolling in. That hasn't been the rule of thumb in technology so far. So far the repeating pattern is this: one company invents a killer technology and builds a dynasty around it; they continue to milk their cash cow- raising prices all the way. That leaves to door open for another new technology to come in to disrupt the status quo. Inevitably, the next company follows along the same track. Gates/Ballmer were powerless to prevent becoming the next IBM. Big companies are big, and carry a lot of inertia. It's hard to tell the guys with all of the money that they're just flat out wrong and on the wrong track. The Vaughn-Nichols article places blame at the top, and calls for Ballmer's ouster because that is where considerable mass/inertia is centered.

To be sure, all the tidal forces are going against Microsoft. Consider their slow release cycle, their high prices, their inflexible contracts, their limited platform, their 100,000+ Windows viruses, and (most of all) their stodgy leadership. Customers don't like high prices, especially when they are set arbitrarily high in order to meet the monopolist's agenda. Luckily, Linux was there to step in as a worthy replacement- winning jobs from supercomputers to Rokus, Tivos, and Androids. Microsoft's payroll is large; start counting the days until layoffs.

Windows CE vs. iPhone, Android
I haven't been a big Apple fan, but you have to give it to them for delivering products that people want and will pay for. A big part of Apple's success was that when Job's came back from hiatus, he had the courage to pull the plug on the stalled project to upgrade the Macintosh OS- the Copland project. This was replaced by Rhapsody which leveraged open source development and led to their successes with OSX and the iPhone. Android also leverages open source and doesn't have the monopolist's hardware lock in. Plus, with Android you'll get multitasking because it's Linux at its core. Compare this active development to the stalled "ecosystem" at the heart of Microsoft's handheld OS, Windows CE.

Update: Microsoft pulls the plug on part of their "shotgun" strategy and kills the KIN. Microsoft's successful products continue to fund a bunch of losers. Their philosophy seems to be if you put enough bb's into the air, a few will hit something. Good luck with that. Keep loading the shotgun and firing blindly.

Apple's Walled Garden

Apple is working to make their version of the internet snowy white. Their latest target is James Joyce's often censored work, Ulysses.

Here is Slashdot's
headline.

The "Mother, may I" saga continues. I don't think Apple has thought this through. Apple appointing themselves top censor is an echo to 1984 and "Big Brother is watching." That's a PR nightmare.

More practically, the job of censor is not easy, either. Could Apple be found liable if someone's delicate sensibilities are offended by some "approved" content? It's a slippery slope when someone sets themselves up as the be-all, end-all censor. It looks like excellent fodder for a lawsuit against Apple.

1. Find "approved" content that is "offensive." Shouldn't be hard.
   
2. Find a lawyer to take case on contingency. Shouldn't be hard- Apple has deep pockets.
   
3. Profit!!!
   

A better answer to Apple's walled garden is to warn the user:

• "buyer beware!"
  
• "It's a jungle out there."
  
• etc.
  

I think it's almost impossible not to offend anyone. First of all, some people are easily offended. This leads to a least-common-denominator that all content has to be fit for a preschooler, etc.

p.s. The Atlantic discusses Apple's walled garden view here.

Update 2010-06-16 : Apple reverses its decision.

• Developer: Mother, may I post my Ulysses comic?
  
• Apple: You may not! Wait, yes you may.
  

I'm just waiting for the moral police's knee jerk reaction,

"Look, there's a drawing of a penis! I'm outraged! I was counting on you protecting me from anything offensive. You'll be hearing from our lawyers!

Here is Slashdot's
headline.

This comment definitely earned its "Score:4, Funny" rating.

p.s. By the way, the New York Times discusses Ulysses being used by ATT in the 1950's to broaden the liberal arts education of their top managers. Most of the targeted audience had come to work with ATT via their background in engineering and other technical disciplines. Ulysses was the capstone to the program given at U Penn.

Apple : All things digital, if developers can run their gauntlet

This past week saw the latest gadget release from Apple, including version 4 of the iPhone. I read these related articles about Apple's strategy and how they continue to "support" developers who work on their iPhone platform. If you play by their rules, then there's a pot of gold waiting at the end of the rainbow. But there is not so much gold as heartache if you run afoul of the lords at Apple- read more below.

Molly Wood Neil McAllister

Apple = Microsoft 2.0
Jobs came back to Apple like a prophet from the wilderness. He brought them back from the abyss. I and a lot of other people had written them off, but they rose from the ashes by embracing a unified hardware/software platform, with hardware manufactured only by Apple. Their new software platform, OSX, is a Unix-based technology; Darwin uses FreeBSD at the core. You've really got to give it to Jobs! He saw that the BSD license would allow him to take the best of the technology and never have to give anything back, or only when he felt like it. And if you didn't notice, the days of anything coming back from them are gone. Now, Apple is widely considered to be the leading tech company, leaving Microsoft in their dust. Microsoft is the new IBM, the slow, stodgy company that Gates/Ballmer wanted to avoid at all costs. Too bad the DOJ didn't follow through with the planned breakup of Microsoft. As smaller, more focused entities, they'd be better positioned to compete now. There are very few scenarios where a unified Microsoft makes the most sense, and we're not living in one of them. (Coincidentally, the breakup would have likely meant more money in the long run for Microsoft's "baby bells".) For sure, the path that led us through Vista is not among those that make sense/money. It cemented the fact that Microsoft's software release strategy is much too slow to compete. It also left the software market as something that was "Microsoft's to lose." They've lost it, and handed off to a new incumbent monopolist: Apple is the new Microsoft.

But no matter the different origins, they're now more alike than different. Regardless of the messenger, Gates/Ballmer or Jobs, the message remains the same: Don't get in the way of the 900 lb gorilla! They're now both following a monopolistic business plan. Apple defeated Microsoft because Jobs has two big advantages over Ballmer. First, he blends in better, chameleon-style. Is Jobs part of the establishment, or anti-establishment? It's hard to tell, but either way, it gives him his second advantage, just "looking cool." No one thinks monkey dance boy Ballmer is cool under pressure. But Jobs, in his disguise, the wolf in sheep's clothing, gets to tread in territory that Ballmer can only dream about. Gates/Ballmer ended up in antitrust court over cutting off the air supply of a little upstart company, Netscape. But since Apple is not a monopoly (in terms of absolute market share), it is free to lock out the giant Google, keep Opera at bay, and not worry too much about any of the little guy's toes. Apple developers better be prepared to run their gauntlet- and on Apple's titled table.

One thing is for sure, Ballmer is monstrously jealous of Jobs. First, Apple passes Microsoft in total market cap- and size matters! Second, Apple has the total device lock down which requires the "mother, may I?" approval from Jobs that Ballmer could only dream of. And finally, Jobs gets to stand up there on stage wearing levis with a twelve-foot high backdrop appealing to "Developers" and he never even breaks a sweat.

Luckily one choice remains and is the last hope to avoid the one-vendor lock in and monopolist lockout. Monopolies have a limited playbook. Choose the infinite, open platform instead. Choose GNU/Linux.

iPad : The Anti-Internet Device

My blog post hosted on another site.

iPad...what they forgot

My blog post hosted on another site.