Macworld 2007 – cutting through the hype

This content is 18 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Introducing iPhone.  So what?In case you hadn’t noticed, a couple of weeks back it was MacworldApple‘s annual expo – and Apple Inc. (no longer Apple Computer Inc.) announced that they are going to make a phone. Whoopy do. It even made news at the huge Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Except that it won’t be available until Summer 2007 (as it has to get regulatory approval).

So why am I so underwhelmed with the iPhone? Firstly, I’m not underwhelmed – I think it sounds like a great device, as long as (when it arrives) it delivers everything that Apple is promising:

“iPhone combines three products – a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching – into one small and lightweight handheld device.”

[source: Apple]

Except that it will cost a small fortune in the US, isn’t yet complete, is likely to be severely restricted in terms of third party application development, doesn’t yet appear on the Apple UK website (so I can assume it won’t be here for a while yet, if at all) and I can already get a device from a number of manufacturers that does most of that today (and for which I can develop my own mobile applications) running the Windows Mobile operating system (other mobile operating systems are available).

It seems to me that Apple is learning (as Microsoft has been for a few years now) that mobile telecommunications is a cut-throat business. Apple has gone through the pain of negotiating with record labels (and more recently with movie studios) and has made a name in digital media – Microsoft is just learning how hard that is. Now it’s Apple’s turn for hard lessons – to find out that telcos don’t want what consumers want – instead, they want to control the platform, lock down functionality, introduce their own unique selling points, and encourage customers to upgrade to the next greatest device, in the process locking themselves into another lucrative airtime contract, as soon as the current one ends.

Apple also launched a wireless access point/hub/NAS device/print server/NAT firewall – that sounds great except it uses a wireless standard that’s not ratified yet (IEEE 802.11n) and which my 6-month old Intel Core Duo Mac cannot use at full speed (only the Core 2 Duo models can be upgraded via a firmware flash).

They also launched a set top box for streaming media. Except that it works by synchronising with an iTunes library and it only has a 40GB hard disk (my audio collection alone is 40GB and that’s before I download any video content – a feature not yet available from the iTunes Store in the UK). It’s also limited to the formats that Apple offers, so doesn’t support other widely used formats such as DivX (or, of course, any of the competing Windows Media formats). Finally, streaming high definition video needs high bandwidth and the wired Ethernet ports are limited to 100Mbps whilst wireless throughput is likely to be even lower (even with 802.11n)

Cut through the hype and Macworld 2007 was a huge disappointment to me. I would have bought a new 80GB (120GB would be nice) iPod with a wide format touch screen but I don’t want the rest of the iPhone features. I would also have paid for a replacement iSight (as the old one was withdrawn from sale in Europe last summer due to new regulations on the restriction of hazardous substances and has now disappeared from sale in the US too) and if anyone doubts that there is a market for iSights as new MacBooks and iMacs have them built in, Mac Mini and Mac Pro users still want a webcam that works with iChat AV and dedicating a DV camcorder to the task is a huge waste, whilst the original iSights are changing hands on eBay for more than they cost new (I just bought one this evening – so there’s bound to be a new one announced soon…).

Even the Apple fanboys at Mac Break Weekly are talking of “the Steve Jobs reality distortion field” and referring to Macworld 2007 as “This Week in Vapourware”.

Apple Stores inside Tesco… not a marriage made in heaven

This content is 19 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

My local Tesco contains an Apple Store as a proof of concept with potential to be rolled out nationwide. I just called with a sales enquiry and this is an approximate transcript of the conversation:

Tesco Customer Service: “Hello, Tesco Kingston – how can I help you?”
Me: “Hello, I understand you have a dedicated Apple Store within the store.”
Tesco Customer Service: “Yes sir, we do. Would you like to speak to someone there?”
Me: “Yes please.”

(… short wait …)

Tesco Electrical Department: “Electrical.” (imagine estuary Englisham I bovvered” accent)
Me: “Hello, I understand that you have an Apple Store – please can you tell me is that just for new sales or is do you offer upgrades?”
Tesco Electrical Department: “Upgrades – what is that? [like]”
Me: “Can I speak to someone in the Apple Store please?”
Tesco Electrical Department: “There’s no-one here from that section – what did you want to know?”

(Luckily, after I was insistent that I wanted to speak to someone in the Apple Store, they suddenly became available and confirmed that they do not offer an upgrade service).

Let’s look at this proof of concept in a little more detail. Apple is a brand with a tremendous image and huge customer loyalty (albeit with less-than-brilliant technical support) looking to gain an increased market presence. On the other hand, Tesco is known as a supermarket monopolist (accounting for more than £1 in every £8 spent on the high street in the UK – hence the attraction for Apple) and (in my experience) also delivers shocking customer service. Not exactly a marriage made in heaven… at least not if Apple wants to retain its reputation.

Happy birthday Apple

This content is 19 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Last year, I wrote about Microsoft’s 30th anniversary – this time round it’s Apple.

Until recently just a niche player in the personal computer marketplace, the company founded in 1976 by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (Woz) is doing better now than ever – and that’s nothing to do with the Macintosh PC line but with the company’s allegedly monopolistic online music sales tactics. According to Associated Press, Jobs is the “marketing whiz” behind the company (his return to the CEO spot a few years back certainly marked a turning point in the company’s fortunes) and Wozniak the “engineering genius” (I’ve heard Woz on TWiT – he sure loves his technology). Time will tell where Apple’s business model goes as a result of current court action but if Microsoft’s anything to go by, it won’t make too much difference.

Apple products are different – different because they look good. Why can’t all PCs look as good as a Mac Mini or a Power Mac? I’m one of the people who would pay a premium for a Macintosh – I really fancy a Mac Mini (if I can hook it up to a standard TV as my 32″ Sony Trinitron will probably outlive any affordable flat panel that I could buy today) and I reckon it might pass the wife approval factor (WAF) test for a position in the living room (my “black loud crap” has long since been confined to my den). I’m also a heathen because I would (at least try to) run Windows XP Media Center Edition and SUSE Linux on it… let’s just hope the current rumours of Windows running on a Mac turn out to be true!

Apple might not have achieved mass market domination in the PC world, but they sure have things sorted (at least for now) with digital media. Happy birthday Apple.

This time it’s Apple who’s heading to court

This content is 19 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Generally, news about yet another anti-trust suit bores me. Intended to protect consumer interests against monopolistic suppliers, it seems to me that anti-trust court cases rarely have that effect and are more often than not just a chance to beat up an established supplier when another vendor’s product fails to gain the market share that they think it should.

In a world of marketing and hype, the best products don’t always become popular. Betamax was better than VHS but VHS is still in many of our homes today. MiniDisc was better than DCC, but ultimately they both lost out to recordable CD (and then DVD).

Just over a year ago, I set out my views on why I think the EU’s sanctions against Microsoft were wrong. Sure, Microsoft is playing along and stretching things out as long as they can, but the EU seems to be getting tough and the US DoJ is starting to wake up again too.

The trouble is that, by the time a technology case gets to court, the damage is already done. In the same post about why Microsoft shouldn’t have to unbundle Windows Media Player, I pointed out that Apple were acting monopolistically with the way they force iPod owners to use iTunes. Now, after years of acting in this manner, Apple are finally being sued. In last Friday’s Windows IT Pro magazine network WinInfo Daily Update, Paul Thurrott reports that:

“This week, a federal judge in California cleared the way for the first-ever antitrust suit against Apple because of the iPod… noting that the complaint alleges Apple has an 80 percent share of the market for legal digital music files and more than 90 percent of the market for portable hard-drive digital music players. Like Microsoft, Apple is being sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.”

I have to agree with Paul’s summary of the situation:

“If Apple opens up the iPod to Microsoft’s Windows Media Audio (WMA) format – including songs purchased from competing online music services – all will be well.”

That would certainly make me happy.

Apple observations

This content is 19 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Although my day job involves a lot of work with Windows (often working closely with people at Microsoft), I also use a fair amount of open source software (e.g. Sun Solaris, Mozilla Firefox, FileZilla, etc.) so I’m not completely biased towards the company that everybody loves to hate. I’m also writing this post on a PC running Unix and like to think of myself as pretty operating system agnostic – it’s just that Windows is where I have the greatest knowledge and experience.

I think that Apple produce some great products – I love my iPod Mini and I’d seriously consider buying a Mac Mini should they ever go over to Intel and 64-bit – but I do find that people who use Macs tend to be… somewhat fanatical (maybe it’s something to do with being an oppressed minority). When I dared to suggest that OS X icons are big and a waste of space (not exclusively a Mac problem – I also slated the KDE and Vista desktop environments), it didn’t take long for someone with more Mac experience than me to slap me down and tell me to use CMD-J to alter the size and then “come back… and apologise”.

That was good advice, I’m sure, but my point was that the defaults are ugly (a personal view of course, which I’m entitled to). When I was writing about the OS X/Vista videos a few days back, I came across the following comment about Apple fans (it’s slightly out of date because of the Intel references, but I left them in anyway). I think it’s funny – I wish I’d written it myself, but I didn’t:

“I am an Apple user.I have no opinions, needs or desires that are in conflict with Apple. If it’s good for Apple it’s good for me. If it’s good for me, but bad for Apple, then I oppose it. If it’s good for me, but Apple doesn’t offer it yet, I oppose it. When Apple tells me that it is good for them, I will change my mind and support it. I need no choices because choices mean I can choose something other than Apple, which is bad. Therefore choice is bad. Unless Apple gives me a choice, then choice is good.

Apple’s success means I have been successful at making Apple successful. If Jobs is happy I am happy. If Jobs is angry I am angry. I have no opinions other than Jobs’. When something new comes out, Apple will tell me what it is and tell me how much I want it. I can tell if Apple wants me to have it because they will sell it to me if it is good, and not sell it to me if it is bad.

Apple gives me all the choices I need. I can load music on my iPod that I download from Apple, rip from my CDs or pirate. Piracy is good because Apple permits it. If it were bad they would prevent it. Pirated music helps sell more iPods, which is good for Apple. So pirated music is good.

As of today Intels are bad, feh, I hate them. IBM PowerPCs are good. As of whenever Apple switches, IBM PowerPCs will be bad. I will hate them. When Intel CPUs sit in a Mac they will be good. When they sit in a PC they will be bad, crappy Dells. I will hate them.

The Operating System. Ah-oom. The Operating System. Mac OS X version 4.1.2.3.4.5.6.7 Tigerrrrr. Ah-oom. Oooh, aaah, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, eeeeh, aaaaaaah. Oh Steve. zzzzzzzzzzz.”

[source: MacLive.net]

If you love everything Apple does, please don’t flame me – it’s a joke – and I just plagiarised someone else’s wit and humour, to share it with the world (well, the few people who read this blog anyway). I took a pop at Microsoft a few days back and now I’m redressing the balance! I’m sure someone could write something similar with the names Gates and Microsoft in it and if you still think I’m being unfair to Apple, there was another comment on the same post that made me laugh, pointing out that Vista could be an acronym for Viruses, Infections, Spyware, Trojans, Adware – make what you want of that (although I tend to agree that these are all caused by poor computer discipline).

Service packs, feature packs and releases – how they should work

This content is 19 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

The various Microsoft product groups issue service packs, feature packs and releases. This is all very well, but they mean different things to different people and are confusing. Then, last Friday, Paul Thurrott reported in the Windows IT Pro magazine network WinInfo Daily Update that Virtual Server 2005 SP1 will now become Virtual Server 2005 release 2 (R2). This might sound like a trivial name change but what it means for legal users of Virtual Server 2005 (a basically good product, but with a few fairly significant bugs), they will need to purchase R2, rather than install a free service pack.

If Microsoft follows this path they are going the way of Apple, who issue point version upgrades to their OS X operating system and have the audacity to charge existing users for a full product (there is no upgrade available).

In my opinion:

  • Service packs should fix bugs (security or otherwise) and that critical patches should be released in advance of a rolled-up, regression tested, service pack. Ideally service packs should also have a predictable timescale (e.g. 6 months after product release then every 12 months from then on until the product reaches end of life).
  • Feature packs should offer new features for an established product. I don’t believe that there should have been any additional features included with Windows XP SP2 (e.g. the Windows Firewall) – instead SP2 should have been a set of bug fixes (alleviating some of the deployment issues associated with new technology) and additionally Microsoft should have offered a free feature pack for Windows XP which provided the extra security features. In this way, users can stay at the latest supported product release (service pack level) but choose which feature packs to add. Security features and other important updates should be free of charge. Others which enhance a product might carry a small charge.
  • Mid-life releases (e.g. Windows Server 2003 R2) are all very well as a marketing mechanism for rolling the latest service packs into a product for new users, but should not preclude existing users from gaining from the latest service pack/feature pack updates. If a product really warrants a new licence, then it should carry a new (major) version number!

Following this model, Virtual Server 2005 R2 should really be a service pack and there should be an additional feature pack for the new features which Microsoft plans to ship (of which there are precious few details at present). As for supporting Linux as a guest operating system – it either works or it doesn’t – Microsoft needs to make up it’s mind as to whether it is a supported guest or not (if they are smart they will say “yes” – that way users can have a virtual Linux guest running on a Windows host if they need the best of both worlds, with Microsoft still gaining licence revenues for the host operating system and the virtualisation software).