Archive for category Operating Systems
Windows Phone 7 Series: The Day Hell Froze Over
Posted by tloverro in Apple, Marketing, Microsoft, Mobile, Operating Systems, Technology on February 15th, 2010
Today is an historic day in Redmond: the day Microsoft can finally claim I wrote something positive about their mobile OS. Windows Phone 7 Series is a bold re-imagining of Windows Mobile which I have previously described as nothing less than a “car wreck hitting a train wreck getting hit by jumbo jet.” However, in analyzing Microsoft’s new strategy we see they have implicitly ceded defeat on the original Windows Mobile strategy. This has some very interesting ramifications I have not read about anywhere else, so I thought I would point them out.
If you want a good write up concerning the advancements in WP7S, Ars Technica has a great summary here. But, what interests me most about WP7S was never announced and probably never will be.
Windows Mobile = Windows…but Mobile
So the story goes that Microsoft defeated Apple in the desktop OS market because Apple stuck too rigidly to a command & control system of defining all hardware and software. Bill Gates came in and democratized everything allowing anything to work with anything. (Freedom rules! O’Doyle Rules!) The evil, all black wearing, communist Steve Jobs was handily defeated in the Great Operating System War (aka The First World Operating System War).
As the world evolved and mobile devices came to market, Microsoft pushed on with its democratic, diverse hardware platform strategy and ported it directly to these new waves of mobile devices. This is evident from the various names of these mobile operating system incarnations: Windows CE, Windows PocketPC (Windows…in your pocket!!!) and of course Windows Mobile. These attempts were all aimed at putting Windows on a mobile phone–Start button, task manager, windows file explorer and all–the whole shebang.
Why would mobile phones be any different than computers? Until today, Microsoft publicly believed that this is how the world should work: Microsoft makes the operating system and myriad device manufacturers compete from Texas to Taiwan to make dazzling devices with the most differentiation sporting the most megahertz and most whizbang features to lure consumers. (And we see this in how WinMo devices are marketed: They are marketed like computers: “You should buy this WinMo phone because it has a XXXMHz Snapdragon processor and XXXMB of memory!” Oooo! Ahhhh!)
Only problem? As it turns out, Windows in your pocket is a terrible idea. Why? I realize this may be hard to grasp–it’s exceedingly subtle (at least it was in Redmond for a decade): mobile phones are not desktops nor even laptops; they are mobile phones.
iPhoneOS ≠ OS X Mobile
Attack!!!
Until the iPhone was released, the mobile software world was a horrid shantytown of squalor, JAMDAT and diarrhea. No single mobile OS had a rich enough user experience or had enough market share for development to be worthwhile and hardware differed so much from phone to phone that entire businesses were made out of customizing mobile games into tens of thousands of individual SKUs (I should know; I looked at investing in a few such businesses).
A Turning Point
But now we are coming to the turning point in the war. We are 25 years after the first graphical version of Windows on the desktop. It is becoming apparent even to Billy G. and Stevey B. that quality assurance with an unlimited number of hardware devices and an unlimited number of peripherals, all requiring unlimited numbers of software drivers means, well…infinity plus one combinations of possible devices for Windows to reside on…and that makes producing really tight software quite hard. Windows grew ever larger just to meet the minimum requirements of supporting this infinite universe of hardware and software and soon began to sag and eventually crash under its own weight faster than the Warsaw Radio Mast. We have a name for this tragedy: Windows Vista.
WP7S ≠ Windows 7 Mobile
Today Microsoft announced Windows Phone 7 Series and simultaneously 1) gave itself a decent shot at reclaiming major market share in the mobile OS and 2) conceded defeat of its core strategy by implicitly admitting that the “Freedom Rules!” lessons of the desktop do not apply to the mobile phone. As Ars Technica states:
“[WP7S relative to WinMo], however, is considerably less customizable, and the hardware requirements are much, much tighter…In fact, pretty much the only optional feature is whether to have a hardware keyboard or not…Software-wise, there will only be one version, with none of the variants that its predecessor had.”
Thus, Microsoft was able to save its mobile OS, but only by adopting tactics from the enemy. While this may have been “OK” to do for the limited world of the Xbox, this is quite a big deal for the mobile OS, which easily represents half or more of the future OS opportunity. Microsoft has ditched the large, open, hairy, wooly, unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism of both Windows and Windows Mobile for the carefully regulated, post-modern compromise that is WP7S.
And I toast Microsoft for it! That’s why WP7S works. That’s why it’s promising! And what next? If Microsoft is able to stick to this strategy, we may see a D-Day face off between Microsoft and Apple.
But will Microsoft ever adopt such a rational and post-modern view of Windows on the desktop, combining both a tightly regulated vision with some room for outside vendors? I certainly hope so.
Addendum on Product Naming
Windows Phone 7 Series…or was that Windows 7: Phone Series? Or Windows Phone Series 7? Really? I mean, really ? That was the best name you could come up with? The whole point of this new OS is that it is NOT “Windows 7 in your pocket.” I understand you want to benefit from the wave of positive press and enthusiasm Windows 7 is receiving, but this is short-sighted. It’s a mouthful and the order of the words is confusing. I am not saying I immediately have a better alternative, but then again I haven’t spent any time thinking about. If I happen to find a seven figure check in the mail from Redmond, I’ll start working on it. My guess is they come up with a better name or at least a more consumer friendly moniker before official launch.
[Ed: Of course, as my friend Lucas points out this is all in principle at least. WP7S is supposed to arrive by "holiday season 2010" which puts it just this side of what many would call vaporware. iPhone 4.0 will likely be 33-50% dead already and iPhone 5.0 will be 50% alive by the time consumers get their first taste of WP7S-an eternity in mobile OS time.]
iPad Analysis: History Repeats Itself
Posted by tloverro in Apple, Marketing, Mobile, Operating Systems, Technology on February 6th, 2010
I am going to respectfully disagree with Kellogg Professor Mohan Sawhney who recently wrote “I think the iPad is aimed squarely at the center – of nowhere.” My argument boils down to three primary points:
1. Neither early laptops nor iPods were truly mass consumer devices. Their progeny were, but those first incarnations were not.
2. If you try to think of the iPad as a “complete substitute for either a laptop or a netbook or a smartphone” as he argues, you have already erred. It is not.
3. You and I are not typical consumers.
Here we go:
1. The Allegory of the Laptop. I bought my first laptop in 2001. I thought of it as a “great addition to my desktop.” But hardly a great investment from a TCO perspective. I presupposed I would use it whenever I went to the Stanford Library to study, when I was traveling, or perhaps sitting outside in the Oval on one of those famously sunny Palo Alto afternoons. Never, however, did I imagine it replacing my desktop. Why? It couldn’t. The technology wasn’t quite there yet. Battery life was abysmal, the processor was more anemic than the venerable Irom Sharmilla on her 10-year hunger strike and Wi-Fi was still crying from its crib in infancy and not present on my laptop. Oh yeah, and I couldn’t see the screen outside–so much for working outside in the Oval. BTW, have you ever tried using a computer recently that wasn’t connected to the internet? WHAT THE HELL IS IT GOOD FOR?!
But then something changed. In about 2005 or 2006, I noticed some dust on my desktop both literally and figuratively. (Seriously, my room was a mess, the thing was filthy.) I didn’t need my desktop anymore. The equation had changed. I could now do 95% of everything I needed to on my laptop. I thought of my big, custom-built desktop as really only useful for large Excel documents, video games and as a big hard drive for my MP3/AAC collection.
The same is true for iPods. I bought an original iPod way back when. I still have it. It’s black and white, has a FW400 port, is thick as brick, practically needs its own wheelie suitcase to transport and cost $600. I remember my friend Kali asking/reprimanding me at the time, “What the hell is that? You spent $600 on an MP3 player!!!” [Ed: Actually, Kali this MP3 player will shake the very foundations of the computing industry.] That original iPod was not ready for mass market. It was a niche product for alpha geeks like me. But you know what? It wasn’t a mistake. The technology evolved, Apple executed and it turned out that everyone wanted thousands of songs in their pocket (i.e. once the iPod could fit in a regular size pocket). PS-I apologize for the misleading title of this section. That was in no way an allegory.
2. The iPad is a new device, don’t pigeonhole it bro. I readily admit the iPad is neither a laptop, netbook or mobile phone. It is not supposed to be. Good product design requires as much sacrifice as it does integration. To understand this, you need to think different for a second. To lose the inhibition, follow your intuition. Free your inner soul and break away from tradition. You categorically CANNOT look at the iPad and determine its utility by comparing it to other products. YOU MUST COMPARE IT TO CUSTOMERS NEEDS. Does it have 10x USB and 4x FireWire 800 ports? No. Does it have a 15x dual-layer burnable Dual-Scribe DVD Writer? No. I agree–from that perpsective it sucks. But so do feature lists. Do most people need those things? No! You need to start by asking what people use these devices/tools for.
3. My girlfriend does not have a computer at home. Right now, your mind just exploded and it’s just a red, gooey mess. But, Marketing 101, baby–you and I are not the typical consumer. Most people don’t go home and run conjoint analyses in Excel on weekends. But my girlfriend is closer to the typical consumer. What does she need? First, she has a computer at work. She uses that for most computationally and input mechanism intense tasks that she does–like large spreadsheets and long emails. She also surfs the web on it and takes care of most of personal internet needs through it. Second, at home and on her person, all she’s got is her Blackberry Pearl. Why? Because when she gets home she mostly emails, surfs a web page or two and makes a few phone calls. My girlfriend is the perfect example of a potential future iPad customer. Not today’s iPad mind you–too geeky for her. But perhaps iPad version 3. One day, Gilt or Groupon will come up with a social shopping app that she’ll need to have and the iPad v3 will arrive via FedEx the next day in a white box. Just like it was with the iPod…
Conclusion
Most people do “intense” computer work in the office on their office supplied machines. When they get home, they use the web for leisure, socializing and communication–exclusively. And for those of us who spend 5-10% of our time at home working, we can probably afford both an iPad and a laptop. Although as the iPad improves and you and I catch up to the new reality, we’ll begin to realize we think of our laptops like we think of desktops today–ornery beasts used for work. We’ll spend the majority of our time at home on the iPad, not our laptops. Desktops and laptops were expected to be used for both leisure and work. The iPad has for the first time truly separated “leisure” from “business” computing in terms of devices. From now on, the iPad/tablet is a “leisure” computing & web device, while laptops are “business” devices. This was brilliant customer and product segmenting, targeting and positioning by Apple. Is this all a sure bet? Hell no. There are risks up the wazoo in everything and anything I said coming to fruition–as was the case with the original iPod. But is it a bet I’d take if I were SJ? Hell yeah, I would.
Windows 7 Anytime Upgrade (WAU) Pricing
Posted by tloverro in Apple, Marketing, Microsoft, Operating Systems, Technology on July 31st, 2009
Microsoft just announced the pricing scheme for upgrading from various flavors of Windows 7 to other flavors of Windows 7 through the “Windows Anytime Upgrade (WAU)” program. For Microsoft customers, this comes as a relief as it should make life much easier in scenarios such as the following:
One day you decide to purchase a new, sweet looking Dell Mini 10 netbook with Windows 7 Starter. A few weeks later you are reading personal email via Gmail (Internet Explorer), on Twitter (TweetDeck) and listening to music (iTunes), when all of a sudden you realize you missed an important business meeting with Katy Perry and Tay Zonday on the topic of how to solve world hunger because Outlook never served you with a “Meeting Reminder” because you already had three applications open. This would obviously force you to smash your teeth in requiring a long hospital stay and painful oral surgery. Following your release from the hospital you may say to yourself “Hey, self. It might be nice to upgrade that piece of crap Windows 7 Starter edition to something that’s actually functional. Why the hell didn’t Dell warn me about this in the first place? I might still have some of my natural teeth if they had done that.” After an hour on hold with Dell, a Dell sales representive finally picks up and tells you to hang up and call Microsoft and inquire about the “Windows Anytime Upgrade (WAU)” program.
NOW, aren’t you glad Microsoft established this program? Isn’t it fucking convenient? You’re damned right it’s convenient. You can upgrade ANYTIME. Not just on Tuesdays or alternating Saturdays like with all those other operating system manufacturers. Is Caldera or Tandy forcing you to upgrade your OS on weekdays from 9am-5pm? With Microsoft you can upgrade from Windows 7 Home Basic Starter Premium Small Business (Northeastern US) 2009 Edition to Windows 7 Prosumer Advanced Home Theater CE Touch Tablet at 4:30am on a SUNDAY! Yes, you read that right. On a SUNDAY! Anytime. Daylight savings time, Christmas Eve, Boxing Day, while you’re in the shower–wait, actually–anytime, except anytime you want to upgrade from say Window 7 Starter directly to Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate. That’s just unreasonable and impossible. You’re an asshole. That’s what you are.
It seems extremely straightforward, but just in case you’ve missed anything or are more visually inclined, I’ve gone ahead and provided a chart for my readers.
And please remember that there’s no official way as of yet to go from Windows 7 Starter to Windows 7 Ultimate or from Windows 7 Starter to Windows 7 Professional outside of buying two upgrade packages. Also unknown is how one might move from Windows 7 Professional to Windows 7 Ultimate.
Let’s look at the pricing plan for OS X upgrades now: $29.
Sometimes I wonder if the Product Marketing and Management folks at Microsoft have any say at all in the things they make. (Is that statement too Marxian for you? Scary, eh?) Perhaps there are just so many people and layers of management that even when they know something such as their pricing is an impending train wreck more than six months from launch, they can’t do anything to correct course. So who does makes deicisions like this inane pricing scheme? Most folks would say “Clearly, a committee.” But I know the real answer. There’s actually one man at Microsoft who made the decision. I hear he calls all the shots in Redmond these days. His name is Clippy.
Parting thought–what about the pricing of this upgrade path?
If I post this graphic on that official Windows 7 Blog, do you think they’ll respond?
Apple Cuts ZFS from Snow Leopard?
Posted by tloverro in Apple, Operating Systems, Storage, Technology on June 10th, 2009
It’s beginning to look like Apple has cut the promising ZFS file system technology from even basic read/write inclusion from OS X Snow Leopard and OS X Snow Leopard Server. All previous mentions of ZFS have been removed as you can see (or not see more accurately) here, here and here. This is about as explicit as it gets. Apple lists the file systems for OS X Snow Leopard Server and ZFS is not there. (Somebody even already updated the Wikipedia page on ZFS already to reflect this.)
My guts tells me Apple made the decision for two interrelated reasons:
1) They want to keep Snow Leopard clean and MORE stable, not less stable because of new features…and file systems are a lot of work…per the recent WWDC Keynote.
2) ZFS is just not ready for prime time in production environments and Apple’s file system team realized this. ZFS has not itself been finalized and Apple’s going to have to do a lot of customization work to make it fit into OS X cleanly. This probably also means it will NOT be compatible with any other ZFS deployments / versions. So much for ZFS as a panacea.
Furthermore, for ZFS to be really useful for OS X customers, Apple will need to do the work to make it compatible as a boot disk which will require even more work and customization and Apple will also need to hide all of the brutal command line complexity and zpool crap and normal RAID levels that characterize ZFS. Getting ZFS to be easy to use is another ball of wax altogether! I bet that will take Apple 2-3 years minimum. In other words, kids please don’t hold your breath for ZFS.
Wow! Isn't this fun and easy! The dark side of ZFS...
While I think ZFS is extremely promising I get really concerned when I hear talk about it in mythical and impossibly optimistic savior-esque terms. In reality, it’s got a long way to go and most people only have such a positive impression of ZFS because they’ve never worked with it. Once you have, it tempers your enthusiasm about 50%-95%. Then again, HFS+ is pretty much ancient history at this point and could not be any less stable (particularly with external storage–needing to dismount? ahem?), so I think all OS X customers are long overdue for something bright and shiny.
My two Drobos I have running at home keep my data safe and don’t require me to understand the ZFS diagram shown. And when ZFS does replace HFS+ in OS X I am betting Data Robotics will make Drobos 100% ZFS compatible. Until then, I don’t really feel the need to run ZFS just yet. And remember folks, even if you are running ZFS that does not absolve you from needing offsite storage…
NAS is Overblown
Posted by tloverro in Marketing, Microsoft, Operating Systems, Storage, Technology on June 3rd, 2009
Dear Established Storage World,
I’ve got some serious issues with what you’re assuming consumers and SMBs want from their storage. Get your head out of the “cloud” and listen up. Here’s what people actually want:
1. Don’t f#cking crash and lose my family photos or tax returns.
2. See number one.
Why is it then that when you look at how vendors such as HP, Iomega or LaCie market their storage products, they either 1) promote a bunch of technical specifications that are 100% irrelevant to customers or 2) promote a bunch of esoteric NAS features that are only good for Alpha Geeks? Who the hell cares how much RAM or what MHz processor is in a storage product? Is 1GHz good or bad for storage? Have you ever tried using UPnP / DLNA? It blows!
Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t have any problems with NAS per se. To me NAS is a great way of sharing storage/files across many computers. I use NAS (via SMB/CIFS) at home every day with a Drobo and DroboShare for the three Macs in my apartment. Here’s my problem: most storage vendors conflate NAS with multimedia streaming and “cloud” services, but this approach is bound to fail. NAS is first and foremost a way of sharing files, not streaming them.
FACT: Windows Home Server (WHS) is bound to fail, just as surely as Intel’s Viiv platform for the living room is now a laughable and faded memory. Why? It’s a freaking mule that doesn’t know whether it wants to backup your data or make sweet love to your TV.
Windows Home Server will never match the beauty or elegance of either 1) backing up to a direct-attached USB/FW/eSATA drive or 2) me walking up to my plasma screen TV and plugging my laptop in via HDMI–no need to convert videos between arcane codecs, download tons of buggy software or go through the headache of streaming. Intel’s Viiv failed because it’s really hard to put a general purpose computing device in the living room and have it do anything really well. WHS suffers from this same basic and fatal flaw. It’s really hard to put a general purpose storage device in the living room and have it do anything really well.
Sheer madness! Number of people who actually use this feature? Five? Ten?
At the end of the day WHS and most NAS devices fail my most basic of consumer/SMB litmus tests: I can’t explain what they do in one sentence or less. If you need further proof of their lack of consumer appeal, simply visit HP’s Home Media Server website. The first thing you’ll notice is a page about “Why a Home Server?” Um, if you need to have that page, you should realize you are selling a solution and technology in need of a problem.
"Redmond, we have a problem. No one wants these things."
How about this for a novel approach: we start with the needs of consumers and SMBs first? It’s what I did at Data Robotics (and they will continue to do) and we took the industry by storm. Here’s a cheat sheet for the Established Storage World , please refer to the beginning of this blog entry for what people want from their storage. Hint: it doesn’t have the words “Cloud 2.0.1″ in it.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Operating Systems category.
