Steamd

Sweet! No wonder Microsoft is spending $300 million on an anti-Mac ad campaign. Apple keeps this up and they’ll have easily have over 10% market share by next year!  :D

A while back, I talked a bit about Microsoft’s efforts to boost their image through a series of upcoming ads featuring Jerry Seinfeld. Well, they came…

And then they went. What happened? Well, if you’re a Seinfeld fan, the commercials are quite humorous here and there. Otherwise, it seems most people found them to be awkward and, quite frankly, they didn’t do a damn thing to boost Microsoft’s image.

So, where does Microsoft go from here with the rest of their $300 ad budget? 

Now they’re aiming to redefine what “I’m a PC” really means with a new series of ads that attack Apple’s own ad campaign head-on:

And, here’s another version:

So, what’s the problem with this? Why will this campaign ultimately fail? As John Gruber of Daring Fireball pointed out, the characters in the Apple commercials are just computers personified. They don’t actually represent real computer users:

They’re not dressed as computers, they’re dressed as people. It’s postmodernism taken to a very silly and profoundly unserious commercial end.

Microsoft would have you believe that Apple is trying to put a stereotype on the average PC user. The reality is that Apple isn’t trying to stereotype the average PC user…just the average PC. And there in lies the problem with Microsoft’s campaign, that they still haven’t talked about the very thing that is causing all their problems to begin with: their product.

Seriously, do any of these commercials really make you feel that their products are any better? Do they? Do any of these ads make you feel like Windows is indeed better than the Mac OS? No? Why not? Because they don’t want to talk about Windows, that’s why. There’s nothing to talk about.

Just like the Seinfeld ads, there is absolutely no mention of Windows at all. Nothing. They don’t even talk about the very issue that is at the core of Microsoft’s problems, the fact that people are losing faith in Windows due to the abysmal reaction to Windows Vista. But rather than dealing with it, they’d much rather tell people that the problem isn’t with their product. No, the problem is you, the customer! It’s all in your head and it’s Apple’s fault because they put a stereotype in your mind!

Is it me or do you get a feeling like they’re just placating the viewer like a McCain/Palin ad? Strange how these things parallel. Wonder what a “Hello, I’m a Democrat.” “And I’m a Republican.” commercial would sound like? Hmm…

More “I’m a Mac” political parodies on YouTube!  :)

John Gruber made some interesting points in his recent Memoranda blog post about the contrasting differences in leadership between Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer. The leaked email memos from each CEO do show quite a few differences (and a few similarities). However, there is one aspect that Guber only touched on. The main difference I see between the two CEO’s is that one of them seems to focus almost exclusively on the bottom-line whereas the other focuses on the product. 

If you look at Ballmer’s email, one thing you’ll notice is that he never really focuses on the product itself nor does he mention what the company has done right with their products. Granted, this is just one email but I’ve read and heard a multitude of other things from Ballmer and he always seems to just glaze over the particulars about a specific product line with just broad brush stroke. He rarely if ever goes into detailed specifics as to why this product was successful and what makes it so great. Rather, Ballmer focuses more on the expansion of the company, it’s profitability, and stomping the competition. It just always seems like he talks more about how Microsoft is going to be doing this and that to get an upper-hand on the competition and much less about how great certain products really are. Maybe that’s just the kind of guy Ballmer is. Maybe he just doesn’t really care as long as Microsoft is profitable and is able to expand into different markets. Maybe he’s just a bottom-line kind of guy. Personally I think that sort of leadership isn’t doing the customer any good.

Jobs’ email about MobileMe, as Gruber mentioned, is very focused. He always focuses his attention on the product itself, what makes it good and what makes it bad. In the case of MobileMe, he focuses on the bad but ends on a note that implies a hopeful future for MobileMe, as if to say that he’s not giving up on it just yet. In the past, Jobs has talked about the bottom-line but usually when he does he attributes it to a specific product line. If Apple has a good third quarter he might say that it was because of the successful launch of the iPhone 3G and that customers were excited about getting their hands on them. Jobs tends to focus more on the user experience than just numbers. In his mind, if the quality of your products and the customer experience is good then the numbers will reflect that. Jobs is very much focusing his attention on the customer to create a unique user experience and I think the success that Apple is having reflects that.

One thing you’ll rarely ever see is a customer who switches from an Apple product to a Microsoft product due to some dissatisfaction. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use a Mac running OS X Leopard for a good length of time who wanted to switch to a computer running Windows Vista. That’s the user experience for you and it’s something that I don’t think Ballmer will ever get.

The Free Software Foundation seems to be at it again with their attacks on Apple and the iPhone. DefectiveByDesign.org, a campaign of the FSF, has posted what they call the iPhone Challenge. In a nutshell, they want people to print out a handy questionnaire (mirror), walk into an Apple store, and attempt to get someone at the Genius bar to answer all their questions. Apparently it’s some sort of IQ test for the geek impaired.

So, am I up to the iPhone Challenge? You bet! I’ve already addressed most of these questions in a previous post that covered the FSF’s 5 Reasons to Avoid the iPhone. I’ll go ahead and answer them again and further clarify my answer if necessary. So, at that, let’s begin:

Why do all developers have to submit their applications to Apple before they can be loaded onto an iPhone?

Because Apple want to ensure that applications being installed on the iPhone meet certain standards and avoid having malicious applications in the wild. There’s an advantage to having one place where applications and updates get deployed. Rather than having to run around and check for updates from a variety of sources, you can simply check for updates in one place. That to me is a huge timesaver and ensures that when developers update their applications I’m going to know about it. Granted, the launch of the App Store didn’t go as smoothly as folks have liked. The timeframe it takes to get applications approved and posted by Apple is ridiculous right now.

Keep this in mind too: this is just the beginning and we have no idea what the plans are for the iPhone’s future. When the iPhone first launched, no one had any idea whether they would allow for native apps or not. Less that one year later and Apple is allowing native applications, even ones based on open-source software. However, Apple clearly wants this to be within a controlled environment for the time being in an effort to keep the flood gates from spilling over. Personally I think this is a wise move. I used a Treo before I moved to an iPhone and I can tell you from experience that the majority of applications for it were total crap, and that’s on a so-called open platform that allows people to install any application from any source. I’ll gladly take a smaller choice of quality applications over hundreds to thousands of crap ones any day.

As to the reason for your question, although it’s required to submit an application to the App Store, open-source applications are freely accepted. The only thing that isn’t free for developers is the iPhone Developer Program, which for most people is $99 a year for access to the SDK, support, and the ability to submit any number of applications to the App Store. That may sound like a lot but considering the fact that Linux distributors like Novell and Redhat charge for support this really isn’t any different.

Now, back to the point about the freedom to offer open-source software, consider WordPress for the iPhone. WordPress itself is distributed under a GPL license and I would imagine that the iPhone app will follow the same tradition since the source-code itself is available. You say that iPhone users are not permitted by Apple to share or load modified versions of programs distributed through the App Store but what’s to stop a developer from downloading a copy of the WordPress app, modifying it, and submitting it to the App Store as a different WordPress app? I’m sure we’ll starting seeing variations of different open-source apps sooner or later. Apple isn’t holding any developers at gunpoint; it’s just the fact that no one has done this yet. Too early to bitch just yet.

Why does iTunes still contain so much DRM-laden music?

Yes, companies like Amazon, eMusic, Napster, Rhapsody, Play.com, CDBaby, 7digital, and more are selling music without DRM, but so does Apple in the form of iTunes Plus non-DRM ACC encoded files. Now, you could argue that because Jobs has a lot of pull that he could get them to release all of Disney’s films without DRM, but get real. Regardless of what anyone might think, Steve Jobs does not rule all at Disney or Apple. He is a CEO. He is beholden to the stock holder and the customer. He has to make both happy. The choice on what to do with Disney’s films does not lie entirely with Jobs. And who is to say that he hasn’t already suggested eliminating DRM from films? We have no idea what has transpired behind closed doors at Disney. And besides, Jobs and Disney are in the business of making money. That’s what business is…making money! What gives you the right to tell them what they can and can’t do with their property? If they end up removing DRM they’ll do it to satisfy the customer’s desire to convert and view the media as they see fit.

As far as music is concerned, Apple has no say so as to what they can and can’t do with the music they sell. Plus, it’s not the job of the RIAA to tell Apple or any other music seller what they can and can’t do. They are entirely beholden to the music labels and publishers. Even though Amazon and others are selling DRM free music, if Sony, Warner, or any other big music label tells Apple, “You can’t sell our music without DRM”, then they must obey. It used to be that the RIAA was there to protect the artist. Now they are nothing more than an organization that protects the big music labels. Many people point fingers at the RIAA but they’re only doing what the big labels tell them to do.

If Apple could convert their entire catalog to iTunes Plus and sell everything DRM free they would…but the big labels refuse to allow them to do it. And why would they do that? Simple. They want a bigger piece of the pie. They would rather get exclusive contracts through other vendors that are willing to pay them more for their content than allow Apple to continue to have such a big piece of the market. So this has much less to do with DRM and more to do with corporate greed. The music industry is changing and the big music labels don’t like it because it means that their cash cow is shrinking.

The iPhone 3G has GPS support. How can users be sure that the GPS cannot be used to track their position, without their permission?

There are many smart phones on the market that have built in GPS; Nokia, Palm, RIM, Motorola, just to name a few. Do you distrust them too? If you’re gonna beat on Apple you might as well beat on them too. And what about all the stand-alone GPS units out there by companies like Garmin, Magellan, and others? Do we put them on high alert as well? Come to think of it, you could triangulate a person’s general location just by using cell phone towers and wireless networks. So, we should be really paranoid now since none of this stuff is powered by open source free software, right?

The thing about a privacy agreement is that it’s a contract. Contracts are bound by law. If a company was to violate their own contract then they would be sued. I’m sure there are plenty of GPS experts that are able to test different GPS devices, including the iPhone, to see if they are being used in mischievous ways. But, as it stands, Apple hasn’t violated their privacy agreement and the iPhone doesn’t do anything with the GPS without first asking you. That’s good enough for me. Till I hear otherwise I have no reason not to trust Apple right now.

In ‘Thoughts on Music‘, Steve Jobs said, “it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in ‘open’ licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC”.

The main reason why Apple hasn’t started supporting the Ogg formats is simply because the majority of users out there simply don’t have any desire to use the format. Apple and other companies that sell devices capable of playing digital music file are mainly concerned with the majority. Since over 80% of their customers use format like MP3 and ACC that is what sells. Like it or not, MP3 is the format most companies support simply because it was the first. After that came other formats like Windows Media, AAC, and others that, although not entirely open, were pushed heavily by the big tech and media companies. As such, formats like MP3 and AAC continue to rule the roost. Yes, some media players and phone support Ogg, FLAC, and other ‘open’ formats, but until a music store starts selling Ogg encoded music and gains enough popularity, I doubt you’ll see many media players and phones that will support Ogg. 

Will Apple approve applications for the App Store that support these formats? That’s a good question. Personally, I don’t see any reason why they would block applications that allow for this. Heck, if you can write an application like FileMagnet that is capable of syncing files over a wireless connection to an iPhone, I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t do that with an Ogg player.

Why can the iPhone 3G only be activated by Apple and AT&T?

Apple is bound by contract to allow AT&T to be the exclusive provider of the iPhone for a period of two years. The reason why the iPhone isn’t available on other carriers is simply because those carriers didn’t want to play ball with Apple and allow them to retain full control over their phones. The same probably applies to other carriers around the world as well. The way Apple is handling the iPhone is unprecedented. No other cell phone maker has been able to retain as much control as Apple has. So in many ways Apple is helping the industry by breaking down barriers and getting customers to realize that the quality of the phone is just as important, if not more important, than the quality of the phone service.

As far as the right to unlock an iPhone, you can certainly buy one from AT&T without service…but it will cost you about an extra $200+ on top of the retail price. The reason is that, just like every other cell phone carrier, AT&T subsidizes the price of the iPhone with a two-year service agreement. As such AT&T will require you to pay more to offset this loss of revenue. Neat deal, huh! And, guess what…that’s how it is with just about every phone with ever other carrier. Cell phone carriers don’t talk about it much and don’t advertise it simply because it’s not a profitable way of doing business. So, don’t look to Apple to remedy this…look to the cell phone carriers. Bitch at them instead.

I have a few questions for the FSF:

Why just the iPhone? Why not pick on the Blackberry, Treo, or the Instinct?

These phones have just as many issues with proprietary software and hardware as the iPhone. And some of these, like the Instinct, won’t even allow you to install your own software anyways. My guess is that, just like Windows is to the desktop operating system market, the iPhone is the biggest target in the smart phone market. It’s the one getting the most attention and the most hype, thus the reason why the FSF choose to attack the hell out of it.

Rather than bitch, moan, whine, and complain about how the iPhone sucks, why doesn’t the FSF put their money where their mouth is and sponsor an open phone that’s worth buying? Sponsoring the OpenMoko was a mistake because it’s hardly worth any serious attention. [For those who have not seen the OpenMoko, read my blog post about it here] I seriously wouldn’t even bother trying to push that one as a worthy alternative to the iPhone or any other smart phone for that matter. Even when compared to other phones out there, the OpenMoko is crap. I about shit myself when I saw the price: $400! I paid $250 for my first iPhone. Why would I want to pay $400 for something that is severely inferior? And according to the OpenMoko wiki the only major carriers in the U.S. that provides service are AT&T and T-Mobile. Yeah, that’s a big choice there. Buying something like this and sacrificing so much quality and usability just for the sake of adhering to a misguided philosophy is just impractical for me, not to mention nuts.

There’s a reason why the iPhone, the Blackberry, and other smart phones have been so popular. It’s because they are well-designed and fit the needs of many consumers well. In the case of the iPhone, Apple touched on a nerve by creating something that is highly innovative. There is nothing like the iPhone out there, period. No one has created a touch screen interface that works as well as the iPhone. For other cell phone makers to compete, they really need to step up to the plate and create something extraordinary. Apple has raised the bar.

So I challenge the FSF:

Can you design an open phone that is as good or better than the iPhone?  

If so, let’s see it. What I want to see is something extraordinary in terms of both hardware and software. I want to see something that shows that even open source developers can have standards and principles in the design of their products. I want to see something that is so polished, so well-designed, that people won’t believe that it’s an open source phone. If you believe you can do this then put your money where your mouth is and show me. Until such time as you or any organization that supports free and open software can produce a phone that is as good as the iPhone, I’m afraid just about all of your criticism is moot.

Yesterday, I talked about a member of the Free Software Foundation and his 5 reasons to avoid the iPhone. What struck me was that this guy is willing to sacrifice quality for the freedom from proprietary software and corporate ties. That kind of philosophy is all fine and dandy and I would applaud him for his efforts, but when I saw what he claimed was the alternative I couldn’t help but laugh. One look at the phone and interface told me everything I needed to know, that this thing was an absolute piece of shit.

Today, I watched a few videos by Dave Fayram off of the Vimeo site where he reviews and shows a comparison of the OpenMoko powered FreeRunner and the iPhone. It’s very clear that this phone has absolutely no comparison to the iPhone:

OpenMoko Train Wreck from Dave Fayram on Vimeo.

Wow! The keyboard alone has me wondering what the hell the developers were thinking. And the shitty scrolling? Please. Even if I shared the same philosophy as the FSF, an interface like that would be completely unacceptable to me. I wouldn’t use it. Period.

Plus, the thing is practically twice as thick as an iPhone. In fact, I think it’s even thicker than the Treo 750 I used to use. The thing resembles a f@#king hockey puck for Pete’s sake. Talk about a really shitty form factor!

More OpenMoko Train Wrecking (Now with Qt!) from Dave Fayram on Vimeo.

My god, is that interface slow!

And it doesn’t play MP3’s? Really? The most popular audio file format and it doesn’t play it. But, hey, it plays Ogg Vorbis files! Awesome! Now I can convert all my existing MP3 and ACC encoded files into Ogg files and waste more time just so my music can sound more shitty. Great idea!

And how many times does he have to tap the same button before it does anything? I mean, really, come on! That by far is one of the biggest blunders of interface design I’ve ever seen! Instant show stopper in my book.

Text entry is God awful. I’ve used Treo’s, played with Blackberry’s, and many, many other types of smart phones and I’ve never seen text entry as bad as this. What a f@$king joke!

I know what the guy from FSF would respond with to my post. He would say that to buy an iPhone or any other phone that requires proprietary software would go against his philosophy. That’s fine. If that’s what you believe and you don’t want to have anything to do with any phone like that then that’s your choice. But to make unfounded claims in an attempt to prove your point is a big mistake. Until you’ve used these phones and really have taken the time to understand what these phones are really all about then how can you have any sort of educated opinion.

The thing I’ve learned is that even though I support open source software I know that it’s unrealistic to think that all software can be open and free. Hell, it’s highly unrealistic to think that you can avoid any proprietary corporate ties in this day in age. Just about everything you use and buy is proprietary in some way or has ties to a corporation. People work to make money. Corporations exist to make money. Regardless of whether you’re developing open source or proprietary software the whole point in doing it is to make money in some shape, fashion, or form. Open source software survives not because of its openness but because developers have found way to profit off it and have learned that good product design is a must if you are to compete with companies that develop proprietary software.

Again, I bought an iPhone because I wanted the best phone I could buy that would suit my needs and integrate into my lifestyle well. The iPhone is the best phone for me. Now, whether it’s the best phone for someone else, well, that’s a matter of personal preference and taste. Apple didn’t put a spell on me. I didn’t buy one just because of all the hoopla surrounding it. No, I bought it because I feel it’s the best smart phone out there. If anyone making open source software for smart phones wants to compete they’re going to have to really create something extraordinary, something so well designed that your average layman simply has to have it. That’s what Apple did with the iPhone. Sure, marketing and advertising helped, but even then the product speaks for itself. Can OpenMako do the same with the FreeRunner?

To say that a FreeRunner is SO much better just because it’s open and supports the philosophy of the FSF, that’s a delusional statement at best. I just don’t get the willingness to sacrifice useability and good design on a somewhat misguided philosophy. The FreeRunner is so poorly designed in both hardware and software I just don’t understand how anyone can look at it and say that it’s an acceptable product. Claiming it to be good enough is accepting mediocrity based on a misguided belief over the use of open source software, which is something I absolutely refuse to do. Now, if it is perfectly acceptable to you then buy one and use it. If not, you will have no choice but to consider a proprietary phone. As it stands though I will likely never ever use anything that resembles the FreeRunner simply because it is mediocre. It it was something that actually came close to the iPhone I could see it, but otherwise I’ll pass.

Keep your piece of shit open phone. I’m perfectly happy with my proprietary phone, thank you very much.

Last week, someone over at the Free Software Foundation posted a blog entry called 5 reasons to avoid iPhone 3G. I’m all for free software and a big proponent of open source software. Hell, I help develop for MODx, which is open source. Although my Mac is my primary desktop, I have an OpenSuSE desktop server running that I use as my development environment. So, yeah, I understand the open source community quite a bit. So when I read this list of reasons to avoid the iPhone I found it laughable at best because the very reasons they claim are reasons to actually get it.

So, here’s my comments about what this guy has to say. Let’s start with reason #1:

1: iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can’t be on everyone’s phones.

Wait a minute…so what about all those free apps on the iTunes App Store? You mean that developers still have to pay Apple to distribute those apps? No sir, they don’t! Developers are only taxed on the apps they put price tags on. Even then Apple only gets a 30% cut. Now, you could say that that’s a rip off but, let’s face it, Apple is in the business of making money. And have you seen the apps on the App Store? Doesn’t look like Apple is playing the authority figure you claim it to be. If that was the case then I would estimate that at least two-thirds of the apps on there would have been rejected. As it stands though that is simply not the case. Apple nor anybody else in the iPhone community requires you or any other developer to put a price tag on an iPhone app. If you want to put an iPhone app on the App Store for free you’re more than welcome to do so. So your notion that Apple completely blocks free software is bullshit at best.

2: iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology.

Apple does NOT endorse and support DRM technology. It’s a well known fact that Steve Jobs is not all that fond of DRM systems. But, as you say, it’s been a year and half since BMI started allowing Apple to sell DRM free music:

With great hesitation, he allowed a handful of files to go DRM-free on iTunes, but kept in place the requirement that they be purchased using the proprietary, DRM-infected iTunes software. Since then, he has done absolutely nothing to act on those words.

It’s not Steve Jobs or Apple that’s the problem…it’s the big music and media houses that are the problem. Apple has no control over the decision to put DRM on the media they sell because they aren’t the ones controlling the publishing rights to the music and media. Only the music and media companies have those rights. If Apple could remove all DRM restrictions on the music and media they sell on iTunes tomorrow they would. Wanna know who you need to complain to? Complain to companies like Sony, BMG, Warner, Universal and others who are doing their best to maintain the status quo and keep the traditional business model of selling media by restricting what you can and can’t do with the media you buy. Don’t bitch at Apple, bitch at them!

The truth is that there are thousands of software, music, and media creators who want to share their work more freely.

Last I checked, there are tons of independent musicians, such as Jonathan Coulton, sharing and selling their work on iTunes. Same applies to media creators. The notion that Apple only cares about the big labels and doesn’t allow independent artist to distribute their work easily on iTunes is bullshit.

I get a lot of my music and media in plenty of different ways. iTunes is just one source. I get stuff from Amazon, podcasts, CDBaby, and other sites. Apple doesn’t pigeon-hole you. You do have a choice.

Plus, there are tons of developers offering free software to use on the Mac. It seems for every good paid app there’s an equally good free app as well. Not all of them are open source but, still, if it’s free how can you complain?

3: iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to track you without your knowledge.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit! Have you even used an iPhone? Every app that accesses the GPS API is required to ask you for permission to use your current location. Even then, the coordinates are only used for that given app and aren’t transmitted for the world to see. The only way people can see where you are is if you allow for it. Loopt is a good example of this and, even with Loopt, you have to specifically give friends permission to see you before they can do anything. Based on that, if the iPhone is exposing your whereabouts it’s because you allowed it to, not because it just does it on its own.

4: iPhone won’t play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis and Theora.

Ok, so you’re partially correct…but only partially. Yes, it’s true that no iPhone or iPod will play Ogg Vorbis or Theora files natively. And, yes, it’s true that both MP3 and AAC are patented technologies. But, unlike MP3, no licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format. However, to create AAC files does require a license since it is a proprietary format. Interestingly though it isn’t owned by a single company since it was developed by multiple organizations in an effort to develop a more standardize file format.

Neither MP3 or AAC are DRM formats in and of themselves. DRM can be added on to these formats, sure, but they’re not DRM formats natively. Apple and other companies add on DRM to these formats because they are required to do so by the media companies.

Apple and other organizations would likely embrace open formats like Ogg Vorbis if they truly felt that it would be cheaper and more beneficial than what they are predominantly using now. However, as it stands, that’s simply not the case. So what you say is only half right.

5: iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on the horizon that respect your freedom, don’t spy on you, play free media formats, and let you use free software — like the FreeRunner.

Yes, the iPhone is not the only option. There are other smart phones out there that have capabilities similar to the iPhone. And, honestly, if there was a phone better than the iPhone I would certainly buy it. Right now though, today, there is no equivalent of the iPhone anywhere.

Fortunately, we will soon be able to have all the convenience of a mobile computer that also makes phone calls without selling our freedom to Apple, Microsoft, BlackBerry, or anyone else. The Neo FreeRunner is a promising free-software phone, being developed in cooperation with the same worldwide community responsible for the GNU/Linux operating system.

Great but, really, is that the best the open source community can do? I’ll give them credit for coming up with a completely open solution. However, I’m far from being impressed with the design of the FreeRunner. It’s not inspiring and the software looks like shit, but that’s just my opinion.

About the only phones that could remotely compete with the iPhone are phones powered by Google Android. However, I hate to break it to you but even Google Android is not as open as people thought. Also, exactly how good Google Android powered phones will be remains to be seen. I wouldn’t be counting my chickens just yet.

iPhones can now also only be activated in stores — despite the fact that in the U.S., the Register of Copyrights ruled that consumers have the right to unlock their phones and switch to a different carrier.

Yes, you’re right, consumers have the right to unlock their phones and use them with other carriers and they are more than welcome to do so if they choose…but at a price. Although customers can reserve the right to unlock their phones, carriers can reserve the right to charge a fee to allow you out of your one or two year contract. Plus, most carriers subsidize the price of the phone so in order to get an iPhone (or any other phone for that matter) that is unlockable without a contract, be prepared to pay a lot more for it. This isn’t Apple’s doing though. This is the cell phone industry. AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, they all do this. If Apple could sell iPhones to every carrier without some bogus stipulations in their contracts they would. That day may come but right now Apple is tied to AT&T for contractual reasons.

I will say this though: If the FreeRunner or a Google Android phone were to beat out the iPhone on design, features, usability, and integration into my lifestyle I will gladly give up my iPhone for any one of these phones. My phone is a part of my everyday life. As an information worker, it’s absolutely necessary that I remain in touch with everyone I work with. As such, the iPhone give me that and much more. For any other phone to trump it will be difficult.

Personally, I don’t really care if the iPhone is completely open or not. I just care about good, solid product design that integrates into my life well. For now, the iPhone is my smart phone of choice, and not because Apple has tricked me with some David Copperfield illusion either. No sir, it’s because Apple created a good product that is well designed. If another phone does it for you then, great, buy it. Otherwise, shut up!

On January 9, 2007, at the Macworld Expo, Steve Jobs unveiled a product that would forever change the landscape for cellphones: the first iPhone. Speculators ran rampant saying that Apple would likely garnish at least a 7% market share by 2016! What’s funny is that Jobs said that Apple would be happy with just 1% of the market, a market which at the time was already selling a 100 million phones:

So game consoles. 26 million game consoles were sold in 2006 worldwide, actually a little smaller than you’d think. It’s not such a big market. Digital cameras dwarfed it at 94 million. MP3 players 135 million. And PCs, about 209. Mobile phones, just about a billion last year, worldwide. So what does this tell you? What this tells you is, that 1 percent market share equals 10 million units. This is a giant market. One percent market share, you’re going to sell 10 million phones. And this is exactly what we’re going to try to do in 2008, our first full year in the market, is grab 1 percent market share and go from there. So we’re going to enter a very competitive market, lot of players, we think we’re going to have the best product in the world, and we’re going to go for it and see if we can get 1 percent market share, 10 million units in 2008, and go from there.

What Jobs didn’t say was that the market was already dominated by the Blackberry and Windows Mobile devices. Many speculators wondered if the iPhone could even remotely compete since it didn’t have any enterprise support nor any Microsoft Exchange support, the two things all businesses require out of the smartphones they buy.

Even Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer couldn’t help but laugh at the iPhone:

Baller went on to say in a USAToday interview:

There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It’s a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I’d prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.

Ballmer would have to wait and see just how much market share Apple would get with the iPhone.

On June 29th, 2007, the first generation iPhone is released to the public. Right out of the gate, Apple sold an estimated 500,000 iPhones in just the first weekend, with one million iPhones sold by September. By the end of 2007, Apple sold nearly 4 million iPhones. Not only did they meet expectations, they exceeded them by capturing a 26.7% share of the smartphone market by the end of 2007. Keep in mind that they attained these numbers without enterprise support and on just a single carrier. It’s an amazing product launch on many levels!

Even then there were many who doubted the future success of the iPhone, still claiming that Apple could not keep up with their success without enterprise support and without the ability to install native applications. Well, their doubts were put to rest when, on March 6, 2008, Steve Jobs and company announced the beta release of the iPhone SDK as well as a first look of the iPhone 2.0 software. And what will the iPhone 2.0 software provide? You got it: native ActiveSync support for Microsoft Exchange!

By May 2008, Apple’s iPhone market share slipped a bit and fell to a 19.2% marketshare. My guess is that companies just aren’t ready to buy into the iPhone yet till they see the official release of the 2.0 software.

Another gripe about the iPhone was that it didn’t have 3G. Well, in true Apple fashion, they announced on January 15, 2008 at the Macworld Expo the release of the next generation iPhone, the iPhone 3G. Granted, the only things they added was support for 3G and built-in GPS, but it still pretty much closes the gap for any complaints that business users have.

So with all the hoopla, what is it about the iPhone? Why is this thing so darn popular? And does it really deserve all the hype and attention it’s getting?

As a fellow iPhone owner, I can tell you that it deserves all the hype. I used to administrate a good handful of Treo 700w’s and 750’s and I’ve played with quite a few Blackberry’s as well. None of them came close to the innovation and slickness of the iPhone. Simply put, Apple did indeed make one hell of a jump ahead of the competition. They created a phone that works unlike any other device of its kind.

Many other manufactures have tried to duplicate the success of the multi-touch interface of the iPhone but have failed. And why would they? Apple has had a history of creating really well designed interfaces for the past five years. Any company that even remotely wants to compete has to step up their game now and come up with something that is just as innovative. Even then, innovation is only a fraction of it. The other part is the fact that the iPhone just plain works.

The only real competition I see for Apple is Google Android, an open-source mobile operating system that some manufactures are already developing for. Android has plenty of potential but it remains to be seen whether it can capture the enterprise market. In many ways, Google Android will be the Linux of the smartphone market. I’m sure there will be developers creating apps that allow for such things as native Microsoft Exchange support.

So where does that leave the rest of the competition? Will Apple dominate the market and leave Windows Mobile and Blackberry in the dust? I don’t think so and I honestly don’t believe Apple will monopolize on the market either. After all, not everyone will find the iPhone to be the perfect fit for them. Some people will simply prefer a Blackberry, Treo, or some other smartphone over an iPhone.

I personally love the iPhone. And just because I’m an Apple fan doesn’t mean that I think the iPhone is the only good smartphone on the market. Again, I think Google Android holds a lot of promise. If someone was to come along with a phone that offers better features, a better interface, and more I might consider it. Apple doesn’t rule and know all; they just happen to be the one company who is designing some of the better products right now. Any company can come along and do it better. They just have to design something better.

As to what the future will hold for the iPhone and what the next big thing will be, no one really knows. Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Update [June 24, 2008]:

I share John Guber’s sentiments on the expectations of Google Android and how it compares to the iPhone:

My obsession is with wonderful, thoughtful software and gadgetry. I love the iPhone because it’s fucking amazing, not because it’s from Apple. It’d be fantastic if even one Android-based phone is as good or better than the iPhone.

The openness of Google Android is what makes me think it’ll end up being the Linux of the mobile OS market. And John is right, Android does have the potential of being better than the iPhone in many ways. After all, anyone with both Mac and Linux experience can see the potential of both platforms and the strengths of each. I don’t see why Android would be any different. But one thing is for sure: unless developers embrace the platform Android won’t stand a chance, which we won’t see till the first Android phones are released on the market.

As the Presidential election continues, I’ve been thinking a lot about the two candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. I’ve thought about the philosophies and points of view that are so different between them. Being that I’ve been an IT professional for over six years and a web developer for almost as long, it’s only fitting that I draw a comparison with the current Presidential election to the two operating systems I’ve used intimately for the past ten years or so: Apple’s Mac OS and Microsoft’s Windows.

If you’ve never used a Mac then you might not have a clue what I’m talking about in this post. And when I say used I mean more than just a few hours. Anyone who has spent more than a month using a Mac will know exactly where I’m coming from and why I draw the kind of comparison I’m talking about to the current Presidential election. Comparing Windows users to Mac users is very much like comparing devoted Republicans to Democrats.

I recently read a three-part series of articles entitled From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows user’s conversion to Mac OS X (part 1, part 2, part 3). This series of articles does a great job of reinforcing my views and illustrates my own experiences that made me switch from Windows to Mac.

I’ve used Windows since Windows 95 and was a staunch supporter of Microsoft, defending them even when criticism was at an all time high during the late 90’s and into the turn of the century. But after spending three years as an IT Supervisor for a small architectural firm, dealing with day to day issues with the administration of Microsoft software, and beta testing Microsoft’s latest OS, Windows Vista, my philosophy started to change.

The first change came when I got sick of dealing with Microsoft’s .NET platform for doing web development. I felt that there had to be something easier and just as powerful to use. So I ended up switching to the use of Apache web servers, PHP, MySQL, and Linux/Unix-based servers as my platforms of choice for web development.

The final change came when I went out and bought a Mac Mini out of frustration. The tools I was using for web development just weren’t working right on my Windows-based PC and I really wanted a change. I was already highly familiar with Linux and Unix-based operating systems so a Mac wasn’t that much of a jump for me. Once I got up and running I haven’t looked back ever since. I even formatted my old PC and turned it into a Linux server.

So how does this translate to the current election?

When I was beta testing Vista, it became clear to me that Microsoft was giving me more of the same. They were more or less trying to candy coat everything in a slick package and attempting to solve all of the users problems with band-aids. What they ended up with was a bloated mess of an operating system that required twice the horse power that Windows XP required. As such, anyone who wanted to use Windows Vista would have to buy all new hardware….including businesses, who are Microsoft’s biggest customers. What’s worse is that there are so many similarities to Mac OS X. They practically ripped off ideas from Apple. Yep, there’s lots of pork in Vista.

From a developers point of view, writing applications for Windows is a trying experience. I certainly remember my time trying to get a .NET web application working. I felt like I spent more time dicking around with the configuration than I did actually writing code. As Peter Bright points out:

Windows is dying, Windows applications suck, and Microsoft is too blinkered to fix any of it–that’s the argument. The truth is that Windows is hampered by 25-year old design decisions. These decisions mean that it’s clunky to use and absolutely horrible to write applications for. The applications that people do write are almost universally terrible. They’re ugly, they’re inconsistent, they’re disorganized; there’s no finesse, no care lavished on them. Microsoft–surely the company with the greatest interest in making Windows and Windows applications exude quality–is, in fact, one of the worst perpetrators.

Microsoft has always been a company that would have you believe that Windows and other products like Microsoft Office are the only solutions to consider for your business and personal life. They pretty much invented the use of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Anytime a competitor has threatened their core business, they do what they can to either stomp it out or entice their users to keep using Windows with a little FUD (”Are you sure that’s wise?”).

The thing is that Microsoft doesn’t care about the conscientious developer or the home user. They only care about making their primary core customers happy: corporate enterprise customers. As such, Microsoft doesn’t really have to re-invent themselves if their corporate customers are happy. Corporate users are happy with “good enough”, which is exactly what Microsoft gives them.

Candy coating, band-aids, bloat, pork, inconsistent, disorganized, poorly managed, corporate loving, FUD, disillusioned user base, copycat design, more of the same, good enough. Gee…is this starting to sound like the Republican Presidential campaign?

Apple, on the other hand, is a company that is about forward, outside-of-the-box thinking. Their products speak for themselves. All you have to do is pick up an iPhone and realize just how much time and attention went into it. Apple is a company that attempts to solve problems by creating computers and gadgets that are well designed and highly usable. Much of their success has a lot to do with their leadership:

Apple is Apple. Apple, as a company, prides itself on being a leader, not a follower. As Steve Jobs famously quoted Wayne Gretzky, “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been”. So the charismatic (some might say dictatorial) Apple leadership wants the company to be seen as one that looks forward, not backward.

Apple practices good, solid user-centric design in every product they create. I’ve read many books about application and product design for my web development practices and Apple is always used as an example of good design. Good design is about communication. A well thought-out, well designed product communicates to you by showing you how it will solve your problem. In times like this, the product speaks for itself. What makes Apple’s products so good is that they accomplish something that many other companies fail to do: to make a product that is easy and fun to use and addresses the needs of what most people need.

Apple’s products are honest and direct. For Apple, less is more. You don’t need every bell and whistle. You don’t need a bunch of useless features that you’ll never use. So they get rid of the fluff and bloat and leave behind only what is necessary to get the job done. What you’re left with is a clean, usable product that is a joy to use.

Granted, Apple isn’t perfect. They do make mistakes and they are flawed in areas, and Steve Jobs would be the first to admit it. Most users don’t really know what they want till they see it so Apple tries to anticipate what users will want to use in the future by asking questions and creating new products based on new ideas and innovation. Many times they succeed, but sometimes they fail. But they learn from their failures and move on. Part of their failures includes listening to their users and asking them why a product wasn’t good. That’s just good management and good business.

Leadership, forward, outside-of-the-box thinking, communication, well managed, honest, direct, clean, usable, fallible, innovative. I don’t expect perfection but I don’t want something that’s just “good enough”. I just want it to work and work well and solve my problems. Apple give me that. I think Barack Obama will give me that as well.

I knew that it would be inevitable…eventually my new Mac would crash. No computer is perfect. Hardware and software problems can and will occur. So why would a Mac be any different?

I bought my Mac Mini about 4-5 months ago. Last November, I upgraded to Mac OS X Leopard the very day it came out. Since that time, I’ve had a few programs crash and quit here and there. Hasn’t happened on a frequent basis. Nothing I would call major by any stretch of the imagination. Programs crash now and then. That’s just a fact of life. And when it happens, I can usually just relaunch the program and be on my merry way. I save and I save often when working on important files. So to have a program crash really doesn’t hurt my feelings.

So, this morning, I was working on a few things. I had a few programs open: Mail, Safari, GSync, Aptana, Adium, and iTunes. Not much. Then I started to launch Firefox to do a quick webpage test. Bam! The screen when opaque with a small box like the one listed here telling me that I need to restart my computer. So I shutdown and restarted my computer.

Upon logging back in, I was presented with a simple window telling me that my computer had crashed unexpectedly and asked if I’d like to send a log to Apple. Viewing the log gives you a few simple options to view the log information itself, basic system info, and a place to add some comments on what you were doing at the time the crash happened so you can send this information to Apple. This is very similar to what happens on a Windows XP/Vista system when it crashes. Only difference is that a Windows system itself goes directly to a very unfriendly blue screen when it crashes (the dreaded Blue Screen of Death!) and doesn’t tell the end user anything useful about what just happened or what to do when it happens. BSOD’s are generally confusing to an end user and pretty much freaks out anyone who doesn’t know shit about computers. Apple at least gives an indication to the user on what they need to do. The ability to send the logs to the OS maker is pretty much the same between the two OS’s, but I do feel that Apple’s is more straight-forward and a bit less confusing since it keeps everything in just one windows and a few tabs.

This is the first and only time I’ve had a kernel panic. The fact that it didn’t happen in the 4 months I’ve been using Leopard is impressive. This is just testament that a Mac does indeed crash a lot less often than a Windows machine. Before I got my Mac, I pretty much used Windows XP exclusively. My experience has been that programs on XP as well as XP itself crash more often than they do on a Mac. Plus, I find I can recover from a crash much more effectively on my Mac.

As weird as this may seem, the experience of having a kernel panic on a Mac was somehow comforting. I didn’t get the feeling that the end of the world was happening. Nor did I think something drastically wrong was with my computer to make me think I had to call Apple on it. Now, if this becomes a highly repetitive thing, I can see that. But, for now, I have the comfort knowing that I can go back to doing my thing and not worry about it so much. Somehow I feel this is exactly what goes on in the mind of the average Mac user. And, in my opinion, that’s a very good thing. An informed computer user is an educated computer.

Last week at my company’s Christmas party, I was having a conversation with a few of my co-workers and their wives. The topic of conversation shifted to the iPod and one of my co-worker’s wives brought up a good question: Is there a good alternative to the iPod? My response to her was that the latest generation of the Microsoft Zune has received good reviews. I read a lot of different news feeds and blog posts and the general consensus is that the second generation of Zunes are pretty darn good and actually top the iPod in some ways.

Paul Thorrott has an excellent review of the latest batch of Zunes from Microsoft. His review is very much on the level and he doesn’t seem to show any bias in his review. He states right up front that he didn’t give the first Zune a good review. Yeah, that first Zune Microsoft put out was indeed an abysmal combination of hardware and software. Not very many people liked it at all. He says that the new Zunes are not without their problems but are far and away a better product than the first Zunes.

“Is this a revolution in the making? Not quite, not yet: Apple will still sell untold iPods this holiday season. But the Zune is no longer a laughing stock and some of the changes Microsoft has made, both in the hardware and in the software, will have Apple racing to catch up. I like what I see here.”

There’s no doubt in my mind that the Zune deserves a place as the #2 media player on the market but I’m not so sure about it topping the iPod anytime soon. The primary problem with it is this: No Mac compatibility! Now, you could say that this only affects about 5% of Microsoft’s potential customer base. Then again that 5% is just as important as the rest. It’s the same argument I have with web designers and developers creating sites that only work with Internet Explorer. To dismiss a percentage of your clientèle like this is no different than designing a building that does not accommodate for the blind and/or disabled. Simply put, it’s not a good business decision. As such, I still recommend the iPod over the Zune for this very reason.