Microsoft’s other problem

Google is Problem #1, obviously. But the other one is the baroque — and unsustainable — architectural complexity of Windows 12 (which is what Vista really is). Randall Stross has an interesting piece about this in the NYT. The next version of Windows is — bizarrely — called Windows 7 by the Microsoft High Command.

Will it be a top-to-bottom rewrite? Last week, Bill Veghte, a Microsoft senior vice president, sent a letter to customers reassuring them there would be minimal changes to Windows’ essential code. “Our approach with Windows 7,” he wrote, “is to build off the same core architecture as Windows Vista so the investments you and our partners have made in Windows Vista will continue to pay off with Windows 7.”

But sticking with that same core architecture is the problem, not the solution. In April, Michael A. Silver and Neil MacDonald, analysts at Gartner, the research firm, presented a talk titled “Windows Is Collapsing.” Their argument isn’t that Windows will cease to function but that the accumulated complexity, as Microsoft tries to support 20 years of legacies, prevents timely delivery of advances. “The situation is untenable,” their joint presentation says. “Windows must change radically.”

Randall points out that the problem facing Microsoft now is analogous to that which faced Apple with its ageing OS9 system in the late 1990s. The solution was a radical break and the adoption of a completely different OS architecture — OS X. This meant a lot of pain for some die-hard Apple users, though it was partially eased by providing an OS9 emulator.

The complexity of Vista is largely a consequence of having to ensure backwards compatibility with earlier versions — which is why Bill Veghte wrote as he did. But with the power of modern Intel processors, where’s absolutely nothing to prevent Microsoft harnessing virtualisation technology to enable users to run earlier versions of Windows in virtual machines, leaving Redmond’s software designers free to design a completely new OS.

Apple’s Trojan Horse

This morning’s Observer column about the long-term implications of the iPhone.

There were murmurs of discontent that the camera delivered a measly two megapixels, still declined to do video and lacked a flash. There was a frisson of excitement when it was revealed that the phone had onboard GPS, and contented murmurings as some new games and other third-party applications were demonstrated. But the only big news was that Apple is to halve the price in a dash for market share.

Of course this is bad news for Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson and others, none of whom have yet managed to come up with a device that can compete head-on with the iPhone. But in fact the possibility that Apple might become as dominant in the mobile phone market as it is in the online music business should ring warning bells everywhere…

Paranoia, Apple style

From Good Morning Silicon Valley

Palo Alto High School senior and devout Apple fan Daniel Fukuba and some friends were killing time at the company’s local retail shrine last weekend, and Fukuba, wanting to show off the iPhone’s abilities, downloaded a third-party car racing game called “Raging Thunder” onto one of the display units. He was approached questioningly first by an employee and then by the manager, but there was no fuss until the group left the store and was halfway down the block. According to Fukuba, the manager chased them down, herded them back to the store, detained them while he called police, kept them there for 2½ hours, gave them a lecture on the evils of hacking, took their pictures and said they would be distributed to all Apple stores, then cut them loose. To a shaken Fukuba and friends, this sounded like a lifetime banishment from the hallowed aisles, a prospect that left him distraught. “I’ll have to get a friend to buy stuff for me, like a drug deal,” he worried. But Apple says no, no, there’s no banishment — the kids just needed to have the fear of Jobs thrown into them.

Network Power

Sigh. Another book to add to the ‘must read’ pile — David Singh Grewal’s Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization. Here’s the abstract:

David Singh Grewal’s remarkable and ambitious book draws on several centuries of political and social thought to show how globalization is best understood in terms of a power inherent in social relations, which he calls network power. Using this framework, he demonstrates how our standards of social coordination both gain in value the more they are used and undermine the viability of alternative forms of cooperation. A wide range of examples are discussed, from the spread of English and the gold standard to the success of Microsoft and the operation of the World Trade Organization, to illustrate how global standards arise and falter. The idea of network power supplies a coherent set of terms and concepts—applicable to individuals, businesses, and countries alike—through which we can describe the processes of globalization as both free and forced. The result is a sophisticated and novel account of how globalization, and politics, work.

So after Hard Power, and Joe Nye’s Soft Power, students of International Relations will have to come to terms with Network Power. About time too.

Christopher Caldwell wrote a thoughtful piece about the book in yesterday’s FT. Excerpt:

At the heart of globalisation is a basic, and politically explosive, mystery; globalisation proceeds through the breaking down of boundaries, the unfolding of diversity and freedom of choice – so why is it experienced by so many people as a constriction, an oppression and a loss of freedom? In a brilliant and subtle book*, a Harvard graduate student has solved this mystery – even if he has not solved the problem. David Singh Grewal believes the answer lies in something called “network power”. Networks are the means by which globalisation proceeds. All networks have standards embedded in them. In theory we can choose among the standards and become more free. In practice, Mr Grewal shows, our choices tend to narrow over time, so that standards are imposed on us.

Here is how it works. Networks tend to grow. As time passes, one of the most attractive things about a network will be simply that a large number of people have already chosen it. This is network power. Once a network reaches “critical mass”, Mr Grewal says, the incentives to join it can become irresistible. Certainly some standards are intrinsically better than others. “But as the network power of a standard grows,” Mr Grewal writes, “the intrinsic reasons why it should be adopted become less important relative to the extrinsic benefits of co-ordination that the standard can provide.” People defect from alternative networks. Eventually those alternatives disappear altogether. The choice of networks becomes a Hobson’s choice. You remain free to choose your network, but the distinction between choosing to join a network and being forced to join one is less evident.

Mr Grewal sees such a “merger of reason and force” in many areas, economic and non-economic – from the Windows operating system to the ISO 9000 standard of industrial control to Britain’s adoption of the metric system. Since English has become the first global lingua franca, many non-native speakers have freely chosen to speak it. But, for someone who wants to participate in the global economy – which is to say, the economy – to what extent is this really a choice?

Networks, Mr Grewal believes, can impinge on our political autonomy, channelling it into situations where dissent is possible but pointless. Although people enter them freely, networks, like political systems, can bias outcomes. A new order can be camouflaged as a broadening of options. Networks vary along three dimensions, Mr Grewal thinks: “compatibility” (with other networks); “availability” (openness); and “malleability”. They tend to be open and compatible in the early stages, and open and incompatible in the later ones.

Hmm… Just tried to order it from Amazon.co.uk, but they’re claiming the book hasn’t been published yet in the UK.

Digital literacy

Tony Hirst and I were talking over lunch yesterday about the differences between geek communities and ‘normal’ social groups. I give a lot of talks to non-technical audiences, and I’ve developed a standard routine for assessing how conversant they are with ICT. How many people read blogs? Anyone here who maintains a blog? Who uses BitTorrent? Anyone here who has not illicitly downloaded a music file at some point in their lives? Who uses Skype? And so on.

Tony has a simpler approach. He simply asks how many people do right-clicking? That is, how many people know that clicking the right-hand button generally opens a whole raft of useful options?

It’s a good question and it set me thinking about Umberto Eco’s wonderful essay arguing that the Mac was a Catholic machine while the PC was a Protestant one. Here’s the relevant passage:

The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counter-reformist and has been influenced by the ratio studiorum of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory; it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach — if not the kingdom of Heaven — the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: The essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.

DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can achieve salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: Far away from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.

You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counter-reformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It’s true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions: When it comes down to it, you can decide to ordain women and gays if you want to.

What has all this to do with right-clicking? Well, you may remember that the Mac originally came only with a single-button mouse. There was a lot of argument within the geek community about this — surely a two-button mouse would be more useful? But Steve Jobs was adamant — the whole GUI philosophy of the Macintosh would be undermined by having two buttons. One button was the route to salvation. As a child of a devoutly Catholic household, I was all too familiar with that kind of argument. Just check your brain in at the church door, do as we say and Salvation shall be yours. Yea, verily.

Eco was right. And of course Jobs was wrong about the single button. Just as the Holy Roman Church has been wrong about most things over the centuries.

Unflash Gordon’s Al Gore moment

Remember when Al Gore invented the Internet? (Well, actually I suspect that that story may have been an embroidered urban myth.) But here’s a report of a claim by Gordon Brown that a Brit invented the iPod.

While talking about the economy during daytime television show, This Morning, Brown let it drop that it was a Briton who in fact invented the iPod.

“Companies will come and locate in Britain if we have the talented people to offer them,” said Brown. “People with ideas and innovative things that they can market. You know it was a Brit that invented the iPod. If you’ve got really innovative things, people will come to your country to locate.”

Perhaps Brown was confused about the role of design engineer, Jonathan Ive, a Brit who crafted the casing and packaging of the iPod and many other Apple products. We dare say there’s a subtle difference between the house painter and architect. (Let’s also ignore that Brown’s one example of British ingenuity came from an American company, and that mp3 player sales aren’t exactly keeping the US economy primed at the moment.) And even then, Ive ran off to America for a job at Apple in 1992 and currently lives in California.

The Register maintains that the iPod was invented by Tony Fadell, who hails from Michigan!

How powerful is the iPhone?

The real significance of the iPhone is that it’s a powerful Unix box that sits in your hand. But exactly how powerful is it? John Gruber approached the problem by asking: “which Mac does it most closely resemble in terms of specification?. Here’s his answer, which is based on some clever digging by Craig Hockenberry:

So, my answer to the question: the original “Pismo” G3 PowerBook. The numbers match up pretty closely: 400 MHz CPU, 100 MHz bus speed, 64 MB of RAM. (The higher-end Pismo had a 500 MHz CPU and 128 MB of RAM.) Even storage sizes are similar: hard drive options for the Pismo were 6, 12, or 18 GB. Another possible answer: the original blue-and-white Power Mac G3 — again, 400 MHz CPU, 100 MHz bus speed, 64-128 MB of RAM, and 6-12 GB hard drives. Think about that — in just nine years, the specs that then described Apple’s top-of-the-line desktop computer now describe their phone.

So — it took about eight years to get a G3 PowerBook into a phone. That means that in eight years’ time we’ll get a MacBook Pro into a phone.