Time will tell...

I just finished reading an article entitled "Windows 7 passes Snow Leopard, Linux" on Ars Technica. In it, the author points out that according to October stats from Net Applications, Windows 7 has achieved a 2.15% website viewing share. That's an impressive number given that Windows 7 went on sale just 9 days before the end of the month! Microsoft definitely deserves congratulations if this trend continues.

When the inevitable comparison to Snow Leopard's market share is made, I think it's a bit misleading. In absolute market share, Windows 7 beats the slightly over two months old Snow Leopard (sitting at 1.17% browser share) in the Net Applications survey results. Yep, after 9 days, Windows 7 has nearly twice the installed base of Snow Leopard - and must have at least twice Snow Leopard's share as I write this. But, that number is a measure of the absolute web browser market share which, I think, is the wrong metric to compare.

The numbers look different when you compare the size of the two new OS challengers relative to the total share size of their respective OS predecessors. Looking at the uptake within the family, two-month old Snow Leopard has just over 22% of the total Mac OS surfing share (5.27%), while Windows 7 has already passed 2.3% of the total Windows browser share (92.52%). That's still good news for Windows 7, and makes perfect sense, too. Windows 7's share relative to its older Windows relatives is smaller than Snow Leopard's share relative to its Mac OS X relatives because it's been available for less time.

Unfortunately, looking further back, two-and-a-half year old Windows Vista's browser share is sitting at just 20.4% of the total Windows web share. I'll say it again. That's 20.4% after 2-1/2 years. That's less adoption than Snow Leopard achieved in just over two months. Even if all of the new Windows 7 users had actually upgraded from Vista, Vista would only have equaled Snow Leopard's share at its peak before Vista's share started eroding from people upgrading to Windows 7. Pretty underwhelming adoption for Windows Vista, I'd say.

Will Windows 7's fortunes surpass Vista's? I hope so. And I think Microsoft hopes so, too. Windows 7 has some advantages going forward. Better speed and fewer driver problems will help it to get more positive press than Vista did on release, with its steep hardware requirements relative to Windows XP added to Vista's signed driver requirements. Many people who held off and made do with Windows XP rather than making the jump to Vista are ready to get a new computer now, nearly three years later, and all of the new computers will of course ship with Windows 7 preinstalled. And, keep in mind that computer prices relative to performance have come down a ways since Vista's debut. It will be cheaper, in absolute terms, to get a Windows 7 machine now than a Vista capable computer back then. Businesses, too, have waited out Vista by sticking with XP - they may now be ready to make the switch.

While Windows 7 is off to a good start, there will still be challenges hindering it's growth, not the least of which is the two-generations old Windows XP. And I wouldn't yet say its share has beaten Snow Leopard's, yet. Windows 7's market share will increase over time, but only time will tell how quickly, and how high.

This is a sign that Chrome OS (or something like it) will win

This is also a sign that the computer industry, at least as we know it today, has failed its users.

I expect to see signs like this for mechanical devices that suffer wear, such as our cars. But computers are fully automated, programmable, mostly solid state, and should be capable of maintaining themselves. Of course, I don't mean the computer hardware won't eventually have problems, but the OS should at least be robust enough that it doesn't get so sick it needs to be taken in for an inspection.

Unfortunately, calling for help from your computer geek brother-in-law, or nephew, or paying a computer vendor to fix a sick PC is something most non-technical computer users have become accustomed to. That, and knowing that after you bring that shiny, new computer home, that if you want to keep it shiny and new, you need to install a third-party firewall, anti-virus program, anti-phishing filter, pop-up ad blocker, and spyware blocker before venturing out into the dangerous internets. Without the protection offered by these programs, most users know, their computer will begin to exhibit the erratic and slowing down signs of sickness in no time.

It doesn't have to be that way! In fact, with all of the third-party tools, utilities, and plug-ins like Adobe Reader, Flash, Silverlight, browser toolbars, etc. installed, users not only make their computers slower, but they also make themselves more vulnerable to problems. How? Each additional program or utility takes processor cycles for itself, slowing the rest of the system down, and each program increases the attack surface area by exposing itself to the internet. Each utility may have its own flaws or vulnerabilities as well, and may provide another means by which to crash the system, steal data, or exploit the OS.

How appropriate then, that Google unveiled its Chrome OS this week. Chrome OS is of course Google's Chrome browser, running in a minimal Linux OS. Unlike Windows, OS X, and even Linux, the Chrome OS won't need to be exposed to the user, just the browser. Many people writing about Chrome OS saw it as an interesting idea, but dismissed it fairly quickly because it's obviously not comparable to a traditional OS. But, I challenge you to take a moment and think about the possibilities for Chrome.

First, Linux has shown itself to be fairly robust, especially in comparison with Windows. Linux, like the other Unix's, makes it more challenging for malicious software to elevate privilege, has fewer avenues for 'drive-by' attacks (such as Active-X), and being open source, often has rapidly fixed vulnerabilities (a few days vs. the 2nd Tuesday of the month). A simple, secure Linux OS is a great choice for Chrome OS, or any OS. It will boot fast, and have enough in-built security not to need third-party security software, allowing it to maintain high performance even on minimal systems. Couple this with a forced, remote-update system such as the one Google's Android OS has, and you've got a great OS foundation to build on.

Next, from a security standpoint, Chrome is likely the most well-engineered browser today. Individual tabbed pages, plug-ins, and scripts are sand-boxed from one another, meaning that malicious web code that tries to crash or inject code into the browser will only crash its instance, leaving the rest of the browser threads untouched. Chrome is based on Webkit, one of the fastest, and most rapidly developing and updated browser engines. Now add native PDF viewing a-la OS X, and ignore Flash plug-ins by relying on standards-based HTML 5 features instead, and you've got a winning browser with minimal potential problems.

Third, throw in cloud computing and storage. Do you really need to worry about installing and updating software, with its potential vulnerabilities (as I write this there is an actively-exploitable, un-patched Excel flaw) and backing up all of your data? My email is web-based, my social networks are web-based, I can put my photos on Flickr, my videos on YouTube, my documents into web alternatives, and then access my data from anywhere in the world on any computer and even my smartphone. I don't need to have a high-powered computer (even a netbook will do!), I don't need to buy a back-up hard disk to keep my photos safe, and more importantly, I don't even have to remember to back up my data religiously. The web services I use will take care of all of that for me.

Put it all together, and you're seeing the future of computing - simple, robust and managed software running on a variety of devices, all accessing data stored in the network. Few active programs means fewer flaws, automatic updates resolve problems, and little local data doesn't need a lot of management, leading to computing devices that, finally, won't slowly wear down and get 'sick'. 30+ years after the computer revolution started, it's about time!

Endnote

Think of this computing progression as comparable with that of other new, advanced technologies that have, over time, integrated themselves into our lives. In the early days of the automobile for example, there were no paved roads, cars were expensive, finicky, and you had to know how to do your own maintenance. Now, of course, we have reliable cars, gas stations that aren't service centres, and cars that tell the trained technicians what's wrong with them. We've traded the ability to be the one with all of the knowledge, and full control over our car, its performance, and its parts, for the security and convenience of guaranteed reliability. It's bound to happen to computers, too.

The emperor's new clothes

Wow. What a week! A lot has happened this week, much relating to some of my previous posts (and much not), and I think it would be a good time to wrap up the topics I've touched on - to give them some closure - before moving on.

The screen grab, above, takes me back to the I love my Mac post, written nearly a month ago. My Mac has had 49 days of uptime (and is still going!), running as a Mac, a Windows XP box, and a Ubuntu 64-bit box, with all the apps shoehorned into what I now consider a small 2GB chunk of memory (I should really upgrade my RAM, but that would require a shutdown...). Needless to say, my PCs have experienced a few more reboots in the same period of time. I know, I know, a reboot is not that big a deal, and I administer a couple of Linux servers with even longer uptimes, but having so few reboots serves to strengthen that feeling of trust you can put into your OS. Windows just doesn't give me the same level of 'no problem, I can handle anything you can throw at me' confidence.

That cha-ching sound you hear... is Apple's killer app

Apple customers have downloaded one billion apps since the App Store opened nine months ago! Obviously, that sets some sort of record (or, more likely, records), and has woken some of Apple's competitors out of their mobile device slumber. No matter. Apple has the clear lead here, in terms of software that people want to use, a development environment that developers can put to good use, and hardware that's both consistent enough between devices and powerful enough to run some amazing apps. I was playing X-Plane on my iPhone the other day - and was blown away! Like manned rocket launches, Apple achieving the 2B app milestone won't be nearly as exciting and won't get as much press, but I still expect it to happen about six months from now.

The race to the bottom line

Microsoft and Apple both released their quarterly results this week, and looking closely at the numbers we can see both the positive and negative influence of netbook computers on Microsoft's bottom line. The good news is that Microsoft's revenue declined by only 6% in the quater. The bad news? The overall PC market, excluding netbooks, dropped by 15% in the same time period. The sudden, and explosive, emergence of netbooks gave Microsoft a welcome infusion of cash from the sale of its 2001-era XP operating system to netbook vendors.

What about Windows' netbook longer-term prospects? When Windows 7 is released (likely this fall according to the tea leaves), Microsoft will find itself between a rock and a hard place with the netbook version of their OS. Clearly, they can't sell the flagship Windows 7 OS at the fire-sale price of its XP grandparent, and they can't sell it at full price either, because then the OS becomes worth more than the rest of the netbook computer - which does not make for a good computing or marketing experience. Microsoft's solution will have to be to sell the artificially-crippled 'Starter' or 'Netbook' or 'Cheapy' version, and try to compete with the 'don't even think of taking any functionality out or we'll fork the code' Linux-powered 'Ultimate Edition'. Sadly, many people will buy the Windows netbook because it's the only thing they're familiar with. I feel sad for those who do end up with the cripple-ware edition, but not sad for Microsoft's predicament - they're squeezing themselves further into the low-price corner they painted themselves into.

Apple doesn't have the same problem, because Apple is primarily a hardware company. Making a reasonable amount of profit on the computer and the OS that you make, is much simpler than trying to make a profit on just the computer or just the OS. When your computer, with your OS is selling for $2199, not $379, you get to keep a much bigger chunk of that customer's money.

And, finally, those new clothes. Take a close look at both Microsoft's and Apple's balance sheets. Don't you find it a little bit surprising that Apple, a company that only 'owns' about 3% of the worldwide computer market share, generated more than half the revenue of the company that 'owns' 95% of the computer market? It's even more surprising when you consider that making hardware usually involves more investment and costs than making software - CDs should be a whole lot cheaper to produce than Macbooks and iPods. Couple Microsoft's lack of converting software sales to profits with its desire to keep pushing the devaluation of Windows computers.

Yikes! Nice outfit you got there!

What price China?

It's time to order new circuit boards (pcbs) for the projects I do in my Computer Engineering Technology class. No big deal. I normally email my requirements to the sales or engineering department at my pcb facility of choice in Toronto, and they get back to me with a price.

This time, no response came. The website was still there, offering the latest and greatest in pcb technology, but email and the phone numbers were dead. Another victim of the recession, I guess.

Plan B. A local company that specializes in really complex circuit boards has occasionally done work for me (mostly out of charity for the school kids, I think). I drove by their plant after school earlier this week hoping to drop off my design and noticed their sign was gone, replaced by the hastily-hung vinyl sign of a different company. Another one gone.

Plan C. Get an online quote from another local company, as well as another company with an agent in the province who's actually just a front-end for the manufacturing plant over in China. Both quotes come back in hours. Local $640.00, China $430.00 (including shipping).

Seeing the relative prices, I know what happened to the companies I used to go to - they're victims of the Asian tiger.

I brought this up with my students and we discussed the options. The local company was closer, and might be a bit faster, but China is cheaper. The local company would have to conform to our labour and environmental laws. The Chinese company - who knows? And, it's cheaper. The environmental impact of having a parcel go UPS from China to here involves three airplane rides (Beijing to Alaska, Alaska to Kentucky, Kentucky to Hamilton), and two truck rides (one at that end, one at this end), but it's still cheaper. Besides, it's not like the airplane is only carrying my package - it was flying anyway. But the loss of local jobs, meaning fewer people here with the financial means to be able to buy the very things I'm teaching my Engineering Technology students how to make - that hurts.

My students and I decided we should buy local. Why? Although the price difference between the circuit boards is a significant, the circuit board is just one part of a larger product. The real cost of the difference between buying local and buying from China is about 3% of the final cost of the product. And that's just not enough of a savings for us to sacrifice local jobs and probably contribute to more than $200.00 worth of damage to the ozone layer or through greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm proud that my student were able to see that, and recognize that the cheapest price may not be the bargain that it seems to be. Let's hope that other companies also see the value maintaining local customer and supplier relationships, and not just in trimming their bottom line. Because, despite how far down can bring down your costs, your unemployed neighbours won't be able to afford your product, and that foretells a gloomy future for your business.

What price uncool?

On April 9, the Windows Blog reported on a Microsoft-commissioned whitepaper by Roger L. Kay of Endpoint Technologies Associates entitled What price cool? - peculiarly named AppleTax.pdf, so we know where it's going to go. In the whitepaper, Kay makes a number of arguments about how people choosing to buy Apple products are choosing style over substance, and shows how Apple users pay outlandishly more for the 'same' technology. Unfortunately, Kay makes a number of blatant factual errors, many of which are detailed on other tech sites such as cnet and Apple enthusiast sites such as Appleinsider. Rather than dwell on the factual problems, I'd like to point out how some of arguments that Kay makes are, in direct contrast to his assertions, arguments that can be made for Apple products.

Software

First off, let's remember that Microsoft is primarily a software company. Apple is primarily a hardware company. I'm not sure where Microsoft's new Apple-hardware-bashing attitude is coming from, but MS risks alienating some of the very users that it targets in trying to flog its software.

For example, Kay lists MobileMe as a costly alternative to the free Windows Live Mesh service. Yup, click on the link. Live Mesh supports Macs! Why? Microsoft has been trying to recreate itself as a software plus services company as of late, and to provide services, you have to serve all platforms, even Apple's.

In addition to Live Mesh, there are more software products that Microsoft makes in Apple flavours. Silverlight was unveiled and demonstrated at NAB 2007 on both Windows and Apple platforms. Seadragon is an amazing photo browser from Microsoft Live Labs. Seadragon mobile is only available for the iPhone - no Windows Mobile versions exist - while Seadragon AJAX works great in Safari and Firefox. And, of course, the software grand-daddy of them all is Microsoft Office Mac. Few PC users realize that Microsoft's first GUI-based office was for the Mac - the Windows version came later. Rumors are that there's even an iPhone version of Office in the works.

So, Mr. Kay, if Apple represents such a bad choice for a computing platform, why does Microsoft target some of its most important software technology at the Mac and iPhone in addition to Windows?

Choice

Choice is brought up often in Kay's analysis, including this gem:

"And a number of popular devices don't work with Macs, including Windows Mobile phones, Garmin GPS navigation units, Suunto run and dive watches, and even BlackBerries..."

Kay posits the choice argument as one in which Apple is the loser. As in, Windows gives you more choice. While the choice argument may be true for Microsoft, in that many more devices work with Windows than Mac OS, the opposite is true for every one of the companies listed in Kay's example.

As an Apple user I chose to buy a Tomtom GPS unit (instead of a Garmin) precisely because the Tomtom works with both Windows and Mac operating systems. I chose to buy an iPod (and not a MS Zune, for example) because iPods work with both Windows and Mac operating systems. I chose to buy an iPhone rather than a BlackBerry, because the iPhone works with both Windows and Mac operating systems. I had the choice not to chose a Windows-only device.

Computer-connected accessory makers that are truly forward-looking are able to give customers the choice of using their products with any operating system, be it Windows, Mac OSX, or Linux, because they understand that, above all else, it's the customer's data that is most important. Data is both OS-agnostic, as well as application agnostic. Common data standards provide choice. I don't need Windows to surf the web, load images from my digital camera, or open Word Documents, because HTML is a common web standard, JPEG is a photo standard, and .DOC is a de-facto document standard. The fact that these standards exist gives all users, PC, Mac or Linux, the choice of using IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera or any of a handful of other web browsers to surf the web, Photoshop, iPhoto, or GIMP to edit images, and Word, Pages, Open Office or Google Docs to edit Word documents. Windows is not a requirement of choice.

Rather, users have real choice when standards exist. From AAC to HTML to Java to JPEG to MPEG to OpenGL to PDF and Posix, Apple supports more choice in open formats than Microsoft, which has historically tried to tie users to its proprietary technologies (Direct-X, WMF, WMA, and WMV, to name but a few).  Choice is for the user, not the OS. Funny how Mr. Kay chose not to talk about that.

Besides, Microsoft has chosen to excercise its choice in the markets it has more control over. If, as Mr. Kay argues, more choice is better, then why did Microsoft dump its Plays for Sure hardware and software partners when it released the Zune and Zune Marketplace? Why too, does Microsoft not license Xbox hardware to third parties so it can concentrate on the software, as it does with Windows? Microsoft, like Apple, has come to realize that in some cases it's better to choose how to position your brand and devices than to let third parties choose how to dilute it.

Popularity contest

Kay also points out that Microsoft has 98% of the personal computer market by which he means, of course, that Windows makes up 98% of the installed OS base, since Microsoft doesn't actually make computers. Regardless of the accuracy of the 98% number itself, that also means that Microsoft has very little room to grow, and very much to lose.

In contrast, Apple has seen a significant growth in sales year over year, including the recent recession-influenced Chistmas quarter. Could it be that the race to the bottom is hurting Microsoft's bottom line? And, all those people who buy netbooks for $359 with Microsoft's nearly 8-year-old bargain-bin XP operating system probably won't dig deeper into their pockets to pick up a copy of MS Office for another $399. It just doesn't make sense.

Let's not forget the Linux charge. Linux is currently the fastest growing platform, and finds its way into the widest variety of devices, from TVs to set-top boxes, and media players to mobile phones - devices that are either too space-constrained or cost-constrained to host Windows.

Finally, there's Apple's iPhone, battling RIM to become the most popular pocket computer of all time. When your data is in an open format, in the cloud, the iPhone currently represents one of the best choices in giving you mobile access to that data.

Fairies and unicorns and the cool kids

Roger Kay makes a statement in his paper about why people want Macs, "What teen doesn't want to be with the cool kids?", and another about Mac devices having "fancy plastics and fairy dust", while recently David Webster, General Manager for Brand Marketing at Microsoft said "not everyone wants a machine that's been washed with unicorn tears".

I think it's obvious. I don't know how Roger Kay missed it. All the cool kids do want fairy dust, and all those Apple products washed with unicorn tears. Windows-based PCs just don't offer that, at any price, and that's uncool.

Microsoft, meet the new Dell.

Last week, Microsoft aired an ad entitled "Laptop Hunters" featuring 'Lauren' who is looking to buy a 17" laptop. She first looks at the 'Mac Store' but can't find a computer meeting her requirements for less than $1,000, and quickly concludes she's not 'cool enough to get a Mac'. Eventually, Lauren chooses an HP valued at $699 from Best Buy.

It's an interesting advertising strategy for Microsoft, in that instead of trying to sell consumers on the benefits of Windows, Microsoft is instead advertising the competitive price of computers sold by one of its licensees. I guess HP is happy to be reaping some value out of the Windows stickers it has to slap onto its computers!

I just find the advertisement odd, in that Microsoft doesn't make PCs, yet is clearly advertising a computer competing against Apple. Windows vs. Apple.

Of course, the HP that Lauren buys is $2,000 less than a 17" MacBook Pro. But, you can bet that the HP is not the equivalent of the MBP in design, features, or specifications. It is, however, cheaper. And, that will be enough for many people to choose it.

A week earlier (apparently foreshadowing the Laptop Hunters ad), Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made a comment at a conference about how the only difference between PCs and Macs was essentially the logo (since they are both Intel PCs), and $500 (the infamous 'Apple tax').

Another reason I find the Microsoft ad odd, is that advertising Windows PCs on price is, I think, a dangerous thing for Microsoft to do. In case you haven't heard of it, there's this free operating system called Linux. When you add the cost of Linux to the price of a PC, that makes the computer cheaper than the same PC with the cost of a Windows license tacked on! Of course, many people won't consider a Linux powered computer, because they like the familiarity of Windows. But, this does put Microsoft between a rock and a hard place - between 'too cool' on one side, and free on the other.

Funny, too, that at around the same time as both Ballmer's comments and the Laptop Hunters ad hit, Dell started promoting its new Adamo brand. Adamo is Dell's style statement, a computer that exudes quality and design, and as a result costs about $2,000 more than the computer Lauren bought! Really, Dell makes a PC that costs more than a Mac! During a recession, even! And, most worrying, this product is from the company that became wildly successful by undercutting its competitors on price! Maybe, Dell is now trying harder to escape from the Race to the Bottom.

Actually, I secretly think this was Dell's subtle way of getting a jab in at Microsoft, by poking a small, stylish, and perfectly manicured fingernail into Microsoft's 'cost' balloon, for not having Lauren choose a Dell!

I love my Mac

I love my Macbook Pro. It's the early 2008, 15" (non-unibody) model, and although I wish I had the new 15" unibody, I still love mine. Let me explain.

Yesterday was parent-teacher night. Since my school switched from having two sessions, an afternoon session plus an evening session, to just one session (5:30 - 8:00 p.m.) I've noticed that many fewer teachers bring their computers. I think I know why. Their computers won't run that long. Mine ran that long, and more.

In between discussing student marks with parents, I worked on some microcontroller programming. My marks are in Numbers on the Mac, and my programming environment was Microchip's MPLAB, running in Windows XP, running in a VMWare virtual machine on the Mac. So, I ran two OSes and two apps in each for two-and-a-half hours. Not bad!

Now, look at the graphic, above. I took that screen-grab when parents night ended. You can see the Windows windows, and the Mac's menu bar, including a battery meter that indicates I still have 2h 15min of battery life left. Nearly five hours of indicated battery life while running two OSes with a couple of apps in each. I love my Mac!

To be fair, I had Wi-Fi off (no wireless in the gym), the display at half-brightness (which is plenty bright with LED backlighting - in fact I'm writing this in my living room with the display auto-dimmed to one-third brightness now), and I had all the apps running before I unplugged the Mac to go to the gym, but all those apps were still using processor cycles, and that kind of battery life is impressive in a year-old laptop.

So, I guess battery life is one good reason why I can love my MacBook Pro. While I'm on the topic, here are ten other reasons I love my MacBook Pro. This won't be the typical 'nerd' PC vs. Mac specifications vs. price shoot-out, I promise! This also isn't meant to start a PC vs. Mac flame-war (there's enough of those all over the internet!). This is just my observations of what I've come to really love about my Mac over time. Let's go!

1. The multi-touch trackpad

Yes, really! Multi-touch is so intuitive and pervasive on the Mac, that I notice its absence within seconds of using any Windows notebook. I can't say enough about it. Multi-touch really is that good. And, yes, I love the single button, too. I'm right-handed and when I go to use a PC laptop now, my thumb keeps accidentally right-clicking. How annoying! Yes, you can right-click on a Mac - it's simply a two finger 'tap'. 

2. Multiple OSes

I regularly run OS X, Windows XP and Ubuntu (Intrepid) 64 bit on my Mac. I've also run FreeBSD, FreeDOS, Windows 7, eBox, and other bits of code to demo for my classes. Yes, I know other OSes can run virtual machines, too, but none can run OS X (at least not legally). Which leads me to...

3. OS X

X as in ten. Like ten, on a scale of one to ten. Since switching, OS X is my OS of choice as it lets me get more done with fewer hassles. Yes, I've used Windows - every version from 3.0 on (even ME!), except Vista (you probably know why). I've used OS/2 Warp. I've used Linux and Unix. I've used Amiga OS (versions 1, 2, and 3). I've used DOS. Trust me, in comparison OS X is a ten!

For the few times it doesn't let me do what I need to do, I use VMWare (see 2, above).

4. Uptime

OS X is stable. I remember my last hard-reboot like it was three weeks ago (Hey, it really was three weeks ago!). It was after Photoshop Elements stopped responding and I wanted to start fresh and flush all traces of Rosetta (Photoshop Elements is a Power PC application that runs under 'Rosetta' emulation) from my system. From then on it's been close the lid - sleep. Open the lid - compute. Repeat. No weird Windows ACPI issues, like my old HP that might or might not wake from hibernate, or my friend's Thinkpad that woke up in its bag one day and cooked itself. :-(

5. Mobile Me

Well worth the hundred bucks! When I change my email settings on my Mac, they change automatically on my iPhone. When I add a bookmark in Mobile Safari, it automatically appears on my desktop. When my MacBook Pro display died (Apple repaired the computer in just six business days), all my important files, emails, and Keychain items were automatically (automagically?!?) available on my old PowerBook that I used instead. Not having to do anything out of the ordinary to make it all work - awesome!

6. Spotlight

When a Spotlight search can pull out the 1,898 photos taken with my new Nikon D90 from the 15,023 photos on my computer within three seconds, you can't help but be impressed. When you can further separate the photos in a 'smart folder' from the Finder by selecting the ones in which the flash fired, and the focal length was greater than 150mm, and which were taken in the last three months, it's magic!

7. Preview

It's built into Leopard, and it lets me 'preview' any document (PDF, images, videos, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, iWork) from anywhere (desktop, folder, email) instantly. Ok, not technically instantly, but (and I'm including the animation effect) in less time than it takes to say, let alone load, Acrobat Reader! I use it constantly.

8. The iApps

iWork and iLife are like iCrack for computers. Once you try them, you're hooked. Apple can release an update for iWork or iLife at any time, and I'm there, ready to plunk down my $129 for a Family Pack. Don't even get me started on the Keynote and iTunes remote apps for the iPhone. Here's my credit card!

iWork and iLife are not without their flaws, but you do get great bang for the buck. Some examples: Although I'm outgrowing iPhoto, it's exactly the right app for the rest of my family and easily organizes tens of thousands of photos by event. Next, I once created a soundtrack for a video presentation by throwing together sound loops in GarageBand so I could match the music to the presentation. Last, but not least, there's the time I recovered my brother-in-law's Word document, the one that Word itself refused to read, literally minutes before the deadline for submission in his MBA course. (It was the difference between a pass and a fail.)

9. The cost of upgrades

You don't need much in the way of hardware upgrades, since most Macs come with high end processors and decent specifications already. The real deal is the cost of the software upgrades.

We have four Macs and two PCs in our house and we take advantage of the Family Pack upgrades for both the OS and iApps. For less than the cost of buying two pieces of software, Apple's Family Pack lets us install the software on up to five machines. Needless to say, our Macs are running the latest software. Our PCs are not, because we don't like the feeling of being nickeled and dimed on the upgrades (would you like your Vista Basic, Premium, or Ultimate? OEM, upgrade, or full version? Would you like the newest Office with that?).

10. The upgrades

The upgrades themselves really are upgrades. OS upgrades add features and increase in performance. They come often, on average every 18-24 months, and deliver both evolutionary change and a special new nugget that you can't live without. Preview and Spotlight fall into this category.

The newest iWork, too, added a bunch of new features and is noticeably snappier than the old one. On top of the reasonable upgrade cost, you really feel good knowing you got something of useful value or utility. I'm willing to pay for that!

11. The little things

I know, I know. I said I would list only ten more reasons I love my Mac, but all the little things that make the Mac special are way too big to leave out. Things like:

• a global dictionary that let's me know as I mis-spell words (even in Safari in this blog post)
• the power brick, and Mag-Safe
• the backlit keyboard, and automatic screen brightness (and that gorgeous LED backlit display)
• Airport wireless printing and music streaming
• the included (with my model, anyway) IR remote
• extended desktop (and Keynote presenter display!)
• Exposé (try it with the Shift key), and 'hot corners'
• Time Machine
• the overall fit and finish of the products
• the packaging
• no stickers (on the computers), and stickers (Apple logo) in the box
• and, finally, the reactions you get from people, both positive and negative, when you tell them you use a Mac!

Just one more thing (sorry, Steve!). The biggest negative reaction I get from people relates to the cost of Macs. My MacBook Pro was expensive, but it was the same price (at the time) as a similarly equipped Sony Vaio, $200 less than a similarly equipped Toshiba, and $350 less than a similarly equipped Dell.

When It comes to computers, the choice is not just about price, it's about engineering, function, usability and utility. Choosing a $2000 MacBook Pro over a 'bargain' $899 PC laptop is exactly like choosing $129 Nike running shoes over the $29 bargain brand shoes at Zellers, or choosing a $56,000 BMW over a $16,000 Toyota. It's not that the bargain brand running shoes or the Toyota Corolla aren't functional, it's just that you can't claim that they're in the same league as the Nikes or the 5 series. It's your choice, and you get what you pay for.

That thudding sound you hear... is Apple kicking its competitors while they're already down

Even though it won't be released for a few months yet, iPhone OS 3.0 has already made more than a few ripples in the pond of mobile OSes. Like a tsunami in which the wave grows as it reaches the shore, these ripples are going to grow to waves big enough to swamp some of the smaller boats once OS 3.0 takes hold. Full disclosure -- I'm an iPhone user. And, while I'm excited about many of the new end-user features that Apple detailed in its OS 3.0 preview, the iPhone's impact will go far beyond new features such as MMS and cut-and-paste.

Some people don't get the iPhone thing. To them, the iPhone is just a phone. Not only that, but it's an expensive phone, with fewer features than brand X, worse specs than brand Y, less battery life than brand Z, and without a replaceable battery or upgradable memory like brands X, Y ,and Z! Whatever...

For the past two years, those arguments were going to spell the death of Apple's phone. 17 Million iPhones later, and with a growth curve and user satisfaction score that any other phone maker would kill for, I think we can safely put those petty arguments behind us. The reality is that the iPhone is a popular phone, it's growth curve is still exponential, and it hasn't even gone on sale in China--yet! Besides, how many clones of WinMob or Crackberry phones do see on eBay?

No, to really understand the iPhone thing, you have to use one. Use an iPhone day-in and day-out, but most importantly, use it the way Apple intended (easier on a Mac, with its Address Book, iCal, and iPhoto integration, as well as Mail sync, Safari sync, and Mobile Me). Once you've done this for a while, and worked within the system Apple created for you (rather than having to create your own system that works for your and your phone), you might get it. It's one of those "Use the Force, Luke. Let go, Luke!" moments where you need to jump into a different mindset, and not everyone will. I won't convert you. I do know that Apple's system works for me.

Apple's 'system' is the reason the iPhone will continue to grow in popularity. Apple is a design company with decent engineering talent. Most other computer companies are either engineering companies, or good copiers. Very few are good at design. Apple's design talent is to focus on the features that 90% of users need, engineer the product to seamlessly (and often button-lessly!) support that feature, and then to leave out all other features. The features built-into the iPhone are a joy to use. The features that are missing will either arrive in OS 3.0, or 4.0, or aren't important enough to be deal-breakers.

The original iPhone did so many things so well that most of it's competitors rushed to emulate it. All of the competing manufacturers that claimed you can't type without a keyboard now make touch screen phones. All of the competitors that claimed to surf the web using WAP or proxy browsers now have embedded web browsers that do a passable job of displaying most websites. All of the 'serious' business phones now suddenly help their users de-stress at the end of the business day by playing music and videos. Like it or not, thank Apple for using the iPhone to raise the bar that everyone else is now sweating to jump over.

Along with the software that powers the iPhone and the iTunes software to support it, there is also the huge impact of the software and App Store ecosystem. Answer the following honestly: on how many of your cell phones did you 1) receive free software updates that not only fixed bugs, but also added new features, 2) have the ability to select and install a huge variety of music, movies, games, and other third-party software, and 3) pay a low price for--and at the same time have brain-dead simple access and organization of--the user-installed content? None? Yeah, me neither, until I got my iPhone.

Apple's software ecosystem is the iPhone's 'killer app'. Don't think so? Why have Microsoft, RIM, Google and Palm all made announcements about setting up their own app stores in the past few months? Even with their own app stores, they will all have to fight Apple's mindshare. Apple will have sold over 1,000,000,000 (yes, billion! And, yes, many are free.) apps by the time most of them get their own app stores open. They've sold 800,000,000 already, and the growth curve is exponential.

iPhone OS 3.0 introduces new usability features for users, but more importantly delivers around 1,000 new APIs for software developers. Not hastily kludged-together bolt-ons, but rather well-designed features that a majority of developers can easily put to use. Look at the delay in Apple's push notification server roll-out from OS 2.0 to 3.0. Apple is not afraid of holding something back until it works exactly like the designers intended. Other companies would release it anyway, as an engineering bullet point that looks good on a spec sheet, but in reality as something less than useful because of problems inherent in its design.

Put all the pieces together, and you have the making of a perfect storm. Nearly two years from the launch of the original iPhone, Apple's competitors are still struggling with making hardware that's as well-engineered and functional as the iPhone's (seen a capacitive multi-touch screen on any other phones?), making software that's as elegant and functional (mobile Safari still puts any other mobile browser to shame), and providing updates and apps to end users (when will Windows Mobile 6.5 be released?). And, Apple is not a stationary target. iPhone OS 2.0 was quickly followed by 2.1, 2.2, and 2.2.1. The number of iPhone users is climbing. The number of iPhone apps is climbing. New developers see the number of Apple users and jump to the Apple platform, helping it to build momentum. The combined force of all of these attributes is going to make the wave bigger. Some competitors will get washed away. It's the nature of the ecosystem.

Don't believe me? That's ok. I was there in the 80's when you could get a Commodore 64 for less than $200 at K-mart, and the Apple II had the education market all wrapped up. The Mac was revolutionary and new, the Atari ST was a colour Mac for less, and the Amiga 1000 was ten years ahead of its time. The TRS-80 Model 100 even ran for 20 hours on 4 AA batteries! The IBM PC did less, and cost more, but had an open ecosystem for hardware and software. Despite DOS, and then Windows, and now 20+ years later, we know how things turned out.

The race to the bottom

Have you noticed the trend to netbooks? Yes, those small, cheap computers that sell for between $300-$500? When I was at Best Buy last weekend, there were more people huddled around the netbooks than were looking at the traditional laptops. (Or, maybe it just seemed that way, since netbooks are soooo small they're easily dwarfed by people!)

What I want to know is what people are using them for, and how happy they are with them in the long term.

Now, I can imagine people being perfectly happy with netbooks for surfing the web, checking mail, IMing with buddies, and taking notes in class. But, there's always that one other app that you want to use that needs more processing power, or storage space, or a bigger keyboard than netbooks provide. What then?

I'm not as worried about the more sophisticated computer users. I can see the power users getting a netbook as a secondary, ultraportable computer. They know the limitations and are willing to work within their boundaries. I fear that less computer-savvy users see netbooks just for the low price, and think they will be capable of doing whatever their desktop cousins can do. For proof, they'll point to the ad and say, "See, it comes with Windows, just like my old computer!".

So, what's the problem? Unsophisticated computer users will buy netbooks because they are cheap, and will end up disappointed with their limitations. Having potentially mistakenly spent  $300-$500 on a netbook, they will be less likely to invest more money in a better PC when they do want to step up to a more powerful computer than if they still had that cash in their pockets. Sophisticated users buying netbooks as a secondary computer will put off buying that new higher end-machine. Either way, the industry changes its focus to what's selling–small, cheap, and less innovative computers.

With lower profit margins, computer firms will be less likely to invest in R&D which will reduce innovation. With more of the same low-cost hardware being produced, and less truly innovative new products coming out, manufacturers will have to beat each other on price to maintain their sales. This, of course, leads to less profits, less innovation, and computers in which you sacrifice successively more to get less and less. It's a race to the bottom. And, it doesn't seem like a race in which either the manufacturers of netbooks or the consumer end users will ultimately win.

Where did service go?

When you show up at a store at ten to six, and the sign clearly says they're open until six, why is the door locked and guarded by a guy who is facing into the store and ignoring me and another potential customer outside?

Clearly, they don't want my business. Sad. I'll take my business to a store that actually wants customers.