Welcome to Windows Connected

I’m not going to say much here as believe it or not I don’t like starting firestorms.  But it begs the question, do you feel safe hosting your data with Google?  This includes your search data, your email, Google docs, etc.  Google has been in bed with the Government for a long time, they’ve been hacked by China, and now they’re getting in bed with the NSA.  Read the article below, then let us know in the comments.  Do you feel safe hosting your data with Google and tell us why you feel one way or another.  I just ask you please don’t be crude in your comments. :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057_pf.html

For the record, I don't think Microsoft needs to buy anyone to be successful in the smartphone market space.  I don't buy into the notion that Windows Mobile is dead or that Windows Mobile 7 will arrive too late to matter.  Sure, it’s taken Microsoft far too long to field a competitive product in the post-iPhone landscape--even if Windows Mobile’s “uncompetitiveness” is more perception than reality.  By all measures, Windows Mobile 7 will arrive later than it should have, but I respect Microsoft for taking the time to do it right versus just rushing something out to market.  It’s a Nintendo-esque approach, but if Microsoft nails it, it will be setting the foundation for a mobile strategy that can endure for the long haul. 

Fortunately for Microsoft, I’m not sure there really is such a thing as coming to market “too late” in the cell phone space.  It’s easy to forget how things were in the pre-iPhone picture, but in terms of time, it wasn't that long ago that the Motorola Razr was the hottest “dumb phone” around while Blackberries, and smartphones in general, were still somewhat of a niche market.  And you see where Motorola is today.  The turnover rate for cell phones is a lot faster than for PCs since new phones always are around the corner and consumers are stuck with their phones only for the contract period, which typically is two years.  It might be different if consumers paid full price their phones, but the carrier subsidies keep the price point low enough to make upgrading your phone every couple of years a viable proposition. 

So, while I think Microsoft can hold its own without buying anyone, I do think we might see some consolidation in the mobile market space.  There are too many proprietary players in the market: Apple’s iPhone, RIM’s Blackberry and Palm’s Pre/Pixi.  Each of these devices tie the operating system to the hardware, making them closed platforms.  There definitely are merits to having a single company developing both the hardware and software, but personally, I think separating the software from the hardware is the way to go.  It allows both pieces to evolve independently without the software developers worrying about how OS changes affect the hardware guys and vice-versa.  Furthermore, this separation helps create a partner ecosystem, which drives standardization and portability: I don’t have to buy all new applications just because I changed devices. 

To me, the hardware-software tie-in is the blessing and the curse of the iPhone.  If you have a significant monetary investment in the App Store, you’ll be hard-pressed to switch to a different smartphone platform and abandon that App Store investment.  That type of lock-in is great for Apple from a competitive standpoint, but going back to the cell phone turnover rate, I’m not sure it’s sustainable or realistic given how fast the technology changes.  However, I think that model is fine for media devices like the iPod Touch because I don’t need, or necessarily want, to buy a new one of those every two years.  But then again, given the number of free and sub-$5 applications, do most iPhone users have a “significant” investment in the App Store? 

Regardless, when you look at the PC landscape, you see the market has generally settled on 3 platforms: Windows, Mac and Linux.  And 2/3 of those arguably are niche platforms themselves.  So, I just don’t think the smartphone market can sustain 6 major platforms (iPhone, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Android, WebOS, and Symbian/Maemo), 3 of which are proprietary.  Obviously, the iPhone isn’t going away, and I think Blackberry is too entrenched and popular to disappear anytime soon.  So, of the proprietary players, that leaves Palm as the odd man out.

Palm has an innovative platform with the WebOS, but in a somewhat uncharacteristic move for the company, it dropped the ball on the hardware.  Think what you will of the Pre, but there are too many complaints about the hardware for it to be a definitive success.  I thought the QWERTY-bar design of the Pixi was tempting, but it had worse hardware specs than the Pre and its price and positioning didn’t make sense. 

Hardware maladies aside, Palm was very forward thinking with the WebOS.  As a  platform built around HTML, JavaScript and CSS, developers can create Web-based applications that potentially can run on multiple devices with little modification, reducing the need to write native apps for every smartphone platform.  The need for a JavaScript runtime engine inadvertently introduced some performance issues with the Pre; however, I think better hardware would have mitigated JavaScript overhead.  And given the momentum of cloud computing and the evolution of Web technologies, a Web-centric platform seems like a pretty smart bet.

If Microsoft bought Palm, it immediately would improve its perception in the market by inheriting a modern platform that supports touch-friendly usage and capacitive screens.  Furthermore, MS could embrace and extend WebOS development with technologies like Silverlight and .Net.  And it’s the Web-centric aspect of the WebOS that would make it relatively palatable to Microsoft from an acquisition standpoint.  Yes, WebOS is based on Linux, but Palm is less in-your-face about the Linux underpinnings than Google is with Android or Nokia is with Symbian and Maemo.  And perhaps Microsoft could port the UI stack, app runtime engine and development tools to Windows Mobile.  But if MS is confident that Windows Mobile 7 will blow WebOS out of the water, than the acquisition would be predominately around talent.  Perhaps WebOS developers would drive the next phase of Windows Mobile and Zune app development—kind of like an in-house SPB Software for Microsoft.

Of course, an acquisition of Palm by Microsoft is unlikely to happen.  Microsoft has given no indication that intends to acquire anyone and given its recent job posts, the company seems 100% behind Windows Mobile 7.  But if Microsoft doesn’t buy Palm, then hopefully someone else does (maybe Nokia?).  Otherwise, I’m not sure Palm can continue to exist in its current form.  Without a financial suitor or some sort of blockbuster device, I see Palm going the way of Sega and transforming into a ghost of its former, once glorious self: a pure software developer of premium mobile applications for Android and the iPhone.

Living in a material world, and I am a material girl.  Those infamous words from Madonna's Material Girl can be slightly tweaked to sum up my operating system perspective: living in a Windows world and I am a Windows guy. But I'm writing this post from within Moblin running on the new Asus Eee PC I got for Christmas (thanks, mom & dad!). 

You might have heard about Moblin in discussions about netbooks and netbook operating systems. But for those who don't know, Moblin started as an Intel project to develop a version of Linux built around the Atom processor and netbooks.  The goal was to develop an operating system that minimized boot time, increased battery life, and provided an Internet-centric user experience designed for small screens.  The project has since been turned over to the Linux Foundation; however, Intel employees still dominate the project's steering committee.

The notion of a lightweight Linux distribution on a netbook is as old as netbooks themselves. Asus' original Eee PC shipped with a lightweight, relatively user-friendly version of Linux.  Although the original Eee PC was a relative success, netbooks didn't really take off until they started shipping with Windows XP.  In fact, consumers who purchased Linux-based netbooks often returned them for Windows-based netbooks.  My particular Eee PC shipped with Windows 7 Starter.  I've been using Windows 7 for a while and running Windows XP on my netbook seemed like a step backwards.  However, I was intrigued by Moblin and wanted to test it out.  So, I now have a dual-boot setup with Windows 7 Starter and Moblin.

Of course, other netbook-oriented versions of Linux have sprouted up, many with the Ubuntu distribution as a base, such as Ubuntu Netbook Remix and Eeebuntu.  There is even an Ubunto Moblin Remix.  Although these OSes have their merits and I intend to play around with them more, I'm not as intrigued by them and probably will stick with Moblin as my Windows alternative.  Why?  Well, it mainly has to do with the premise of their design: take the most popular desktop Linux distro and adapt it for smaller-screened devices.  Certainly not a bad goal, but the end result essentially is Ubuntu with a type of "dock" designed to minimize the need for the standard, full desktop by providing a one-stop shop for the most commonly used applications and tasks.  While you could argue that Moblin essentially does the same thing, the difference is that Moblin was designed for netbooks from the ground up instead of from the top down.  This might seem like semantics, but the difference is that Moblin doesn't feel like Linux whereas the other distros do.

With Moblin, the design team rethought the purpose of, and even the very need for, a desktop.  In fact, Moblin basically attempts to hide the desktop at every chance it gets in the hopes you'll forget why you needed it in the first place.  And so far, they've succeeded.  If you accept the premise of Moblin and can leave your desktop OS "baggage" behind, you'll find that your expectations are different.  Because you're not expecting a typical desktop OS, you're more patient and willing to learn the Moblin way of doing things.  In fact, you may even appreciate the Moblin way of doing things.  At least I did.

The other netbook-oriented distros still feel like Linux and ultimately lead me to the same thought I have when using their desktop counterparts: why not just use Windows?  Now before you start extolling the virtues of Linux to me, don't get me wrong: I can appreciate Linux, and the geek in me enjoys learning about and playing with other OSes as my Moblin usage hopefully demonstrates.  But Windows, Linux and Mac OS are pretty much just different ways of doing the same things.  So, from a purely pragrmatic standpoint, if one is working for you, why go through effort to learn a different OS?  That type of "comfort intertia" is partly why Windows has remained dominent on the desktop.

But with Moblin, the experience feels fresh.  Using it makes me think of netbooks less as scaled-down computers and more as purpose-built devices--kind of like mobile Internet devices (MIDs) that Intel envisions everyone using.  It's this type of fresh experience that I hope Microsoft pays attention to.  I think MS did a great job with Windows 7 and Windows 7 Starter works well on my netbook.  Asus even implemented a cool fast-boot feature in the BIOS that speeds up boot times (though I lost this feature after setting up the dual-boot).  The result is that Windows 7 boots up pretty darn fast--maybe not quite as fast as Moblin, but close.  And of course, starting up from standby is very fast.  And perhaps most importantly, I'm comfortable and confident with Windows. 

But Windows 7 Starter is still a full-fledged desktop operating system.  And as more of our computing experience occurs on Internet-centric devices like netbooks and smartphones and more of our application needs move to the Web, Microsoft needs to rethink the Windows user experience.  It's simply not enough to adapt Windows to these devices.  Rather, MS needs to figure out how these devices can leverage the benefits of Windows while providing a user experience optimized for the particular device being used.  Apple did this with the iPhone and we've all seen the response.

At the same time, Windows has that comfort inertia and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  People tend to gravitate towards what they know, which can be a huge competitive advantage since virtually everyone has used Windows at some point.  However, balancing familiarity with change is not an easy task.  In fact, after polling some of its user base (i.e., the enterprise space), implementing any change can prove a challenge.  Yet, if Microsoft can pull it off, it can extend its leadership into the next decade of computing experiences despite increased competition from Google and Apple.

So, if you were lucky enough to get a netbook this holiday season, I encourage you to check out Moblin.  If you don't want to install it, you can throw the live image on a bootable USB drive, boot it up, and play around with it.  Moblin.org provides easy instructions for doing this.  And if you already have tried Moblin, what do you think of it?

It would've been great if I could have read through at least part of Gizmodo writer John Herrman's HTC Touch HD2 review before encountering the usual Windows Mobile bashing.  But unfortunately, the bashing started right in the title: HTC Touch HD2 Review: A Tragedy.

Despite all the positive attention and excitement the HD2 has generated, you knew that someone would eventually knock the device because it runs Windows Mobile.  Personally, at this point, I think the tech press is beating a dead horse with all the WinMo bashing.  Microsoft gets it.  It has admitted that it dropped the ball on WinMo development and was careful to set WinMo 6.5 expectations properly: 6.5 should be seen as a solid step towards better touch support--not a complete overhaul.  That would have to wait until WinMo 7.  In fact, I think Steve Ballmer has been a little too apologetic.  It's hard to even give 6.5 a chance when Microsoft's CEO keeps apologizing for WinMo's slow development and basically says WinMo 7 will make up for it.

I don't really care if Herrman doesn't like Windows Mobile or feels it hinders the HD2; he's entitled to his opinion.  But it's apparent that he began the review already wishing the device ran Android instead.  He doesn't say 'Android' verbatim, but it's pretty obvious which OS he'd prefer.  I'm sure he doesn't think the HD2 should run Symbian.  But even that inherent bias in and of itself isn't the real problem: the real problem is that his bias is unsubstantiated.  And here I thought that a logical argument supporting the findings and conclusion was a prerequisite for a review...

Instead, readers see a haphazard critique that, at times, seems more about the philosophy around the phone's development than the actual device itself.  For example, Herrman extols the virtues of how tightly TouchFlo is integrated into the WinMo experience, admitting it's not often that you'll be greeted with the classic Windows Mobile UI.  But in the same breath, he decries the need for HTC to re-skin WinMo to begin with and basically claims HTC went to absurd lengths to hide the fact that the device is running Windows Mobile. 

First off, the device sports a multi-touch capacitive screen, which WinMo does not natively support.  So given that the stock UI and controls were intended for resistive touch screens and the use of styli or D-pads, HTC had to deeply re-skin the UI to make it usable with a capacitive screen.  Second, while Herrman takes HTC's customization as a slam against WinMo's UI issues, some people might think it's actually cool that WinMo can be customized to that extent.  Try doing that on the iPhone.  Heck, try publishing an iPhone app that attempts to supplant the stock UI.  Feel free to forward me the App Store rejection email when you get it.

"But the iPhone doesn't need re-skinning," the naysayers will claim.  That might be true, but so what?  What if I simply want to re-skin anyway?  Questioning the need to re-skin the UI is like questioning why import car tuners modify their Hondas to the extent that they do with body kits, spoilers, etc.  Maybe they do it simply because they can.  Now, all that customization would be for naught if TouchFlo was some sort of unusable, Frankensteinian UI.  But it's not.  And it's clear that Herrman agrees.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, when will the majority of the tech media realize that average users don't care what OS a phone runs as long as it works?  They're going to see the phone in the store, play with one their friend has, or see a demo on YouTube and think the phone is pretty cool.  Average users just aren't as passionate or invested in technology as we are.  They aren't jaded or biased and could care less what OS it's running.  Case in point: you don't hear about people walking into a Sprint store to buy a Pre and saying, "Oh, the WebOS is based on Linux?  Linux is geeky and difficult to use...No thanks, I'll pass."  Yet maybe if you stuck the person in front of a Linux shell and told him that the Pre is based on the same OS, he might be a little hesitant to buy one.  But, that would be unfair, just as dismissing HTC's customizations is unfair to the HD2.

But that's exactly what Herrman does.  He calls the experience near-magical and praises the HD2's super-speedy app launching, responsive call talk/end functions, and lightning-fast camera with a lightning-bright flash.  Then he attempts to undermine his praise by mentioning that if you turn off TouchFlo, WinMo 6.5 will rear its ugly, stylus-driven head.  No kidding!  But if those moments are rare, then who cares?  Every OS and device has its quirks.  Sure, a setting here and there might be obscure or touch unfriendly.  But history has shown that people have an amazing ability to adjust and accept all sorts of oddities, just like we do with modern desktop operating systems.  A certain setting or control might not be intuitive, but after you figure it out, the lesson is learned: you'll know right where to go next time.  Too often the tech media allows the unintuitive-ness or touch unfriendliness of some seldom-used settings to overshadow all the good things about Windows Mobile.

At no point in the review do we get an honest-to-goodness comparison between comparable devices.  You think Android is better?  Fine, explain why.  Why not compare the HD2 to HTC's own all-touch, Android-powered Eris?  Why not compare it to Motorola's Droid?  Give us a comparison of how these devices handle typical functions like messaging, calling, Web surfing, media viewing, picture taking, etc.

Better yet, why doesn't Herrman question why HTC chose Windows Mobile for the HD2?  Did he ever think to ask or at least speculate?  Maybe HTC wanted the device to appeal to professional users and consumer alike.  Maybe Microsoft co-funded its development.  Maybe HTC just wanted to see if it could create a compelling capacitive, multi-touch WinMo device.  Maybe HTC is quietly conducting some crowdsourcing by observing how the XDA developer community will customize the device.  Maybe HTC feels that WinMo apps--or at least its own WinMo apps--are better than the Android's apps.  Maybe WinMo yields better Snapdragon performance through tweaks and optimizations.  Maybe HTC simply has more WinMo experience or engineering talent.

But unfortunately, the Gizmodo review doesn't shed any light on such things.  The only takeaway is that the Herrman doesn't like WinMo and can't see past that.  His shameful knock against the paltry offerings in the Windows Marketplace proves it as Herrman is well aware that there are thousands of WinMo apps.  And without any justification as to why Android is better, we can only surmise that Herrman has drank the Google Kool-Aid.  Facts don't matter: Android is cool and new and made by Google so it must be better, right?  Admitting otherwise or at least doing an honest review wouldn't look cool in front of the iPhone and Android crowd.

No one really was surprised when Palm announced it was dropping support for Windows Mobile.  Palm had embraced Windows Mobile for its business-oriented devices, including its popular Treo line, after its own PalmOS stagnated and was no longer competitive.  But the company was bleeding badly and ultimately ended up at a crossroads: seek a buyer or attempt to reinvent itself as a last stand to avoid shutting its doors.  Palm chose the latter and began working on an allegedly revolutionary new operating system and, before its launch, received an infusion of investor funds that would keep the company on life support to see the new project through.

As soon as Palm debuted the Pre and its new WebOS, people immediately questioned how much longer Palm would develop Windows Mobile devices.  First, there was the issue of limited engineering resources.  Palm already had been pared down to a ghost of its former self and might not have enough engineers to support a dual-platform product strategy.  Second, and perhaps even more importantly, there was the issue of perception.  Equity investors didn't pour money into Palm so it could continue developing around a Microsoft product: they believed in Palm's new strategy and likely wanted to see the entire company united around the Pre and WebOS.  From a public investor side, if Palm truly believed in its new WebOS, wouldn't it want to standardize on the platform for all its devices?  So, Palm's decision to abandon Windows Mobile had more to do with the company's overall health and competitive prospects for the Pre than it did about any perceived shortcomings of Windows Mobile.

But did Palm make the right decision?  Well, I'd the say the question isn't whether Palm made the right decision, but rather, whether the Pre and WebOS have sufficiently replaced the role Windows Mobile devices had in Palm's lineup.  And the answer is no.  Although sales were down and losses were high, Palm, like RIM, has a loyal following.  It's Treo devices were relatively successful and often the device of choice for professionals or consumers seeking a Blackberry alternative.  Palm's embrace of Windows Mobile over its aging PalmOS kept the Treo line viable against the competition.

With the Pre, though, Palm alienated its loyal user base, especially business users.  Palm decided to chase Apple down the consumer-oriented-web-and-multimedia phone road.  Sure, the Pre supports business-related functions, but it wasn't designed for them.  In fact, rather than provide a PC-based syncing utility, Pre users are encouraged to use Google for PIM functionality.  Although it's an attractive device with a beautiful screen, the Pre's Motorola PEBL-like design doesn't quite evoke business prowess.  This might not matter if the Pre was a pleasure to type on, but regrettably, the slide-out keyboard's small keys and concave indentation make it difficult to type on for any extended length of time.  Some users also have complained about the Pre's build quality.  The dearth of applications and its online-driven experience make the Pre an inadequate successor to a road warrior's trusty Treo. 

That Palm has yet to reveal its plans for the Treo line and, instead, is about to release another consumer-oriented device tells me that the company simply isn't catering to business users.  It's a shame, too, because Palm had gotten quite good at developing elegant, quality Windows Mobile phones.  Its latest Treo iteration, the Treo Pro, was well received and, ironically, was praised in areas where the Pre has been criticized: it has solid build quality (though the Treo Pro was designed by HTC), a good keyboard and is generally fast enough.  Paul Thurrott, a frequent critic of Microsoft's mobile strategy, praised the device as an example of what Windows Mobile phones can be.

While I understand Palm's decision to center on a single platform, I'm not sure continuing Windows Mobile support would've required that many resources.  Palm could keep contracting HTC for device development while dedicating minimal engineering talent to Windows Mobile needs.  And, a dual-platform strategy could work if Palm was committed to it and the lines of delineation were clear.  The WebOS  and Pre could be the flagship of Palm's consumer line while Windows Mobile could anchor a Treo line of business devices. 

Palm also would have a willing partner in Microsoft, who I'm sure would rather keep Palm as an OEM partner.  Palm could've taken advantage of a lot of free press from Microsoft during the Windows Mobile 6.5 and Marketplace launch.  Imagine if Palm had debuted a new Treo phone at the Microsoft launch event and solidified itself as a premier OEM for business-oriented Windows Phones.  Furthermore, it would be maintaining the Treo brand, which was well-known and already had a loyal following of users waiting for an adequate replacement.

Some people are suggesting that Palm ditch the WebOS in favor of Android.  Regardless of the platform, my point is that Palm could maintain two platforms and leverage existing brand loyalty and an installed customer base.  But, Palm bet the house on the Pre and WebOS.  The WebOS certainly has its merits, but the Pre form-factor is a liability.  And while the Pixi form-factor seems more compelling in some ways, based on that phone's target audience, business users and hardcore Treo fans disenchanted by the Pre shouldn't hold their breath.