And all you Microsoft bashing Google fanboys don’t realise it.

I’m not saying that Google is the new anti-competitive bully, though that might be true. My assertion here is that Google is the new writer of bland but universal applications that everybody will hate and complain about in a few years time.

History lesson. Microsoft beat everybody else back in the day by making their software hardware independent. Thus Microsoft succeeded while Apple, and everybody else, receded.

Fast forward 25 years and the web, through the web browser, is now a platform in its own right, capable of becoming the target of application development. Google is a leader in this new environment. Their recent release of several business applications extends that lead.

Problem is, who’s going to use this sort of software for anything other than dabbling? Probably not many, and for good reason. Even though the web is enabling rich application development, it’s still not rich enough to compete with applications designed to operate natively/locally to a computer. Therefore, Google has some neat technology, but it’s essentially mediocre software that is unreliable (whether by the fault of the client or server) and has sketchy performance. Sound familiar?

Many critics have judged Microsoft pretty harshly, fair or not, for putting a lot of marginal software into the wild. Security of their OS software is notoriously bad, their applications are closed and features are added at a glacial pace. Concepts that are great, and deserve real kudos, get released but remain unimproved thereafter.

I see similar things happening with Google. Google releases application that are interesting and in some cases really fantastic (Gmail anyone?) but then they take forever to improve or finalize those applications. Google is becoming famous as the company that invented the perpetual “beta” release. Also, their focus on Adsense is driving their development in a single dimension. I see there being some attempt to diversify their revenue sources, but not a lot. Selling individual server boxen is not terribly profitable and I hear nothing of their other pay for use/service offerings as real drivers of growth.

I see Google trying to force everything to work a) on the web and b) with Adsense. Sounds like a pretty limiting and limited vision, similar to the limiting vision that has kept Microsoft from being a true driver of massive innovation.

(To be fair, Microsoft has done tremendous amounts of good work. My opinion is simply that they could have done more with themselves in the time they’ve been on top. WinFS, delayed Vista, multiplatform goodness, security neglect - these and more are areas that I feel have been dropped opportunities by MS.)

So that’s it. Google will continue to rise, but in so doing it will try to fit everything into the Google mould/formula. It’s inevitable, and it’s already happening, and it’s going to make Google look a lot like Microsoft in a few years.

The potential of raytracing is incredible. Raytracing, to my knowledge, is the best/only way to get photorealistic results out of computers. Check out this example.

So raytracing is cool and capable of quite a lot. This article goes some way toward explaining how now might be the time for raytracing.

Except it misses a big point. Raytracing on general purpose processors is incredibly inefficient. As the article itself states, the raytracer only does a single physics calculation over and over again. Other graphics technologies need to be versatile to be able to do pixel shading and texture mapping and all sorts of things, but the raytracer just does one thing over and over again. A general purpose processor’s power would be wasted in operations like that, because it isn’t designed for physics calculations, specifically.

Rather than simply follow the assertions of the author, I’m going to suggest that the time for raytracing is now, but that’s going to have to mean that raytracing chips need to appear on the market as well. Doing raytracing on the CPU is not the way to go.

Dell doesn’t need to be resurrected, what with it not being dead and all - far from it. Still, analysts and professional prognosticators are crowing about Dell’s big problems and, not wanting to be left out of the fun, I’ve decided to toss in with my few ideas. Here they are, in no particular order: my collection of magical bullets that will save Dell from imminent destruction.

First thing I’d do - hire a designer that isn’t impaired.
Whatever impairment the Dell guy suffers from is serious, and I grieve for him and his family. Whether it’s out of sympathy or compassion or whatever, Dell keeps this designer going, which is kudos for them and their charity. But instead of just giving the designer an office and mostly ignoring him, they’ve given him the run of their product line. Bad.

Here’s an anecdotal example of what bothers me about Dell design. For years the standard Dimension tower computer featured this enormous gray flap. This flap lifted up, but this fact wasn’t obvious to many. Underneath this flap were USB ports and headphone jacks. The flap opened upward and the USB ports faced downward. The flap was situated toward the bottom of the computer.

So what’s the issue? Consider that most tower computers sit on the floor. Assuming you know that the USB ports were there, you would have to get to them by lifting the flap which totally blocks your view of the panel with the USB ports. Then you literally are reaching down to the floor and blindly trying to plug your cable into a socket you can’t even see.

This wonder of design has me convinced that Dell employees don’t actually use Dell products, otherwise this “feature” wouldn’t have lasted a week. Personally, because of how poorly the flaps actually functioned - apart from how tacky they looked - I’ve seen many offices that simply removed the flaps entirely.

Second thing I’d do - take some of that (paltry) R&D budget and heave it at some (non-in-house) software developers.

Taking a page from Google, Dell should be on the lookout for fun and useful applications and should be chucking some of their (paltry) R&D budget toward the developers. In return they should get a huge number of free licenses, or licenses for cheap.

Consider Picasa, an application that Google picked up a while ago. If Dell could find a Picasa wannabe and set them up, Dell would have the beginnings of its very own iLife suite. Toss in Firefox and Thunderbird as the default mail and web applications and Dell starts to offer a better and safer online experience for their customers right out of the box. Add in a few more apps, like maybe a simple movie editor, Paint.Net or GIMP-type image manipulators, and you start to have an interesting base of applications that make a Dell a good buy beyond simply the cost factor. And all for very little actual cost to Dell. Microsoft might complain about Internet Explorer being ditched in favor of Firefox, but is Bill G really prepared to cut Dell and its nearly 20% domination of the PC OEM business out? I think Dell can dictate what it’s going to do to the industry without fear of reprisal.

Interesting side effect of including software with its PCs - Dell could instantly create whole new economies for software and support and services. If 10% of all users buying Dells actually use the included image editor/viewer/manipulator, you’ve instantly got the equivalent to the entire installed base of iPhoto users. That’s huge. Ensure that there’s an API to go along with the application and small companies can start offering complementary services, like direct-to-eBay publishing plugins or whatever. Get a small software start up that makes a killer app, that’s another thing Dell can toss a little cash at and include as a perk for buying Dell - it’s a cycle that feeds itself once it’s started.

Third thing I’d do - streamline the product line and introduce a different pricing structure.
Simply put, going to the Dell site feels like going to a car dealership. It’s not a pleasant experience and somehow you always feel like you just got jipped/swindled.

I went over to Dell and started counting how many different models of laptop they have. I stopped at 20, and I wasn’t much more than 1/2 way through. What is interesting to me about this is that Dell was the pioneer of Build to Order on the epic scale. Given this, why do they need 20+ models of laptop? Is this something that their customers really demand? Why can’t Dell create, say, five models of laptop and let all the holes be filled with BTO variations? Create one product per “bracket” that is intended to dominate that bracket. Brackets could be:

• Ultra-budget laptop. Small screen, lightweight processor, little RAM, small HDD, limited connectivity options. Gets people online and editing documents, but not much else.
• Kitchen-counter laptop. Reasonable screen, processor and RAM, not really hot in multimedia, but more connectivity to wireless and whatnot. A noticeable bump from the Ultra-budget model.
• Small-business laptop. Enough juice to run several Office apps without choking, nice specs generally but compromises on things like separate video cards and RAM.
• Pro laptop. Nice features, including lots of processor, RAM and HDD, separate video card and memory, plus connectivity options galore. Still, when possible, choices in parts will favor enhanced battery longevity.
• Gamer/desktop-replacement laptop. Best of everything, no compromises.

The product line listed above could be adapted, through BTO, to handle any variation of need that customers would have. There is no need to offer 20+ products. Seriously.

The other point was about pricing. Given five products, choose a fair price for a decent configuration and make that the price that’s quoted. Dell essentially scams people by quoting low prices for stripped-down systems - once you have it the way you’d want it the price suddenly is back to normal. Skeezy car dealers do the same thing by offering a new Mustang for cheap (it’s a Mustang without a radio, with plastic seats, wooden tires and a three cylinder engine). This is a practice that leaves customers, even customers that go ahead and buy the product in spite of everything, feeling that they just got a bad deal. This perceptions persists regardless of whether the perception is valid. Dell needs to focus some time and effort trying to build a perception that they are giving their customers a great deal. Or at least a fair deal.

One more thing and I’ll stop my rant, I promise.

Fourth thing I’d do - stop trying to shoe-horn products into a business model they aren’t necessarily suited for.
TVs. When was the last time you bought a TV without seeing it in person? I never have, though admittedly I’ve only ever bought two new TVs larger than 14″ in my life.

From what I understand, Dell does a pretty good business with their TVs, but even so this might be an area where breaking with the direct-to-consumer model might be in order for Dell. Here’s my revolutionary concept - spin TVs off into a separate company. There aren’t any movements to integrate the capabilities of TVs into any of the other products, so just set up a company called Dell Electronics and hand over the consumer electronics portions of the Dell product line (TVs, music players, etc.). Dell still sells their consumer electronics through an online direct-to-consumer channel, but also seeks to put these particular products into big-box stores like Best Buy and Compusa so that customers can see the products with their own eyes. I’ve seen Dell TVs and they’re nice - I think more people would buy them if they had a chance to see them outside a chance encounter at a friends house or in a non-flattering corporate environment where the thing is showing Power Points.

Dell Electronics would take a drop in profit for any units moved through the big retailers, but for customers who could delay gratification, the online channel could still offer better deals at higher margins.

So that’s it. I think that Dell could be doing so much more for themselves and for consumers if they tried to focus less on cutting the bottom out of everything and focused more on making a great buying experience for its customers. Is that naive?

Dell isn’t my favorite computer manufacturer, despite being the largest and most successful computer seller in the world with around 19% of the market according to Business Week. I’d like to think that I’ve got legit reasons for not caring for Dell rather than just being a playa hata.

So let’s get started. What has Dell, with their enormous power, reach and influence done for computerdom? Of course they brought USB into the mainstream, making cheap and universal peripherals possible. Oh, wait, that was Apple. Okay, they pioneered the home computer media center - oops, wrong again. That was Gateway. Okay, well they’ve been at the forefront of the revolution of computer industrial design. Wrong again - Apple, Sony and to a lesser extent HP.

Truth is Dell hasn’t really been a leader in any sort of innovation, that I can think of (save for a few minor, marginally effective and narrowly adopted system management firmware applications intended for enterprise) in the ten years they’ve been #1 in the PC business.

Dell has squandered its time on top of the heap. Even now, after so much time to develop itself as a platform, to innovate or whatever, Dell hasn’t managed to make itself valuable for anything else than its cost. I’ll repeat that because I think it’s important. There is no value in a Dell computer outside of cost.

I love the question in the Business Week article that asked if Dell was a one trick pony. It appears to me that they are. It also appears to me that they always will be - this article, also from Business Week, includes an observation that Dell spends less than 1% of its budget on R&D annually. This blew my mind when I read this because it has to be understood that this 1% of R&D is being spread not just over desktop computers, but over servers, laptops, music players, big-screen televisions, projectors and more. No wonder they haven’t innovated in a decade - their R&D budget is big enough to buy lunches for the team and keep the lights on and that’s it.

Not quite, but you get my point. So what should Dell do? I think, if Dell were smart, they would realize that the commodity days of the PC business are ending - and their model has to change to adapt. It’s no longer acceptable to let Microsoft and Intel do all the innovation - Dell has to start treating their brand as a platform, much like Apple does. Dell needs to start to find ways to get people excited about using their products, rather than settling because of price.

There was a great suggestion in the second BW article that encouraged Dell to develop ways to ensure easy customer data migration. This would be a great first step, but would require a lot of development effort and expertise that Dell hasn’t earned itself in the 10 years its been on top.

I’ll continue this tomorrow.

After referring back to my master opus I realized something - I should have had an outline.

I don’t think my ideas are bad - rather, I have come to realize the need for better organization and conceptualization of my ideas prior to them being tossed into the ether. So I’ll have to work on this some time when I have a second. I could probably easily chop the size down quite a bit and make the points clearer as to why I want to do what it is I want to do.

I’ll probably just link to a PDF of the document when I have time to edit/rewrite it. There’s no point in polluting this space with all that again.

Over the past several posts I’ve been trying to identify some factors that I think help Apple to achieve a level of success in encouraging user enthusiasm and developer innovation. The five points that I made in my previous posts can be refined to this formula:

• Deliver products on your own schedule (point one). Don’t try to be the first out the door having integrated some random feature. Of course, don’t be last either. Rather, try to focus on being the best offering with the right features. Be discerning so that the consumer doesn’t have to be.
• Develop products in a way the spurs community involvement/enthusiasm (point two). Apple has this down to a science and they develop in secret. I think that the alternative is to be radically open about the development process, as I’ll discuss in just a moment. Still, involving the community offers so many benefits, including free publicity and labor, it’s a wonder more companies don’t do it.
• Produce products that satisfy aesthetic and emotional needs, not just technical (point three). This is a hard one to narrow down into a simple point - suffice it to say, products should have as much attention paid to their impact visually and socially as is given to their impact productively. This isn’t a vote in favor of form over function - rather, it’s an acceptance that form and function are more closely linked than many believe them to be.
• Provide a consistent, homogeneous platform (point four). The more that time is spent accommodating the vagaries or inconsistencies of a platform, less time will be spent expressing creativity on that platform. Though I am a user and advocate of Linux (for some things), I see the Linux platform as being the prime example of how some things can become arbitrarily hard to accomplish, leading to less creativity and more time spent just getting things to work.
• Finally, provide a clear and concise vision for development (point five). There should be one clear message (perhaps containing many voices, but one clear message) being communicated from one authority. It’s that simple.

So… how does this have anything to do with a Utopian view (of hardware)? I shall now reveal. Behold!

The example that Apple shows us is that software and hardware both contribute to an overall experience. Though many think of Mac OS X as the modern Apple experience, I would suggest that OS X is possible in large part because of the fact that the Apple hardware platform allows developers to focus on creativity. Microsoft’s Xbox 360 is another example of how the combination of capable hardware with focused software resources/capabilities creates a compelling platform experience. Therefore, in order to offer an experience that begins to rival Apple, special care needs to be given not just to software but to the hardware platform that anything is going to run on. In other words, I believe great computer experiences start with great hardware (and end with great software).

What does application of the formula elements that I’ve defined result in? I suggest that the market is ready for an organization/company to develop an open hardware platform. The key here is platform. I’m not suggesting that anybody needs to develop chips or sockets or whatever, as those don’t represent a platform, or develop an awesome OS from scratch either. I’m suggesting that the platform, as represented by the components of hardware that an existing OS will run on needs to become open.

Here’s my vision. An entity known as The Open Platform Foundation (or Company or whatever) assumes responsibility for developing and releasing three classes of computer system, classified as low end (~$500), mid range (~$1500) and high end (~$2500) computers. Limiting the computers to a fixed price-range and intended user base will provide some of the focus that I mentioned (points 4 and 5) being at the core of Apples successful development strategy. The OPF will seek to release a new computer every six months, staggered such that each class of computer gets updated every 18 months (points 1 and 3). This will provide a release window that will allow for periodic releases and updates of hardware in the manner that I’ve previously described.

The process of implementing any given model of computer will involve open discussion and competition within the Internet community at large, competing in industrial design and component configuration/architecture. The competitive, community driven nature of the discussions will serve to provide the enthusiastic involvement of skilled amateurs that Apple currently benefits from (point 2).

Upon deciding on a best design that meets the OPF goals, the OPF will function as middle man/escrow account for hardware manufacturers, allowing for volume discounts due to large purchase contracts and removing an element of economic risk. Given specifications, manufacturers will be able to bid to fill the initial run of computers from the OPF. The OPF will in turn make these computers available to the community. The OPF, acting as middle man, can take a small cut to cover operating expenses and provide funds to further research and development in areas it feels will aid the platform as a whole (this could be anything from network utilities to iLife-like software applications).

This Open Platform process would seek to distribute large amounts of high-quality and well designed computers to as large an audience as possible for very near to cost. This audience, in turn, would represent a population that inhabits a relatively homogeneous class of hardware, which could provide an attractive target for developers (point 4). Given enough regularity in the operating system(s) installed on the systems the platform could become very easy to develop on, spurring innovation just as is the case with Apple.

Why should people like the Open Platform Foundation? Why is it better than the existing providers? The answer isn’t that OPF would be better than the Dells and HPs of the world in every way. It’s purpose would be to help spur innovation and growth in the PC industry by providing the right sort of environment to encourage development while simultaneously increasing the reliability and serviceability of the products produced by the industry.

This wouldn’t necessarily have to be a low-budget affair, either. Money could be made by the OPF through service and support contracts. This platform approach could be very attractive to corporate customers - given the open nature of the platform it would be virtually assured that aftermarket service, parts and support solutions could be had from any number of sources (not just the original equipment manufacturer). This could lead to greater stability and cost-effectiveness for corporate customers over the near and long term. Big win.

That’s the big plan. I think that underestimating the power of platform consistency has created problems for the PC industry and caused Apple computer to be the only manufacturer that’s producing big innovations. This is not anything against Apple - rather it’s an indictment of the PC industry. This is my proposed response. Thoughts?

This will be the last point I’ll make before advocating my Utopian view (of hardware).

Point 5 - Apple is driven by a unified (Jobs) vision.
My own personal experience would tell me that somebody who behaves like Steve Jobs is reported to (ie, into pretty much everything) would cause more issues than they’d solve. I’ve had enough micro-manager bosses that I’m thoroughly against the practice.

Yet Jobs makes it work - he’s the extremely rare example that challenges the rule. But is it his oversight or his clearly communicated vision that we should credit most? I’d say it’s the latter more than the former. Jobs has a clear vision for creating consumer devices, and that vision works. His aesthetic sensibilities are very refined, his understanding of his target market is deep and he’s able to drive his organization to achieve his vision by clearly communicating his direction. I’d suggest that his method of operation (heavy oversight) works because he is dedicated enough to make it work. Try to find another example of a corporate leader who, by being overbearing, actually causes good things to happen within an organization.

So I’m asserting that the fact that there is one person, whose taste is very good and whose knowledge of his field is excellent, at the top of the ladder makes all the difference for Apple. Just as with the homogeneous platform, things become simpler for the people involved when they know what the rules are that will govern how their efforts are judged.

I’ll offer the following as an anecdotal example of what I’m talking about. In other tech companies the man at the top is generally somebody who understands his market in terms of buzzwords - he seeks to “leverage synergies” between “vertically integrated” suppliers of “tightly coupled whatsits.” (I don’t do buzz-speak or that could have been funny.) When a new idea or product is evaluated, the things that make the idea great at a fundamental level might be completely lost on somebody who isn’t able to understand things outside the scope of their own experience/buzzword glossary.

Jobs is a different sort. Rather than simply being the chief figurehead, he’s the chief visionary. Things that match or extend or even challenge his vision are pushed forward within the organization - those that don’t fail. This creates clarity within the developer/engineer staff. Clarity is good.

—

So there’s five points about Apple that I will put forward as interesting differentiators. You may or may not agree with them, but I think there’s a formula to be extracted from these points.

Continuing the series.

Point 4 - Platform uniformity unlocks developer creativity
Apple seems to have a disproportionally large percentage of truly creative development taking place on its Mac platform. Consider Textmate, X-plane, Coverflow, Delicious Library and iAlertU as a few of the numerous examples of third-party wonders that exist within the Apple community. Feel free to show me applications that show similar levels of innovation in the Windows/PC realm, if you can find them.

Why does Apple seem to have this lock on developer mind share/imagination? There are several factors at play, but I think the following are the most significant:

• Apple’s image as a platform for creative developers draws in creative developers. In this case perception actually does create the reality. Where other platforms trumpet that they are “ready for business” or some other mundane idea, Apple encourages it’s community to be rebels, innovators, outside-the-box types. This message/mantra is adhered to by the Apple community.
• A high quality API makes a big difference. I won’t assert that Apple’s API is better than Microsoft’s but I will assert that it is far better than anything on Linux. Instead of wasting cycles in trying to invent wheels, Apple developers are free to invent sleek enclosures for their 100mpg automobiles. Maybe that’s a bad metaphor, but the point should be clear.
• Hardware consistency further reduces developer headaches and extends creativity into new dimensions. This is the biggest point of the three, in my opinion. When development isn’t hamstrung by having to consider the lowest common denominator, truly interesting steps can be taken in development. Consider as an example Delicious Library, linked above. Now that most Apple computers being sold include a built in iSight camera, the developers at Delicious Monster could be free to think of innovative uses for those cameras. The result is software that enables a bar-code scanner through the camera that then allows users to catalogue their books, music, movies and more, simply by holding things up to the camera. iAlertU is another example of an interesting application that is only possible with a cohesive hardware platform.

Taking variables out of any equation makes the equation easier to solve. When you remove hardware variations, API variations, environment variations, etc., the problem of how to make things “Just Work” becomes a lot easier.

With fewer hurdles and roadblocks in place, Apple developers are free to explore creative ideas and options, options that aren’t necessarily out of reach on other platforms but are prohibitively complex or would reach a statistically insignificant portion of a diverse user base. Consider that point - even though by most measures Apple only controls 4-5% of the consumer computer market, the remaining ~90% of Windows based PCs are composed of such diverse components, in such innumerably complex configurations, that the ability to reach large portions of the market requires that developers for that platform not push any technological boundaries. The incredible diversity of the PC, a strength on one hand, becomes a liability with regard to innovation.