90% of most Hollywood films like to pretend that Macintoshes are more popular than Windows, yet you have more chance of encountering a left-handed Native-American than a Mac-user. I still fail to see why people hate Microsoft TODAY.

They’re no longer the company that had an insecure O.S. Windows 8 like Windows Phone is practically free of malware, Windows 8′s built in A.V. makes it as strong as ANY Mac on ANY day, and Windows Phone’s (don’t say ”app”) Store gets checked for malware all the time, contrast to Google Play which consists of 10% virusses (more than 100.000 apps, now let that sink, Android-user).

Now regarding your absolutely lack of knowledge about GNU+Linux desktop scene you should look at latest developments that, as I said, are today even better and healthier than never ever before.

So if we were to take your word as something worth then Valve are a bunch of idiots because they’re are investing in GNU+Linux, right? Same as Intel with their fast-paced GPU development and integration with the penguin’s OS.

Please, in the future try to talk of anything you actually know about – else just shut your mouth.
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain)”

IMO, the primary reason to keep a plan short is so that it is easily consumable…over time. If it is only a page long, it can be posted on the wall…

It is also important to make sure that you re-read the plan frequently to make sure that you’re:

- staying focused to the core tenants of your written plan,
- identify that it needs to be re-written.

Startups tend to be overly idealistic. The plan should change accordingly if you have intentionally pivoted away from your original written plan.

My job at the time was to build home networking for Consumer Windows. Consumer Windows was an offshoot from the mainline Windows group; an attempt to bring Windows 3 & Windows 95 consumer focus to the NT codebase, which had been developed almost exclusively without any real customer focus (some would argue enterprise).

Interestingly a ginormous re-org shut down the Consumer Windows group as a separately entity. I applied my same principle and instead of taking on the job of owning all of end-user networking in Windows, I chose to leave Windows all together and join an internal start up focused on the consumer. I simply didn’t want to be bifricated myself as I knew it was not the path to excellence.

This ‘startup’ eventually became eHome and we built Windows Media Center….

Sounds kinda like the “innovator’s dilemma” problem, with an attempt to transition to a new business runs up against the entrenched, profitable (and possibly, low-growth) business that pays the bills.

But this does not contradict the central argument of this piece, which is “follow the money”. Google’s motivation in ensuring their online services are best of breed is that while you are using them they are gathering more and more information about you, so that their advertising may be better and better targeted. Apple’s profit engine is hardware sales, and online services are a slight remove from that profit centre, which may explain why (apart from the iTunes & App stores) they have not got the polish & dependability they badly need now. iCloud may be a big improvement on it’s predecessors, but it should be as reliable, polished and transparent as DropBox.

The predominant motif I observed in publishing over the past two decades was having a Mac ghetto where product was created, largely neglected by IT, and occasionally serviced by production staff ourselves.

In advertising, I found much more variety and solid support for Mac users in truly mixed environments.

I sort of resent having to bring my own computer to what might become a semi-regular contract gig if it seems that the client firm has sufficient infrastructure to equip a swing workstation. But I certainly do understand the advantages.

And this is what is hurting MS, particularly their mobile moves, today.

Joe

And probably the most literal of illustrations is Google Glass. They want your eyeballs at all times. If the Apple “watch” is to be believed (and I am not convinced) this illustrates Apple’s “on demand” use of technology versus Google’s need to have access to you as much as possible, preferably always.

Apple’s only goal is to sell their hardware and by extension ecosystem. To a large degree Apple makes money if you use their hardware or not. Once you buy their product, they’ve pretty much made their nut. Google’s only goal in hardware is to siphon user data, not to make money on the hardware. You will not find Google making or selling a product that does not serve to feed them user data. As a former designer at Google once related, if a particular color blue for a hyperlink meant more clicks, that was the only motivation they needed to use that color blue, they could care less how it looked or worked with any design parameters.

Joe

If it’s a hardware-caused error, the error codes and stack traces are different each time. If it’s always same specific error (e.g. double free in the original post), it’s likely a software error.

There are also specific error codes for hardware errors, like WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR and MACHINE_CHECK_EXCEPTION.

Much of what you say is true, especially the apparent fact that platforms have emerged in recent years which don’t even run Java. Personally I also believe(d) the way to go to develop truly professional, commercial quality apps is to use the language and tools most appropriate for the platform.

However, there is much, much more to this. Firstly, while you and I can spot an app that was not specifically developed in a targetted way for the particular platform using native tools, I wager that must people cannot tell the difference and, for them, it doesn’t matter a hoot. Most end users are really not that sophisticated and even if there are subtle differences in either look or feel from a true native app, why would they care if it does the job it was designed to do in a friendly, powerful or entertaining way?

For me (and obviously for you), this has not been enough and I have traditionally developed native apps for each platform. However, I have recently been looking at JavaFX (especially the not-yet-released JavaFX 8 planned for later this year) and I have to say I am impressed. As a Java developer from way back, it’s nice that it’s now just another Java API (no more reliance on JavaFX Script whatever the heck that was). It’s fully hardware accelerated, includes rich graphics capabilities, the abiltiy to embed a fully functional HTML5 WebKit-based browser component, advanced media, charting, sophisticated binding and… drum roll… Oracle have just relased an open-source prototype for deployment of said JavaFX apps to iOS and Android (in additon to all the major desktop and embedded OSes of course)!

Also, JavaFX supports full stylability of all controls with CSS and with extensions written in JNA/JNI for each platform if required for that true “native” experience, here is perhaps a true cross-platform development technology that ticks all the boxes!

It’s yet to be shown in the wild, but I believe that in the hands of a skilled developer, JavaFX apps can be written in such a way that they look and feel so native and perform so well that they are just as good as a native app with the enormous benefit of something approaching WORA (at least in a large part).

No, I don’t work for Oracle or have any affiliation with them – I just believe that this product is worth a look and may just refute a large part of what the original article claimed.

In general, I don’t have a problem with “brand” advertising because it’s usually about companies trying to establish or reinforce long term relationships with customers (and tends to be to everyone’s benefit). Almost none of the advertising Google does is brand advertising.

This is where you veer off. Being able to sell targeted consumers is actually the warm beating heart of the company, it isn’t just part of the equatio. It is the basis for what projects continue and which ones don’t. They are not in the business of monetizing hardware or software or services. They are inthe business of monetizing the consumers of those services and products. That’s why they give away Android. That’s why their tablet is essentially sold at cost. The Pixel is still TBD, unless they think they can pursue an Apple business model.

Not sure how else to say this to make sense to you. Not sure why I thought I could.

Joe

For Apple and for Google, happy, loyal users are the gas in the tank. Whether the road is paved with users or with advertisers (I think this analogy just fell apart…) is interesting, but might not be relevant. If Google produces products that nobody wants, the advertisers will leave. If Apple produces products that nobody wants, they shrivel up and die. In either case, unless there are happy, loyal customers, there’s no business.

It’s a little bit like the broadcast news business. In a perfectly ethical broadcast news business, there are a group of people who care passionately about advertisers. These people live and breathe and drink advertising sales. But, in our mythical perfectly ethical newsroom, there are people who don’t give a hoot about advertisers. They are newsmen and newswomen — they wear fedoras and chomp cigars and stay late pounding out meaty ledes on their typewriters because it’s news, dammit. They’ll tell the truth at whatever the cost: because the news is a sacred trust, etc etc etc.

For Google, sure, advertising is part of the equation. It’s what pays the bills. But it isn’t the warm beating heart of the company. Google (might) have the equivalent to our mythical newsmen and newswomen who sacrifice for the story — er, user. I imagine plenty of engineers at Google who aren’t thinking about what the advertisers want, but what the users want. If their product is good (if the news tells the hard, true stories) the user/audience will follow — and the advertisers will follow the audience.

If Google puts the wants of the advertisers above the needs of the user, they’ll lose: their users will leave and the advertising will dry up. But if they make their users happy, the advertisers will stick around, they’ll make money, and everyone wins.

Look, I’m a dedicated Mac guy. I have been since the 1980s, and have never bought a non-Apple computer. Ever. In most circles I would be considered a fanboy. I’m very pro-Apple — but I’m not seeing this magic customer-vision being an exclusive property of Apple. It’s clear that Microsoft doesn’t have it — and never has. But Google’s another story. I think they’ve got a shot to remain competitive with Apple (and perhaps even, over the long term, win. Not a prediction, but a possibility).

People who use your technology everyday should be the focus. Not vague buzzwords, a myriad of dead end technologies and outdated business models. Apple made a device that absolutely anyone could use. The rest went from there.

Yet still lets take purely native clients. And lets take what’s called middle ware. Well I don’t have direct experience with say object-c stuff but even there as far as I know cross platform C libraries for common complex problem solutions are used.
Like say physics engines for games. Those truly are write once run everywhere, but in a form of written once, and then compiled/porter everywhere. Which sometimes is not as easy as just “write once runs everywhere”.
Say there is popular library for face detection which I seen working in google native client in browser, i bet it can run on server working with any server side language(well with some work to make communication work), it is sued in native phone apps, obviously in desktop apps, and most crazy thing I seen to date is that its compiled to Adobe Flash trough Adobe alchemy project and works there o_0

Still probably the easiest example is something like 2d physics engine for games called Box2D. Its variations are used in all platform,s languages etc etc etc. Its origin is C, its most popular engine for Flash games, it has few JavaScript ports and even such platform selling games like Angry Birds use it across all platforms Angry Birds was made for. This is kind of project I was talking about.

So in the end, large open source libraries for solving complex problems are truly written once, but when it comes to “run everywhere” things sometimes are little bit more complex, as say with javascript without native client of google we end up porting/rewriting it, but in a sense it still is the same, just in different language, so kind of written once but then translated sometimes to run everywhere.

AdSense was not Google’s patent, but is absolutely necessary for Google to monetize its collection and collation of consumers’ eyeballs.

Used under license, it allows Google to get the best price for its great collection of users’ demographics and current online interest. All that other stuff is just the neon lights to attract the people into the casino.

Almost too late, Apple realized that outside developers were another key component; it opened the App Store and established a explosive albeit more open, chaotic marketplace where, again, tech’s best can serve the rest. It’s all about people.

That being said, Google has been able to iterate many products to an excellent degree – but in the interest of it’s advertising business; for example, search and Gmail.

I don’t disagree with you that Apple’s services have had a very spotty history, starting with Mac.com, then mobileMe, and now iCloud. Perhaps they require some gestation time just as Google’s services have gestated.

When we look at Apple’s iTunes music and video store, and later their mobile and desktop App stores, I think we see a remarkable success of Apple as service, or at least success as eCommerce…

Could it be that the reason for a good or bad user experience is not as black and white as the blog post suggests?

Apple has answered that: the folks who will vote with their wallets to buy iPhones, iPads and MacBooks.

Notice that the Mac Pro has languished? Apple’s focus isn’t on THOSE consumers, the media pro types who need all that horsepower. Likewise, no ‘cheap’ iPhone — while the Wall Street analysts may campaign for Apple to make one, Apple isn’t focused upon the consumers who would buy such a device (or if they plan to, they won’t do so by building a cheap phone).

So it’s not just that Apple focuses on consumers, they’ve focused EVEN MORE on a certain group of consumers. Those consumers have select attributes, and those are the ones Apple serves. If you don’t fit, Apple doesn’t have anything to sell to you.

I honestly can’t think of another company that has focused so and has worked so hard to define just who it is they will serve.

But the point you were making is that MS does have a separate consumer focused division that is successful. The problem is that they simply got lucky with Xbox 360. They got lucky that Sony dropped the ball so much this generation. If you remember when the 360 launched and during the lead up to the PS3 launch, the amount of hype and excitement for PS3 was enormous. They were fresh off the heels of PS2, the best selling system of all time. But then they charged 499-599 for the damn thing, made it impossible for developers to program for it, and gave MS a year head start.

I haven’t read anyone call anyone else “evil”, so I don’t get where you are going with this question.

Joe

The other reason Apple cannot be copied is because they don’t understand what they are copying. That is bigger than vertical integration. It is about knowing why you are doing what you are doing. If Apple was innovative and Samsung copies Apple. Samsung is not innovative. 10 years ago, how did you know Apple’s brand was spreading through college campuses? Everyone wearing a subtle white earbud had an Apple iPod or iPhone in their pocket. Look at the iPhone case Apple vs Samsung. The phone is clearly copied, but if you look at the face of Samsung’s phone, it still has their logo slapped in the front. When you copy and don’t have a true identity, it eventually comes out. Branding has changed. Samsung doesn’t get it.

Setting standards. Apple didn’t invent the mp3 player, the mouse, or webcams on notebook computers. But I would argue that Apple made all those things simple, affordable, and accessible to the consumer. Apple was the first to say “everyone needs this”. That is a different approach, because they set the trend of what is to be expected. When is the last time Samsung or Microsoft did that?

There are so many things. The others are trying to build Rome in a day. Samsung and Android definitely have an uptick — they are doing well. But winning battles, don’t always add up to winning the war. Just a thought.

Main point: you can’t innovate by copying. you need to do something drastically better — not just drastically different. trickle or gush, you need to reshape the landscape.

don’t focus on gimmicks — specs, flashy hardware, etc. focus on experience.

I know this is harder to conceive of since we are dealing with a less tangible, more conceptual product, as in not something one can pick up, examine craftsmanship, etc., but that doesn’t make the consumer any less the product.

But you bring up an ancillary point I alluded to elsewhere, in that Apple doesn’t really focus on the generic consumer, either. They focus on specific consumers, their _customers_, which are the consumers who are more disposed to what Apple creates.

Ultimately everyone wants to create something that attracts customers from the pool of consumers. Some do it with a tangible product, some do it with an intangible service product. The author’s point is that if you are trying to reach two separate yet related markets, depending on how they relate, at some point you will have to decide which is the more important focus because conflict of interest will rear its ugly head. For Google, ultimately their “consumers” are the people who want to buy advertising space (who creates the actual ad is irrelevant) and what makes that ad space have value are the consumers it reaches. Google’s tangible products are just a way of further developing the consumer reach and thus value of the space they sell.

In the context of this article, the “consumer” is the average person who would consume the service or product the businesses that buy from Google. So again, yes, the consumer is the product.

If you don’t understand that, I hope you are not in the advertising or marketing business. Your future would look pretty bleak.

Joe