The Progression of Closed Systems

The idea of proprietary, closed systems has been around for yonks, since some marketing idiot (who should now be stoned to death for crimes against technology) had the realisation that if people can only use your device with your products and are entirely reliant on you, you can then milk the consumer for everything they've got and make a killing. Unfortunately for him, he was in marketing so he didn't realise that the world didn't work like that. So the hacker (note: not crackers, they're idiots) community came up with the brilliant idea that why not open up the closed system and make it even better than it was before. So was born the idea of hacking devices. Some of the more well-known ones of these are the PSP and the iPhone. These are more remarkable than the millions of other devices that were swiftly cracked and taken to the masses because Sony and Apple, respectively, have both tried very hard (to varying degrees of success) to halt the free flow of hacked software and hardware.


The ultimate reason that these companies cannot win is because they are taking the entirely wrong approach to solving the problem. Take the PSP Custom Firmware example. When PSP's came out, they were very quickly hacked and custom firmwares released along with homebrew games by the hundred showing the world a new world of portable gaming...free. Then, with Firmware 1.5, it all slowed down a bit, because with this release, Sony had added a new feature: the Internet Browser. users upgraded to get this new feature because they preferred it to the hacked solution's lack of said browser. Then, with Firmware 3, we see the other approach. Sony released a new Firmware, built off a new kernel, and with security like no-one had previously seen, but there was little increase in capability. So what was the end result of this move: Hackers across the interwebs got pissed and between the lot of them, cracked it in no time at all.

The point of all this is that you will never be as good or as secure as the millions of hackers around the globe are determined and skilled. Therefore, trying to secure your product from their hacking fingers is pointless. You must remove the determination. As far as I can see, the only way to stop people from hacking your product is to give them such capabilities and features that it's not worth their while to go without them.

Now, the iPhone. One of the most proprietary closed systems on the planet, Apple controls every aspect of the device, the hardware, the OS, the capabilities of the Apps and everything about the phone and it's equipment. And yet, they are regularly jailbroken and hacked by the multitude of ra1n and sn0w programs populating the darker corners of the Internet. So, what did Apple do. First was 3.0 which saw multitudes of people flock to the official OS for it's great new features. Next was 3.1.2 which was solely a security update which was met not by exodus from the jailbreak community but by stiff competition and determination from the hackers. This all culminated with GeoHot's fantastic Blackra1n, an easy-to-use 30-second jailbreak for any Apple Touch device, running any OS. So, their big move to stop jailbreaking led to it becoming a lot easier and a lot more accessible for the average user. No tricky consoles here, just one big button that says "make it ra1n" and you're done.


Of course, for Apple, one of the biggest reasons the jaibreak community are so successful is because they are getting apps for free, an income stream that Apple doesn't want to simply abandon, and Sony doesn't really want PSP owners to be simply downloading their ISO's off the net, and starving them (and the already nervous developers) of their revenue. Since, there's no real solution that keeps both sides happy, I think we've only really seen the very beginning of this.

iTunes: Apple's Elephant in the Room

When Apple released the first iPod onto the market, I don't think even they could've expected all this to happen. From a foundling product with not all that revolutionary features, iPod's now pretty much own the portable MP3 market. Initally, they faced stiff competition for the then unheard-of portable MP3 market. Now, iPods are everywhere running away with the market share in the face of only token gestures of disagreement from Microsoft and some very high-quality, but nonetheless unsuccessful new ranges of Walkmans from Sony. Now, the iPod is available in just about any size, shape, colour, format and with almost any capability you can name. And if the iPod can't do it, there's probably an app for that. So, Apple has been feverishly making bucketloads of money and trying to keep the momentum up, sometimes failing (new iPod shuffle), mostly succeeding (iPhone, ipod touch, iPod nano, etc.).



One of the big things that has let them take such commanding control over the market is the iTunes connection. By forcing iPod users to iTunes, you take more control over their actions as well as ensuring that most users will start purchasing content from the store. The initial iPods barely did anything but then the developments started rolling in. First there was music, then photos, then videos, then PIM data, then Podcasts, then Apps, Ringtones, Games, and various other extra functions. Unfortunately, fearful of losing their market momentum and iTunes users (to others like Winamp etc.). This means that they've kept essentially the same application since the first iPods, But the first iPods contained little more than music. Now, iTunes must sync multiple devices, multiple file systems, music, videos, photos, applications, PIM data and a billion other things that it was never really written to handle. Thus, we now end with what I believe to be one of the singularly worst mainstream bits of code that the world has seen on such a scale before. It's unstable, unreliable, difficult to use, requires immense resources and is generally not a very good program. Admittedly, it probably functions a bit better on Mac, but they should realise that the majority of their consumer base is currently using Windows.


My venerable old Acer Travelmate 4602 has finally been replaced by a new Dell Studio 1557, a far superior machine running all the newest gear (i7, yay!), and still iTunes 9 is slow, only starts up around 50% of the time and is a resource hog. I'm onw very relieved that I didn't try to upgrade the old machine with the new v9. On top of this, there are a multitude of things that software like that should be able to do, that it can't. Move to a new computer without ruining one's carefully organised music colletion, for example. Or to function fully without a stable internet connection. But it can't do this, or any of the other things that the Web would so dearly love.
Apple has simply been overcautious and (to an extent) greedy, trying to hold onto every scrap of market share and so simply stuffing a not-all-that-fantastic application with so much not-all-that-well-built functionality that it is just waiting for one of two things: major overhaul or catastrophic failure...

Computers

I just found this excerpt (over on the ZumoDrive Blog) from a 1985 Interview with Steve Jobs just as the Mac was launching on just what computing entails:

PLAYBOY: Maybe we should pause and get your definition of what a computer is. How do they work?

STEVE JOBS: Computers are actually pretty simple. We’re sitting here on a bench in this cafe [for this part of the Interview]. Let’s assume that you understood only the most rudimentary of directions and you asked how to find the rest room. I would have to describe it to you in very specific and precise instructions. I might say, "Scoot sideways two meters off the bench. Stand erect. Lift left foot. Bend left knee until it is horizontal. Extend left foot and shift weight 300 centimeters forward..." and on and on. If you could interpret all those instructions 100 times faster than any other person in this cafe, you would appear to be a magician: You could run over and grab a milk shake and bring it back and set it on the table and snap your fingers, and I’d think you made the milk shake appear, because it was so fast relative to my perception. That’s exactly what a computer does. It takes these very, very simple-minded instructions—"Go fetch a number, add it to this number, put the result there, perceive if it’s greater than this other number"—but executes them at a rate of, let’s say, 1,000,000 per second. At 1,000,000 per second, the results appear to be magic.

That’s a simple explanation, and the point is that people really don’t have to understand how computers work. Most people have no concept of how an automatic transmission works, yet they know how to drive a car. You don’t have to study physics to understand the laws of motion to drive a car. You don’t have to understand any of this stuff to use Macintosh—but you asked

Personally, I think that is one of the most brilliant descriptions of computing I've ever heard. And it is still technically correct, despite its simplicity. What this quote, I think, actually draws attention to, is just what computers are doing, and what we are doing that could make computers such an amazing thing.

Think about it, a computer is basically just a large calculator on steroids and yet, they've now taken on an enormous part of out lives and are capable of what people could only dream of not that many years ago. How we've come from a basic calculation device that filled a room and would give you results after about a week to near instant global networking of innumerable consumer PC's to create a network of information and people that can answer almost any question is even today a bit of a mystery. It seems to be the story of a series of very visionary people (Jobs among them) and some very dedicated groups each advancing in their own way, succeeding and failing in just the right places to create systems which then evolved and evolved until we have today's globally connected electronic world.

On a smaller scale, though, it's this evolution of systems that can really fascinate. Computers initially ran on actual physical glass valves and now the technology world gets all excited because we release a new line of processors which decrease in architecture size from 90 nanometer process to a 45 nanometer process. That's a change from .00000090 meters to .00000045 meters hoping to become .00000011 by 2015. The scale of computer electronics development is amazing not just for its capabilities, but it's evolutionary path. Fuelled by a realisation of possibility, few other things in the history of man with the possible exception of fire and the wheel have evolved quite so rapidly, so fervently and on such a scale. To obtain developments such as the 90nm to 45nm example, takes such levels of technology in itself that it is truly mind-altering. Engineers have managed to bring about a change of 0.00009955 meters since 1972 and this is a truly astonishing feat. Just the idea of 0.00009955 metres makes no sense to us. Our minds have not yet learnt to think on such scales, nor have we learnt to think on galactic scales, which only makes the computer evolution the more astonishing. We have put such development into this technological pursuit that it has (in some ways) evolved faster than our minds have been able to.

The majority of this lies in the same principle that makes parts of the internet so astonishing, elements of group theory and population dynamics combining to create a situation where such scales of individuals are working toward innumerable numbers of goals in myriads of pursuits, all combining into one crowning piece, combining the work of so many into one system.
And all of that is why us geeks absolutely love what we do. Bceause we all want to be a part of that 0.00009955 metres and we all can be.

Chrome OS! Joy! In a Box! Or a multi-coloured ball!

So, after that big release a couple of months back, we were all getting excited for November 19, 2009, Google's next big release on Chrome OS. While not very explosive, we're still all very happy because while Chrome OS is not yet available for free download and will be offered only on strict hardware configurations, it's open-source brother Chromium OS has been released to the public.

While Chrome itself also went through this Chromium stage before Google decided to dominate the browser market, there are some big differences. For one, I can download Chrome right now, Chrome OS will only be appearing pre-loaded on certain netbooks. That is, unless you buy a brand-new x86-based netbook from a list of manufacturers and are willing to stump up the cash for SSD's, there won't be any Chrome OS joy for you.

Okay, that's lame and very bad news. Better news? The Chromium project, effectively Google's open-source spawnchild has released Chromium OS, an open-source brother to Chrome OS. This means that with a bit of virtualizing joy, you can boot a working copy of something very, very similar to Chrome OS, right now.

And there are so many reasons to love Chrome OS. Okay, apart from being the same bunch of die-hard nerds who created all the fantastic things that make us love Google, they have created a fantastic OS. So, it's not real heavyweight, but it's not meant to be. Here's a couple of the reasons I love it:

1. Boot time:
Chrome boots in seconds, not minutes. Apparently, at the news releases, Chrome booted in 7 seconds and were trying to improve that! I've had enough waiting around for Windows to take it's time booting, then crash, have another go, then try and boot off some 3 day old standby information before deciding it can't do that, then stop, crash, boot, run Check Disk, then restart and boot again. Chrome just...works

2.Hardware:
To paraphrase another similarly minded blogger: "Windows 7 works better on netbooks than Windows Vista. No, Windows 7 works on netbooks. Period." Windows Vista was a massive hardware hoarder. It needed such weapons-grade hardware just to work at an adequate pace that half the planet is still running XP because that's all they could until now. Now, Windows 7 and promises to run better on low-power platforms. Unfortunately for the Redmond boys, Chrome has now arrived and running off a lightweight Linux kernel based around online usage, and is promising to demolish everything we know about low-hardware usage implementations. Running lightweight web-based OS's off an aging, under-powered netbooks? Not a problem. According to some of the reports, I could probably run it on my tired old geriatrics department that some would call a computer, currently gathering dust downstairs. Chrome OS test run on a computer running a low-spec version of the original Intel Celeron in an extremely aged budget motherboard with pretty much nothing else, anyone?

3. Chrome
The technical term for the screen real estate used up by an interface and google has a distinct hatred for it. The whole reason their last two projects have been called Chrome is because of a distinct lack of said chrome. Chrome OS appears to be a version of the Chrome browser running in fullscreen. However, each tab is capable of not just individual web pages, but one can also open a tab for certain web apps or apps in general, all on the one tab strip. The interface, to this extent at least is similar to the Lotus Symphony interface of integrating every function into one chrome. Also, there has been talk of a 'dock' of some sort at the bottom of the screen to hold function that you would want separate, but subtle. Things like music players (which Google is reportedly developing) and chat functions. Similar, I think, to a chunky version of a system tray. All in all, it looks very naturally intuitive and very, very easy to use without sacrificing the good-looking quality that comes naturally to Apple's OS systems.

4. Google
Kind of goes without saying, but Chrome OS is made by Google, which means it will work first time, every time, almost perfectly without undue risks, threats, explosions or unexplained errors. It will integrate with everything flawlessly and it will all be free. We salute you, Google.

Overall, I am now simply sitting around and waiting until someone comes out with a Chrome OS boot for USB disks before I Chromify everything I lay my eyes, hands, and anything else on.

Google Fast Flip: the new news-worthy revelation in news...

Google has finally unleashed it's latest Google Labs (experimental features) beta. Called Fast Flip, it aims to revolutionize the way people read news. Judging by what I've seen, it will.

The great hallmark of Google News has always been that it was one place where you could read news from just about every reputable source. This is still the case with Fast Flip, which not only increases it's catalogue offerings, but also allows you to filter by not just topic, but also publication.

But here is where the resemblance to Google News ends. Rather than present readers with plain text news on a page under headings. It gives you actual images of the actual stories from their original locations, complete with headlines, bylines, stories, and unfortunately ads. Then, you can simply Flip through all the stories under whatever category/source you're looking at. And in true Google fashion, there ain't no waiting for thumbnails to load here. It's blindingly quick. During our hands-on, I only managed to get to a story without it's thumbnail already loaded once. And I was being pretty demanding.

Then, choose your article with a simple click and it gives you a bigger preview of the story with some more options, including to see the whole article, or "Like" the story, the usual share options, etc. Then, one simple click and you have the whole story, at its original source. Right there.

It's freaking brilliant. It works like an absolute charm, and I have had no problems with the (still experimental) tool yet, so that's a good sign.

It also has a dedicated iPhone page, which is also fantastic. It operates as above, but a bit better because it has all the functionality of the multi-touch interface. First page you see you can choose your category, then flip through the stories with a simple slide. Then, you can either pinch or rotate your iPhone to get a closer look. Tap to get all the usual options in it's own dialog box as well as some more info on your selected article.

But of course, there is a far more sinister side to all this. The two-step process between preview and story means that it has opened a whole new world of options. Options that aren't so great for us, the consumers.

One of the reasons Google put the effort into creating this, and also into changing into a preview-view operation lies in the Internet's very nature. Online press is notorious. It is almost impossible to make money out of online press. More than that, it takes revenue from more traditional sources. Why buy a magazine or a newspaper if you can just jump on your iPhone and look at all for free, on the fly. So far, neither have publishers been able to find a way to successfully monetize the online press, because either your readers run away from costs to someone else who happens to be free, or you can't generate enough money to cover your costs, or that there just isn't an efficient way of visitors paying for their content without too much hassle.

However, it's been reported that much of the Fast Flip architecture has been designed with future options to monetize the story, if you want to move past the article preview. On top of this is the fact that another part of Google Labs ongoing work is the Google Checkout, a payment method similar to PayPal, which we assume forms part of the underlying structure behind Fast Flip.

The implications of this aren't exactly great. It means that soon, not even Internet news will be free. We could all be paying for our news, even from our (almost) entirely free friends at Google.

What is the world coming to when you have to pay to know what the world is coming to.