Licensing iTunes/iPod Compatibility

Wouldn’t it be interesting if Apple allowed third parties to support iPod and iTunes right about now? Creative, Samsung, et al, must just be thrilled by the Zune announcement.

Or maybe just wait for Zune to come out, wait until Microsoft has spent a billion or two getting up to, say, 20% market share, and then do it.

Just a thought.

Windows on the Mac, Revisited

One of the comments on a recent post points out that he (or she?) has blogged on this topic before and in more detail. (I’m hardly the first to observe that WINE, Crossover, et al are, at least conceptually, a far better solution to this problem than Parallels or Boot Camp.)

However, on reading his comments, which I summarize below as five reasons Apple should do this and five reasons it shouldn’t (I’ve paraphrased and renumbered):

Reasons it Should

1. The hard work is done (WINE etc.)
2. Since they’re dropping Classic support…
3. Vista will not support EFI in first release…
4. Apple desperately wants to break into the Enterprise market…
5. Leopard seems to have few compelling new features

Reasons it Shouldn’t

6. Fear of Microsoft retaliating
7. Support would be a nightmare
8. Microsoft’s Mac Business Unit would be alienated
9. Not a new issue and they’ve never done it before
10. It’s not very Apple

Here’s my reaction to said reasons.
1. Agreed.
2. That’s just stupid. It’s not a reason.
3. Irrelevant.
4. Yes, but so what?
5. So, you know what’s in Leopard?!
6. Far-fetched. What could Microsoft try* to do that’s more malicious than “Zune”?
7. Absolutely true and a good point. Might have to be a free download “beta” like Boot Camp.
8. Possibly true.
9. Completely and utterly wrong. Aside from some horrible kludges (like Mac Charlie and the PC compatibility card for early PowerPC Macs) which were essentially low-end PCs that shared the Mac’s monitor, Apple has never had x86 CPUs in its machines, and Mac OS has never run on x86 CPUs.
10. Simply a matter of opinion, and I think far MORE Apple like than Boot Camp or Apple’s previous PC compatibility efforts.
* Actually, Zune is probably a gift for Apple, since the real victims are PlaysForSure licensees. But I doubt Microsoft considered Apple’s feelings.

Mentioned, but not enumerated, is a very important reason — the fact that a company which is on the cusp of developing a native Mac version of a program might decide simply to support the Mac’s Win32 compatibility layer instead. This is a real issue, but it’s not really clear that it doesn’t already exist because of Parallels and Boot Camp. If it’s a key productivity app, then chances are you’ll want it native. Photoshop native is going to kick pretend Photoshop native for the foreseeable future.

The Bottom Line

Apple’s core PC market is people who buy their own computers or can tell their company which computer to buy for them. The whole enterprise thing is never going to work out because enterprise IT hates, loathes, and fears Apple (subject of another blog post I think 🙂 ).

There are a certain number of people out there who want to use both a Mac and a PC for whatever reason. (I’m one of them.) You can only really use one at a time. I would argue that the vast majority of these people want to use their Macs for almost everything and their PCs for gaming and/or 3D apps (like 3DS Max) and one or two random Windows-only apps.

At the moment, Apple and Dell (say) are selling these folks two computers every X months for 1.7Y dollars. If Apple can produce a computer for Y dollars that serves all these people’s needs then their customers will be very happy, and either upgrade more frequently or buy a higher end computer. In my case I’d also save on desk space, power bills, fan noise, and carpet wear from sliding my chair from desk to desk).

If Apple is working on this, it’s doing a very good job of keeping it secret (e.g. it is either doing it from scratch — unlikely — or working on Open Source projects and either not pushing back its changes or somehow concealing its contributions or working with someone like Codeweavers and maintaining absolute radio silence). So it probably isn’t. That said, the solution I’m describing is going to happen whether Apple does it or not. So all the arguments against it are, in the end, irrelevant.

Running Windows Apps on a Mac & Other Stories

One of the best stories I’ve heard about Apple’s history concerns Ellen Hancock, whom Gil Amelio brought into Apple as Chief Technology Officer. Her role is pretty much overlooked these days, but she is responsible for pulling the plug on Copland, looking for a viable replacement, and — ultimately — acquiring NeXT, Steve Jobs, and Avie Tevanian (her successor).

Anyway, back to the story which I am reciting from memory. Ellen Hancock comes in to work and she is the most senior woman — ever — at Apple, surrounded by a lot of cocksure guys. She holds a meeting with her key reports and during the meeting utters the following statement. “One of the things that’s always puzzled me about Macs is why when I have a Windows .exe file on my desktop and I double-click it, it doesn’t just work.” The reaction is one of utter consternation. How could anyone working at Apple, let alone its new Chief Techology Officer, be so utterly clueless. And then it starts to dawn on them:

1) She has a PhD in Maths.
2) She has done serious shit at IBM.
3) She’s right.

Not long after this, Virtual PC added a feature which actually allowed .exe files to “just work” if you double-clicked them. It was a horrible kludge — you double-clicked the .exe and Virtual PC (which claimed ownership of that type of file) launched, loaded up the last version of Windows you had run with it, booted Windows, copied the .exe file over to some place Windows (under VPC) could see it, and then attempted to execute it. If the .exe required a bunch of local context to work (as most Windows .exes do) it quite likely crashed.

But the principle was there.

The only word we’ve seen from Apple on Windows compatibility lately is (a) Bootcamp — a pretty much wholly unsatisfactory option for serious users (it’s a great security blanket for switchers). (I am not going to reboot my Mac to run some dumb Windows app; I hardly reboot my Mac at all period. If a Mac OS update requires a reboot, I often leave the dialog up for days before I finally click “Restart”…); (b) pushing Parallels Workstation — almost as unsatistfactory as Bootcamp since it won’t run games, which are Windows’s killer app; and (c) a statement by Phil Schiller that Apple is not going to implement virtualization in Leopard.

So Apple has implemented one pretty much lousy option, is pushing a second, also lousy option, and has denied that it will implement the second lousy option itself.

What Apple hasn’t denied, because no-one has asked, is whether it will implement the correct answer to Hancock’s question — a Win32 compatibility box in the Mac OS X block diagram. You know, those rectangular diagrams which show “QuickTime” in a box that is kind of offset on top of another box labelled “Quartz”. The one with “Carbon” and “Cocoa” sitting side-by-side.

This isn’t the stuff of Science Fiction or a bad rumor page. It has existed under UNIX for years, Linux for not-so-many years, and is currently available for free as Open Source WINE (WINE is not an Emulator) and in various commercial forks. Apple in fact used to sell an equivalent product for UNIX that let you run Mac apps on Sun workstations. Unlike bad option #1 it doesn’t require rebooting your Mac, and unlike bad option #2 it doesn’t require partitioning your hard disk, booting up Windows in a virtual environment, or giving up games. Word has it that World of Warcraft (for Win32) actually runs faster under WINE than under Windows itself.

Let’s see. This option is Open Source or (for certain versions) fairly inexpensive to license, works better than any other option, satisfies the it just works mantra, is unbelievably cool (as in “would make a kickass TV ad”), is already out there, and Apple hasn’t denied that it is working on it. Oh and it doesn’t sell more Windows licenses.

But, you know, maybe Apple will just buy Parallels.

Bootcamp, virtualization, yada yada yada

Microsoft makes tons of money and has legal headaches. Apple makes not quite so many tons of money and has smaller legal headaches. Here’s an interesting possible direction…

Apple makes Windows XP/Vista “the new classic” via strong virtualization (i.e. virtualization where the virtual machine can actually “see” some of the more useful hardware, which is to say the GPU) within OS X 10.5.

OS X 10.6 with Windows Vista bundled (a la Classic) replaces Windows as both Microsoft’s and Apple’s OS. Microsoft still makes a ton of money from OS X 10.6 (via sales of Office and cross-licensing). Apple gets access to Microsoft’s DRM. Windows users get a relatively robust OS. Users get a single OS that can run Windows, Macintosh, and UNIX software seamlessly, play media from anywhere. Apple will lose hardware sales but gain huge market share. Everyone is happy.

Note that Apple is heading this way regardless (and, indeed, Apple has no choice; virtualization is already here and stronger virtualization is the logical, obvious next step).

So it’s merely a matter of whether the two companies cooperate to make everyone’s lives easier, or insist on creating incompatibilities to force some users to choose one platform and live with the inconvenience and other users to work across both platforms and live with a different level of inconvenience.

Secunia, Techworld, Mac OS X, and various Reality Distortion Fields

Recently, a Danish (I am told) internet security firm named Secunia has gotten a lot of free publicity, largely by making the pronouncement that Mac OS X is no more secure than other operating systems, notably Windows XP and its variations, which it considers the most secure of all.

Apple has gotten quite a bit (not a huge amount) of bad press over this, all of it citing Secunia’s Press Release. The most vehement I have encountered is on Techworld.com: Apple Shames Itself Again Over Security.

Unlike some pro-Apple bigots I am not entirely immune to doubting the utter superiority of Mac OS X to all alternatives, so I decided to do a little research. Something, apparently, no-one at Techworld is required to do.

If you visit Secunia’s website, and I suggest you do, try looking at their archives of security alerts, under Apple: Mac OS X, and Microsoft: Windows XP Professional. I won’t link directly, since you should go find these things yourself to (a) prove how easy it is, and (b) demonstrate that I am not cherry-picking my results.

First of all, in their summary graphs and tables, Secunia reports fewer security alerts for Mac OS X (all versions including server) than one variant (Professional) of Windows XP. But, hold your horses, Windows XP Professional is reported as having no serious issues, none, zero percent (out of 67).

But, when you scroll down the page you discover several serious issues listed. Hmm, if there are several, how does this come out as 0%? So either Secunia are incompetent, or dishonest. Certainly, journalists can’t be bothered checking beyond press releases. Well, no surprise there.
What’s more, one of these serious issues has been unresolved for nine months!

And then, there’s the well-known gaping hole of ActiveX (an ActiveX control can do anything it likes to your machine). ActiveX issues are mentioned only once on Secunia’s XP Professional page and shown as having a single serious flaw which has been fixed. (It’s one of the 0%.) Well the fix is that the user has to magically know that this ActiveX control isn’t safe and click “No” while to get his/her daily work done he/she may have to magically know that other ActiveX controls ARE safe and click “Yes”. Whew. Glad that was “fixed”.