The "no OS" device as a disruptive innovation

I’ve been writing here for years about what I call the “no OS” device, which has some resemblance to a PC but doesn’t require its user to deal with an “operating system” like Windows or Mac OS or Linux. Of course the device is still managed by an operating system like iOS or Android, but it hides all the complicated stuff (like “files”) and is treated as more “consumer electronics” than “computer”. While there can be all kinds of “no OS” devices, such as Google's Chromebooks, at the moment the two popular types are smartphones and tablets (which interestingly are pretty much the same thing except for size and a cellphone feature). I don’t consider a tablet that runs iOS or Android to be a PC: if it can run smartphone apps but not PC apps, isn’t it more useful to classify it with smartphones than with PCs?

These days there’s a lot of discussion about tablets vs. PCs, and what Steve Jobs really meant by “the post-PC era”. As you may remember if you’ve read this blog in the past, I believe that the PC era was a case of temporary insanity which is now being cured: now that network connectivity is widespread, applications and their data once again largely reside centrally in proper datacentres, not on people’s desks or laps. So people no longer need PCs except to use things like Microsoft Office that are now in (slow) decline thanks to the likes of Google Apps and Office Web Apps and non-"office" web apps like list makers. Now young people and the non-rich (i.e. most of the world's population) who start out with a phone or tablet can in future upgrade to more sophisticated phones and tablets, never needing to buy a PC that would be unnecessary, expensive, and less convenient than a tablet. Those phones and tablets are getting more and more capable and the apps are appearing for them that do word processing, spreadsheets, image editing, remote access to development servers, and other things that used to require a PC, so over time the percentage of people who have a PC will decline dramatically.

To me this is a classic case of a disruptive innovation, as Clayton Christensen defined it. A cheaper and less capable alternative appears to something sophisticated, and gets laughed at by the cognoscenti – who end up scrambling to defend against the newcomer who not only signs up people who couldn’t afford the original but also those who find that as the new innovation improves it can now handle their needs. The defenders of the original faith may keep saying the same things forever – but only to each other; the rest of the world has moved on. I still have a fondness for mainframes, but I don’t advocate that anyone start using one! And I'm now like the GenY people I hang with in that I no longer wear a watch or carry a pen; I don't miss them.

Programmers and obscurity

Back in 2002 Tim O’Reilly wrote that “Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy.”  I’ve come to realize that there is now a parallel situation for programmers.

Increasingly, the non-obscurity of a talented programmer is established by works that s/he’s created and handed out for free.  Instead of (say) videos these are programs, and their stage is an open-source repository instead of YouTube.  These works aren’t monetized, but the exposure may lead to additional works that are.  (The additional works are likely to be “commissions”, though, rather than whatever the programmer feels like creating.)

HP Slate vs. Apple iPad

Now that HP has introduced their Slate 500 tablet PC, it's important to note that it's a PC.  It may look a lot like an iPad, but it has a "real computer" operating system (Windows), unlike the iPad which is what I've been referring to on this blog as a "no OS" device. This makes them entirely different types of product, and the comparisons that are popular in the tech press right now (e.g. 9.7-inch screen vs. 8.9) have little point. The iPad is a true consumer electronics device, like a TV set or an iPod is: just turn it on and use it, but don't expect to run applications that need a real computer. The HP Slate is very different:  it can handle those applications, but you have to wait for it to start up, you have spend a lot of time learning how to use it, you have to do a lot of work to keep it updated, etc. For an iPad-like "no OS" device from HP we'll have to wait for the PalmPad that will appear in 2011.

As time passes, however, even the "heavy work" that currently requires a "real computer" is becoming available as services delivered over the Internet, e.g. instead of buying and installing Adobe Photoshop on your computer, use Photoshop.com's editing tools from any device that contains a web browser. (And that supports Flash, which rules out the iPad, but to get around this Adobe has created an iPad app for use with Photoshop.com. The PalmPad will support Flash.) Eventually hardly anyone will need a "real" personal computer, since the iPad or PalmPad or something like it (possibly with a larger screen, possibly with a keyboard accessory) will do everything you need. I'm looking forward to not needing a Windows (or Macintosh, or Ubuntu) laptop any more.

New host for this blog

Blogger.com is dropping support for publishing to one's own host, so this blog is now hosted by them and is now found at http://blog.rohanjayasekera.com/ instead of http://www.rohanjayasekera.com/blog/.  You can still get to it via the link on the home page at http://www.rohanjayasekera.com/.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://www.rohanjayasekera.com/blog/atom.xml.

Bundled writing

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times has an op-ed piece by Daniel Akst, Apple's tablet and the future of literature, which I highly recommend.  He asks a question which I think I can answer:

it's not clear how anyone will get paid for writing, or what will take the place of the existing commercial system, which produces ample dreck but a lot of great stuff as well, often written and edited by experienced professionals with families to support and bills to pay. It may get our egalitarian juices flowing to think that the digital revolution will open up this world, but a literary culture in which everyone is a writer and no one is an editor is likely to leave all of us poorer.

I agree about editors; almost every writer benefits from having an editor.  In the past the printing presses were controlled by the publishers, whose editors hired the writers and fixed up their output.  Now the writers have their own printing presses on the Internet, plus their work is unique in a way that editors' isn't.  So now the tables should be turned: writers should hire editors.

Which they will do if they make their living from writing.  Paying for editing services is then a justifiable expense to ensure that they have good products to sell.

Making a living from writing has never been easy, and nobody should expect that to change.  But great writers have long managed to do it by various means.  They generate unique content that people want access to, so they have something to sell.  It might be ad space next to the writing; it might be sponsorships that even members of the public can engage in (I once sponsored the publication of a printed book and my name was printed in the Acknowledgements); it might simply be that you have to buy a copy.  The public Internet hasn't been around very long and it can take a while for these things to be explored and winning formulas to be identified.

One thing is however clear to me:  there isn't much of a future for newspapers as we know them.  It's not just that they deliver stale "news"; most of their content is from wire services and is available on the Web at no charge (often from other newspapers).  Magazines are very different: all their content is unique.  I think they're the ones who should be putting up paywalls, more than newspapers, but while Google Search finds 5220 results for the phrase "newspaper paywall" it only finds 15 for the phrase "magazine paywall".  I'd pay to read articles from such magazines as The Atlantic and The Economist; I don't only because I don't need to (The Atlantic's content is open) or they won't let me (The Economist has no single-purchase option, not for a single issue let alone a single article).  But there's no way I'll subscribe to those magazines, i.e. pay for every article in every issue for a year or whatever, because I don't read that many of the articles.  I will however occasionally buy a single newsstand copy because according to its cover that particular issue contains something of great interest.  And then I don't even want most of the issue, just the one article.

That article I'm willing to pay for was written by a writer.  I'd like to find out about the existence of that article (through such means as Twitter recommendations and, in the case of technology articles, a website like Techmeme), and then read it, paying with money or ad-watching as required.  I don't want to have to get a bundle that was assembled by some newspaper or magazine editor.  I might however be interested in a volume discount, e.g. if the Globe and Mail's columnists collectively resigned and started their own website where one must pay to read each article, I might be tempted to pay one price that's good for a bunch of articles from any of those columnists and with no expiration date.  Unique content has realizable value.

We've been down this road already with music.  Album sales are way down but single tracks sell nicely through the iTunes Music Store (which I don't use myself, but I bought a couple of tracks today on Beatport).

Curated collections won't be going away.  But it's time for more of the individual creators to connect directly with their audiences.

Is Apple about to introduce a "no OS" computer?

 

From 2001: A Space Odyssey

For some time now the tech bloggers have been going nuts over the prospect of a tablet computer from Apple.  They've been focussing on hardware issues, in particular the "tablet" form factor.  But one of the major themes of this blog, the disappearance of the personal computer as we know it, is highly applicable as well.  Apple has a long and strong track record of streamlining user interfaces beyond their major competition (e.g. Apple ][, Macintosh, iPhone), and I expect them to do it again by introducing a "real computer" on which the visible operating system has been eliminated.  There will still be an operating system, but largely hidden from the user, as on the iPhone (and similarly just a version of OS X).

As for the form factor, a tablet would be better for frequent use than a laptop (which has to be opened up), and more in keeping with a device that's more about "output" than "input".  Most people don't type large amounts of text (tech bloggers are atypical but they usually forget that as they pontificate), and books and magazines and newspapers are gradually moving online (with the exception of those where high-quality printing is important).  The screen could use protection, but it's really not that difficult with a good colourless-plastic screen protector (like those often used to protect smartphone screens) or a flip-up cover (like my old Palm IIIxe had), and particularly nervous people can use a full sleeve.  As for typing, I imagine Apple would stick with an onscreen keyboard.

There's been some speculation that the device's software will be heavily oriented to reading material (e-ink based readers such as the Amazon Kindle won't appeal to all that many people; they can't even display colour, let alone video).  I don't know of anyone who's designed a proper screen reading experience yet, e.g. Google Fast Flip doesn't even fit a page onto my 1280x800 screen.  Apple would likely do it properly.  For a fascinating look at what a good tablet reader might be like, see this and be sure to watch the video there (which is apparently 8 minutes long but for me the time flew by).

And Apple's tablet (assuming that it does come along) will be followed by devices based on Google's Chrome OS, which takes a different approach but has the same idea of eliminating the visible operating system.  2010 will be an important year in the disappearance of the personal computer as we now know it.

Hardware vendors get elbowed aside

Hardware and software people have different areas of expertise.  Obvious, right?  Not at hardware companies, which as long as I can remember have tended to hire electrical engineers to write their software.  Electrical engineers tend to hire other electrical engineers even when that's not the best fit, and the dismal results are everywhere.

Things are finally changing.  But not because of any reform at the traditional hardware companies.

One of the reasons that Apple has been so successful is that it's good at both hardware and software, one of the relatively few such companies.  By controlling both they can assure a good user experience.  But they no longer build the devices themselves; that's long been done by contract manufacturers who have the facilities and expertise to crank out quality hardware at a low price, built to the specifications of their customers.

Contract manufacturers have gradually become better and better at not just the manufacturing but the design, and many have become original design manufacturers (ODMs) who design and manufacture their own products and merely have them branded and sold by companies with a brand presence.  For instance, the T-Mobile MDA Vario and O2 Xda Mini Pro phones, which were sold by carriers T-Mobile and O2 respectively, were both the same phone, one designed and built by Taiwan's HTC Corporation.  While more recently HTC has also been selling products under its own name, the ODM phenomenon continues.

So now anyone with enough budget can become a hardware company.  Just tell an ODM what the machine needs to do, and they'll design and build it for you to sell under your own brand.

Rumour has it that Google will be selling its own phones and netbooks, getting ODMs to design and build the devices to Google's requirements.

Why would Google feel the need to do this?

Because the existing phone and netbook vendors are not up to the task.  They're hardware companies.  Google is a software and services company.

Hardware companies, even when they have an operating system supplied to them by software people, rarely put out decent products from the user's standpoint.  I won't use a laptop that isn't a ThinkPad or a MacBook (both created by companies that are longstanding hardware and software companies).  And the iPod pushed aside the MP3 players that were already on the market from hardware companies.

Where laptops have less than adequate usability, they have more than adequate power.  Laptops are still being sold on the basis of "more power" that hardly anyone needs.  Netbooks are one response.  The traditional PC vendors, and their high-cost suppliers Intel and Microsoft, have been mocking netbooks to try to stop people from buying them.

Google makes more money when more people are using the Internet, so anything that interferes with Internet use is something it wants to fix.  If Google does sell a phone, it will be because it's not satisfied with the software side of all the Android-based phones currently hitting the market.  And if Google does sell a netbook, it will be because the traditional hardware vendors are unwilling and/or unable to sell computers that are simple and cheap, with "simple" requiring that there be no user-visible operating system via something like Android or Google Chrome OS.

I expect to see more software and services vendors creating their own hardware products.  I want even my television set to come from a software company.