DealsOnTheWeb Daily Deal: OneCall's Weekend Sale - 20 Great Items at Great Prices All Weekend Long
 |
by
January 2nd, 2007
You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created.
-- Albert Einstein
We all know that Mac OS X is a superior operating system. It's easy to use by novices and experts alike. It has a modern infrastructure which includes seldom discussed items such as launchd and the Common Data Security Architecture. It has great attention to security, consistency, and minimizes tinkerability while meeting the needs of many business and technical professionals.
Apple makes a big fuss about Mac OS X. Each version is eagerly awaited with great anticipation. We're all particularly excited about Leopard. And so we all hope that Mac OS X will reign supreme for all time.
Maybe not. What what if Apple, someday, were to lose some of their focus on Mac OS X? I'm not thinking about next year, but I am thinking about the not too distant future when the dust settles on Apple's consumer electronic ambitions.
One reason I'm thinking about this is that, it seems to me, never has there been more of a gulf between the public perception of Apple and the core competency of Apple -- integrating computer hardware and an operating system. The other reason it comes to mind is an article I wrote previously about Apple and degrees of freedom. Apple doesn't like commitments to end users. They rarely partner with large customer organizations. They will partner with companies like Disney and Intel, but only on the supply side.
In order to ask questions about Apple's long term commitment to Mac OS X, one has to look at instances where Apple has made firm commitments to customers. There aren't many.
A Tale of Two Stories
What started me thinking about all this was the combination of two stories here at TMO on Wednesday. The first was the blog from David Sobotta back on December 25th about how Apple show managers in Cupertino, clueless about the Federal Market, proceeded to do a lot of stupid things at a federal computer show called FOSE, held every year in Washington D.C.
The second story was about a very technical technique for combining launchd and rsync to trigger an automated backup when an external drive is connected.
The combination of the two stories reminded me of the stark difference between the technology of a UNIX operating system, the public perception of Apple, and how Apple manages its image.
Mr. Sobotta's Blog described an incident that was typical of Apple. It all started when a bright young fellow at Apple started to work on an extensive security briefing document for publication. As I recall, the original draft was on the order of 30 pages and went into some very important fundamentals of Mac OS X's security architecture and features. But, of course, before such documements can be released to the public, they must be reviewed by Marketing Communications with a fine attention to detail and image. In the end, after review, the security briefing was a shadow if its former self and diluted in the extreme.
It requires some patience to find the final version of that paper. One reference, in fact, starts at the top of Apple's IT Pro site but the link to the security tech brief is dead which is rather confusing. It's probably just an oversight.
Another link is at the very bottom of Apple's Mac OS X features page. That link is active and will allow you download the watered down 13 page paper.
When I recall the process involved, I am reminded that there is a thick layer of insulation between Apple's technical people and their technical customers. This has been an irritation before, and it could become a problem in the future.
A lot of the material that is directed towards these kinds of customers is nothing more than links to stories about Apple as opposed to material created by technical professionals within Apple and communicated to end users. Even the Apple inspired site MacResearch.org is simply an effort to allow technically deep professionals to share their knowledge with other users because Apple, fundamentally, is uncomfortable doing it themselves.
The reason is that Apple is a company that's all about image, and they would prefer not to have technical professionals communicating directly with customers. In some cases, experience has shown that scientists and engineers don't have the skills to communicate certain messages in a desirable fashion. But Apple, as a UNIX vendor, carries that far overboard.
As a result, highly technical material is, outside of the Apple Developer Connection, either hard to find, watered down, or non-existent. This was a typical complaint to me when I engaged Apple customers in years past. It is a credit to a few very talented individuals at Apple that a wealth of security information related to Smart Cards, Common Criteria, security certifications, and encryption has been published in barely acceptable detail. However, Apple is only one lay-off or two away from completely losing this credibility with its customers.
The Two Faces of Apple
As we approach the release of Leopard, it is more and more evident that the public fuss about Apple, its image building, its foray into consumer electronics with the iTV and possibly an iPod that can make phone calls, is creating a larger and larger gulf between Apple's non-technical consumers and technical professionals.
A company that started out, in its first 25 years, making mostly very nice computers and operating systems, is on the verge of a major shift in its focus and revenues. As more and more of Apple's revenue comes from consumer devices, priorities will shift. Resources, which are always spread thin at Apple, typically get directed towards the latest hot consumer project.
Lest we forget, going to war against Windows, while a formidable foe, is easy in one very important way because the security architecture of Windows is so messed up. Because a comprehensive fix is not forthcoming, Mac OS X will have significant edge in that area for years to come. On the other hand, the home theater market and the cell phone markets are full of pitfalls, traps, and clever competitors. These markets, while a huge opportunity, will distract Apple.
One sign that a loss of focus is at least possible is that Apple goes out of its way to avoid long term relationships with customers. Products are abandoned without notice and replaced by new ones. Apple avoids long term business relationships with research agencies and universities in advanced computation. What commitments Apple does have are short term or easily broken. Apple spokespersons, those who are press-certified, are typically non-technical. Apple has few Ph.Ds on staff who are empowered to work closely with customers on long-term research projects. Apple declines to sponsor important events, technical TV specials and conferences.
Mr. Sobotta pointed out in his Blog cited above that Apple doesn't allow third party vendors in its booth at the largest professional conferences. The very people who are most technically capable of demonstrating technical solutions on Mac OS X are denied booth access in favor of Apple volunteers who are not qualified to demonstrate the most capable and advanced software that appeals to conference attendees. (And industry analysts.) The Blog went on to point out that Mr. Jobs forbids literature in the booths. Technical professionals go home from a show loaded with dreams. They look at brochures and technical data from companies like HP and Dell and study, analyze and dream their next computer project. But they get nothing from Apple to sit on their office desk every day, cry out in four colors, and remind them of their dreams.
The technical community in the U.S. only has so much patience. They require a dialogue with Apple, not a monologue. They require some very serious technical interchange with Apple engineers and scientists, but there are precious few hired by Apple who have the charter to conduct collaborations. Technical documents come from Apple highly filtered and diluted, and as a result, Apple never feels a sense of partnership with its enterprise customers.
Don't misunderstand me. Mac OS X is a superior OS. It retains a special status within Apple and makes their beautifully designed computers worth buying. Mac OS X is also the hub of Apple's digital lifestyle, making operations with video, audio, design and creativity a joy. Leopard will be terrific.
My concern is this. As Apple moves more and more into consumer electronics, its tendency to favor image over substance and block serious technical cooperation with enterprise customers will become more and more at odds with what it takes to deliver a robust UNIX OS. Apple tends to hide behind their Marketing Communications division, a group of people who shudder with fear when presented with technical material to publish. So they water it down until it becomes useless.
Apple's aloof approach, technical shyness, and reluctance to support long-term research with customers is one of its biggest weaknesses. In the long run, that will harm the best UNIX OS ever conceived.
John Martellaro is a senior scientist and author. A former U.S. Air Force officer,he has worked for NASA, White Sands Missile Range, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Apple Computer. During his five years at Apple, he worked as a Senior Marketing Manager for science and technology, Federal Account Executive, and High Performance Computing Manager. His interests include alpine skiing, SciFi, astronomy, and Perl. John lives in Denver, Colorado.
Hidden Dimensions Archives.
Observer Comments
But Apple's success has further proven that the "technical experts" are less and less relevant today. The customer is the consumer and the consumer is the customer. We as individuals can and have to do more for ourselves and NOT rely on "technical experts", less we become beholden to a small oligarchical group of technohippies who speak a language nobody understands and take control of the economy for themselves and enslave the rest of us.
No, I'm not a freeper. Heck, I just learned what the heck that even means a month ago. I avoid the nutcase fringe.
I think Apple has proven it can speak to customers with little or no technical background, even professional customers in that category.
It would be nice if they kept up their sйrieux to the technical community, where a lot of the really exciting stuff happens.
I have it from a good source (German NeXT programmer) that Jobs has been extremely frustrated with the corporate market throughout his NeXT days.
Hasn't the main driver of business, technical and product decisions become MONEY? Making the numbers? Keeping that share price up? Making sure that the options are worth a fortune?
Look at the iTunes 7 release. I believe the release date was driven by the Disney deal, not the state of readiness of the software.
I will be VERY leery of Leopard when that comes out.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:49 am Subject: The computer for the rest of us?
Hasn't Apple always targeted the non-tech crowd? "The rest of us," so to speak? Hasn't that been what separates them from a typical PC manufacturer? Hasn't most of their innovation gone toward user experience... making everything "just work..." with the goal of enabling the non-technical person?
If so, then why worry whether Apple is accomodating the Federal, Corporate or University technical markets? Aren't those outside of Apple's primary market, and apart from their business plan? Sure, there's money to be made and sure, there have always been researchers, corporations and military departments that have used Macs. But I would argue that these are few and far between, have always been so, and will remain so. And that doesn't really bother me... if a technical user finds a place for Apple hardware and OS in their plans (eg, VA Tech), more power to them - they will more than likely have the resources and abilities to press forward on their own. I don't know if it's worth it for Apple to spend the resources needed to truly compete in these areas... they're simply outside of Apple's primary focus.
At the moment I am a big fan of Apple because of their progressive attitude, which does not mean I cannot see a day when a more progressive and more innovative comes along. It hit me hard when Commodore and the Amiga went under along with the Atari ST. These were made by companies that wanted to push the boundaries of graphics, sound and ease of use for gaming, etc., so I know that Apple were not the only company that could have succeeded. And, if they had survived we may have been where we are now with Apple a long time ago. But they had to bow down to the PC - the serious, sensible computer that you could type on and see it all in beautiful mono. Now Apple is enjoying its peak, but history shows us that success breeds complacency. Apple knows that this is what history shows us though and so it is still showing caution. Whether the company is successful in retaining its prior ethos will be down to how well its strategy works in the marketplace. One day it might be where MS is now and behave in the same way, and if that is the case I will be looking for the next big thing.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:17 am Subject: Apple actually does have good enterprise support
I'm not sure why most people don't know this or talk about it but if you pay Apple for an Enterprise support contract they do talk to you in very technical detail. You can ask them anything and they will respond very quickly with very detailed answers. They will keep you informed of the status of any issues you have and report back to you with solid answers. I think someone need to evalute the payfor support ar Apple not just free support.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:19 pm Subject: Too much boasting in what should be technical documents
I don't know about 13 page security guides. The page mentioned has a link to 167 page PDF:
http://images.apple.com/server/pdfs/Tiger_Security_Config.pdf
I've started reading it. However, in some ways I'm not impressed by the approach at all. It reads like a mixture of of a configuration guide and an advertising pitch:
"Mac OS X users can comfortably rely on the ongoing public examination by large numbers of security experts, which is made possible by Apple’s open approach to software development. The result is an operating system that is
inherently more secure."
The first sentence is boastful rather than informative - and somewhat questionable considering the bad blood there's been around Open Darwin, including Rob Braun's well-known comment that it has been "been dead for years." The second sentence really says nothing at all.
It's just not good enough. I don't think what purports to be a security configuration guide is the right place for claims, boasts, bombast, and what reads like advertising copy. A security configuration guide should say what you are advised to do for particular applications (meaning uses here) you may have, and stick to that.
"This is what you need to do" *not* "We are the greatest".
They're not, anyway. Security-wise nothing approaches OpenBSD:
http://www.openbsd.org/security.html
I suspect the Month of Apple Bugs will make some of that boasting look a little hollow.
First, Mr. Sobotta's site is a regular rant against Apple because Apple is messed up in its approach to corporate users, and because he's a former employee. Mr. Sobotta refuses to accept that Apple just doesn't want to compete for the corporate user.
Second, Apple splits the computer market into four: creative, high-performance, corporate, and consumer. Apple cares mostly about consumer and creative because it believes the future of computing is in the creation and delivery of creative content to a consumer (digital hub). It believes that meeting the needs of the creatives will drive its technology advancement. It cares some about high-performance (beyond creative use), but mostly for marketing purposes. It cares little about corporate (beyond creative), which is saturated with Windows PCs.
Third, for the purposes of marketing and demonstrating their own technology, Apple does, once in a while, engage a technical user (corporate or university) in a project. Marketing includes both making the public aware of what Apple products are capable of, and making Apple internally aware of what some users are trying to do with Apple products.
Fourth, Apple does put some effort into making their products work better with other corporate products. But the focus of this is not to sell into those corporate markets, but rather to continue to sell to those who are already Mac users, but who would like better compatibility with PC-using folks.
Fifth, Apple is primarily focused on selling product (including Leopard) to the creative segment and to the consumer. If somebody (or some corporate, federal, or university user) wants to do more with Apple products, that's great but not something Apple is focused on making happen. Accept it and all its consequences.
Apple believes the personal computer as a general purpose processing device for consumers is fading away. Consumers are buying computing devices to do multiple but specific tasks, and these tasks are slowly shifting from owned software apps to web-based apps, and from text/numbers to multimedia and communications. (Creatives will still harness all the power and will use software apps.) The Mac line and iPod line are two forms of computing devices. The iPod line is for playback only (on-the-move or stationary (i.e. connected to iPod hi-fi). Like the Cinema displays and Airport Express peripherals in earlier computing generations, the "iTV" will complete the "system" by connecting the digital hubs (Mac, iPod) to the consumer's preferred presentation devices.
Now will this harm Mac OS X? No, unless there is some technology out there that is beyond what is needed for creatives or consumers. Is there anything in the corporate market, that is not also in the creative market, that drives technological advancement in either hardware or OS software? Even grid/cluster stuff is within the needs of creatives. Even database stuff.
Finally, going forward, Mac OS X will probably do less to meet Windows server-type compatibility, a big need of the corporate market. But Apple has already partially dealt with that by allowing Windows to run on a Mac. And with Parallel and VMware, that will likely be completely dealt with in the next couple of years.
And so I think this article is misguided.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:11 pm Subject: corporate customers
I have seen many companies in my life. If you watch them from outside, everything looks fine. But goin in you can find a lot of things you don't like. Sometimes you wonder how they manage to make money.
It is the same story with Apple and its customers in the enterprise. I'm sure, You are right, zpok. Steve doesn't like corporate customers. They sold their IT to IBM, Microsoft, SAP and others and didn't show that kind of business intelligence John is talking about. And because Steve doesn't like them, the fools at Apples middle management show a lot of arrogance to the enterprise. It is the same arrogance, NEXT collected years before.
But beside of that – Johns article is based upon two asumptions: 1. Apple needs higher technical skills to serve enterprise customers, and 2. Apple can make more money selling products to the enterprise.
I doubt this is true.
John is one of the guys, waiting for apple to reenter the enterprise market. And the longer it takes the louder are his concerns.
Apple is on the way to show there is a future beyond Dell an HP. It is up to them to get better margins selling a Standard PC with Vista on board. And it is up to John and other pundits to accept the idea one day, that a computer company can exist without any anchor in the corporate business.
That is what I think.
If Apple didn't care about corporate, why bother to attend FOSE in the first place? And if they're going to attend, why not actually make a serious effort to win business? To do what Apple did at FOSE is a waste of time, money, and resources. If they really didn't care, they should not have bothered and saved themselves the trouble.
I agreed that Apple Federal was a mess ... in 2004 and before. Back then, Apple was in the in-between state. The highest levels were slowly coming to a decision to get out. The lower levels were in, but slowly getting the message that they were out of that market.
It's clear now that Apple is not directly attacking the corporate market (outside of creative) with Mac OS X. Jobs said Windows won that war in the corporate space. His plan is to attack Windows in a different war; the creative and consumer war.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:18 pm Subject: If only academic and sci sys mgrs could plan better ahead
1st: Apple designs products for consumers first.
You may not like it, but they are very up front about it. Expecting Apple to trade off it's consumer business model to put your business needs first may be what you want but it doesn't make it right for Apple.
2nd: Never-the-less Apple lays out the red carpet and welcomes technical customers to see what it has been working on and converse directly with most all it's engineers annually at WWDC. They could not be much more open than that.
3rd and Last: Your arguments lose all credibility when you reference Sobotta. The guy is a disgruntled ex-Apple employee that if I recall was let go by Apple. Do you really think his views are objective, let alone accurate? Did you work for or with him while at Apple and leave under similar circumstances???
Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:01 pm Subject: Technical Experts
Tiger - you're right on some levels BUT we're the guys who develop the software you're running, or recommend the IT infrastructure your firm is running on. A lot of us still have a love for Apple, but it's certainly true your Microsoft, IBM and Oracle do a LOT more to cultivate decision makers. Of course that might be the right decision for Apple - their future might be what John fears - being the best supplier of consumer computing out there. The momentum is behind Linux - rather than OS X - as the 'serious' alternative to Windows and it may not be worth going the same route as Sun.
The corporate market is locked into Windows due to the creation of company software tied to Windows or IE and even Office (as the Mac Office is not exactly like the Windows Office when it comes to corporate uses). Apple blew it in the 90s; there's no point in fighting it head-on.
Separately, the comment, if "Apple decided its future was in the consumer electronics model, that it'd turn OS X over to open source" is equally wrong. Jobs noted that the future of consumer electronics is moving into Apple's core competency of software, networking, and design. One can infer that some variation of OS X is intended to drive Apple's future embedded computing, er, consumer electronics devices. The movement of OS X to Intel and the highlighting of the lower-power Intel chip roadmap are indicators of this.
Apple is going to attack Windows from the multimedia creation and playback angle, an area where Windows, Office, and Windows Server have no advantage. As media creation becomes more important to a company's success, Apple's products will become more important.
I work at a major research university with a very large installed base of Macintosh systems. It has been clear to me for some time that the consumer is the focus for Apple and institutional purchasers are nice, but Apple isn't going to bend over backwards for them. Things like Apple support for Kerberos K4 to K5 migration, CUPS, site licensing, access to technical resources are all much more difficult to deal with than they need be.
Having dealt with higher ed Apple reps and spoken with various Apple director and VP-level folks at WWDC, I think the problem is more with mid-level management in Apple (something that John has touched on in his articles). The higher level technical folks seem to get it -- higher ed management sure doesn't. Higher ed management is busy reorganizing to eliminate competence and reward ass kissing. I'm sure it all makes sense when viewed through the bottom of a highball glass.
Both the column and associated commentary are quite perceptive!
Sun (and Sun Federal) used to be this way too, whereby certain
levels of technical competence were shielded from customers.
Part of this was due to sheer resource contraints as well as
misguided "process" inherent in bureaucracies. Software remains
a labor-intensive black art, with huge costs to triage.
But a good portion of Sun's sclerotic support (as remains true
with Apple) was due to maintaining the artifice of the proprietary
source code barrier. With feet held to the fire by Linux,
Sun learned to open this up, and allow customers to solve problems,
share results, and boost developer community futures --
it's cheaper this way, too.
Although corporate/employee blogging looks like surface PR,
it's something that Apple should consider, too. Could Apple's
corporate DNA ever allow opening up the kimono of its
innovators, ala:
http://research.sun.com/minds/
Many have always thought that Apple and Sun would make
natural, complementary partners. In a strong sense, they already
are, with Sun's best Unix innovations (Java, ZFS, Dtrace) now highlighted
in Mac OS X -- perhaps Mach/BSD/Darwin will be replaced by a GPL Solaris.
As these underpinnings merge, such joint innovation will further
span both consumer and enterprise markets.
Corporations have shown that they are very price-sensitive and will buy commodity junk over more expensive systems of better quality. Mac Mini and XServe notwithstanding, Apple doesn't currently compete in the market of dirt-cheap commodity desktops and bargain-basement server farms.
That being said, Apple's systems do work quite well in a business environment, and Apple offers decent paid support. However, that doesn't seem to be where the money is for Apple at this moment in time.
Apple has its Ph.D.'s working on core technology rather than externally focused research or customer communication. I'd like to see more of the latter, but it's clear that the former is what contributes to the bottom line.
If you really need to get in-depth technical information from Apple, then it's probably worth paying for, so why not join ADC and/or pay for an enterprise support contract?
If you're just a hacker, you can still get tons of technical information - not to mention the source code for the underlying OS and other software - from the ADC web site with a free membership.
Recent Headlines - Updated January 9th
- Fri, 8:31 PM
- Photo Gallery - Cirque du Mac 6.0 with the Macworld All Star Band!
- 5:45 PM
- Macworld Expo 2009 - It’s About Time Products Shows Switcher and iPhone 3G Training Applications
- 5:30 PM
- News - ApiMac Releases Protect Files 1.0 Security Utility
- 3:09 PM
- Photo Gallery - Macworld Photo Gallery: Day 3 - Mac Art, Music, More
- 12:55 PM
- News - launch2net 1.8.8 Adds ZTE Modem Support
- 12:40 PM
- Analysis - Optical Illusions and Glossy Displays
- 11:43 AM
- News - Apple Launches iLife ‘09 Up-to-Date Program
- 8:00 AM
- Reports - A Perspective on Mac OS X Security from an Expert
- Thu, 5:56 PM
- Macworld Expo 2009 - Orbicule Announces Undercover 3 with Location Technology
- 5:49 PM
- News - TOM BIHN, Waterfield Designs Release 17” Unibody MacBook Pro Notebook Cases
- 3:50 PM
- Macworld Expo 2009 - Targus Shows File Share Cable for Mac
- 3:40 PM
- Macworld Expo 2009 - Blackmagic Demonstrates Video Recorder
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
- Download Typestyler, still the Ultimate Styling Tool for Internet, Print and Video Graphics. Works great in Classic with a Native OS X Version on the way. Free Tryout: www.typestyler.com
MacPro Memory 667Mhz With Apple Spec Heat Sink - 2GB $62 / 4GB $80 / 8GB $158. Click to Maximize your Macs...
Mac observers can now play Party Poker for Mac as well as Mac casino games by going to MacPokerOnline.com.
RamJet Memory: Upgrade a MacBook to 4GB RAM for $99! Add a 320G MacBook Hard Drive for $73! MacBook Pro 17" 8GB Kits Available Now! Click hereFor the latest Apple products use Ciao a comparison website to find laptops like MacBook Air. Then find the best prices on MP3 players and use our comparison tool to evaluate cell phones.
Laptop Hardware Provided by TechRestore - Overnight Mac & iPod Repairs.
