Chromedroid or Androme?

Some Android apps are intended for use only on phones and, while they may function on tablets, they sometimes don't function well. Now the folks at Google seem to be pressing developers to create Android apps that will also work on Chromebooks. What about Chrome apps on Android devices?

It makes sense in a lot of ways. The underlying operating system for both Chrome and Android is Linux. There's been more customization done to Linux for Android, but if Android apps can be created to run on both Android and Chrome devices, how likely is it that Chrome apps can be modified to run on Android tablets and phones?

And might the two platforms someday be merged to create a single operating system that runs on computers, tablets, and phones? Does this sound like something Microsoft has already done with Windows 8?

Android

Google's Android operating system is based on the Linux kernel that has been modified for touchscreen mobile devices such as smart phones and tablet computers, but there are also specialized versions for Android TV, automotive applications, and watches.

Android can also be found in some game consoles, digital cameras, and other devices.

Android is the most popular operating system, outselling Windows (desktop, notebook, and mobile), IOS (mobile), and OSX (desktop and notebook) devices combined. The Google Play store has more than 1 million Android apps, many of which would be welcome additions on Chromebooks.

Chrome

Chrome is also based on the Linux kernel, but initially it was intended to be a Web-powered "thin client" operating system. That vision has changed over the years and Google now requires that most applications work when the computer is off-line. By the end of this year, Chromebooks are supposed to be able to run Android apps natively. In September, Google released App Runtime for Chrome in beta and showed that some Android apps work properly on a Chromebook.

Android's source code has been released by Google under open-source licenses, but most manufacturers of Android devices do add some proprietary code of their own on top of the open-source OS.

So if Google can push Android apps to Chromebooks, might the flow also be reversed so that Chrome apps could play on Android devices?

Chrome extensions, after all, are really just browser add-ons for the Chrome browser. And if apps can be made interchangeable, might someone at Google already be thinking about pulling a Microsoft by merging mobile and computer operating systems?

What implications might this have for desktop computers? Most current Chrome-based computers are Chromebooks, small notebook devices, but there's no reason why Chrome can't run a desktop system. In fact, some desktop systems do run Chrome. It's just that not a lot of them have been sold.

Chrome brings relatively low cost, decent functionality, and good durability to the notebook market. The same thing might happen in the desktop market, setting the stage for serious competition among users who need only basic computer applications such as e-mail, Web browsing, documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and photo management. High-end users will undoubtedly continue to need high-powered Apple or Windows systems, but that's a relatively small market when compared to the vast number of users.

What Will You Pay for Windows 10?

I was all set to ask this question about Windows 9, but then Microsoft decided that there will be no Windows 9 and they'll jump directly to Windows 10, but not until next year. The question, however, is still a valid one, if perhaps a bit premature.

What will Microsoft charge for Windows 10? It seems to me that if Microsoft agrees that Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 were the "disasters" that some pundits claimed (and I think the pundits were dead wrong on this), then the upgrade from Windows 8.x to Windows 10 should be free.

It comes down to the "perception is reality" school of thought. If you believed the pundits who said Windows 8.x was a horrible botch, then Windows 8.x was a horrible botch -- even if it wasn't. But if it was, then Microsoft should do everything in its power to make up for the damage done (or not done, as the case may be).

That means Windows 10 should be a free upgrade to any Windows 8.x user. If that happens, Windows 7 users will probably throw such a collective fit that Microsoft will be shamed into making that a free upgrade, too. And then what about the people who are still using Windows XP even though support for that operating system has ended? Where does it stop?

A free upgrade would fly in the face of the guidebook for operating a for-profit corporation. Everything is supposed to provide income to feed the bottom line, the stock holders, and the CEO's penchant for luxury yachts, but sometimes it's better to forego some of the profit to build customer appreciation and loyalty. This might be one of those times.

Microsoft is facing pressure from people who are tempted to try Apple's desktop operating system, or to switch to a Chrome-powered device, or even to try Linux and its attendant free office applications. Choosing to provide a free upgrade might build long-term profitability and stability at the cost of short-term profits. In other words, Wall Street would hate it because it might keep Microsoft from making its quarterly numbers. And when Wall Street doesn't like something, it punishes the company.

So I don't really expect to see much in the way of a free upgrade policy, except possibly in a very limited manner for recent buyers of systems with Windows 8. But it's nice to consider what might happen in a more enlightened world.

Steve Jobs Invented the GUI?

I'm reading Walter Isaacson's The Innovators. Isaacson worked with Steve Jobs to create a superb biography of the man. In his new book, Isaacson clearly shows how the biggest advances in computing have been the result of collaboration or at least the result of one person seeing another person's work and then building on it.

The computer and the Internet "were not conjured up in a garret or garage by solo inventors," Isaacson wrote. "Instead, most of the innovations of the digital age were done collaboratively."

If any single group invented the GUI, it's the inventors at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. Jobs visited PARC in 1979 and saw a GUI in action. Isaacson says "he was shown many of the ideas that Alan Kay, Doug Engelbart, and their colleagues had developed, most notably the graphical user interface (GUI)." In December 1979, Jobs began working on "a deal with Xerox that allowed the Apple folks to study the technology in return for allowing Xerox to make a million-dollar investment in Apple."

At the time, Apple and Microsoft were partners and Steve Jobs told Bill Gates what he had seen at PARC. In 1981, Microsoft began designing what would eventually become Windows. Then, in November 1983, two months before the Macintosh was launched, Gates announced the development of Windows.

Some still say that Microsoft stole the idea for the GUI from Apple and that may be so. But Apple stole it first, from PARC.

I have an Android tablet and, when a major update to the operating system came along, it was downloaded and installed automatically and without charge. The same is true for Apple's portable devices that run IOS. Of course, not all hardware is able to be updated to every new version of the operating system, but if the hardware is capable to running a new version, it will be provided at no cost.

Where does that leave desktop and notebook operating systems such as Windows or OSX? Apple's per-update fee has typically been a lot lower than Microsoft's, but Apple releases operating system updates a lot more frequently than Microsoft does. Over time, the costs are about the same. Last year's OSX update (Mavericks) was free as was this year's Yosemite. And despite bad-mouthing Microsoft's creation of a single operating system for all platforms, reviews of Yosemite suggest that it is a clear attempt to follow Microsoft's lead in that area. But that's another story for another time because the current topic is all about free operating system updates.

If you're an Apple fan and I've just offended you, check the sidebar at the right.

Maybe there's a trend here? What would be the implications of free upgrades "for life"? In other words, when you buy a computer, you receive a license key that's good for every updated version of the operating system that can be installed on that computer. The Android and IOS model, in other words.

Yes, it would cost short-term profits, but it would immediately eliminate one of the biggest complaints Windows users have about upgrading their operating system: The cost. It's likely that the cost issue was one of the underlying causes of dissatisfaction with Windows 8. People bought it, possibly without reading the reviews, and then they were surprised by the numerous changes. It's harder to be angry with an update when you receive it without additional charge.

It would also reduce the built-in delay that results from requiring that people make an explicit effort to obtain the new version of the operating system. Many Linux distributions, for example, offer nearly painless updates. As a result, most Linux users have current-version operating systems.

Most people buy new computers every 3 to 5 years. Microsoft would lose sales to those folks who keep a 10- or 12-year-old computer chugging along, but people who do that would be unlikely to pay for operating system updates, either. What would a change like this really cost Microsoft?

Maybe it's time for the bean counters in Redmond and the analysts on Wall Street to consider some alternatives.

Short Circuits

Microsoft Improves OneNote for Mac and Iphone Users

Microsoft's OneNote application is essential to the way I work because it stores information I need about stories I'm working on, books I'm reading (or planning to read), procedures for tasks that I do rarely, medical reminders, various documents, and lists of all sorts. It works well on Windows computers and Android devices. For Iphones, Ipads, and Macs, it's had some shortcomings.

Microsoft has just updated the application to take advantage of some IOS 8 functionality and to make it possible for Apple users to store OneNote information in the cloud.

OneNote for Windows has had the ability to password protect sections of notebooks (I use it for the medical data section). Microsoft had previously added the ability for users to unlock existing password protected sections on various Apple devices, but creating a new password-protected section, or changing or removing a password required a Windows computer. That restriction no longer applies.

Those who have touch-enabled IOS 8 devices will find that password-protected sections can be unlocked with Touch ID. Arranging notes is also easier on Apple devices, providing functionality that Windows users have had to move notes and pages by dragging them.

The FTC Says AT&T Is Illegally Throttling Data

The Federal Trade Commission seems to have this strange idea that if a big corporation (AT&T, for example) promises something (such as an "unlimited data plan") then that company should provide what it has promised. As a result, the FTC is suing AT&T for severely limiting its "unlimited" data plans.

The FTC says the cellular carrier has been using a throttling system since 2011, a process that cuts the speed of wireless Internet connections so much in some cases that a dial-up connection would be faster. And this doesn't happen in rare, isolated instances the agency says, but on at least 25,000,000 occasions, affecting some 3,500,000 AT&T customers who were paying for "unlimited" service.

AT&T disagrees, calling the suit "baseless".

The head of the FTC, Edith Ramirez, says that AT&T promised its customers "unlimited" data, but failed to deliver on that promise. Ramirez says "The issue here is simple: 'unlimited' means unlimited." She says that the FTC will seek financial damages that could be used to return some money to AT&T customers. The 5 members of the FTC voted unanimously to allow the suit to proceed and it was filed in US District Court in San Francisco.

AT&T is currently trying to win approval for its plans to acquire DirecTV, which is the largest satellite TV provider in the US. The company is also in the process of paying out $105 million as a result of allowing 3rd-party vendors to add bogus charges to cellular customers' monthly bills. AT&T made millions of dollars from the practice over a 5-year period, but denied knowing that the charges it passed through to customers were bogus. The process is known in the industry as "cramming".

T-Mobile faced similar charges in July.

Wall Street Geniuses Punish Facebook Profitability

Facebook beat Wall Street analyst's projections for the 6th quarter in a row and the company's stock dropped 11% after Mark Zuckerberg announced that revenue would slow a bit. If, as the head of the company, you're not talking about short-term profits, Wall Street doesn't want to have anything to do with you.

Facebook shares went slightly beyond $81 per share, but then closed at $73 after analysts learned that Facebook plans to invest in projects that will provide future value, and that the company plans to buy more companies in an effort to acquire more programming talent.

All that sounds like a good plan to everybody but Wall Street analysts: Facebook has money today, lots of it, so Facebook will invest in things that will provide better value for its customers.

Costs were up more than 40% at Facebook in the 3rd quarter, in part because the company acquired some 1200 new employees. Many of them worked for WhatsApp, which Facebook acquired, or for the virtual reality headset maker Oculus VR, which Facebook also acquired.

Revenue increased nearly 60% to $3.2 billion in third-quarter. Last year's figure was $2 billion. The Wall Street geniuses expected $3.1 billion, got more than they expected, and still punished the company's stock. Geniuses.

Facebook has successfully positioned itself for the future by updating its mobile apps so that more than 60% of the company's advertising income is derived from ads placed on mobile devices.

But investing in the future should be avoided if you want to please Wall Street.

The GUI and the Automobile

Earlier in the program, when I talked about Windows 10, I included a sidebar about Steve Jobs and the graphical user interface. It reminds me that we tend to classify one person as the inventor of most things. Maybe it because of the way history books are written. The inventor of record may simply have finished the work first (or possibly just had a good sense of PR), but others were involved. Why do we feel a need to identify a single inventor?

It's like saying that Neil Armstrong invented the lunar landing. He played a big part in it, but so did Buzz Alrdin (the second man on the moon), Michael Collins (who remained in orbit), hundreds of people at NASA, and thousands of people who worked on the project. It wasn't just Armstrong.

But my analogy here is with the automobile. Who invented it? Some say that Henry Ford invented the automobile and that is patently wrong. Ford may have invented the assembly line, but automobiles pre-dated Ford.

Back in antiquity, somebody had an idea that eventually became the wheel. There were not patent attorneys back then, so we don't know how many people might have simultaneously and separately created wheels.

Then somebody had a better idea and hooked a platform up to a wheel creating the first wheelbarrow.

Somebody else thought of placing 2 wheels in tandem and came up with a cart, thus allowing chariots and movies such as Ben Hur starring Jack Hawkins, Hugh Griffith, Haya Harareet -- oh, and and Charlton Heston.

Somebody throught to mount 2 wheels not in tandem but in a linear fashion and got a bicycle. Somebody else added a third wheel in front of the 2 wheels in tandem and created a tricycle.

And then 2 sets of wheels in tandem, which worked better once somebody else figured out how to allow the front set of tandem wheels to swivel.

Then somebody thought it might be a good idea to hook the contraption up to an ox or a mule or a horse. Maybe several horses. And we could put seats in the cart so that people could sit, or more seats to create a stage coach and a new industry for stage-coach robbers.

The internal combustion engine looked like a possible replacement for horses, which would eliminate all of the "horse exhaust" that littered streets and lead to carbon emissions that threaten the planet.

In my mind, the GUI is a lot like the automobile, starting with ideas in the 1800s to create a device that would aid calculations. Thousands of people had ideas along the way, many of them after seeing what somebody else had done and thinking something like "Well, that's pretty cool, but it would be even better if ....."

The GUI was the result of many minds at the Palo Alto Research Center (and probably elsewhere). Steve Jobs had the good sense to recognize a killer idea when he saw it and so did Bill Gates. Neither of them "invented" the GUI, but their finger prints are there along with those of so many others.