Pulse - Still Beating or No Heartbeat?

A short time ago, LinkedIn acquired Pulse, a web site and mobile app that allows you to browse Internet content of interest to you in one place, in a consistent format.  Blogs, news publications, etc. all can be saved for later reference, or shared, and viewed - and marked as read.

I have been using it since before LinkedIn bought it.  I don't know how many of you caught the Keynote Address at the Apple WWDC 2015, but new in iOS 9 will be a News reader app like Pulse.  Of course, in true Apple fashion, they not only went there, but went there in a big way.  Not only does it conglomerate articles of interest to you, it learns what you like the more you use it - and presents it in a truly elegant and beautiful way.  Content providers can even target their articles using publishing features of the News app - things like fully interactive content, animations, transitions, embedded multimedia, and more - of course, presented in a consistent format across feeds, blogs and web sites.  Just like Pulse, but way beyond.

So, after that announcement, it occurred to me that I no longer have a need for Pulse, and that as soon as iOS 9 is available in a more stable Beta (next week perhaps?), I will perhaps have a chance to ditch Pulse once and for all.  As great as Pulse was, there were a few things that drove me crazy.  Namely, it constantly lost the "read" mark, so I would forget the last publication I read from each source.  It crashed every once in awhile, and that was very annoying because it then didn't remember all the articles I had read.  Another one, you would think that All Things Digital would be a source it would know how to display, but instead each and every publication you can't read the content, and have to use the "View on web" link - and I don't want to view on the web in my phone browser, because it is not mobile friendly.

What are your thoughts?  Have you used Pulse, or some other conglomerator (sounds like one of Dr. Doofenschmirtz's -inators)?  If you own an iPhone/iPad/iPod, would you ditch the others and go with Apple's News reader?

AARP Enters into the Tablet Fray

Apparently, there must be a huge gap not covered by other tablet makers, that AARP (the retirement services group) feels must be filled.  So they introduced the RealPad.  Obviously, given the organization sponsoring it, the target market seems to be older people who feel slightly alienated by the technology, may have impaired vision, and who want someone to call when they have questions.  Some highlights of this are:

• It comes pre-loaded with a shotgun of apps (including some AARP apps, of course) that probably cover the gamut of needs for most people (I find it interesting that they list many of the same apps twice under different names).
• It comes pre-configured with large icons for people needing large, vision-friendly system.
• Dozens of How-To videos are pre-loaded on the system.
• It is only $149, great for seniors on a fixed income.

It sounds great, but what are the caveats that you should be aware of?  How does it stack up to the other stuff on the market?  What issues do I have with it, and might those be important to you?  In reviewing the information available on their web site, this is what I have from it.

Caveats

• To me, one big caveat is it is an Android tablet.  As I have posted before (and here), Android is not complete, fraught with insecurity, and almost entirely out of date from the moment you get it.
• Indeed, it runs Android Kitkat 4.4, which as of today is already almost 2 years old.  AARP is not issuing updates to the Android OS for this tablet.
• If you care at all about the hardware, it is severely limited for anything above and beyond what it comes with out of the box.
• 16 GB of flash storage.  It does offer a Micro SD slot for additional storage, so that does help alleviate that issue.
• Very low resolution cameras, so this is not something you would trust to use as a high quality camera.
• The processor that runs everything is pretty low powered, so I expect it to perform slow.
• The WiFi that it comes with is the standard that was replaced 2-3 years ago, the old "n" standard.  It does not have the new "ac" standard, and so will only operate at the slower speeds on WiFi.  This may be acceptable, especially for a $149 price tag.
• There is a 1-year limited warranty.  There doesn't seem to be any way to extend that - I know many people enjoy the extended AppleCare warranty for 3 years.
• It is not clear how many accessories fit this device.  It is manufactured by Zingarr, so you must do your research to see if some cases or other accessories may fit.

Why RealPad Instead of Real iPad?

The iPad, and indeed the Apple devices, are world-renowned top-notch devices that offer settings to help use the iPad for impaired customers.  When it comes to vision and hearing impairments, the "handicapped" people have spoken - they will only buy Apple.  And with good reason.  I don't think a pre-configuration of an Android tablet will convince very many people to get away from Apple, although the $149 price tag may for those who don't care about anything else.

Out of the box, an iPad would have to be set up to be accessible for the particular handicaps for the user.  I think the RealPad comes assuming a moderate visual impairment.  This may be good for someone without access to a local store, or a local expert able to help them configure the device - again, assuming they fit within the "bell curve" of the target market for this device.  But, I see this device, like any targeted at a "price-conscious" market, would be susceptible to any other low-price device that may come along in the future, promising some other nice feature.

Because of all this, I would say that the only reason you would go with RealPad over iPad, would be price.

Why RealPad Instead of Some Other Android Tablet?

Here, there is a slightly more compelling case made.  The fact that instructional videos come pre-installed, plus the pre-configured visual accessibility, 24/7 technical support phone line, and pre-installed apps, this for $149 is a much more appealing offering than many other Android tablets.  Still, I'd wager to say that the Amazon Kindle tablets probably have a better organization behind them in general, although I don't think they target this older, hard-of-seeing, tech-reticent market that AARP is going after here.

What Do I Recommend?

If you are dead set on an Android tablet (in spite of many reasons I give to avoid), and if you fall under this older generation of individuals who is somewhat tech-aware, not tech-savvy, and are looking for a lower-cost tablet, I think this may have some appeal.  Contact AARP, see if you can go somewhere and try it out, or ship it back within 30 days if you aren't satisfied.

For my clams, I'd rather get an Amazon Kindle Fire HD, which is actually $10 less (Kindle Fire HD 7").  Further, assuming I am of that market who is at or near retirement, certainly I would look forward to the challenge of figuring out something new.  That challenge alone keeps my brain sharp, and keeps me exploring, learning new things.  Even if the Kindle doesn't come "all set up" for what I would do, I would want to spend some time personalizing it.  But that's me.  Some people want a car with basic features, just to get from point A to point B.  The RealPad is a little nicer than that, but if you hate having a slow machine that takes a long time responding to your touches, I don't think you are going to like the RealPad.  Just going on the specs, it is about the same as the SkyPad I reviewed last year - and I don't think I've had the patience to turn that thing on more than 5 times in the past 9 months.

Neither Snow nor Rain nor Heat, But Maybe Cutbacks

Growing up, in history class we learned about the Pony Express, and the history of the US Post Office.  When we think of modern society and the integrity we have come to rely upon, there are many pieces (technological inventions) that hold that integrity in place - the invention of time zones so we can coordinate activities, of course all the communication technologies, but to me, it seems the bedrock of that integrity consists of a reliable postal service.

Over the years, the technology involved in delivering mail has become quite massive.  Remember those bar codes that helped the computers scan your letters and route them?  They scan at amazingly high speeds in massive sorting facilities, and that pretty much unerringly routes your mail.  Nowadays the technology is so advanced, it can scan printed and even written addresses without bar codes, and accurately route it (to the tune of hundreds of letters a second).

Banks count on it.  Mail order businesses count on it.  Utilities count on it.  Legal entities count on it.  Indeed, much of the pillars of our economy and society rely on the assumption that, if you drop a letter in the mailbox, it will arrive in a predictably short time to the destination, without fail (except in extreme cases, say if a mail delivery gets destroyed by disaster).

Yes, we all know that, so what? you may ask.  We just recently had a big family event, where we sent out invitations, got back RSVP cards, and sent out Thankyou notes.  This consisted of over 400 individual pieces of mail going back and forth over a few months of time.  And that's just orchestrated by us, one family.  Imagine the load the USPS has to deal with on a daily basis.

Now, with that large of a batch, you may not be surprised to find out that perhaps a letter got lost.  And historically, that has been our collective experience - occasionally, perhaps a piece of mail falls down in the delivery truck, gets missed, and ends up being late.  Perhaps a piece is destroyed, or damaged - but if damaged, the USPS still delivers with an apology.  However, we found that around 10 invitations never made it, and several more were delayed (that's not including the few returned for wrong address).  Several RSVP's didn't make it back (we confirmed by phone), and about 8 people mentioned they didn't receive Thankyou notes.  On top of that, several more local deliveries (anticipating 1-2 days) were delayed by more than a week (8-9 days to deliver). 

Adding that up, that gives around 20 pieces out of 400 that were lost, and several more that were delayed, say 25.  That's 6%.  And when we are used to relying on it to the point where we mail and forget, 6% is a massive number.  Multiply that out by the USPS daily volume.

Now, this is not our first time around the block - we had the same family event 3 years ago, during the exact same time of year, during which it never even occurred to us to doubt the reliability and integrity of the USPS.

When we asked the Post Office about this, we also found out something quite surprising.  All my life, we had known that the USPS operated a huge sorting facility in Troy, MI, where most area mail was routed through.  We found it had been closed for what she said to be almost 20 years, and that even more mail was now routed through a much more remote facility - in Ohio.  And this, she said, was the cause of why it now takes longer to send mail, and it is less reliable.

Unless, of course, you put tracking on it.  In which case it arrives 100% of the time.  And if you expedite, it arrives faster.  To me, this seems a blatant way of holding us hostage.  If you pay the ever-spiraling First Class postage rate, you basically get Third Class service - unless you also pay the exorbitant fees of a swindler to "guarantee" that your parcel gets there.  And let me tell you, we aren't going to do that on 400 pieces of mail.

So, I ask you, where is technology going with this?  Is the sending of physical written pieces of information becoming a thing of the past?  Do we now e-mail, hyperlink, e-fax, text or post what we want to send from now on?  Do we resort to non-Post Office couriers for packages?  Maybe the USPS has mismanaged its public trust, and maybe it's time to let it fail completely.

As a society, do we now rely upon invitation management web sites and e-mail?  What about those family members who are not so Internet savvy, who don't use smart devices, and who don't keep up on e-mail or social networking?  I feel cheated and betrayed, as if yet another pillar of the country and society we grew up loving and admiring is cracking, falling apart, in an increasingly apathetic and irresponsible public.  Is that just a feeling, or is there something to that?

The Truth About Lawn Care

(picture from the NY Times)

I just listened to a voice-mail on my home line.  It says "This is Ryan, we talked earlier this spring about your lawn, and I noticed the weeds growing in your yard.  Give me a call and we can button them up for you."  That had me reflect that a lot of technology in the form of tools, chemicals, and procedures have been developed, simply to keep a single species of grass growing on an expanse of ground.

Diversity or Monocropping?

First, I know Ryan and I didn't talk, because if we had, I would have told him I have no weeds.  My lawn looks a lot like the one above (except it is mowed). So what is a weed exactly?  I have noticed that we tend to throw the word around a bit.  For example, in our herb garden, we have a plant called Lemon Balm (Melissa officinalis).  This is a wonderful herb with many properties both tasty and medicinal.  However, it is prolific, and is now growing all over our property.  In the herb garden, it is an herb.  Outside that, it is a weed.  So the definition of a weed seems to be any plant growing where it is not wanted.  Indeed, from Dictionary.com:

1. A valueless plant growing wild, especially one that grows on cultivated ground to the exclusion or injury of the desired crop.
2. Any undesirable or troublesome plant, especially one that grows profusely where it is not wanted.

Now, we get down to it.  For some reason, it seems to have become a widespread psychotic obsession that people will do whatever it takes, spend whatever it takes, to make sure that only a single species of plant grows on their yard.  Let's think about this from another perspective.

Let's say you are looking for a place to buy a home.  Let's also say you are concerned about the neighborhood you move into - for your kids in which to grow up, as well as for property value to appreciate.  So you see this great house, but the entire neighborhood is all a single type of people.  Let's say they are all white, Christian, western-European descent - every single last one of them, from the exact same religion, who attend the same church.  And, they all work at the same factory down the road.  Now, is this a healthy society?  I'd say not.  I'd say economically, if that factory gets shut down, they are screwed.  Genetically, if a disease strikes that group, it strikes this community hard.  Culturally, they sound pretty closed off, and if you are a black, Ethiopian Jew who works in IT on the other side of town, this is probably not the community for you.

Do you remember the Emerald Ash Borer problem years ago?  Millions of Ash trees were killed in Michigan because of this pest - and why was it a huge problem?  There were entire areas where just Ash were planted.  And how did this come about?  An earlier pestilence wiped out a different tree population, and arborists replaced those trees with another single species, Ash.  Didn't learn from their mistake, did they?

Runoff and Downstream Consequences

Enough of that line of thought.  Let's talk about another fact of life - Unintended Consequences.  Many times, you see something that you think is wrong, you do something to "fix" it, only to find out that the cure is worse than the disease.  This is one case.  We spend billions on fertilizers, "weed" killers, and such just to try to get the lawn down to 1 species.  Does it work?  Yes, for the most part.  However, our yard is not an isolated ecosystem, as much as we like to think it is.  For some strange reason, those chemicals we pour on the yard don't seem to respect the property line - go figure!  They get washed into sewers, go down into the ground and into groundwater systems.  And if you live in an area like mine, we live in the midst of wetlands, so they are washed 2 yards over into the swampy pond (our neighbor's house listings do say "lake front property").  This swampy pond feeds Michigan's vast network of water systems that make their way out into the Great Lakes - 20% of the global fresh water in our "back yard."

So where am I going?  Of course you can tell - the runoff into our lakes and streams causes massive ecological damage that most people either don't think about, or don't care (why not piss in your pool before you go for a swim?).

Another unintended consequence - I don't know about any of you, but I am living on a tight budget.  If I suddenly had a huge raise, I still could find things to do with that money other than dumping it into my lawn.  Why should I bother spending all that cash to fight a losing battle that has to be fought every year as long as I live on this property, instead of, say, paying the medical bill, paying off a loan, or even buying the new Macbook Pro I so desperately want?  I'm sure if I ran a golf course, or were a multi-millionaire and didn't know what to do with all that extra money, might as well get the lawn to look like it is healthy, and still be a monospecies.  But I'm not either one of those.

What Do You Do?

So, my response to Ryan, was that I don't have any weeds (yes, I called him back - he reached out to me on a sales call, I might as well have the courtesy to let him know I'm not interested).  I have dandelion, clover, greater plantain, and, of course, a couple different types of grass.  All in a beautiful mix of healthy plants that give my lawn a beautiful look. Another interesting consequence - good one - is that the greater plantain is better than any store-bought medicine on fighting the itch, pain and discomfort of bug bites and stings. This spring, we are harvesting the plantain to make a balm we will have year round - that immediately stops itch from mosquito bite, and with 1 or 2 applications, permanently.  Get that from a hydrocortisone cream - doesn't even work the first 10 times, and we have to buy it too!

I suggest a shift in attitude, a shift in thinking about our yard.  We live on a planet that is a delicate balance of ecosystems.  If we pollute it, eventually it comes back to us - screw saving the planet, screw saving some species of plant or animal.  Let's save Homo sapiens!  I want to save my ass, and the asses of my descendents.  Learn to appreciate the beauty in diversity - both in plants, and in Human society.  It is a heck of a lot cheaper to do so, and look at all that free time you don't have to spend weeding out that diversity!  What would you do with all that time?

So, it looks like we need a theme, a unifying "brand" identity.  How about Natural Lawn?  In a Natural Lawn, we have a healthy diversity of plants, and when we do amend the soil, we do so with naturally-produced fertilizers (that don't use petroleum in their production, and emit copious amounts of greenhouse gases), minerals, and other naturally-occurring chemistry that works in harmony with the environment of our immediate ecosystem.  We don't have to tell the kids "Stay off the lawn, they sprayed today."  THAT RIGHT THERE SHOULD BE A RED FLAG TO YOU.

What's one unintended consequence of that?  A lot of lawn care product and service companies may have to come up with some creative ways to stay in business.  I'm good with that.

ApplePay Insecure? The Deeper Truth

There are now a lot of "news" articles (such as this one in the LA Times) that make sensational headlines that Apple Pay is not secure.  Lately it came out that fraud rates with Apple Pay customers were "through the roof" - 6% as opposed to 1%.  At face value, it would appear that this means that Apple Pay is a much less secure form of payment than normal credit cards or other methods.  However, let's cut through the hype, the fervent Apple bashing, and get to the facts.

First, in September 2014 when Apple Pay was announced, Tim Cook claimed that it would be more secure.  So what exactly is the discrepancy?

The Old Way

To understand, we first need to understand the different payment systems, their vulnerabilities, and what is being done to combat the fraud.  Current credit cards employ one of 2 technologies:  a magnetic stripe containing card information, or an EMV (Europay / MasterCard / Visa) encryption chip.  With a magnetic stripe, if you want to pay for goods or services with your card, you have a choice of either swiping it on a reader, or reading the card information with your eyes (or from memory) to someone and having them input into a payment system.  A paper imprint with carbon paper is a tried-and-true 50-year-old method of taking payment information as well.  With EMV, when the card is scanned, the chip generates a per-transaction code that can only be used to issue payment to that merchant for that transaction.  Your personal information (card number, name, expiration date, security code, etc.) are not communicated to the merchant.  However if, say, you are paying over the phone or Internet (not in person), then you have to resort to Plan B just like the magnetic strip.

So, what are the vulnerabilities in this old system?

1. Point of Purchase Interception
1. If you have a dishonest clerk, or a fake card scanner attached on top of the real one, they can grab your card info and record it for later fraud.
2. Many card scanners are done over unencrypted, open phone lines that can be tapped or intercepted.
3. Many card scanners are done by computer, over the Internet, and can be intercepted.
2. Information System Hacking
1. The vast majority of large businesses, whether online or in-person purchases, enter and store your card information into their database.  This means that a hacker who breaks into the system can glean thousands or millions of contact and payment information from databases, over the Internet.  Many of these systems do not have intruder detection, so it is certainly possible that at least half of these thefts go undetected or unnoticed.
3. Card Issuing Bank
1. If a thief steals not your card information, but personal identification information (your name, social security number, address, bank account numbers, employer, utility account numbers, etc.), they can pose as you and open a new card that you don't know about, in your name.  With the statements sent to your address.  And run up charges that you are billed for.

Now we know this, but what has been done to combat this fraud?  Every card issuer is required to implement fraud monitoring, that learns your purchase patterns, and attempts to detect purchases made out of pattern - thus alerting people and possibly disabling the card.  Many of us have experienced going on vacation, and having our card stop working because the fraud monitoring system detects out-of-normal behavior.  However, thieves can also gain information on your spending habits (what areas are your purchases made), and sell that information to card buyers who use those cards in those areas, thus avoiding fraud monitoring for a period of time.  But these efforts have held the fraud rate at about 1% (about $1 for every $100 spent).  That is actually pretty high if you think about it - and especially in the United States where merchants are (not yet) required to provide EMV card readers.

The Apple Pay Way

So now, how does Apple Pay work?  With Apple Pay, they employ the EMV algorithm in the device (iPhone, Apple Watch, iPad, etc.).  But this is used both for online (via in-app) and in-person purchases (via Near Field Communications or NFC).  And, in order for you to use your device to pay, you must scan your fingerprint.  So, for payment, it is definitely more secure.  So why is there so much fraud with Apple Pay?  Now, the vulnerability comes to light:

1. Card Issuing Bank / Apple Pay Trust
1. In order to register a card with Apple Pay, Apple came up with a system whereby the card holder takes a photo of the card with the phone, then has to go into the bank to have them confirm identity and that the card holder is actually the card holder (physical presence to a physical bank employee).  Alternatively, a cardholder's device (iPhone) can be registered via Apple, and a secure iMessage sent to the previously-configured trusted device to confirm identity.  However, most banks balked at the "overhead" that would impose on their customers, and opted for a less secure authentication via phone.  A bank operator talks to the "cardholder" (hopefully it really is that person) and asks some "personal" information to confirm s/he is the cardholder, to allow that card to be registered with the device for Apple Pay.

As you can see, it is impossible to intercept and make any useful information during point of transaction.  Nor is any card or cardholder information made available to the merchant, so there is nothing insecure to store in a database that can be hacked.  However, you can probably spend about 2 seconds and think of a way around this - and the vulnerability has nothing to do with Apple.  The thieves have done nothing but think of this, so they saw this hole as well.  Through the readily available methods of obtaining personal information, the thief can register the card with their own Apple Pay through the bank if they have the card information, yes, but that is the hard way and probably may trace back to them through the device.  Easier still, is to use the stolen identity information to open up a credit card through an issuing bank, one the person whose identity is stolen knows nothing about, and then register that card with Apple Pay.  And that is exactly what is happening.

What are the methods of mitigating this?  If you have banks with lax procedures or standards for authenticating their customers (which many have), then there is very little that can be done.  Certainly you can be alerted if you monitor your credit report on all 3 bureaus, and perhaps pay for a monitoring service like Life Lock, but that actually takes some time before it makes its way through the system and becomes an alert.  And, you have to pay attention to the alerts, make a determination if the alert is because you actually did open up an account (a false alert), or if it was someone else on your behalf (a true alert).  This alert monitoring system is not as immediate or mature as the fraud monitoring in place for the old card methods - as soon as a purchase is made, the computer can flag it and call you or disable the card.

So, let's compare apples to apples (yes, pun there).  It is actually misleading to claim that 1% fraud rate, because it is a percentage of a different means of theft (card theft, not identity theft).  If you use the same measure, Apple Pay would actually be 0% - none of the Apple Pay cards are stolen.  So what is the identity theft rate without Apple Pay, of thieves opening accounts in a stolen person's identity?  That information I haven't seen.  And that is the rate you must compare to the 6% they are claiming for Apple Pay.

Network Overload

The total plethora of different flavors of social networking have my head spinning.  I mean, you've got Instagram.  What's that?  You take a pic, share it, comment on it.  OK, so how's that different from Facebook or Twitter?  And it seems all the other things that have popped up are some quirky flavor of, basically, texting.

So, I ask you - the general readership.  What do we need?  What do I use?  Facebook, Twitter (kind of), LinkedIn, and Google Plus (kind of).

• Facebook - why do I use it?  Because that's where everyone is.  Think Myspace, but nowadays.  (Or maybe Myspace is a dated reference - who uses that anymore?) I would be perfectly happy to drop it completely, but most everyone has a FB account.
• Twitter - I don't use it, but I do "cc" tweets via a multi-network publishing service.  Why?  Because I'm a tech geek, so I must be on twitter.  I do get Twitter's advantages, its value proposition if you will.  But it's not for me.
• LinkedIn - it's a business Facebook.  That works.  Everyone is on it, so I'm on it.
• Google Plus - Like Twitter, I really don't use it.  But I do.  It's the platform I'd like to use instead of Facebook, but let's face it, not everyone's on it.  But it's too important to ignore.
• Microsoft Skype - I use Skype for voice/video, so it has a chat feature that is convenient at times.
• Microsoft Lync / Messenger / Communicator (whatever you want to call it), we use it at work.  That's it.
• iMessage - I use heavily, since a LOT of people have Apple products.
• SMS - I use for mobile texting (and from my PC)

Then, we have sooooo many others who seem to be popular, seem to be doing well (as businesses, as startups), but where I totally fail to see any value they bring, or any hope of lasting beyond the whim of the moment.  Tell me I'm wrong, but I just don't get it.

Snap Chat - Instagram that disappears seconds after you see it.  So?
Fire Chat - some loopy chat program that links up by daisy chaining nearby so you don't have to have cellular, WiFi, or Bluetooth, but at least one, to be able to "tweet" anywhere in the world.
Salesforce - yeah, there's a chat in Salesforce.  Why??  Seriously, like we don't have anything else?
Yammer - some LinkedIn wannabe.

So, there is a lot of yammer out there - a lot of noise.  But what value is it bringing our lives?  Twitter, it seems, is the way to disseminate news - especially from suppressive societies.  Facebook is the premier socialization network, with Google Plus a runner up.  And LinkedIn is the premier business network.  Other than that, what else should there be?

Now I don't want to suggest that we stifle innovation, or that we close off any other possibilities.  However, how much can we really take?  What fulfills actual need?  Do we really need "After School" to be abused and contribute to anonymous threats, intimidation, and bullying?  I leave it to you, the using public, to decide.  How many networks do we need to be in?  Should we be in?  To me, it seems totally crazy to get embroiled in so many that I spend my real life digitally interacting instead of dealing with the people important in my life, who are sitting right next to me at the table or on the couch.  And I find it disgusting and reprehensible to have people over for a holiday celebration, and have them be "networking" on their mobile devices.  I'm thinking, check the mobile devices in at the door ("the Sheriff don't allow no weapons on this here premises, leave your guns at the door!").

Thoughts?  Criticism?  Evangelizing for a little-known networking platform?  Let me know.

Google is the new IBM

A Tangent

This is the 128th post on my blog, and as anyone in computer science knows, that is significant.  128 is 2 to the 7th power, or exactly half of a Byte (256).

The History

It has happened again - the world has gone full circle.  The world of computing, that is.  In the 1980's, as we moved from the IBM PC and Apple II into a full-blown explosion of the ubiquity of computing, IBM and Microsoft developed what became a baseline for computers.  We used to remark that "everyone and their brother" had a brand of computers, and there were a plethora of components so you could build your own.  Every DOS- and Windows-compatible computer was called an "IBM Compatible," but just as often it was also called an "IBM PC" - even the ones made by others (Brother, Epson, Gateway, and a thousand other names).

How did this come about?  Microsoft was just beginning, when Bill Gates bought the rights to DOS.  He then held an exclusive copyright (vigorously defended), and sold usage rights to hardware manufacturers like Tandy, IBM, Compaq, and others.  Since IBM was the biggest company at the time in that field (and a pioneer and innovator in the hardware), it became the best-known brand name.  Note that Apple devised the first "all-in-one" computer - screen, keyboard, CPU, all together instead of a separate kit components.  This was Steve Jobs' invention, and it revolutionized personal computing, but IBM perhaps more than anyone capitalized on it.

(Side Note) Ironically enough, at the time the reason IBM developed the Personal Computer, was because they felt that they needed a product that would prove, by how limited it was, that the only way to do computing was to get a real computer - a mainframe.  The PC would be a showcase in failure, and then when it did, it would morph into a terminal for the mainframe (and AS/400 mini).

As prices came down due to technology and manufacturing improvements, and competition with a myriad of manufacturers - the public bought into small-system computing in a big way.  IBM was a household name even before this revolution (think typewriters - before our first computer, we had an IBM Selectric that I spent hours hammering out my various writings on), so they cemented their name during this phase.  Everybody and their brother was licensing technology not just from Microsoft, but also from IBM - as they patented many inventions and advancements in personal computing.

Along came Google - a company named after the mathematical number named by the mathematician's kid's babbling toddler word.  The search engine company who was really the advertising company.  We all know their story, they got huge, fast.  Branch into web browsing, and now the mobile smart device market opens up.  Apple revolutionizes yet another market, and Google decides to venture into it with a mobile OS - Android.

Now, the various aspects of Google come together - web browser, search engine, advertising, and a mobile OS.  This is a massive synergistic environment designed to make money off of finding your personal habits and selling that information to advertisers.  But like smart cookies (yes, pun intended), they make their Android OS open-source.  This follows in the long tradition of UNIX, developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories (think Dennis Ritchie), and initially made open source.  Many different branches of UNIX abound, and indeed, a large sub-branch from the main trunk that re-opened the "open sourceness" of UNIX - Linux.  At this point, it's fair to say that thousands of different flavors of UNIX are in continuous use today - if you include all its derivatives like all the Linux branches, Mac OS X, and derivative of OS X - iOS, CarPlay OS, and whatever they call the Apple TV OS.

So, Google has entered into the fray with a very successful mobile OS, Android.  Many other people have "branched" or "forked" it by downloading the source code, modifying it, and building their own version of Android.  Now, various downstream versions of Android are running on a plethora of machines - not just phones and tablets, but also embedded devices, set-top-boxes, and more.  Truly, the ubiquitous nature of Android means it has become the de-facto standard by sheer number of devices.  And thus, Android runs on everybody and their brother's equipment.

However, it is a different mix today than in the 1970's when this was beginning.  Computing is everywhere - not just on your desk or in your lap, but on your wrist, in all your electronics, heck even woven into the fabric you wear.  And, Apple is now a huge, major player in all of these markets, even more so than in the days of the Apple II and IIe.  And Apple is one big, cohesive unit of consistency and connectedness, whereas Android is a scattered, confused mess of hardware manufacturers, versions, app stores, and more.

What It Means To Us

Does anyone remember what happened in the IBM PC days of PC proliferation?  What were some of the issues we had?  First, we had all kinds of compatibility problems - drivers, hardware, and more.  Software constantly crashed and malfunctioned because the underlying system was different than the one it was developed on.  Then, a watershed moment as computers got interconnected - viruses spread like a plague.  So now if you have a certain video card, or the wrong version of a driver, or some hard drive controller, or some modem, or mouse, or keyboard, or what have you - things didn't work right because it wasn't all compatible together.  It was the Wild West.  Personally, I hated "PC Compatibles" not only because they were the norm, but because they were boring, built with poor quality from hardware to software (and those few built with good hardware quality, had software and firmware issues - heck, they ran DOS and Windows!).

The great thing about the proliferation, is it led to cheap equipment - but the double-edged sword meant shrinking profits for manufacturers, and moving of jobs overseas.  Lots of variety, but we got bit by the lack of consistency.  In 1987, when I started selling PC's, the sales margin on a PC was from 30 to 45 points (or more perhaps).  In 1990, after I had gotten out, that had shrunk to maybe 10 points, and is now around 2-3 points.

Enter Apple.  What's different about what they did?  They moved their flagship systems to UNIX-based OS, they had expansion slots to add third-party hardware - how is what they did different?

Apple has throughout its history been criticized for a maniacal control of its environments.  From hand selecting components for the computers, to an ecosystem that closes out competitors, many have said that they did it for profits.  This is the end result, but not the primary goal.  As is evidenced over and over, a singular focus on profitability will lead you to stumble from the profitable path, because you lose focus on the basics of product quality and customer satisfaction.  Then, somebody comes in and undercuts you by price with the same product, and you are finished.  Kaput.  Brand loyalty doesn't exist, because it wasn't your focus.

Apple has consistently (since its rebirth after booting John Scully) kept every aspect of their products controlled in order to produce a consistent, reliable series of quality products that work together seamlessly.  Expansion is through industry-accepted standards (USB, SATA, Ethernet, SODIMM, etc.), or at least ones that they deem should be acceptable (Thunderbolt, Lightning, etc.).  Software remains tight with security to protect user's privacy - the company sells products, not subscriptions (yes, I know about iCloud storage and iTunes Match).  You buy an iPhone, you by an iPad, you buy a Mac, that's it.  They don't want your data - they don't want to snoop on their private, encrypted text messaging platform, they don't want to collect your usage statistics to sell to advertisers.  I know, as part of the Apple iOS Developer Program, I have not had any access to iTunes customer data to help me sell my apps.

With Android, everybody and his brother makes an Android device.  But, remember the fork?  Those manufacturers forked Android, what, 2 or 3 years ago to develop that new device you just got for Christmas or Hannukah?  And now, you get a new device with ancient technology that doesn't protect you from viruses.  Worse, you are an app developer - what version of Android do you target?  4.1?  4.2?  4.3?  4.4?  5.0?  What devices do you target?  You probably go with the big markets - Samsung, HTC, LG, etc.  That both limits you, and it makes your development and testing cycles much more complex.

And what are the results?  Let's look at one market, mobile smart phones.  A recent article shows that Apple, even though their global market share is around 25%, accounts for 90% of the profitability.  And it isn't like their products are that much more expensive than competitors - indeed, they are about the same cost.  Sounds like they are doing something right.

So, back in the day I was an expert, but I never did like the IBM PC (or the PC Compatible clones).  For the same reasons and more, Android has many drawbacks.  For a technical geek, it may be the cat's meow, because it is more open, more accessible to the inner workings.  But I am both a technical geek and a user, and reliability and security, coupled with a commitment to protection of privacy and personal information, are more important to me.  I don't need to get a remote terminal login to my phone - I'm cool with that!  And I certainly don't want an open messaging platform, where they glean everything from my text messaging (and everything else I do online) and use that to monetize my personal, private activities.