Huibert Aalbers Portfolio

Utrecht, The Netherlands

Geneva, Switzerland

Madrid, Spain

Bayonne, France

Bordeaux, France

Montreal, Canada

Mexico City, Mexico

For legal music users, DRM is not the issue, the EULA is

April 2, 2007

Today Apple and EMI announced that starting in May the iTunes music store will sell more expensive, higher quality, DRM-free songs. Most analysts have focused just on the fact that by releasing its music catalog with no DRM, EMI and Apple are signaling the beginning of the end for digitally protected media. They herald this fact as an important win for consumers and everyone seems to applaud the move.

I think that most analysts are missing the point. While I dislike DRM as much as the next guy, I really believe that DRM-free music is not as important to consumers as many seem to believe.

Today, a customers who buys songs from Apple can play the music on up to five computers and on a single iPod. That seems fair to me and I have not found myself so far in a situation where I felt limited by those restrictions.

DRM-free does not mean free to share with an unlimited number of friends. It just means that you can move it around with no restrictions, as long as you remain within the limits of what is allowed by the EULA. Since neither Apple nor EMI have indicated what the EULA will look like, everyone is assuming that the terms EULA will be similar to what you get today with Fairplay, but that may or may not be the case.

During an interview today Steve Jobs stated that “Our point of view has been that we’re not offering customers anything here today that they can’t get on every CD that’s shipped. Right? They get DRM-free music on every CD that is shipped today. So, we’re not offering anything online that they can’t get on a CD today”. That is true, but there are serious limitations to what you can do with a CD.

For example, making multiple copies of that CD to allow multiple family members to listen to it simultaneously would probably fall outside of the fair-use provision. In some countries, ripping a CD to listen to the music on a portable device could still be illegal today (Australia had this problem). Those examples clearly demonstrate that DRM free music does not equal to more rights for the end user. In fact, CD owners today have clearly less rights than iTunes music store customers. That means that legal music buyers should wait for the EMI EULA before rejoicing.

There are many examples of extremely restrictive EULAs. Microsoft provides great examples. For example, even though Vista Home does work in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMware, this is forbidden by the EULA. Also, Windows licences cannot be installed on multiple machines or transferred from one machine to another. So, should the EMI EULA be written by MS (or the RIAA) lawyers, we could be in for a major disappointment.

Today is a great day for those not concerned by the legal restrictions that come attached to the licensing of digital media. For those of us who try to abide by the law, things may not look as good as they appear.

Is OS X a good strategic fit for Apple’s embedded devices?

April 1, 2007

Back in January, when few details where known about the new device, I stated that the AppleTV was really a stripped down Mac Mini. Now that the product is available and that some clever hackers have been able to boot a complete version of OSX on the device, it is clear that I was right.

A couple of months ago I was wondering what kind of OS an Apple cellular phone would use. At the time, I thought that using OS X was unrealistic. The reason I believed that is because there have been traditionally large differences between operating systems for embedded systems and full fledged computer. This may not be evident for the general public who may think that Linux or Windows Mobile have some close relationship with their desktop counterpart, but it is a fact.

The fact that the Apple TV runs a scaled down version of Mac OS X shows that Apple is moving down the same path. However, the effort seems far from complete, based on the fact that a fully functional computer is still required in order to stream video from a computer to a TV. That is why the Apple TV is relatively expensive when compared to similar (not identical) products from the competition. The foundation Apple is working on was designed for desktop computers, not embedded systems and it shows. The only experience Apple has with embedded devices is the iPod and they were not responsible for most of the design decisions, relying instead on third party suppliers like PortalPlayer (now owned by nvidia).

Developing a true embedded OS takes time. Microsoft has spent years working on Windows Mobile and we know how bad that system was in earlier versions, when it was known as Pocket PC. Linux is just emerging now as a true contender in this market. From my point of view, based on the analysis of the AppleTV hardware and software, Apple does not have at this time a true, mature, embedded OS. This is probably the reason why the iPhone will not support, at least initially third party applications.

The important question however is, does it matter? A couple of years ago I would have answered with a resounding YES. Today I am not so sure anymore. New technologies mean that embedded devices are getting more powerful by the minute, offering capabilities and performance much closer to what desktop computers can deliver. Origami devices (ultra mobile PCs) are a clear example of this trend, small devices running a full desktop OS. This means that having a true embedded OS is no longer the same strategic advantage it used to be. Apple may have to struggle quite a bit to overcome the limitations of OS X as an embedded operating system for some time but ultimately creating a complete software foundation over a complete OS may turn out to be a good decision for the future. Maybe this is another demonstration of “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.”.

More on Stay tuned…

March 28, 2007

According to my web server stats, my previous post was pretty popular. It turns out that Iljitsch van Beijnum, an Ars Technica blogger read it and used it as an inspiration to speculate that Leopard will include a revolutionary new 3D user interface.

I totally disagree with his reasoning. I think that Iljitsch completely misunderstood my original post. What I said (among other things) was that the delay in releasing iWork/iLife was probably due to the fact that these application suites would use the new APIs available in Leopard (in order to bootstrap their use by other OS X software developers) and that the new “secret” features would probably not be new unannounced APIs but instead new end-user oriented “applications” like time machine, iChat or iSync that have no impact whatsoever on third party applications.

That does not mean that Apple could not use the release of Leopard to solve the many visual inconsistencies that have plagued Mac OS X for the last few years or add some nifty animations and special effects, but do not expect a total revolution. Rolling out a radically new user interface without impacting third party applications is not a reasonable expectation, even if we incorrectly assumed that all developers use the Cocoa framework properly.

Stay tuned…

March 25, 2007

During the analyst call following Apple’s Q1 earning announcement hosted by Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer, someone asked the question that is in every Mac user’s mind. What happened to iLife and iWork 07. The response was “Stay tuned…”.

It is obvious that Apple is only weeks or months away from announcing the updates. Of course, that means that, as many expect, these updated products will use new Leopard features, since we are less than three months away from the introduction of Apple’s latest OS, which is still scheduled for this Spring, despite rumors to the contrary.

The question, of course, is what new Leopard features are so important that they require Apple to sync the releases of the OS and their applications. Many will probably point out that the new Core Animation API is a good fit for iMovie and that most applications can benefit from Image Kit as well as the new Core Text API. That is true. However, my gut feeling is that there is something more.

I believe that Apple will include in Leopard some new functionality that will require major changes to existing applications. By releasing updated applications that make use of this new functionality and demonstrate its potential, Apple will force independent developers to adopt this technology.

So, what could that technology be? My first thought was resolution independence. That new feature will require almost all developers to revisit their applications and it is clear to me that quick adoption of this technology is important to Apple in order to maintain the current public perception that Apple is ahead in the OS wars. Is that enough to justify delaying iWork and iLife? Probably not. The new applications will probably use some additional, unannounced features to generate excitement.

This should not come as a surprise. My perception at last WWDC was that while the new announced Leopard features were cool, they were mostly self-serving. If Apple really listened to developers they would have set different priorities like enhancing support for web services in Cocoa instead of developing the Core Animation API. This means that from my point of view, Apple mainly defines the future of Mac OS X based on their own requirements with little regard for developer requests. There are many examples that illustrate this situation like lack of support for Quicktime-Java or abandoning the Objective-C/Java bridge despite the opposition of many third-party developers. Even Java/SWT support, despite being very important for developers, is still deficient despite countless promises to bridge the existing gap with other platforms.

That does not mean that developing for the Mac OS X isn’t fun. Hey, I love the platform and I will do my best to attend WWDC again this year. In fact, I am quite sure that I will enjoy playing with many of the new APIs as well as with XCode 3.0. However, I would like Apple to listen more closely to third party developers. Most of the developer community requests come from the fact that while OS X offers some amazing APIs, it lags in other areas. Developers expect Apple to introduce great innovations but also to work on the missing pieces in order to deliver a complete, balanced development platform. We do know that Apple does not have infinite resources and that difficult choices need to be made, but not listening carefully to developers does not seem to be the best long term strategy.

Short term however, Apple is brewing the perfect storm. With new applications exploiting the new features of Leopard, they should be able to wow the Macintosh community in a way that Microsoft has been unable to do with Vista. Releasing new versions of their applications allows Apple to demonstrate the value of the new APIs to end-users as well as to developers. That is very clever.

On April 15, Apple will host a special event at NAB. This is a show for professionals. I would not expect any iWork or iLife announcements at the show. However, many expect Apple to announce and demonstrate an updated version of Final Cut Pro. Will that product suite also depend on the release of Leopard? That seems unlikely. Professionals do not upgrade their OS as quickly as consumers. Will Apple unveil new information about the new OS? Once again, probably not, after all, Steve Jobs usually does not demonstrate professional Apple software and I doubt that someone else will be responsible for hyping the upgrade. We will therefore probably have to keep waiting, probably until June, much in the same way that we have been waiting for official updates on the iPhone since its announcement three months ago at MacWorld. That will keep us excited for the next couple of months.

Meaningless work

March 16, 2007

For the last six working days I have been unable to use my IBM Lotus Notes client. It turns out that a duplicated record on an LDAP server was responsible for the mess. Finally, after spending hours over the phone pleading for help, IBM’s internal help desk was finally able to diagnose and solve the problem. However, as expected, after such a long period of time without accessing my e-mail, my account was jammed with unread mail.

It took me ten hours of non-stop work to go through my unread e-mail and delete enough worthless mails in order to just be able to re-activate my account (at IBM we cannot send messages unless our inbox size drops under a 200GB limit). That made me think. If after so much work all I could claim was to have cleaned my inbox (which offers absolutely no business value) I am not sure that better communications are helping my productivity. In fact, it seems that I spend almost two hours a day working on useless mail.

Ever since I was a small child my parents taught me to analyze at the end of the day if it had been productive. Always ask yourself, what did you do today? That was a message my mother kept telling me. I guess that after much repetition, it finally stuck with me and I now feel either guilty or disappointed if I was unable to do something productive or meaningful during a particular day.

However, mail is not the only problem. Browsing the Internet is also an activity that quickly reduces personal productivity. Despite all the virtues of this technology, I know that I am far more productive when I am disconnected, with no distractions. However, since this happens less and less, in the end, it is just a matter of personal discipline. Everyone must learn how to set daily or weekly personal objectives for themselves in order to evaluate their productivity and correct automatically any deviations before receiving complaints from their boss, teacher, spouse or kids.

I am somewhat worried that schools do not spend time teaching children a skill that is so important. Learning it is critical to a successful life. However, while it is nice to know that you should not waste your time, it is also clear that the information overload that we are facing forces us to work longer hours just to obtain the same results.

There have been many proposals to fight spam. One such proposal included charging a low, nominal fee for e-mail (say US$0.01 for example). This was an interesting idea, since it would made the business of spam much less profitable. While the idea was interesting, it was impossible to implement, on a global scale. However, such an idea could easily be implemented inside the enterprise. If every employee knew that adding someone to the cc list did have an associated cost, we could finally start reducing the ridiculous amount of mail that is currently killing the knowledge worker.

Rational developers

February 18, 2007

As I briefly mentioned in my previous post, I recently flew to Chicago to attend an internal IBM Rational kick-off event. As a technical manager at IBM I lead the Software Group IT specialist team in Mexico, which includes engineers who belong to the Rational brand. Therefore I need to know in what direction the organization is moving.

As a long time software developer, Rational has always been intriguing to me. I have worked on many complex projects, sometimes alone (when that was still possible back in the 80s and early nineties) and more recently leading small teams. I started programming at age 14, and sold my first commercial application for the Apple II four years later. Being a good programmer did not help me with my first engagement as a consultant, though. Even thought I had already published three commercial applications in the U.S. at the time, that did not prepare me at all for the job. I can say with no hesitation that the project turned quickly into an absolute disaster (it was riddled with typical project management issues, which I was unable to anticipate). I learned a lot from the experience though, and have been able to avoid making the same mistakes ever since.

Rational has a great value proposition. It offers to train IT organizations in how to effectively implement a development process that should allow, in theory, to avoid most of the common pitfalls these organizations encounter daily. That process, RUP (Rational Unified Process), is the result of collecting the experience of thousands of teams who have worked on both successful and unsuccessful projects. Although, as many developers, I am personally allergic to any kind of process that stands between myself and my IDE, I have to admit that many of the failed projects that I have witnessed could have been executed successfully by implementing a decent process. I have found in particular that most programmers fail to properly garner requirements and effectively test their applications. Rational is specially strong in both disciplines and I like that.

So, if implementing a process is so beneficial why do few organizations actually do it? There are many explanations. Junior developers simply do not understand that they need to do it. Experienced developers are sometimes arrogant and think that they can live without it, not understanding that the code lives on when the application is finished and they move to other projects. Someone else will have to maintain the application and expand it. They will need proper documentation, test sets and tools to keep track of the changes. However, in my mind there is an additional reason. In many cases, those who sell methodologies too often have not written any line of actual code in years.

This is a problem as it creates a strong credibility issue. How can a Java programmer trust the recommendations of someone who does not even know the language and wrote his last COBOL application ten years ago? That happened to me when I went to my first Rational conference. I thought, well they may be right, but why should I trust them, after all they are no longer programmers. Today, I have realized that they do not have to be programmers. Their recommendations apply to any software development project, no matter what the language or the architecture is. However, I still feel that there is a strong technology gap between those who focus on methodologies and those who actually do the programming. That is why I am working on making sure that my Rational IT Specialists become fluent in Java and interact more with the WebSphere team. Credibility is key, no matter how good the service Rational sells.

The Illinois tourist trap

February 18, 2007

Two weeks ago I had to travel to Chicago to attend a Rational Software conference. This wasn’t my first trip to Chicago, but since the Conference wasn’t in Downtown Chicago, I opted to rent a car equipped with the Neverlost GPS system. There were some signs that alerted tourists that they would need US$.80 in change in order to pay the toll to return the car to the airport, but that was all the information provided to travelers about the Illinois toll system.

Guided by the GPS I went straight to my hotel. At some point I saw a sign announcing a toll and the road bifurcated. My GPS indicated that I had to continue straight and it looked like those choosing to move to the right lanes where simply leaving the highway. When I realized that the central lanes where for vehicles who had paid for an annual pass it was too late. When I finally arrived to my destination there was another toll. Exact changed had to be provided. I do not know if the local authorities know about this, but usually tourists do not carry change on arrival, only bills, because that is what foreign banks handle. A sign told me that if I had no change I could go to a web site and pay online. Reassured, I decided to just go through and pay later.

At the hotel I was able to get some change and decide to do some shopping. There I was betrayed by my GPS system which decided to get me to the highway for lees than half a mile before asking me to perform a u-turn. That resulted in having me go twice through a toll. I had enough change for the first toll but not for the second. That meant three violations in less than two hours! At that time I wasn’t very concerned because I thought that I could pay online, just as the signs indicated. Anyway, that was my last toll violation for the whole trip. I now know how the system works and if I have to return to Chicago I will be prepared.

The problem is that the signs make you feel comfortable because you think that you can just pay online later. That may be true for U.S. residents but it does not apply to those of us who happen to live outside the U.S. In our case we have to send a check or money order through normal mail. This is ridiculous and outrageous. Does anyone working for the Illinois toll-way system realize how difficult it is to obtain a US$2.40 check outside the U.S.? Does anyone realize how expensive it is to process such a check? There is simply no way they will be able to cash a check for such a small amount from a foreign bank. The problem is that if I do not send that check I will have to pay a hefty fine which will be charged automatically to me by my car rental company. It is obvious to me that the system is designed to penalize foreign tourists who are unaware of how the system works and cannot complain. To make things worse, this has to be done within seven days, which is too short for most travelers who do not return in time to their home countries.

Although I will try to send my check tomorrow in order to avoid the fine I cannot avoid thinking that many foreigners will get caught in this trap which could be easily avoided by asking rental companies to provide information to tourists and have them handle change to those who need it. Another solution is to allow everyone to pay over the internet. Right now I am sure that foreigners are unfairly being fined and this is not likely to help tourism in the region.

Apple and the battle over iTunes DRM

January 30, 2007

As most probably already know, some countries in Europe (Norway, France and the Netherlands among others) are putting pressure on Apple to force it to open the Fairplay DRM system. They argue that digital tunes should be playable on any digital music player, much in the same way that vinyl records could be played on any turntable.

There are some flaws with that reasoning. After all, I do not recall similar threats to Sony when they released Betamax (and more recently the ATRAC audio compression algorithm) or Nintendo who offers downloadable games that only work on their console. However, I think that everyone agrees with the fact that if Fairplay protected tunes could be played on any device, that would be better for consumers. After all, that would offer everyone the freedom to choose a player fron a different brand once the time comes to upgrade to newer gear. However, even though I am all for more freedom, I do not want this (small) improvement to result in higher prices. Why am I concerned?

Today, Apple can afford to leverage its large iPod installed base to put some serious pressure on the majors in order to keep the price of digital downloads relatively low. Therefore, because Apple makes money on the players, not the music, legal music downloaders have actually benefitted from Apple’s near monopoly. If Apple is forced to allow digital music interoperability, the leverage is lost and the majors will be able to set higher prices, much like what they have done with ring tones (in conjunction with network operators), and regain control of the online music distribution business.

So, who stands to win if EU regulators manage to force Apple to open up Fairplay? In the short term this could seem to be good news for SanDisk, LG or Philips (a Dutch company), among many others. However, there isn’t much money to be made in a totally commoditized market. The real winners would be the music labels, specially the majors (think RIIA), who would regain full control of the market. Where does that leave consumers? We have to choose between Steve Jobs (a benevolent dictator) and the freedom to choose a music player while living under the grip of the music tyrants.

For now, I sincerely prefer the Steve Jobs option. Why? Because right now Apple makes the best music players and because once you start buying a lot of digital music, like I do, the price of each song becomes more important than the price of the player. Of course, things could change in the future and therefore such a measure could become necessary. However, I would really appreciate if EU regulators tried to break the music oligopoly before suing Apple. Otherwise there is a clear danger that the remedy could be worse than the problem they are trying to fix. As a Dutch citizen I would like to see my government reconsider its decision.

The Perfume stinks

January 26, 2007

I do not write movie reviews very often, but when I go to the movies and I feel that I got ripped off, my only mean to get even is by using my blog.

In this case, it is really about the script. If I had read the book beforehand, I would never have bothered to see the film. Most recent American best-sellers are based on he same recipe, select a theme that is interesting to a large audience (Illuminatis, submarines or the personal life of Jesus), add surprising, little known facts, detailed descriptions of interesting places, and finally, a thin plot to hold everything together. This has worked great for authors such as Dan Brown or Tom Clancy, even though I personally think that the formula is starting to lose some of its magic.

There are many problems with The Perfume. The most important one, is that it is evident that Patrick Saskind had no clue whatsoever about how to finish his novel. That is why the last ten minutes of the movie are just ridiculous and spoil the whole movie. However, there is a reason why finishing the book proved difficult. For us, humans, scent is becoming less and less relevant. People may still enjoy a good perfume, but that is about it. This sense will not cause us to modify our behavior, despite all the unsubstantiated talk that surrounds pheromones.

So, even though the novel may have pleased readers with long descriptions about the art and mysteries of perfume creation, the movie is unable to carry them to the big screen effectively. The result is that, in the movie, the ridiculous conclusion is evident and unforgivable.

Apple TV for developers

January 18, 2007

As a developer I recently received an e-mail from the ADC (Apple Developer Connection) in which Apple offers to those developers with Select and Premier memberships to buy the new Apple TV using their hardware discounts. I do not want to read too much into this announcement, since it may just be a perk for loyal Apple developers.

However, it is weird that Apple offers a product that apparently cannot be extended in any way (software wise) to developers. It could also be that this offer is mainly directed to hardware developers who may want to offer accessories but I sincerely hope that there will be opportunities for software developers. After all, there is a strong demand for additional Codec support (Divx, Flash video, etc.) and there is potential for casual games like the ones that are currently available for the iPod.

It is unlikely that Apple will totally open access to the Apple TV APIs. In order to maintain control over the user experience, if they decide to open the product to third parties, Cupertino is likely to work with a very small group of developers, much in the same way it has done with the iPod (and will do with the iPhone). I sincerely hope that the ADC mail sent to developers means that at least some of them will be invited to offer additional software that will help improve what already looks like a great product.

Loading more posts...