Sales are good

Handpicked

Cumulative sales for Apple products asymco

Source: Apple sold more iOS devices in 2011 than all the Macs it sold in 28 years | asymco.

Nice work, as usual, by Horace Dediu. There’s very little to comment on the data itself — it’s quite self-explanatory. This is undoubtedly one of those graphs with a great ‘whoa’ factor. Apple sold many more iPhones in five years than Macs in 28 years. But once the immediate ‘whoa’ factor wears off, I wonder: is this really that surprising? And also: Macs, iPads and iPhones/iPods are three very different categories; should they be compared against one another?

I remember a while ago how people were afraid that Apple could abandon the Mac platform because of the huge success of iOS devices, and I also remember how all these people were surprised that Apple could sell so many more iPhones than Macs. But, I thought, isn’t it rather obvious? Of course Apple sells more phones than computers. These are different devices with different uses and different prices, aimed at (slightly) different markets. 

Imagine a company into the office furniture business, specifically desks and chairs. Beautifully crafted wooden desks and chairs. First they serve a rather niche market, then the business gets more profitable as word is spread about the quality of their products. Then one day they start producing pencils and small drawing tools. Then after a while you examine the sales of desks, chairs and pencils. Of course pencil sales are going to be way higher than desk sales. A pencil is versatile, portable, more affordable you buy more than one, you change pencil after a while. A desk is comparatively more difficult to place. But is it reasonable to compare their respective sales as if they were two competing products? I don’t think so.

My example is a little extreme, I know, but I hope it helps to illustrate my point. When looking at that graph, one is tempted to conclude that, since almost 200 million iPhones were sold in 5 years and roughly 120 million Macs were sold in 28 years, therefore the iPhone is a more successful product than the Mac. They are, however, products with different stories, born under very different circumstances and in very different computing eras. We should look at that graph as a breakdown of a compounded success, where each ingredient is not ‘competing’ against the other, especially considering that Mac sales help iOS sales and vice-versa.

Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion: essential coverage

Handpicked

Mountain Lion

As you’ve surely heard, Apple announced that the next Mac OS X iteration — 10.8, codename Mountain Lion — will be available in summer, and earlier today released a Developer Preview of Mountain Lion (Apple press release).

Of course, such announcements usually ‘make the Internet explode’, like someone said on Twitter. Suddenly everyone in the tech world was talking about it and the list of unread articles in my RSS feed reader skyrocketed in a matter of hours. To avoid being overwhelmed by information in cases like this (and especially by the often idle chatter), I tend to filter the intake, trying to locate good broad pieces that give me a fair amount of information without having to rush here and there fishing for possibly interesting bits.

So today the only articles I read from top to bottom are the following, and I highly recommend you read them too:

1. Hands on with Apple’s new OS X: Mountain Lion, by Jason Snell (Macworld)

2. Apple OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion preview, by Nilay Patel (The Verge)

These two articles give you plenty of information about the main new features in Mountain Lion.

3. Mountain Lion, by John Gruber

Gruber at his best. 

4. About Gatekeeper, by Steven Frank (Panic)

Steven Frank does an excellent job at explaining in plain English what code signing means, and what is the role of Gatekeeper, a new security feature in Mountain Lion. 

One more thing… Apparently, Mountain Lion will leave other older Intel Macs behind. Topher Kessler at MacFixIt writes:

Unfortunately Apple has not yet officially released the system requirements for the new OS, but the developer release that is being issued to members of its Mac development community does contain a list of supported devices:

  • iMac (mid-2007 or later)
  • MacBook (13-inch Aluminum, 2008), (13-inch, early 2009 or later)
  • MacBook Pro (13-inch, mid-2009 or later), (15-inch, 2.4/2.2 GHz, mid-2007 or later), (17-inch, late 2007 or later)
  • MacBook Air (late 2008 or later)
  • Mac Mini (early 2009 or later)
  • Mac Pro (early 2008 or later)
  • Xserve (early 2009)
  •  

    Since these systems will run the developer preview, it is fair to assume they will also run the final release. It appears that this list leaves out a few systems that currently do run Lion, which include the following:

  • MacBook Pro from late 2006 (models 2,1 and 2,2)
  • MacBook from late 2006 through late 2007 (models 2,1 and 3,1)
  • Mac Mini from mid-2007 (model 2,1)
  • Ancora sull’affidabilità di dispositivi e supporti

    Mele e appunti

    Il tutto inizia in modo semplice e innocuo: avevo voglia di rivedere alcune foto scattate fra 2004 e 2005, all’epoca del mio insediamento qui in Spagna. Di quelle foto conservo vari backup in dischi e anche Mac diversi, ma la versione più strutturata è conservata in una ventina di CD‑R, tutti ordinati cronologicamente. Sono CD‑R masterizzati dal 2004 in poi, presumibilmente dal masterizzatore interno del mio PowerBook G4 12″, che all’epoca era la mia macchina principale. Masterizzatore che non ha mai dato problemi e che continua a funzionare ancora oggi. Nel masterizzare, ho sempre cercato di seguire tre regolette, nel limite del possibile:

    1. Utilizzare supporti di buona qualità
    2. Utilizzare sempre lo stesso masterizzatore
    3. Utilizzare sempre lo stesso software di masterizzazione (nel mio caso, Toast Titanium)

    Ho un archivio di CD e DVD masterizzati piuttosto cospicuo, che controllo periodicamente. Non so se il mio metodo paga, oppure se si tratta semplicemente di fortuna, ma devo dire che mi è capitato molto raramente di trovare un disco assolutamente illeggibile, nemmeno fra quelli più vecchi in mio possesso (del 1995, all’incirca).

    Immaginate la sorpresa quando, inserito il primo CD con le foto del 2004, mi sono ritrovato davanti l’interfaccia di Toast Titanium, con il MacBook Pro che invece di montare il disco lo considerava un supporto vuoto. Un MacBook Pro del 2009 che non legge un CD del 2004, questa è bella, ho pensato.

    Ora, è noto che quando un disco masterizzato si comporta in modo inaspettato (viene visto come vuoto, o addirittura risputato dall’unità ottica), i colpevoli possono essere solo due: o il disco, rovinatosi in qualche modo, oppure il lettore/masterizzatore. La mia sorpresa era grande anche perché ricordavo di aver visto sul MacBook Pro altri CD di foto della stessa epoca, senza problemi. Inoltre conservo i miei CD/DVD con cura. Ancora incredulo, ho provato il secondo CD, con l’archivio di foto del 2004 e 2005. Niente. 

    Ho riavviato il Mac. Niente.

    Sarà colpa del lettore del MacBook Pro? Ho inserito un film in DVD e non ha esitato a leggerlo.

    Allora ho fatto un’altra prova: ho collegato il masterizzatore CD/DVD portatile LaCie esterno, ho provato gli stessi CD. Niente da fare.

    Stavo iniziando a pensare che forse era successo qualcosa ai dischi. Riprendo il primo CD e lo inserisco nell’unità ottica del Power Mac G4 Cube che ho di fianco. Bum! Si monta sulla scrivania e le foto sono tutte dove le avevo lasciate. Inizio a navigare fra le cartelle e tutto si apre regolarmente. A questo punto ho come una pulce all’orecchio: prendo il CD e lo faccio leggere dagli altri Mac che ho a disposizione nel mio quartier generale: il PowerBook G4 12″ lo legge, il PowerBook G4 Titanium lo legge, gli iBook G3 colorati lo leggono, il PowerBook G3 Lombard lo legge… Il caso strano sembra essere il MacBook Pro. Mi viene un’altra idea: riavvio il MacBook Pro dall’ultimo backup di Snow Leopard che feci prima di aggiornare a Lion, rimetto il CD e… viene letto tranquillamente. L’unica deduzione che mi resta da fare è che stavolta il colpevole non è né il disco né il masterizzatore, ma il sistema operativo. Possibile che Lion sia così schizzinoso?

    Purtroppo sono talmente occupato che non ho potuto documentarmi bene online per sapere con certezza se si tratta di un problema comune ad altri utenti, e non ho ancora avuto il tempo per aggiornare a Mac OS X 10.7.3 per verificare se risolva il problema. Ho pensato di riportare questo episodio per fare un paio di considerazioni, una pratica e una più generale.

    La considerazione pratica: vi succedesse una cosa del genere, non saltate alle conclusioni pensando che i vostri CD o DVD siano illeggibili o rovinati. Se io avessi avuto soltanto il MacBook Pro e il masterizzatore esterno, dopo aver provato il CD in entrambi i lettori, quello interno e quello esterno, sarei stato tentato di concludere la stessa cosa. Se vi rimangono dei Mac più datati e provvisti di unità ottica funzionante, riesumateli e fate delle prove: non tutti i dati potrebbero essere persi.

    La considerazione generale: siamo sempre al solito discorso. Viva il digitale, certo, ma un po’ più di affidabilità non guasterebbe. Se quello di Lion non è un semplice bug passeggero, siamo all’assurdo — al non essere in grado di leggere un supporto registrato sei anni fa. (D’accordo, alla fine ho potuto leggerlo, ma supponiamo di aver avuto soltanto attrezzature recenti). Tornano le osservazioni che ho scritto in The culture of backup due mesi fa:

    Siamo nel 2011: non dovremmo stare a preoccuparci di copiare i nostri materiali in maniera ridondante su vari dispositivi e in vari luoghi per poter proteggere le informazioni in modo sicuro. So che è facile farlo, che i dispositivi costano poco, che può essere un procedimento del tutto automatizzato, ecc. Ma credo che il tutto debba essere qualcosa di ancor meno oneroso. Ovviamente non mi aspetto vita eterna dai dispositivi e dai supporti, ma almeno qualcosa di più duraturo. Come i CD musicali acquistati nel 1988 e tranquillamente riproducibili in un lettore del 2011. Sono sicuro che quando li avete acquistati non avete pensato “Oh adesso devo fare un backup della musica perché qualcosa potrebbe andare storto nel giro di un mese e potrei perdere i dati”. Vorrei semplicemente qualcosa di paragonabile per le informazioni che ho sui miei Mac. Basta con questa cultura dell’usa e getta. I nostri dati personali si meritano opzioni di archiviazione migliori e più affidabili.

    A volte l’immaterialità del digitale mi atterrisce, come nel caso illustrato qui, e finché il digitale mi riserverà sorprese come queste avrò sempre quella punta di diffidenza. Fare i backup è importante, non lo nego, ma non si dovrebbe vivere facendo continuamente manutenzione dei propri materiali con quell’angoscia sottile e remota di poter perdere delle informazioni solo perché si è abbassata la guardia un momento. La tecnologia dovrebbe venirci in aiuto, non complicare le cose.

    iWitness

    Handpicked

    Source: iWitness | Seven Days.

    After a mandatory introduction explaining the role of Jerry Manock in Apple’s history, the article features a lot of interesting excerpts and quotes from Manock himself, plus a scan of Manock’s original deal with Steve Jobs from 24 February 1977, when Jobs hired him as a consultant to design the Apple II.

    A couple of favourites:

    When the iPhone came out, I sent Steve an email saying, “Why don’t you just buy your own communications satellite to have a worldwide cell network. AT&T has the iPhone in Vermont, and we use Verizon. His response was: “Thank you, Jerry.”

    Mary Ellen and I went to California — it must have been 10 years ago. We went to the annual meeting, unannounced, and sat in the fourth row. The executive staff came onstage and they sat on their little stools, going through their business. Steve looked over at us and he did a double take. I thought, Well, that’s really nice. He recognized us. At the end of the meeting, when they asked if there was any more business, Steve said, “I have some business.” He said, “I just want to acknowledge Jerry Manock.” And he told of our contribution, being on the Macintosh team. Everybody stood up. It was a standing ovation. He didn’t have to do that.

    I also sympathise with this:

    Nowadays you can design something in 3D, have photorealistic rendering, cast shadows and specify, “This is metal. This is wood.” You can come up with a picture of it without ever touching a physical thing, without ever building a model to hold in your hand. To me, that’s really dangerous.

    I get really upset when I’m walking downtown and there are three young people walking toward me — all with their heads down. I try to make eye contact to say hello, good morning, and nothing. The disconnect there bothers me, and that’s going to get nothing but worse. I’ve got my iPhone and GPS and news anytime I want it. But my mindset is: I’m not married to this thing. I don’t have to look at it every five minutes. I can kind of use the technology for what I need. I feel pretty balanced that way. […] 

    As always, the article is well worth reading in its entirety.

    (Via my friend @loox)

    A matter of granularity

    Tech Life

    Let me begin by stating that asking whether the iPad is a personal computer or not is a pointless question. Is the Isetta a car? It has no useful boot, it’s quite small, and some Isettas had three wheels. Still you drive it, it takes you from A to B, it has car controls, it evidently is not a motorcycle or a van or a truck, etc. Yes, like the more modern Smart, it is a peculiar car. Both these small cars have very specific features to meet specific needs. You won’t buy a Smart if you have a large family, if you travel by car a lot and need ample space for your luggage and personal belongings, or if you live in places where you need to drive across off-road paths and difficult terrain.

    The car industry, over the years, has produced so many different vehicles that today we can safely say there’s a type of car for every need. Saloon cars, station wagons, space wagons, SUVs, jeeps, fastbacks, sports cars, utility cars, minivans, you name it. They have achieved a certain level of granularity. You certainly won’t bring your family of 5 on a 2‑seat sports car, or load logs on a Ferrari. Apart from obvious design and aesthetic preferences, one tends to purchase the type of car that most suits one’s needs.

    The parallel between cars and computers here seems quite obvious to me. Personal computers, too, are achieving new levels of granularity, addressing more and more refined, specific needs. Both Car and Personal Computer are very generic labels taken on their own. Both suggest a certain idea, of course, but if we look at their specific models and shapes — especially through their respective histories — we’ll end up with hundreds of different examples. 

    But, as its inability to carry logs or climbing very steep slopes doesn’t mean a Smart isn’t a car, similarly the fact that the iPad lacks a built-in physical keyboard or the typical array of ports, or that it doesn’t come with a CLI (command line interface), or that it lacks the same kind or level of multitasking as a traditional personal computer, doesn’t mean it isn’t a personal computer.

    It’s truly personal

    I for one think that there hasn’t been, in the whole computer history, a more personal device than the iPad. That’s because it’s the personal in Personal Computer what has subtly changed. The traditional personal computer of the last three decades has been called ‘personal’ to indicate, basically, a general-purpose machine that was meant for an individual user. Its level of ‘personal-ness’ was coarse, though: it was ‘personal’ in the sense that, well, you bought it, or only you were using it at the company’s office, or that it wasn’t a mainframe managed by a staff of technicians, things like these. And then, of course, there was the ‘general purpose’ aspect. A general-purpose device can potentially do a multitude of tasks, and those not only depend on the applications you decide to install on it, but also on your computer knowledge: power users, programmers, scientists can develop their own specific software, and have the computer perform many other processes. The average user wouldn’t even know where to begin. 

    The iPad is personal in a deeper sense. Its level of ‘personal-ness’ is more refined. The iPad is a granular personal device. It’s a ‘personal’ computer in the sense that it’s designed to meet the personal needs of each and every user by offering them an easy-to-use modular operating system, a system made of bricks (apps) the user can choose from a big box (the App Store) and assemble in the way the user sees fit. The meaning of ‘personal’ in the definition of the iPad as a Personal Computer is closer to ‘intimate’, if you want. The iPad can’t even be shared among multiple users (sure, you can pass the device to a friend momentarily if he needs to check something online, for instance, but iOS doesn’t support multiple user accounts). 

    You can perceive the higher granularity in the way the iPad is ‘personal’ also considering another important aspect: it is a computer truly designed around the user. It embodies the simplicity of an appliance and the sophistication of an advanced computer. It can perform a variety of sophisticated tasks without requiring technical knowledge from the user. And what’s more, it can perform such tasks in a brilliant, fun, user-friendly way. This is, I believe, the main reason lots of people are buying iPads, even for replacing traditional computers. Users love the iPad’s immediacy: What do you want to do? Tap here, tap there, done. You can choose from a menu as vast as the App Store. The only intimidating thing with iOS is the amount of apps you can choose from. You don’t have to ‘learn to use’ the operating system before doing whatever it is you want to do. You don’t have to worry about stuff you shouldn’t be worrying about, like keeping an anti-virus database updated or configuring a firewall.

    While the iPad can’t fully replace a traditional computer for everyone, I think it is actually the first device to be more personal than any personal computer. It’s a matter of granularity.