What's the deal with Apple Computers?

I recently received a Macbook Air from my new job.  I started using my first Mac when I was in diapers but I haven't owned one since I was 14 (incidentally this time period roughly coincides with Steve Job's period away from Apple).  Since becoming a Windows (and later Ubuntu Linux) user I had developed a minor disapproval for Apple Computers as well as their business model, since using my new Mac I've had some new thoughts on what makes Apple so distinct.

Most customers have some brand loyalty toward the products they buy, Apple is an example of a company that inspires fierce brand loyalty in its customers.  Apple consumers are so loyal that they are willing to spend more for Apple products than comparable non-Apple products, PC World Magazine estimates the cost between equivalent PC and Mac computers to be between $300 and $500.

Apple products are well designed, innovative and all work well together.  But unlike most other products, it can be hard to switch from Apple to another brand.  I've spoken with many Mac/iPhone users who feel that they couldn't adequately learn to use a new system and thus can't switch to a new device.  Most people manage to transition to using Apple products without much trouble, so it seems as if Apple usage can only grow, perhaps justifying the company's impressive stock price.

At a fundamental level, there isn't a difference between Mac computer and other computers (or between iPads, iPhones and iPods and all the other phones, mp3 players and tablets/ereaders).  All these devices have ways of displaying information, input devices to receive information and ways of computing information.  The screens, keypads/touchpads, and operating systems make the devices look and feel different, but below the surface, where the actual computing occurs they are about as similar as Pepsi and Coke.  So, why are Apple users willing to pay so much more for their devices?

Henry Ford is alleged to have said that his customers could have a car in any color they wanted as long as it was black, which was efficient because black paint dries faster than any other color.  So Ford saved some money in producing his cars, but since customers are willing to pay extra for products that look good and are easy to use probably lost money by denying customers a choice in color.  Manual transmission have many advantages over automatic transmissions: they cost less, they generally get better gas mileage, they are easier to fix and they give the driver more control over the vehicle.  Despite these advantages, manual transmissions are being produced less and less within the US and may eventually only be available on sports cars or large trucks.  The reason why is clear, they are harder to use than automatics.  It's not incredibly hard to drive a manual, in some areas outside of the US the majority of cars are manuals.  In most of those countries, cars are more of a luxury.  The suggestion the history of car user interfaces suggests for the future of computers is a trend towards computers which are easier to use at the expense of efficiency and affordability.  So the important question isn't why are Apple consumers paying for more for their computer but why aren't Apple's competitors using Mac OS and paying more attention to the design and usability of their computers?

Mac products exist within what technologists call a walled garden, Apple controls the interactions between Mac products and third party software and hardware.  This explains why their software is generally of better quality (but also why much software, some of it very useful isn't available for Macs).  Additionally, this policy is partly why viruses infect Windows machines more than Macs (which is suggested by the sterile appearance and hospital-white color of Apple products).

Microsoft took a different approach to distributing its software than Apple did, there are limitations to how third party software and hardware can interact with Windows and Microsoft products, but these limitations are not nearly as stringent as Apple's.  Microsoft made a large effort to make all computer hardware compatible with its operating system, in doing so it almost became a complete monopoly but it allowed businesses to exchange information without having to worry about different data formats.   Microsoft applied same philosophy to software, it's relatively easy for a software developer to create a product which windows user can download and use (though some of these products will be viruses).  Though some form of the  windows operating system is on about 90% of computers (and it is possible to install Windows on a Macintosh computer), Microsoft doesn't manufacture any of the computers that use its software.

Apple manufactures both software and hardware and instead of trying to get its software onto other manufacturers hardware it actively prevents them from doing so.  Their goal is to have 100% of computers running the Mac OS to be manufactured by Apple.  Independent individuals create 'Hackintoshes' with regular hardware and the Mac OS to avoid paying the $300-$500 premium, but when Psystar (a Miami based computer company) tried to sell Mac OS on computers they'd manufactured themselves, Apple filed a legal injunction preventing them from doing so.  Apple's walled garden policy has also led to their devices having cables which are different from the standardized PC cables (and naturally cost more).

Mac products are better designed and it is easier to use them for elementary tasks, but in a world where digital literacy is increasingly important, Apple is doing a disservice to its customers.  When I got my first Windows machine, I spent a lot of time figuring out how it worked, there were some things that I couldn't initially figure out how to do but I persevered and learned lessons about how my machine worked.  Discovering how to use a computer is a frustrating yet educational process, but Apple's walled garden policy prevents users from understanding much of how their device works.  Linux/Unix machines are even more frustrating and educational than Windows machines, but since their source code is openly available, you can modify them to your heart's desire and distribute your modifications to whoever you want (you need to be computer savvy to do so).  The flexibility of Unix led Steve Jobs to use the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) branch of it to recreate the Mac OS, by adding aesthetically pleasing design he was able to charge costumers for what they could get for free.

Since I've used my Macbook Air for a while, the initial appeal has worn off I've had several complaints about its design:

• the sharp edges of the computer give me wrist pains as I type
• whenever I alter the volume I hear an annoying beep, interrupting whatever I'm listening to
•  the lack of a screen protector has left dust on my monitor that I can't clean easily with my finger 
• the white body of my computer makes the minor specks of dust much more visible
• the lack of the traditional pg up, pg dn, home and end keys make navigating documents harder
•  the lack of a delete and backspace key makes editing mistakes slightly less convenient(Macs just have delete, which does what backspace does on PCs, the delete function should let you remove characters to the right of your cursor rather than the left)
• The single button mouse prevents me from doing what I could do on another system 
• The scrollbar isn't always visible.  
• There's no easy way to see all the programs I have without opening a new program (Mission Control)
• There's no CD/DVD drive so I can't play movies or install certain software

So the race to design a perfect user interface for a computer isn't over just yet.  Apple may be in the lead, but there's still a long way to the finish line and it Apple's competitors would realize the importance of design and take some risks and deviate from the standard black box-like machine running Windows, they might become even more successful than Apple.

My thoughts on the tenth Anniversary of 9/11

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the one of the deadliest attacks in US History. This event triggered a huge reaction not just in America but the rest of the world. In all likelihood, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as well as the entire Arab Spring wouldn't have happened without 9/11. Even the global recession would have unfolded differently or not happened if the World Trade Centers hadn't fallen...

It isn't clear to me how we should commemorate this anniversary. Some of us might feel like waving flags and talking about how great the USA is. But is America better off today than it was before 9/11? I don't think so. Not only did the attacks weaken us, but so did our response to the attacks. I think Americans need to ask themselves: What we could have done differently between 9/11/01 and today, what mistakes have been made in the last ten years have made us worse off?

The wars that this country has entered in the past ten years have been huge mistakes. The people that were so confident that Hussein had WMDs and that fighting the Iraq war would be easy and inexpensive have been proven wrong. There is no connection between Libya or Iraq to the 9/11 attacks and when we finally found Bin Ladin he was in Pakistan. Politicians have used 9/11 and the fear of another terrorist attack to drum up support for unrelated conflicts. We have little to gain from winning any of the three wars we're in, and it's not clear what exactly our victory conditions are (except perhaps in Libya, but who knows what will happen to that country when its ruler of 40 years is deposed or assassinated). We've lost more military personnel in these conflicts than we lost citizens in 9/11, not to mention all the non-Americans who've died. These wars are unpopular among US citizens and especially unpopular with citizens of other countries. Yet we continue them because we think that somehow fighting and killing will lead to a better outcome.

As a country, we can't admit when we're wrong. If we were the dominant superpower, that strategy might be viable, but with Europe uniting, China rising and the economic growth of most of the so called "third world" exceeding that of the "developed world" the US cannot expect to grow in international power and prestige if we remain so stupidly stubborn.

Americans have also lost a lot of civil liberties in the past ten years. I know it's cliche, but I feel obliged to use the Benjamin Franklin quote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Now we're harassed more at airports, can have our telephones conversations eavesdropped upon and many of the liberties established by the US Constitution have been limited. Of course, defenders of the Patriot Act and similar legislation would probably point out that there hasn't been an attack on the US in ten years, and claim that's evidence that these measures are working; they might also claim that unless you are hiding something you have nothing to fear from a loss of civil liberties. I find those claims to be naive for the following reasons:

1) There have been plenty of attacks against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would these terrorists go all the way to the USA to kill innocents when they can kill US soldiers and contractors without being racially profiled on the plane flight? This isn't to say I believe that these wars are a deterrent for terrorists, but that these wars make it easier for terrorists to harm Americans.

2) There have been attacks in Europe, India, Pakistan, throughout the Middle East, Russia and Indonesia. It's not clear to me that this is because these places have an abundance of civil liberties.

3) The intelligence community had the ability to violate various civil liberties in the name of national security before 9/11/01 yet they failed to prevent the attacks. Why should we give up more civil liberties for security when doing so in past hasn't worked?

4) The US government was clearly partially responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I'm not going to try to convince you of a conspiracy theory but nobody disputes that several of the hijackers learned to fly on US soil. We continue to support Saudi Arabia and buy tremendous amounts of oil from them even though 15 of 19 hijackers were from there.

5) Osama had specifically stated that the attacks occurred because of the US support for Israel, it's intervention in Lebanon and the US military presence in Islamic holy land. I'm not suggesting that we start taking orders from our enemies, but I do believe we should listen to our enemies. I believe rescinding support from Israel and withdrawing US troops from the Middle East would be a small price to pay if it ensured that the War on Terror would end.

The World Trade Towers were filled with the same bankers that would cause the economic crash and demanded a bailout. Can anybody honestly say that justice wouldn't have been served if Madoff died in 9/11? While many innocent Americans died on 9/11, many of the bankers and soldiers who died were guilty of causing damage to the world. This isn't an attempt to justify the attacks, but we should at least be aware that the purpose of these attacks was not simply to kill innocents. We should try to make sure that when we fight our enemy, we use more ethical tactics and harm less innocents or else they (as well as the rest of the observing world) will feel justified in killing innocents when they fight us.

I think in order to win or achieve honorable peace in this War on Terror, we need to understand the perspective of our enemies. Some would like to portray them as sociopaths who are beyond understanding, but I don't think that's true. I think our enemies are more like ourselves than we realize. Our enemies have the same desire for world domination as us. It's true that withdrawing for our wars and changing our policies may cause our enemies to perceive us as weak and attack us again. But it's also true that our enemies aren't fully united, if they don't perceive the USA as a threat to them, they will begin seeing each other as enemies and fight amongst each other.

So to commemorate 9/11 we should remember what America and the world were like before the horrible event happened. We should try to restore the more peaceful world that we had on 9/10/01. Americans should acknowledge and respect those that died on this tragic day, but also show concern for those that have died in our misguided and vengeful wars in the last ten years.

New Statesman - Assange: "WikiLeaks is the intelligence agency of the people"

New Statesman - Assange: "WikiLeaks is the intelligence agency of the people"

My informal opinion on Wikileaks and Julian Assange

Would like to write something about the wikileaks fiasco, but lacks time and fears that when he has time, the story will no longer be in the media, so I'll write a short summary.

Julian Assange mediated the release of documents of powerful organizations. These documents reveal things which have made those institutions seem less credible. He's in jail for having consensual sex where a condom broke (but Dick Cheney shoots someone in the face and walks free).

How does this make sense?

Julian Assange may be a criminal for releasing confidential information, but I'm not going to moralize and I'm not a legal expert, but I don't want to see him go to jail. This is because I'd like to know what all these huge organizations are hiding.

Was Alexander Hamilton Black?

(Originally published 2.23.07 in the Hamilton College Spectator.)

In honor of Black History Month, I've decided to examine the evidence that our college's namesake was partially of African descent. I have searched the internet and received help and perspective from Professor Ambrose, Professor Rubino and John Guilbert, Executive Director, Nevis Historical & Conservation Society. I'll examine the ramifications of discrediting the assumption that Hamilton was European. Despite a biblical passage to the contrary, Jesus is often illustrated as Northern European. Cleopatra (from Egypt) was portrayed by the English born Elizabeth Taylor. Non-European figures have been "whitened" before. Below, I'll give a brief biography of Alexander Hamilton, focusing on the evidence that he may have had "black blood".

Hamilton was born as the illegitimate son of Rachel Fawcett Lavien on a Carribean island the size of the town of Kirkland called Nevis. His mother was divorced for infidelity long before Hamilton was born, casting question onto Hamilton's father. Some claim that it was James Hamilton, the man who lived with Rachel. Others claim it was Nicolas Cruger, a Carribean merchant with connections in New York who employed an eleven year old Alexander Hamilton after his alleged father left him and his mother died. Some claim that Hamilton's mother had affairs with her slaves. Additionally, many claim that Hamilton's mother was herself part black, newspapers record Hamilton being called a mustee (implying his mother was a quarter black) by political enemies. At fourteen, Hamilton was running Cruger's business. After attending a prep school in New Jersey and applying to an advanced program at Princeton, he was turned down only after an in person interview. At seventeen he began attending what would become Colombia University, only to drop out two years later to fight in the Revolutionary War. At twenty Hamilton was appointed lieutenant colonel and became very close with George Washington. After practicing law for a short period after the war was over, Hamilton became extremely instrumental in the ratification of the Constitution by writing most of the Federalist Papers and formed the Federalist party. Hamilton was perhaps the staunchest abolitionist of his time. He argued blacks were mentally equal to whites and that slaves could be competent soldiers. He supported the black led government in Haiti who overthrew the French. At thirty-two Hamilton was named the first Secretary of the treasury by Washington. After resigning due to a scandal, Hamilton became more involved in political rivalries that would eventually result in his death. John Adams called Hamilton a "creole bastard" and Abigail Adams who said "[Hamilton] was a vain, ambitious man aspiring to govern when it was his duty to submit". Hamilton received much criticism despite being so important in the foundation of this country. Hamilton's life was ended in 1804 by Aaron Burr, who received no punishment.

That's about all the evidence I could find. I imagine some people are convinced that Hamilton was black. Others may think I've offered little or no evidence at all. Remember, there's no proof that Hamilton was white. Nobody knows what race Hamilton, his political critics probably didn't and it's possible that Hamilton himself was never sure. Certainty could only be determined by a genetic test. Some people might argue that Hamilton's race doesn't matter. Clearly, race meant something during Hamilton's time. But even today people of try to accumulate long lists of great individuals of their own race so they can feel proud of their race, or sometimes so they can feel superior to other races. So Hamilton's race remains an uncertainty that is important for people.

What is certain is that Hamilton's achievements were important and affect us today. That he was born a soon to be orphaned bastard on a tiny island makes his life more incredible. So does the fact that he was brutally criticized, perhaps simply for being an outsider (all the important founding fathers were born in America) or perhaps because of his race. He was an important military, political and economic figure, he was one of the few who advocated treating an unfavorably viewed group as the equals. His struggle and achievements are similar and important to millions of African-Americans, regardless of whether he was of African descent. If anybody is looking for a person of African descent who was accepted among whites before abolition, I'd recommend investigating Benjamin Scott Moncrieffe who served as the treasurer of a colonial church union.

All of this begs the questions, why do we need African-American heroes to be African, and why do we need a Black History Month at all? Certainly blacks have faced terrible discrimination, but so have plenty of other groups. There wouldn't be enough months in the calendar to accommodate every group. How about we use the month of February to confront and eliminate our own prejudices so we can honestly say things like the race of Alexander Hamilton, or any other individual, doesn't mean anything.

Why we mourn for Michael Jackson

It's been about a week since Michael Jackson died, the media frenzy has calmed down some, but he's still in the news. My usual attitude is that the world (and especially America's) obsession with celebrities is a detrimental and that our attention should be fixed on more important issues. For example, I really didn't care about when Heath Ledger died and I don't care about what is happening to Britney Spears. I'd much rather that the attention we give those celebrities be focused on something else, like the economy. But Michael was different.

It's hard for me to comprehend how prodigious Michael was. This is partly because his career was on a major decline for over a decade. His popularity started long before I was born and peaked when I was very young. I remember waiting in anticipation for his videos and listening to Thriller over and over on my mom's old record player. I remember talking about Black or White at school in the first grade. I remember when Dangerous came out and waiting for another set of videos. And I remember being confused about the child molestation accusations, that had a lot to do with the loss of my infatuation with Jackson, but I think it hurt Jackson a lot more than me, I think it made it harder for him to make music.

I've done a bit of research on both child molestation cases, and I don't think Jackson is guilty. I won't go into all the details but here are a few points:

First Trial
The case was brought by a dentist who was $68,400 behind in child support payments. He was jealous of the relationship that Michael Jackson had with his 13 year old son and extracted a confession by using a controversial drug. His ex-wife told police she did not believe her son was molested. Other children who were friends of Jackson were questioned and none of them reported inappropriate behavior. After the trial, several people who worked for Jackson sold false stories to media tabloids. Jackson eventually settled out of court because he was under a tremendous amount of stress.

Second Case
The accuser went to the same lawyer who served in the previous case before going to the police. The DA opened a website encouraging anyone who had been abused by Jackson to come forward, nobody did. In 1998 the accuser had stolen clothes from JC Penny, claimed that she had been beaten by the security officers and tried to sue for three million. Two years after that she claimed her breasts had been fondled and settled out of court for 137,000 (and never was punished for stealing clothes).

This is by no means conclusive proof that Jackson is innocent, but there really isn't much proof he is guilty either, just the words of two kids (though many more say Jackson never did anything inappropriate).

However, there is one person we know was abused as a child, Michael Jackson. He was poor and beaten and never given a chance to lead a normal childhood, if he did abuse the children, it was only abuse begetting abuse.

Aside from being a phenomenal singer and dancer, Michael Jackson pioneered the music video away from simple shots of the band playing or shots about the song's subject matter into actual stories. His music videos grabbed your attention for the full 8-20 minutes, they weren't just some random strung together images tangentially related to the song, they were the song. Nobody has come close to making videos like Jackson has. Along with the artistic merit Jackson added actual meaningful messages to his songs, especially towards the end of his career. Songs like Smooth Criminal, Bad and Beat it deal with crime and gang violence. Songs like Man In The Mirror, You Are Not Alone and They Don't Really Care About Us deal with introspection and societal problems. Michael Jackson gave millions of dollars to charities and was personal friends with many children (besides the ones who sued him).

What did he get for all of this? He was treated like a freak, the constant target of jokes by people like Jay Leno, the subject of negative media inquiry. A lonely man who was too busy mastering music and dealing with legal and medical problems to grow up, and now only after his death are we appreciating him. It's sad that somebody who was doing so much in his 20s and 30s faded so far from glory and died at a relatively young age. I always wished he would make some sort of a comeback, even though I didn't know how...

Read more >> Options >>