It's. The. Usability. Stupid.

So you have room for nine icons (almost) on your main screen. Do you (a) use one for a "clock" rather than, say, display the time somewhere in your utterly useless status bar and menu bar? (b) use one icon for a "clock" and another for "date and time" (given you're already showing the date anyway)? (c) use a third icon for "calendar" because two just wasn't enough? or (d) add a Windows 98-style gradient bar up the top to waste even more space? If you answered (d) you're ready to design Open Source UIs and take on Apple in the consumer space.

I saw something pretty funny on Digg yesterday. The link didn't work (which was a sign in itself) but googling got me this. Here's the summary: real soon now™ there will be a Linux-based smart phone with 3G network support and a touch screen that does everything the iPhone does, only better, and runs Linux -- sorry, GNU/Linux -- and is totally, utterly open. So it will be better than the iPhone in every way.

Woohoo! At last I can use something other than my tin-foil hat to communicate with the mothership.

Here's the problem. Aside from being "open" ... pretty much any non crap cell phone does everything the iPhone does ... at least to some extent, and is more "open" to third-party development. The iPhone isn't different and better than those phones the way, say, a current MacBook Pro is better than say an Apple II. It's better than those phones in the same way that a MacBook Pro (running Mac OS X) is better than a MacBook Pro (running GNU/Linux). When folks suggest Apple has a five year lead on rival cellphone companies, they mean that Apple's software is five years ahead of rival cellphone software the way Mac OS X is ahead of, say, GNU/Linux. (Since GNU/Linux is actually about five years behind Windows, it's more like an eight year lead on GNU/Linux.)

And the lead isn't in features. Every computer is a Turing machine limited by finite RAM. The only fundamental difference in ultimate capabilities between any two computers is their peripherals and data capacity. The difference for users is in usability.

As my father used to say, "Chocolate is good. chicken is good. Chocolate-coated chicken must be excellent." It works even better when both ingredients suck individually, right? Linux is a usability nightmare. Cellphones are a usability nightmare. But a Linux cellphone is going to rule! Kind of like Kentucky-fried chicken smothered in rancid chocolate.

It's a pocket-sized one of these...

I just read one of the most intelligent articles I've come across in the last few months, and it wasn't in the New Yorker. I recommend you click the link and read it, but if you prefer an executive summary: the iPhone is a pocket-sized networked computer that replaces all the crap you currently need to carry around to do business (i.e. PDA, phone, laptop), is cheap enough that you can buy it yourself rather than wait for IT to relent and support it, and it's being sold as a phone because people understand phones.

I remember when the Newton came out in 1992 (or was it 1993?) and I thought it was going to be equally disruptive. In the end, the Newton failed largely because while it eventually did more-or-less everything it set out to do very well (as of the MessagePad 120) it wasn't a rounder wheel -- it didn't replace anything you already needed to carry around, it was just a really good ... whatever it is that it was.

The iPhone is a better phone than your phone, a better iPod than your iPod, and a better laptop than your laptop (well ... it's smaller, has better battery life, and it always has a 'net connection). OK, it won't replace my laptop across the board, but it certainly can replace my phone and iPod, and I'll always have it handy, whereas I don't carry my laptop with me when, say, I go shopping. So if I see an interesting game, I can't look up reviews of it until I get home.

Oh, I'm not buying an iPhone until I see what the next version or three look like. Specifically, I want more storage capacity and SD media support. 7.2 GB just doesn't seem like nearly enough.

Windows Vista the most secure Operating System

Disclaimer: I use Vista for testing and casual web browsing and Mac OS X for web and software development. I use both nearly every day. I've had no security issues with either. That said, Vista's "allow or deny" behavior is probably about as annoying as spam or popups.

Various sites (e.g. ZD-net and Engadget) are essentially regurgitating some Microsoft press release (complete with graphs, it appears) on a Microsoft-funded "research" project which shows Vista to be the most secure OS ever released (with XP coming in second -- which kind of screams credibility right there).

Secunia is my favorite security site for two reasons. First, even though like most security companies it has a vested interest in promoting Microsoft (since almost every Microsoft user pays for some form of virus protection and almost no-one else does) it seems to be relatively impartial. Scandinavian sensibilities, perhaps. Second, it gives you pretty nice graphs.

Apparently, according to Secunia, Mac OS X (versions 10.0 Public Beta thru 10.4, client and server) is one product while, say, Windows Vista is one product (and, more interestingly, Windows XP Professional is one product). This means that when you look for security problem statistics, Windows Vista is in its own separate category, while Tiger is lumped in with the 10 or so other versions of OS X. Secunia also tends to downplay the severity of Windows issues and overstate the severity of Mac OS X issues (yes, if you download a malicious script file, run it, and type in your admin password when asked, it can take over your system) -- but we'll let all that slide (especially since I've ranted about it in the past).

Here's the story in pictures:









The gorey details are here.

And here is all of Mac OS X since 2003 or so for comparison:









The gorey details are here.

And finally, to give you a good laugh, here's what this "research" claimed was the second most secure OS:









The gorey details are here.

This data is live -- so it may change after I finish this post. But right now as I look at it, Mac OS X has a better record historically, and fewer issues since Vista's release than Vista. And XP -- which according to this same "research" comes in second to Vista and ahead of OS X -- has a track record based on these statistics (and much personal experience) which is simply embarrassing.