Apple's Files App is an admission of imperfection

When Apple introduced the iPhone, they introduced not just a smart phone but a new approach to computing. The iPhone experience was a new, simpler experience for the user. The iPhone (and iOS) did away with much of the administrative work of PCs. It eliminated the notion of user accounts and administrator accounts. Updates were automatic and painless. Apps knew how to get their data. The phone "just worked".

The need for a Files app is an admission that the iPad experience does not meet those expectations. It raises the hood and allows the user to meddle with some of the innards of the iPhone. One explanation for its existence is that Apps cannot always find the needed files, and the Files App lets you (the user) find those files.

Does anyone see the irony in making the user do the work that the computer should do? Especially a computer from Apple?

To be fair, Android has had File Manager apps for years, so the Android experience does not meet those expectations either. Microsoft's Surface tablets, starting with the first one, have had Windows Explorer built in, so they are failing to provide the new, simpler experience too.

A curmudgeon might declare that the introduction of the Files App shows that even Apple cannot provide the desired user experience, and if Apple can't do it then no one can.

I'm not willing to go that far.

I will say that the original vision of a simple, easy-to-use, reliable computing device still holds. It may be that the major players have not delivered on that vision, but that doesn't mean the vision is unobtainable.

It may be that the iPhone (and Android) are steps in a larger process, one starting with the build-it-yourself microcomputers of the mid 1970s, passing through IBM PCs with DOS and later PC-compatibles with Windows, and currently with iPhones and tablets. Perhaps we will see a new concept in personal computing, one that improves upon the iPhone experience. It may be as different from iPhone and Android as those operating systems are from Windows and MacOS. It may be part of the "internet of things" and expand personal computing to household appliances.

I'm looking forward to it.

DOS, Windows, sharing, and mobile

Windows, when it arrived on the scene, changed the world of computing. Prior to Windows, DOS ruled the computing world, and it was a limited world. Windows expanded that world with new capabilities. In some ways, mobile operating systems (Android and iOS) move us back towards the ways of DOS.

IBM PCs (or compatibles, or near-compatibles) running DOS were simple devices. They could run one program at a time; running multiple programs at once was not possible. (Technically, it was possible with a "terminate and stay resident" function call, but such programs were few. For this essay, I'll stick to the "regular" programs.)

Windows brought us an expanded view of computing. Instead of running a single program at a time, Windows allowed for multiple. Windows provided a common way to present text and graphics on the screen, to print to printers, and to share data. Windows was a large step upward from the world of DOS.

Mobile operating systems -- Android and iOS -- provide a different experience. Instead of multiple applications and multiple windows, these operating systems present one application (or "app") at a time. Multiple apps may run, but only one has the screen. Thus, you can listen to music, check e-mail, and get a text message all at the same time. Mobile apps keep the multitasking aspect, but reduce the interaction to one app at a time.

Reducing the number of interactive apps to one is a reduction in capabilities, although it is a simpler experience, and one that makes sense for a phone. (I think it also makes sense for a tablet.)

What I don't see in the mobile operating systems (and what I don't see in Windows, either) is improvements in the ability to share data across applications. DOS had files and pipes (concepts lifted from Unix). Windows added the clipboard, and then Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) and later, drag-and-drop. The clipboard was popular and is still used today. DDE never got traction, and drag-and-drop is limited to files.

Sharing data across applications is difficult. Each application has its own ideas about data. Word processors hold characters, words, sentences, paragraphs, and documents. Spreadsheets hold numeric values, formulas, cells, rows, columns, and sheets. Databases hold rows and columns -- or "documents" (different from word processor documents) for NoSQL databases. The transfer of data from one application to another is not obvious, and therefore the programming of such transfers is not obvious.

But Windows has had the clipboard for thirty years, and DDE and drag-and-drop for almost as long. Have we had no ideas in that time?

Perhaps our current mobile operating systems are the DOSes of today, waiting for a new, bold operating system to provide new capabilities.

For the future of Java, look to Google

What is the future of Java? It is a popular language, perhaps a bit long in the tooth, yet still capable. It struggled under Sun. Now it is the property of Oracle.

Oracle is an interesting company, with a number of challenges. Its biggest challenge is the new database technologies that provide alternatives to SQL. Oracle built its fortune on the classic, ACID-based, SQL database, competing with IBM and Microsoft.

Now facing competition not only in the form of other companies but in new technologies, Oracle must perform. How will is use Java?

For the future of Java, I suggest that we look to Google and Android. Java is part of Android -- or at least the Java bytecode. Android apps are written in Java on standard PCs, compiled into Java bytecode, and then delivered to Android devices. The Android devices (phones, tablets, what-have-you) use not the standard JVM interpreter but a custom-made one named "Dalvik".

Oracle and Google have their differences. Oracle sued Google, successfully, for using the Java APIs. (A decision with which I disagree, but that is immaterial.)

Google now faces a decision: stay with Java or move to something else. Staying with Java will most likely paying Oracle a licensing fee. (Given Oracle's business practices, probably an exorbitant licensing fee.)

Moving to a different platform is equally expensive. Google will have to select a new language and make tools for developers. They will also have to assist developers with existing applications, allowing them to migrate to the new platform.

Exactly which platform Google picks isn't critical. Possibly Python; Google supports it in their App Engine. Another candidate is Google Go, which Google also supports in App Engine. (The latter would be a little more complicated, as Go compiles to executables and not bytecode, and I'm not sure that all Android devices have the same processor.)

Google's decision affects more that just Google and Android. It affects the entire market for Java. The two big segments for Java are server applications and Android applications. (Java as a teaching language is probably the third.) If Google were to move Android to another language, a full third of the Java market would disappear.

If you have a large investment in Java applications (or are considering building new Java applications), you may want to keep an eye on Google and Android.

Ten percent better is not enough

The mobile operating system market is ruled by Apple's iOS and Google's Android. Other contenders are striving for market share, and they face quite the challenge.

The contenders are Microsoft's Windows Mobile (or whatever they are calling it now), Mozilla's Firefox OS, Cyanogen's operating system, and Samsung and Intel's Tizen. (One could add Blackberry to the list.)

The challenge that all of these contenders face is one of value. They must deliver a product that is superior to the existing iOS and Android products. Delivering a product of lower value is meaningless, and matching value is a losing proposition due to the cost of switching.

It's not enough to simply be a little bit better than the established leaders. To win the hearts of users (a significant number of users), their product must be clearly better. The benefits of the product must be obvious and large enough to offset the cost of changing from the existing.

Apple did not have this problem. When they introduced the iPhone, there was no competition. The existing phones provided less functionality.

Google did have this problem, as it competed with the (then) existing iPhone. Google's advantage was an open platform -- or so it advertised. (Also, Google was not Apple -- or Microsoft -- which worked to its advantage.

Today's contenders must provide something better than Apple's iOS and Google's Android. The advantage must be clear, and it must be greater than a small increase.

One would think that Microsoft has an advantage, in that they can leverage the existing corporate infrastructure of Windows hardware. Yet this is not the case, as phones and tablets remain personal devices -- corporations have not figured out how to use them. (Some organizations have started using tablets and phones, but their use tends to be limited to specific applications.)

Any mobile OS marketer, to gain ground against the current leaders, will have to provide something much better than the current products, as judged by individuals.

Hardwiring the operating system

I tend to think of computers as consisting of four conceptual parts: hardware, operating system, application programs, and my data.

I know that computers are complex objects, and each of these four components has lots of subcomponents. For example, the hardware is a collection of processor, memory, video card, hard drive, ports to external devices, and "glue" circuitry to connect everything. (And even that is omitting some details.)

These top-level divisions, while perhaps not detailed, are useful. They allow me to separate the concerns of a computer. I can think about my data without worrying about the operating system. I can consider application programs without bothering with hardware.

It wasn't always this way. Oh, it was for personal computers, even those from the pre-IBM PC days. Hardware like the Altair was sold as a computing box with no operating system or software. Gary Kildall at Digital Research created CP/M to run on the various hardware available and designed it to have a dedicates unit for interfacing with hardware. (That dedicated unit was the Basic Input-Output System, or 'BIOS'.)

It was the very early days of computers that saw a close relationship between hardware, software, and data. Very early computers had no operating systems (operating systems themselves designed to separate the application program from the hardware). Computers were specialized devices, tailored to the task.

IBM's System/360 is recognized as the first general computer: a single computer that could be programmed for different applications, and used within an organization for multiple purposes. That computer began us on the march to separate hardware and software.

The divisions are not simply for my benefit. Many folks who work to design computers, build applications, and provide technology services find these divisions useful.

The division of computers into these four components allows for any one of the components to be swapped out, or moved to another computer. I can carry my documents and spreadsheets (data) from my PC to another one in the office. (I may 'carry' them by sending them across a network, but you get the idea.)

I can replace a spreadsheet application with a different spreadsheet application. Perhaps I replace Excel 2010 with Excel 2013. Or maybe change from Excel to another PC-based spreadsheet. The new spreadsheet software may or may not read my old data, so the interchangeability is not perfect. But again, you get the idea.

More than half a century later, we are still separating computers into hardware, operating system, application programs, and data.

And that may be changing.

I have several computing devices. I have a few PCs, including one laptop I use for my development work and e-mail. I have a smart phone, the third I have owned. I have a bunch of tablets.

For my PCs, I have installed different operating systems and changed them over time. The one Windows PC started with Windows 7. I upgraded it to Windows 8 and it now runs Windows 8.1. My Linux PCs have all had different releases of Ubuntu, and I expect to update them with the next version of Ubuntu. Not only do I get major versions, but I receive minor updates frequently.

But the phones and tablets are different. The phones (an HTC and two Samsung phones) ran a single operating system since I took them out of the box. (I think one of them got an update.) On of my tablets is an old Viewsonic gTablet running Android 2.2. There is no update to a later version of Android -- unless I want to 'root' the tablet and install another variant of Android like Cyanogen.

PCs get new versions of operating systems (and updates to existing versions). Tablets and phones get updates for applications, but not for operating systems. At least nowhere near as frequently as PCs.

And I have never considered (seriously) changing the operating system on a phone or tablet.

Part of this change is due, I believe, to the change in administration. We who own PCs administer the PC and decide when to update software. But we who think we own phones and tablets do *not* administer the tablet. We do not decide when to update applications or operating systems. (Yes, there are options to disable or defer updates, in Android and iOS.)

It is the equipment supplier, or the cell service provider, who decides to update operating systems on these devices. And they have less incentive to update the operating system than we do. (I suspect updates to operating systems generate a lot of calls from customers, either because they are confused or the update broke some functionality.)

So I see the move to smart phones and tablets, and its corresponding shift of administration from user to provider, as a step in synchronizing hardware and operating system. And once hardware and operating system are synchronized, they are not two items but one. We may, in the future, see operating systems baked in to devices with no (or limited) ways to update them. Operating systems may be part of the device, burned into a ROM.

Google, Oracle, and Java

Apple has a cozy walled garden for its technology: Apple devices running Apple operating systems and Apple-approved apps written in Apple-controlled languages (Objective-C and now Swift).

Microsoft is building a walled garden for its technology. Commodity devices with standards set by Microsoft, running Microsoft operating systems and apps written in Microsoft-controlled languages (C#, F#, and possibly VB.NET). Microsoft does not have the same level of control over applications as Apple; desktop PCs allow anyone with administrator privileges to install any app from any source.

Google has a walled garden for its technology (Android), but its control is less than that of Apple or Microsoft. Android runs on commodity hardware, with standards set by Google. Almost anyone can install apps on their Google phone or tablet. And interestingly, the Android platform apps run in Java, a language controlled by... Oracle.

This last aspect must be worrying to Google. Oracle and Google have a less than chummy relationship, with lawsuits about the Java API. Basing a walled garden on someone else's technology is risky.

What to do? If I were Google, I would consider changing the language for the Android platform. That's not a small task, but the benefits may outweigh the costs. Certainly their current apps would have to be re-written for the New language. A run-time engine would have to be included in Android. The biggest task would be convincing the third-party developers to change their development process and their existing apps. (Some apps may never be converted.)

Which language to pick? That's an easy call. It should be a language that Google controls: Dart or Go. Dart is designed as a replacement for JavaScript, yet could be used for general applications. Go is, in my opinion, the better choice. It *is* designed for general applications, and includes support for concurrency.

A third candidate is Python. Google supports Python in their App Engine cloud platform, so they have some familiarity with it. No one company controls it (Java was controlled by Sun prior to Oracle) so it is unlikely to be purchased.

Java was a good choice for launching the Android platform. I think the languages Go and Python are better choices for Android now.

Let's see what Google thinks.

The center of the universe is moving

The real universe, the one in which we live and has planets and solar systems and galaxies, has no center. It is "finite but unbounded" which sounds a bit strange until you realize that the surface of the Earth is also finite but unbounded. There is no edge of the Earth, no end, no boundary. Yet it has a finite size. (The Earth as a planet has a center, but the surface of the Earth does not.)

The IT universe does have centers. For decades, the center of the hardware universe has been the desktop PC and the center of the software universe has been Microsoft Windows and applications for Windows.

That is changing. Windows is no longer the software center of the IT universe. The desktop PC is no longer the hardware center of the IT universe.

The center of the IT universe for consumers has shifted to Apple and Google. The popularity of the iPad, the iPhone, and Android phones shows this. Individuals are happy to purchase these devices. PCs, in contrast, are purchased grudgingly. The purchase of a PC does not instill excitement but resentment.

The center of the IT universe for enterprises remains close to PCs and Microsoft Windows, but it too is moving to cloud computing and mobile devices. Microsoft recognizes this; it has been expanding its Azure cloud services and selling tablets and phones. While it has had little success with mobile devices, it does enjoy some with cloud services. Microsoft is supporting multiple operating systems; its Office products now run on Apple iPads and Android devices.

What does this change mean for the rest of us?

Well, for consumers it means that we will see more options. Instead of the old world of "Windows-only applications running on Microsoft Windows on desktops or laptops", we will see services on Azure available on the device of our choosing.

For enterprises, the same options will appear. This fits in with the "Bring Your Own Device" philosophy, which shifts the costs of hardware from employers to employees.

For developers, the picture is more complex. The old method of developing an application (especially an enterprise application) for Windows only (because Windows was the center of the universe) must give way to a process that develops applications for multiple platforms. The new development paradigm must be mobile/cloud with multiple cloud apps and a solid cloud design.

Microsoft is supporting this new paradigm. Azure supports non-Microsoft products such as Linux. Visual Studio supports non-Microsoft products such as Git, and now targets iOS and Android in addition to Windows.

Almost overnight, the modern Windows-only applications have been graduated to the status of legacy systems.

The great puzzle of Microsoft Office

What will Microsoft do with Office? Or, what should Microsoft do with Office?

Microsoft built an empire with Office. Office was the most powerful word processor and spreadsheet package. It used proprietary formats. It read files from other word processors and spreadsheets but did not write to those formats, making the trip for data one-way: into Microsoft Office. Through marketing, fierce competition, and the network effect, Microsoft convinced most businesses and most home users to use (and buy) Microsoft Office.

Those were the days.

The world is changing.

Large businesses still use Windows for their desktop environment. Small businesses, especially technology start-ups, are using Mac OS or Linux.

Large businesses still use Microsoft Office. Small businesses are looking at LibreOffice (an open source desktop package with word processing and spreadsheets) or Google Apps (an on-line office package with word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, calendaring, and other things).

The tablet world is dominated by iOS (on iPads) and Android (on just about everything else). Windows holds a tiny share. The same goes for smart phones.

These are the pieces of the great puzzle that Microsoft must solve. What is a software giant to do?

First, some observations.

Microsoft is the latecomer Microsoft is late to the market, but they have been in this position before and succeeded. They were late with C#/.NET after Java. They were late with Internet Explorer after Netscape Navigator. They were late with spreadsheets after Lotus 1-2-3. They were late with word processors after Wordstar and WordPerfect. They were late with databases after dBase and R:Base. Being a latecomer has not doomed Microsoft yet.

New hardware platforms Microsoft must live (and compete) in a world beyond the PC. Phones and tablets must be part of the solution. Tablets and phones are a very different arena for software design, due to the size of the screen, the touch interface, and intermittent connectivity. Any product on the tablet or phone is a different creature than it's PC counterpart.

Multiple software platforms Microsoft must live (and compete) in a fractured world of software, with multiple operating systems (some not of Microsoft's making or control). Offerings from Microsoft must work with iOS and Android as well as Windows.

The desktop software model doesn't work on mobile devices Microsoft's past technique of selling premium software and obtaining market share through marketing won't work on the mobile platform.

Giving these conditions, Microsoft needs a new approach. Here are some ideas:

Sell services, not software Microsoft will not focus on selling copies of Office for the mobile world. Instead, it will focus on subscribers to its services. The mobile versions of Word and Excel and Outlook will be offered at low prices -- perhaps at no cost -- but they will be useless without the service.

Cloud storage, not local files Microsoft Office will store data in the cloud (Microsoft's cloud).

Not documents and workbooks, but pieces assembled Instead of entire documents and complete spreadsheets, Microsoft services will stitch together fragments of documents and spreadsheets. Think of it as an advanced form of OLE. (Remember OLE and our excitement at embedding a spreadsheet in a document?)

Versioning and tracked changes Microsoft's cloud will keep track of the versions of each document (or document fragment), allowing us to see changes over time and the notes for each change.

Access control (for enterprise users) With all of these fragments floating in the cloud, enterprise users (businesses and their support teams) will want to control access by users.

Promotion and publication (also for enterprise) Users will be able to publish data to other users. Users will also be able to work on new versions of data, reviewing it with other members of their team, revising it, and eventually marking it as "available to everyone". Or maybe "available to selected users".

The idea of Office as a service seems a natural fit for mobile devices. Notice this this vision does not demand Windows tablets -- one can use it with iPads and Android devices. I expect Microsoft to move in this direction.

Microsoft's big chance in the mobile world

Apple (via iOS) and Google (via Android) have taken a lead in mobile platforms. Microsoft's offerings (Windows Phone and Windows RT) have received a cool reception. Yet I see hope for Microsoft.

iPhones, iPads, and Android devices have become popular with consumers (average folks like you and me) and have limited acceptance in the corporate world. I think Microsoft has an opportunity in the corporate market.

I see three reasons:

IT shops tend to be conservative Many IT shops have strong preferences for Microsoft equipment. It works, and changing to another vendor always entails risk.

The role of mobile devices in the corporation is still undefined We know how to use phones and tablets as individuals (play games, read books, and chat on Facebook) but we don't (yet) see how mobile devices help business. Yes, there are a few specialized applications, such as documentation for aircraft pilots or apps for insurance adjusters. The corporate world is an open field.

iOS and Android platforms change frequently The iPhone has seen five generations, and Android has seen almost as many significant versions in its (relatively) short life. Later versions have forced changes to the design of apps, from internals to the UI. Such changes reduce the life of apps and add to the cost, as one revises an app for the new operating system.

With this environment, Microsoft has an opening. Microsoft can offer Windows RT and provide longer support for each version. And I am specifically looking at Windows RT, the variant that does not run Windows classic applications.

Longer support for versions of Windows RT is necessary, but not sufficient. In addition to a stable platform, Microsoft must offer tools for developers. Not just a version of Visual Studio that builds code for Windows RT, but libraries to connect Windows RT apps to Azure and other (non-Microsoft!) cloud services. Not just support forums, but code to handle authentication and payments. Not just UI designers but modules to connect legacy corporate data to Azure (and thereby to mobile devices).

Apple and Android have shown that mobile devices are technically feasible and that there is a demand for them. Now Microsoft has the opportunity to show that they can contribute to business.

Android PCs will clobber Linux, on the desktop

The big PC operating systems (Windows, MacOS, and Linux) leave a lot of administration work to the user. Over the years, all have made improvements. Windows has focussed on domain management, giving corporate support teams administrative control over PCs. MacOS has hidden a lot of configuration from the user and made the installation of applications easy with drag-and-drop operations. Linux has leveraged open source, package managers, and repositories of software to reduce the cost of installing software.

Android already has a firm beachhead in the phone and tablet market. Now it can expand onto the home PC.

A number of manufacturers have introduced "Android PCs", full-sized computers running Android. I think that they have a bright future, and may supplant Linux on the home desktop PC.

But isn't Android really Linux, configured for phones and tablets?

Linux is at the heart of Android, true. But Android is more than Linux with a smaller user interface. Android handles more device management and software management than Linux.

Android's model is closer to Apple's iOS/iTunes method of managing software. Android (and iOS) let the user purchase and download software quickly and easily from centrally-managed repositories. They are not exactly the same: Apple locks you into their repository; Android lets you add software from other repositories. Yet both have unified updating mechanisms, and both let you move to new devices and keep your apps (and data). Android (and iOS) manage the updates for all of your apps. Buy a new phone, and (once you register) you can quickly re-install your apps without incurring additional charges (Android and iOS remember that you have purchased the apps).

The traditional PC operating systems, in contrast, force you to upgrade your software and (possibly) acquire new licenses. In Windows, the Microsoft update service handles Microsoft products, but products from other vendors need their own systems. Buy a new Windows PC, and you have to install all of your applications, including the Microsoft ones. This arrangement works for the corporate environment, with a support team that assigns, licenses, and installs corporate-approved applications. It offers little for the individual PC owner.

Linux distros come close to Android's functionality, with an update service that handles all software. Yet Android's update system is easier to use and more convenient, especially for the individual user.

Windows will maintain its dominance in the corporate world, and Android will gain in the home market. It is the enthusiast, the computer geek, who wants to tinker with Linux and settings. The average person wants a computing appliance, one that needs as much attention as a toaster. Android delivers a better toaster than Linux (or Windows).

That's for user PCs. Servers will remain unaffected by the rise of Android. The people running servers (the sysadmins) are geeks, and they want (need) the ability to tune those servers.

Android (or some operating system that offers a toaster-like appliance level) for servers may happen in the future, as individuals (non-sysadmins) want servers. But that's some time away.

Predictions for 2012

Happy new year!

The turning of the year provides a time to pause, look back, and look ahead. Looking ahead can be fun, since we can make predictions.

Here are my predictions for computing in the coming year:

With the rise of mobile apps, we will see changes in project requirements and in the desires of candidates.

The best talent will work on mobile apps. The best talent will -- as always -- work on the "cool new stuff". The "cool new stuff" will be mobile apps. The C#/.NET and Java applications will be considered "that old stuff". Look for the bright, creative programmers and designers to flock to companies building mobile apps. Companies maintaining legacy applications will have to hire the less enthusiastic workers.

Less funding for desktop applications. Desktop applications will be demoted to "legacy" status. Expect a reduced emphasis on their staffing. These projects will be viewed as less important to the organization, and will see less training, less tolerance for "Fast Company"-style project teams, and lower compensation. Desktop projects will be the standard, routine, bureaucratic (and boring) projects of classic legacy shops. The C# programmers will be sitting next to, eating lunch with, and reminiscing with, the COBOL programmers.

More interest in system architects. Mobile applications are a combination of front end apps (the iPhone and iPad apps) and back-end systems that store and supply data. Applications like Facebook and Twitter work only because the front end app can call upon the back end systems to obtain data (updates submitted by other users). Successful applications will need people who can visualize, describe, and lead the team in building mobile applications.

More interest in generalists. Companies will look to bring on people skilled in multiple areas (coding, testing, and user interfaces). They will be less interested in specialists who know a single area -- with a few exceptions of the "hot new technologies".

Continued fracturing of the tech world. Amazon.com, Apple, and Google will continue to build their walled gardens of devices, apps, and media. Music and books available from Amazon.com will not be usable in the Apple world (although available on the iPod and iPad in the Amazon.com Kindle app). Music and books from Apple will not be available on Amazon.com Kindles and Google devices. Consumers will continue to accept this model. (Although like 33 RPM LPs and 45 PRM singles, consumers will eventually want a music and books on multiple devices. But that is a year or two away.)

Cloud computing will be big, popular, and confused. Different cloud suppliers offer different types of cloud services. Amazon.com's EC2 offering is a set of virtual machines that allow one to "build up" from there, installing operating systems and applications. Microsoft's Azure is a set of virtual machines with Windows/.NET and one may build applications starting at a higher level that Amazon's offering. Salesforce.com offers their cloud platform that lets one build applications at an even higher level. Lots of folks will want cloud computing, and vendors will supply it -- in the form that the vendor offers. When people from different "clouds" meet, they will be confused that the "other guy's cloud" is different from theirs.

Virtualization will fade into the background. It will be useful in large shops, and it will not disappear. It is necessary for cloud computing. But it will not be the big star. Instead, it will be a quiet, necessary technology, joining the ranks of power management, DASD management, telecommunications, and network administration. Companies will need smart, capable people to make it work, but they will be reluctant to pay for them.

Telework will exist, quietly. I expect that the phrase "telework" will be reserved for traditional "everyone works in the office" companies that allow some employees to work in remote locations. For them, the default will be "work in the office" and the exception will be "telework". In contrast, small companies (especially start-ups) will leverage faster networks, chat and videoconferencing, mobile devices, and social networks. Their standard mode of operation will be "work from wherever" but they won't think of themselves as offering "telework". From their point of view, it will simply be "how we do business", and they won't need a word to distinguish it. (They may, however, create a word to describe folks who insist on working in company-supplied space every day. Look for new companies to call these people "in-house employees" or "residents".)

Understand the sea change of the iPad. The single-app interface works for people consuming information. The old-fashioned multi-windowed desktop interface works for people composing and creating information. This change leads to a very different approach to the design of applications. This year people will understand the value of the "swipe" interface and the strengths of the "keyboard" interface.

Voice recognition will be the hot new tech. With the success of "Siri" (and Android's voice recognizer "Majel"), expect interest in voice recognition technology and apps designed for voice.

Content delivery becomes important. Content distributors (Amazon.com, Google, and Apple) become more important, as they provide exclusive content within their walled gardens. The old model of a large market in which anyone can write and sell software will change to a market controlled by the delivery channels. The model becomes one similar to the movie industry (a few studios producing and releasing almost all movies) and the record industry (a few record labels producing and releasing almost all music) and the book industry (a few publishing houses... you get the idea).

Content creation becomes more professional. With content delivery controlled by the few major players, the business model becomes less "anyone can put on a show" and more of "who do you know". Consumers and companies will have higher expectations of content and the abilities of those who prepare it.

Amateur producers will still exist, but with less perceived value. Content that is deemed "professional" (that is, for sale on the market) will be developed by professional teams. Other content (such as the day-to-day internal memos and letters) will be composed by amateur content creators: the typical office worker equipped with a word processor, a spreadsheet, and e-mail will be viewed as less important, since they provide no revenue.

Microsoft must provide content provider and enable professional creators. Microsoft's business has been to supply tools to amateur content creators. Their roots of BASIC, DOS, Windows, Office, and Visual Basic let anyone (with or without specific degrees or certifications) create content for the market. With the rise of the "professional content creator", expect Microsoft to supply tools labeled (and priced) for professionals.

Interest in new programming languages. Expect a transition from the object-oriented languages (C++, Java, C#) to a new breed of languages that introduce ideas from functional programming. Languages such as Scala, Lua, Python, and Ruby will gain in popularity. C# will have a long life -- but not the C# we know today. Microsoft has added functional programming capabilities to the .NET platform, and modified the C# language to use them. C# will continue to change as Microsoft adapts to the market.

The new year brings lots of changes and a bit of uncertainty, and that's how it should be.

The incredible shrinking program

Computer programs have been shrinking. They have been doing so since the beginning of the computer age. You may think this claim strange, given that computers are much bigger than earlier eras and programs certainly look bigger, with their millions of lines of source code. And you are right -- computer programs have gotten bigger. Yet they have also gotten smaller.

In absolute terms, computer programs are larger. They have more lines of source code, larger memory footprints, and greater complexity.

Relative to the size of the computer, however, computer programs are smaller.

The earliest computers were programmed with plugboards, so the "software" was hardware. For these computers, there was only a thin boundary between the machine and the program, so in a sense the program was the machine.

Computers in the 1940s and 1950s were programmable in the sense we have today, with the hardware and the software being two different kinds of things. The program was loaded into memory and executed, often by an operator. While running, the program was the only thing in memory -- there was no operating system or monitor. The program had to perform all tasks, from input to processing to output.

With the 1960s we saw the advent of operating systems. The operating system contained common functions and the program called the operating system to perform actions. The model of hardware, operating system, and application program was a solid one, and continues to this day.

But notice that the program is now smaller than the machine. The application program is constrained by the operating system. Combined, the program and operating system fill the machine. (For time-sharing systems, the combination is the operating system and all running programs.) Thus, the program has become smaller, giving some functions over to the operating system.

Microcomputers followed this path. The earliest microcomputers (the Altair, the IMSAI, and others of the late 1970s) were processors, memory, and front panels that allowed a person to load a program and run it. This was the same model as the 1940s electronic computers. Hobbyists quickly developed "disk operating systems" although one can argue that the first true operating systems were IBM's OS/2, Microsoft's Windows NT, and variants of Unix, all of which needed the Intel 80386 processor to be effective. As with the mainframe path, the application shrunk and gave up processing to the operating system.

The iOS and Android operating systems extend this trend. Programs are even smaller under these operating systems, yielding more control and code to the operating system.

In the earlier model, the operating system launches a program and the program runs until completion (by signalling the operating system that it is finished). There is one entry point for the program; there can be many exit points.

The model used by iOS and Android is different. Instead of starting the program and letting it run to completion, the operating system issues multiple calls to a program. Instead of a single entry point, a program has multiple (well-defined) entry points. Anyone familiar with event-driven programming will recognize the similarity: Windows sends programs messages about various events (to a single entry point) and the program must fan them out to separate routines. iOS and Android had removed the top layer of that program and fan out the messages themselves.

Thus, programs have once again yielded code to the operating system, and have shrunk in size.

I think that this is a good change. It removes "boilerplate" code from applications and puts the multiple copies in a single place. Application code can focus on the business problem and ignore an infrastructure issue. Programs gain a measure of uniformity.

The model of the operating system lasted for fifty years (twenty in the PC world) and served us well. I want to think of the new model as something different: an operating system with pluggable tasks. I think it will serve us for a long time.

Looking out of the Windows

According to this article in Computerworld, Microsoft is claiming success with Internet Explorer 9, in the form "the most popular modern browser on Windows 7", a phrase that excludes IE6 and IE7.

This is an awkward phrase to use to describe success. It's akin to the phrase "we're the best widget producer except for those other guys who produce widgets offshore".

I can think of two reasons for Microsoft to use such a phrase:

1) They want a phrase that shows that they are winning. Their phrasing, with all of the implied conditions, does indeed show that Microsoft is winning. But it is less than the simple "we're number one!".

2) Microsoft views success through Windows 7, or perhaps through currently marketed products. In this view, older products (Windows XP, IE6) don't count. And there may be some sense in that view, since Microsoft is in the business of selling software, and previously sold packages are nice but not part of this month's "P&L" statement.

The former, despite the dripping residue of marketing, is I think the healthier attitude. It is a focussed and specific measurement, sounds good, and pushes us to the line of deception without crossing it.

The latter is the more harmful. It is a self-deception, a measurement of what is selling today with no regard for the damage (or good) done yesterday, a willful ignorance of the effects of the company on the ecosystem.

The bottom line is that Internet Explorer is losing market share. This may not be the doom that it once was, with apps for iPhone and Android phones increasing in popularity. Indeed, the true danger may be in Microsoft's inability to build a market for Windows Phone 7 and their unwillingness to build apps for iOS and Android devices.