The Macbook camera may always be second-rate

A recent article on MacWorld complained about Apple's "solution" of a webcam for MacBooks, namely using the superior camera in the iPhone.

It is true that iPhones have better cameras than MacBooks. But why?

I can think of no technical reason.

It's not that the iPhone camera won't fit in the MacBook. The MacBook has plenty of space. It is the iPhone that puts space at a premium.

It's not that the iPhone camera won't work with a MacBook processor. The iPhone camera works in the iPhone with its A12 (or is it A14?) processor. The MacBook has an M1 or an M2 processor, using very similar designs. Getting the iPhone camera to work with an M1 processor should be relatively easy.

It's not a matter of power. The MacBook has plenty of electricity. It is the iPhone that must be careful with power consumption.

It's not that the MacBook developers don't know how to properly configure the iPhone camera and get data from it. (The iPhone developers certainly know, and they are just down the hall.)

It's not a supply issue. iPhone sales dwarf MacBook sales (in units, as well as dollars). Diverting cameras from iPhones to MacBooks would probably not even show in inventory reports.

So let's say that the reason is not technical.

Then the reason must be non-technical. (Obviously.)

It could be that the MacBook project lead wants to use a specific camera for non-technical reasons. Pride, perhaps, or ego. Maybe the technical lead, on a former project, designed the camera that is used in the MacBook, and doesn't want to switch to someone else's camera. (I'm not convinced of this.)

Maybe Apple has a lot of already-purchased cameras and wants to use them, rather than discarding them. (I'm not believing this, either.)

I think the reason may be something else: marketing.

When Apple sells a MacBook with an inferior camera, and it provides the "Continuity Camera" service to allow an iPhone to be used as a camera for that MacBook, Apple has now given the customer a reason to purchase an iPhone. Or if the customer already has an iPhone, a reason to stay with the iPhone and not switch to a different brand.

It's not a nice idea. In fact, it's rather cynical: Apple deliberately providing a lesser experience in MacBooks for the purpose of selling more iPhones.

But it's the only one that fits.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Apple has a good technical reason for supplying inferior cameras in MacBooks.

I hope that I am. Because I want Apple to be a company that provides quality products, not inferior products carefully crafted to increase sales of other Apple products.

M1 is not the only option for productivity

A number of companies have announced that they are equipping their developers with M1 MacBooks, to improve performance of tasks such as builds and, I presume, tests.

The thinking runs along these lines: the tasks developers perform are important, some of these tasks take a long time, the new M1 MacBooks perform these tasks quickly, therefore providing developers with M1 MacBooks is an investment that improves productivity. (And an increase in productivity is a good thing.)

The supporting arguments often use the time to run a build, or the time to perform automated tests. The M1 MacBooks, according to the argument, can perform these tasks much faster than the current equipment. The implied benefits are often described as a reduction in expenses, which I believe is an incorrect result. (The company will continue to pay its developers, so their annual expenses will not change as a result of the new MacBooks -- except for the cost of the MacBooks.)

But there is another aspect to this "rush to faster computers" that I think has been overlooked. That aspect is cloud computing.

If one is using laptops or desktops with Windows, one can move that work to virtual instances of Windows in the cloud. Microsoft's "Windows 365" service offers Windows in the cloud, with different options for processor power, memory, and storage. One can rent a fast processor and get the same improvement in computing.

Let's look at some numbers. A new M1 MacBook Pro with a 14-inch screen costs $2000 and with a 16-inch screen costs $2500. (There are multiple configurations; these are the lowest prices.)

If those MacBooks last 3 years (a reasonable assumption) then the amortized costs are $56 per month or $69 per month.

Now let's consider an alternative: Windows virtual machines in the cloud. Microsoft's "Windows 365" offers different configurations for prices ranging from $31 per month to $66 per month.

Of course, one still needs a local PC to access the cloud-based Windows, so let's add that cost, too. But we don't need a high-end laptop: The local PC is simply a fancy terminal: a device to accept keystrokes and mouse clicks and send them to the cloud-based PC, and accept screen updates and display them to the user. We don't need a lot of processing power for that.

One can get a decent 14-inch laptop for $600 (less if you hunt for bargains) and a decent 15.6-inch laptop for about the same. Assuming a purchase cost of $600, the monthly addition is $17, which pushes the monthly costs for the cloud-based configuration to $73 or $86. That's a bit higher than the cost of the local MacBook, but not that much higher. And keep in mind that with Windows 365, Microsoft handles some tasks for you, such as updates.

I don't consider a cloud-based solution for MacBooks, because cloud-based MacBooks are different from cloud-based Windows PCs. Windows PCs are often virtualized instances running on high-end hardware; MacBooks in the cloud are Mac computers in a datacenter -- not virtualized instances. A MacBook in the cloud is really just a MacBook at a remote location.

My point is not that cloud-based Windows PCs are better than MacBooks, or that local MacBooks are better than local Windows PCs.

My point is that one has different options for computing. Local MacBooks are one option. Local Windows PCs are another option. Cloud-based Windows PCs are an option. (And if you insist, cloud-based Macs are an option.)

Some companies are pursuing a strategy of local MacBooks. That strategy may be good for them, It does not automatically follow that the same strategy is good for everyone. (Nor does it follow that the strategy is good for them; time will tell.)

My advice is to consider the different options for computing, review your needs and your finances, and select a strategy that works for you.  

A few minor thoughts on Apple's new M1 processor

Apple has released their new M1 processor and their new Mac and Macbook computer which use the new processor. Apple is quite proud of this achievement (and they have every right to be) and users are impressed with the performance of the M1.

Yet I have some concerns about the new processors.

First, with the new processors and the new Macs, Apple has consistently emphasized performance, but little beyond that. Their demos have featured games and video editing, to show off the performance. The advertising is far from the presentations of yore which listed features and boasted MIPS ratings. (Perhaps video games are the new way to boast processor performance.) Apple's announcement was designed for consumers, not corporate buyers and not technologists and especially not developers. Apple has made their computers faster (and more efficient, so longer battery life) but not necessarily more capable.

Second, Apple's change to proprietary ARM processors (and let's be real, the design is proprietary) fractures the hardware market. Apple equipment is now different from "regular" personal computers. This is not new; Apple used PowerPC processors prior to using Intel processors in 2006. But the new Macs are different enough (and designed with enough security) that other operating systems cannot (and probably will never) be installed on them. Linus Torvalds has commented on the new Macs, and indicated that without Apple's support, Linux will not run on the M1 Macs.

Third, Apple made no announcement of cloud computing. This is not a surprise; Apple has not offered cloud computing and I see nothing to change that in the near future. It is telling that Amazon, not Apple, has announced new offerings of Apple M1 Mac minis in the cloud. Apple seems content to limit their use of cloud computing to iCloud storage, online documents, and Siri. I'm not expecting Apple to offer cloud computing for some time.

Moving beyond Apple, what will other manufacturers (Dell, Lenovo, etc) do? Will they switch to ARM processors?

I expect that they will not -- at least not on their own. Their situation is different. Apple has control over hardware and software. Apple designs the computer (and now, the processor). Apple designs and writes the operating system. Apple builds many of the applications for the Mac. This vertical integration lets Apple switch to a proprietary processor.

Manufacturers for "regular" personal computers rely on Windows, which is designed and written by Microsoft. Microsoft sells some applications, but encourages a large ecosystem of applications. A corresponding shift in the "regular" PC market requires the cooperation Microsoft, hardware manufacturers, and application developers. Such a change is possible, but I think Microsoft has to lead the effort.

Microsoft does provide a hardware specification for running Windows, and they could issue a specification that uses an ARM processor. Such a specification would exist along side the current Intel-based specification, expanding the space for Windows PCs. Microsoft could even design and build their own hardware, much as they did with Surface tablets and laptops.

I expect that Microsoft will support ARM processors (although not Apple's M1 processors) and offer cloud compute services for those processors. They may design a custom ARM processor, as Apple has done, or use a "standard" ARM processor design.

Getting back to Apple, I can see that the new M1 processor gives Apple more control over its market. The "expansion" market of running non-Apple operating systems is, as I see it, terminated with the M1 Macs. Boot Camp is out, Parallels works (but not with virtual machines), and non-Apple operating systems cannot be installed. (Technically that's not quite true. A clever engineer did get the ARM version of Windows to run on an M1 Mac, but only by using QEMU as an intermediary. It wasn't native ARM Windows on the M1 Mac.)

More control may sound good, but it does alienate some folks.

The Linux crowd will move to other hardware. Linux is a small presence in the desktop market, and Apple may not care or notice even. But Linux is a large presence in the developer market, and a decline in developers using Macs may affect Apple.

The Windows crowd has plenty of options for hardware, with more as Microsoft expands Windows to ARM processors. Windows laptops are just as good as Macbooks, and better in some ways, with options for non-glare displays and finger-friendly keyboards. My experience has shown that PC hardware tends to last longer than Apple hardware (especially equipment built after 2010).

I think, in the long run, Apple's move will fragment the market, aligning Apple hardware with Apple operating systems and Apple applications. It will push developers away from Apple hardware, and therefore Apple operating systems and the entire Apple ecosystem. Apple won't die from this, but it will give up some market share. The more noticeable effect will be the separation of processing on Apple and non-Apple platforms. Apple will be in their own world, their own garden of hardware, operating systems, and applications, and they will gradually drift away from mainstream computing.

Why is there still a MacBook Air?

This week, Apple introduced upgrades to a number of its products. They showed a new Mac Mini and a new MacBook Air. The need for a new Mac Mini I understand. The need for a new MacBook Air I do not.

The original MacBook Air was revolutionary in that it omitted a CD/DVD reader. So revolutionary that Apple needed a way for a MacBook Air to "borrow" a CD/DVD reader from another computer (another Apple computer) to install software.

The MacBook Air stunned the world with its thinness and its low weight -- hence the adjective "Air". Compared to laptops of the time, even Apple's MacBooks, the MacBook Air was almost weightless.

But that was then. This is now.

Apple has improved the MacBook (without the "Air") to the point that MacBooks and MacBook Airs are indistinguishable. They are both thin. They are both lightweight. They both have no CD/DVD reader.

Yes, there are some minor points and one can tell a MacBook from a MacBook Air. MacBooks are slightly smaller and have only one USB C port, whereas MacBook Airs are larger and have multiple ports.

But in just about every respect, the MacBook Air is a new and improved MacBook. When you consider the processor, the memory and storage, the display, and the capabilities of the two devices, the MacBook Air is simply another member of the MacBook line. So why keep it? Why not just call it a MacBook?

Apple could certainly have two MacBooks. They have two MacBook Pro computers, a 13-inch model and a 15-inch model. They could have a 12-inch MacBook and a 13-inch MacBook. Yet they keep the "Air" designation. Why?

Its possible that the "MacBook Air" name has good market recognition, and Apple wants to leverage that. If so, we can expect to see other "Air" products, much like the iPad Air.

Apple wants to be a rebel

Apple has been blessed -- and cursed -- with success. The iPod, iPhone, iPad, and even the MacBook have all been good to Apple. They are also Apple's problem.

It should be no surprise that Apple is the rebel in the computer industry. They are the small, scrappy upstart competing against the big, established company. Consider their "1984" ad to introduce the MacIntosh computer, or the later "Think Different" campaign.

Apple won its counterculture role by accident. They were one of the first companies to sell microcomputers in the late 1970s. At the time, there was no PC standard; IBM would introduce its PC in 1981. Prior to that, the market was fragmented in terms of hardware and software. Apple, Commodore, Radio Shack, and several others offered non-compatible systems. The CP/M operating system was beginning to emerge as a standard, but it was by no means universal.

IBM became the computing standard-bearer, and saved Apple from becoming that fate. The IBM PC and PC-DOS was an instant success, and other manufacturers were pushed aside. Only by adopting the role of rebel could Apple survive.

The strategy worked for several decades. Apple built a reputation as the "other computer company" with the expensive but well-designed products. It has software that "just worked" without the need for support teams.

But now Apple has a problem.

Their products, and Apple by extension, have become the market leaders. The iPod was the premium music device. The iPhone and iPad are the envied mobile devices. The MacBook is the standard for laptop computers. Other manufacturers design their products to emulate the Apple line. (Even the lowly Mac Mini is copied.) It's hard to be different when everyone is trying to be like you.

A bigger problem is the demise of the empire. A rebel needs someone (or something) to rebel against. In "Star Wars", the Rebel Alliance exists only because the Empire exists. (So much so that the latest Star Wars movie had to invent the First Order to keep the Rebel Alliance alive.)

Apple's first foe was IBM and the PC. IBM served well in the role of evil empire; it was despised by all of the hobbyists and tinkerers who had adopted the earlier computers, it was large and bureaucratic, and it was successful. The IBM PC empire was defeated by a combination of PC clone manufacturers, Microsoft, and Windows, and when it fell, Microsoft neatly stepped into place and became the empire against which Apple could fight.

But now the PC market is split between Windows, Mac OS (and a smidge of Linux); the phone market split between iOS and Android (and a smidge of Windows); and the cloud split between Amazon.com, Microsoft, Google (and others). There is no big, evil empire to fight.

Apple cannot be the rebel that they were, and I think that they are uncomfortable with that. I think the folks at Apple yearn for "the good old days" when they were not number one, and when they made computers that were different.

The question is: Where does Apple go from here?

Apple risks becoming the iPhone company

Apple has a diverse product line. For now.

Apple's products can be summarized as:

• phones (iPhone and Apple Watch)
• tablets (iPad and iPod)
• laptops (MacBook and MacBook Pro)
• desktops (iMac)
• accessories
• streaming services

I'm not quite sure where the Apple Watch fits in this list. I group it with the iPhone, since it is usable only with an iPhone.

Close examination of this grouping, and Apple's financial results, shows that it makes the bulk of its profits from iPhones (and Apple Watch products). Sales of iPads have plateaued and may be declining. (The re-introduction of the iPod may be a result of that decline.) Laptops are selling well.

The other groups (desktops, accessories, and steaming services) count for little. (Accessories counts for little because without the base product line, accessories are not necessary.)

Apple's desktop line is of little consequence. The products are vanity products, present because Apple can make them. The waste-basket iMac looks nice and has lots of processing power, and while I know many people who would like one I know precious few people who have actually bought one.

So the two big product groups are phones and laptops. And as I see it, laptops are at risk.

Apple's MacBooks and MacBook Pros are popular. Developers use them. Individuals who are not developers use them. Startup businesses use them. (Established businesses not so much.) Yet their use, at least among developers, makes little sense. More and more, I see them used (by developers and startup businesses) as access points to servers. MacBooks are not used as development tools but as smart terminals (*very* smart terminals) to the servers with development tools.

The problem for Apple is that competing tools can be had for less. Apple has always charged a premium for its products, but the competition is now significantly less. A Windows-based laptop can be had for half the price of a MacBook, and a Chromebook for less than one quarter of the price. Windows and ChromeOS run browsers and ssh just as well as Mac OS, and developers know it.

Developers are not the only ones shifting to the "PC as a terminal" model. Businesses are using virtual desktops and terminal sessions for many of their systems. They, too, can count.

When MacBooks lose their appeal, Apple will lose a chunk of business, but more importantly, its business will become less diverse. Should that happen, Apple may focus more on its profitable line (iPhones) and reduce development of other lines. Just as Apple let its desktop line wither into a vanity high-end product, it may do the same for laptops.

Apple wins the race for laptops -- now what?

Apple is successful, in part, due to its hardware design. Its products are lovely to look at and comfortable to hold. Its portable devices are thinner and lighter than the competition. Apple has defined the concept of laptop for the last several years -- perhaps the last decade. Apple has set the standard and other manufacturers have followed.

The latest MacBook design is light, sleek, and capable. It is the ultimate in laptop design. And by "ultimate", I mean "ultimate". Apple has won the laptop competition. And now, they have a challenge: what to do next?

Apple's advantage of the MacBook will last for only a short time. Already other manufacturers are creating laptops that are just as thin and sleek as the MacBook. But Apple cannot develop a thinner, sleeker MacBook. The problem is that there are limits to physical size. There are certain things that make a laptop a laptop. You need a display screen and a keyboard, along with processor, memory, and I/O ports. While the processor, memory, and I/O ports can be reduced in size (or in number), the screen and keyboard must be a certain size, due to human physiology.

So how will Apple maintain its lead in the laptop market?

They can use faster processors, more memory, and higher resolution displays.

They can add features to Mac OS X.

They can attempt thinner and sleeker designs.

They may add hardware features, such as wireless charging and 3G/4G connections.

But there is only so much room left for improvement.

I think the laptop market is about to change. I think that laptops have gotten good enough -- and that there are lots of improvements in other markets. I expect manufacturers will look for improvements in tablets, phones, and cloud technologies.

Such a change is not unprecedented. It happened in the desktop PC market. After the initial IBM PC was released, and after Compaq made the first clone, desktop PCs underwent an evolution that lead to the PC units we have today -- and have had for the past decade. Desktop PCs became "good enough" and manufacturers moved on to other markets.

Now that laptops have become good enough, look for the design of laptops to stabilize, the market to fragment among several manufacturers with no leader, prices to fall, and innovation to occur in other markets.

Which doesn't mean that laptops will become unimportant. Just as PCs had a long life after they became "good enough" and their design stabilized, laptops will have a long life. They will be an important part of the IT world.

Open source takes advantage of abandoned hardware

Of the popular desktop operating systems (Windows, Mac OS, and Linux), Windows has a commanding lead. Mac OS is a distant second, and Linux -- on the desktop -- is a far distant third. Yet Linux has one advantage over Windows and Mac OS.

This advantage was made real to me when I dusted off an old 2006-era MacBook. It is in good condition, and due to Apple's design, still serviceable. Yet it ran Mac OSX 10.4 "Tiger", an operating system that Apple abandoned several years ago. Not only has Apple abandoned the operating system, they have abandoned the hardware. (The good folks at Apple would much prefer that one purchase a new device with a new operating system. That makes sense, as Apple is the in the business of selling hardware.)

Microsoft is not in the business of selling hardware (keyboards and Surface tablets are a very small part of their business) yet they also abandon operating systems and hardware. An old Dell desktop PC, sitting in the corner, runs Windows XP and cannot upgrade to a later system. Microsoft has determined that the processor, memory, and disk combination is not worthy of a later version.

So I have an Apple MacBook that I cannot upgrade to a later version of Mac OS X and a desktop PC that I cannot upgrade to a later version of Windows. While the MacBook was able to run a later version of Mac OS X, those versions are not available. The current version ("Yosemite") won't run on it. The desktop PC is "maxed out" at Windows XP.

Here is where open source has a foothold. Apple will not supply an operating system for the MacBook -- not even the original version anymore. Microsoft
will not supply and operating system for the old Dell desktop PC -- not even the original version. Yet Linux can run on both machines.

I have, in fact, replaced Mac OS X on the MacBook with Ubuntu Linux. I'm using the new combination to type this post, and it works.

Many people may casually discard old computers. Other folks, though, may revive those computers with open source software. Over time, the market share of Linux will grow, if only because Apple and Microsoft have walked away from the old hardware.