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.

Steve Ballmer Steps Down

Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, announced that he would step down in the next twelve months. Folks have been quick to respond, some cheering and some asking the question: Was he pushed?

The almost-unanimous view of Ballmer's stewardship has been one of dismay if not outright failure. People cite Microsoft's delay into the tablet market, the poor reception of Windows 8, and other products such as the Kin and Zune. (With an occasional reference to "Microsoft Bob".)

I say "almost-unanimous" because I dissent from this view. Yes, Microsoft did enter the tablet market later than Apple and Google. Yes, Windows 8 is quite different from previous versions. But Microsoft has bee giving its customers what they want, and in that they are not to be considered a failure.

Microsoft's customers are mostly businesses, and they are a self-centered lot. I have seen several businesses respond to new versions of Windows, and the responses have been uniform: make this new version work like the old version.

Businesses, for the most part, do not want a new version of Windows. Businesses want to go about their business and not worry about computers or GUIs or databases. Many businesses today run Windows XP, seeing no need to move to later versions.

The complaints about Microsoft seem inconsistent. People criticize Microsoft for delivering the systems that they want, while also complain that Microsoft delivers nothing new. And now that Microsoft has delivered something new, people complain about that.

I think of Windows RT as a suitable operating system for tablets. I consider the Surface RT tablet a competitor in the iPad and Android tablets. A bit pricey perhaps, yet good technology. I consider the Surface Pro a compromise tablet, a transition from the classic Windows environment to Windows RT.

The lack of apps for the Surface RT is a problem, but only for the consumer market, and I view the Surface RT as a device for the office. In the office, it is not consumer apps that are important but the apps used by the business, many of them in-house apps. Businesses will create their own apps, just as they have created their own documents and spreadsheets.

I look on the Surface as a successful product. I see Windows RT as a valid path forward. I see Windows 8 as an interesting mix of the old and new technologies.

Given these accomplishments, I view Steve Ballmer as a success. He moved Microsoft into new directions and introduced new products. Microsoft's products did not take the world by storm, or establish a new monopoly. But they are worthy contenders.

Windows RT drops some tech, and it hurts

Say what you will about Microsoft's innovation, licenses, or product quality, but one must admit that Microsoft has been quite good at supporting products and providing graceful upgrades. Just about every application that ran on Windows 3.1 will run on later versions of Windows, and most DOS programs will run in the "Command Prompt" application. Microsoft has provided continuity for applications.

The introduction of Windows RT breaks that pattern. With this new version of Windows, Microsoft has deliberately selected technologies into "keep" and "discard" piles -- and it has done so without even a "deprecated" phase, to give people some time to adjust.

The technologies in the "discard" pile are not insignificant. The biggest technology may be Silverlight, Microsoft's answer to Adobe's Flash. It is allowed in Windows 8 but not in Windows RT.

Such a loss is not unprecedented in the Microsoft community, but it is infrequent. Previous losses have included things like Microsoft Bob and Visual J#, but these were minor products and never gained much popularity.

The most significant losses may have been FoxPro and the pre-.NET version of Visual Basic. These were popular products and the replacements (Microsoft Access and VB.NET) were significantly different.

The loss of technologies hurts. We become attached to our favorite tech, whether it be Silverlight, Visual Basic, or earlier technologies such as Microsoft's BASIC interpreter (the one with line numbers), the 6502 processor, or DEC's PDP-11 systems.

Microsoft fans (with the exception of the FoxPro and Visual Basic enthusiasts) have not experienced a loss. Until Windows RT. Microsoft's strong support for backwards-compatibility in its operating systems, languages, and applications has sheltered its users.

Those of us from certain graduating classes, those of us who were around before the introduction of the IBM PC, have experienced loss. Just about everyone from those classes lost their favorite tech as the "new kid" of the IBM PC became popular, set standards, and drove out the other designs. The Apple II, the TRS-80, the Commodore systems, (and my favorite, the Heathkit H-89) were all lost to us. We had formed our loyalties and had to cope with the market-driven choices of new technology.

Folks who joined the tech world after the IBM PC have experienced no such loss. One may have started with PC-DOS and followed a chain of improved versions of DOS to Windows 3.1 to Windows NT to Windows XP, and a chain of upgrades for Word, Multiplan to Excel, and Access to SQL Server.

Windows RT marks the beginning of a new era, one in which Microsoft drops the emphasis on backwards-compatibility. The new emphasis will be on profitability, on selling Surface units and (more importantly) apps and content for Windows RT tablets.

To the Windows developers and users: I'm sorry for your loss, but I have gone through such losses and I can tell you that you will survive. It may seem like a betrayal -- and it is. But these betrayals happen in the tech world; companies make decisions on profit, not your happiness.