Creeping Totalitarianism

Posted by Thelonious Mac on

Seems one day, a few years ago, I was driving to a client location and got pulled over by an officer of the LAW. As in THE LAW. THE CONSTANTLY GROWING, BREEDING, CONSUMING, LAW. 40,000 new laws added to the blob this year alone.

I hit voice record on the iPhone, and assumed the cooperative black driver position. CBDP means both hands locked on the steering wheel in plain sight, 10:00 and 02:00 so the officer knows you are not holding a weapon.

Anyway, the officer says, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” I thought about it and I honestly did not know. So I said, “No idea.” I work with a lot of lawyers and I’ve been told more than once that even if you know fully well why you were puled over the answer to that question should be “No idea,” and you should never volunteer additional information. Simply answer any question, truthfully, and to the point.

The officer said, “Your tags are expired. I need to see your driver’s license and proof of insurance.”

This of course sounded, in my mind, like a Nazi soldier, speaking English with a German accent, asking me to present my papers and proof that I wasn’t a Jew. Can’t help it. Anti-authoritarianism is definitely in my genome.

I couldn’t find my proof of insurance. I looked everywhere including glove compartments, trunk, couldn’t find it. I knew I had it because I’d put the papers, with the new tags together in the black pouch that came with the Mini.

The officer was able to look up, via my driver’s license, vehicle license and ID the fact that I did indeed have insurance, and that I had paid my registration. He had all the data right there, but proceeded to intrude, disturb, and interrupt my existence because, it’s THE LAW.

He asked me to step out of the vehicle. Now this is never something you want to hear. I complied though I decided that I would not be taken alive.

The officer wrote me a ticket, and I continued on to my client location, doing that thing I do when extremely angry, which is pretend that which makes me angry does not exist. The officer, the ticket, and the insurance papers which I found 5 minutes after the officer had gone, in a net on the back of the passenger seat, no longer existed in my reality.

The problem with this is that I assumed I would be notified as to the cost of the ticket via snail mail as was always the case before. Only it didn’t work that way with this ticket. Apparently I was supposed to report to the local branch of the SS and provide proof of insurance.

A few months later I was notified that I owed the state, county, or city, some governing body, $2000. Thank god for THE LAW.

To this day I’ve never surrendered that $2000. Might be $20,000 by now, who knows.

Thinking about it the phrase “Creeping Totalitarianism” popped into my head, and I thought, “Ohhh… that’s good. That expresses my issue with a certain political faction in this country quite well actually.” Creeping Totalitarianism. Little bit by little bit there are laws that don’t really protect you, but restrict you, confine you, control you. Laws like the stupid one that now makes it a crime punishable by a $1000 fine if you throw a frisbee or a football on a beach in Los Angeles county.

I thought that I should immediately do something with the phrase, and I Googled it to see if it had been used. Of course it had. It was too good.

What does all of this have to do with technology? Nothing really. I just needed to get it out of my head and get back to work, though I think it will serve as a segue into my coming discussions on Congressional intervention with the Internet, and proposed laws to make it completely illegal to use a mobile phone in your car, including hands free devices.

In the meantime. OBEY THE LAW. Get that Frisbee licensed ASAP.

“…There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws…” – AYN RAND

Net Neutrality and Classical Liberalism.

Posted by Thelonious Mac on

In my humble opinion, next to the AK-47, the single most liberating technology of the 20th and 21st centuries, so far, has been the Internet. This will likely hold until someone makes a more sturdy and easily copied assault rifle, invents a disintegration ray, or we learn to teleport something a bit larger than a subatomic particle. For the moment though, the Internet reigns supreme as the most powerful technology there is for preserving freedom through the unencumbered exchange of goods, services, information and ideas.

The Internet is humanity friendly technology. It generates liberty. It democratizes freedom of speech. It allows us to communicate, cooperate, argue, work, and play with one another on a global scale. It causes us to discover each other. We see that we are often utterly asinine. At the same time we discover that we are very often brilliant, productive and creative. Needless to say the Internet has been extremely conducive to entrepreneurship and innovation as well as the creation of new business models for old media such as cinema, broadcasting, music, and publishing.

This didn’t happen simply because we connected our computers. It happened because we connected our computers to an open and free NETWORK NEUTRAL INTERNET.

In other words, it happened because there are no virtual boundaries, speed limits, stop signs, or censorship police for us to deal with. Information generally flows freely from one destination to another. Think of it as limited government of the Internet.

This creates a network that is philosophically libertarian in its nature. At the core of the Internet’s design is something called “The End-To-End Principle.” It essentially means that the network itself is indifferent, i.e. neutral. This is the fundamental idea of Net Neutrality.

“Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet’s wires cannot discriminate. This is the simple but brilliant “end-to-end” design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good.”—Lawrence Lessig & Robert W. McChesney

So far this has worked surprisingly well, and stands as a monument to what can happen when all the typical power mongers whether governments or corporations keep their hands off.

The Internet, our Internet, has remained open and free. It is a prime example of one of the fundamental tenants of libertarianism or Classical Liberalism, i.e. Spontaneous Order.

With no central governance, the Internet is a very orderly place, but not overly so.  It has to be, in order to function. Order on the Internet is maintained through the voluntary interaction of technologists, i.e. people. The operation of the network is defined through agreements and standards. Anyone is free to propose different standards, or protocols. Such standards may or may not be adopted. No one is allowed to seize control or ownership of the Internet.

The Internet regulates itself. Openness is the primary regulatory value. Net Neutrality says that any proposed change should ask, “Does this increase or decrease the freedom and openness of the Internet?”

When I speak of the Internet being open and “free” I don’t mean without cost. We pay for connectivity and bandwidth, or “Quality of Service” as well we should. Telephone companies, cable companies, and satellite companies have spent countless billions building the infrastructure that hosts the Internet and the higher our quality of service the more we pay. Some think it should be free. It should not. Insisting on free Internet service is a violation of property rights. We the people have no inherent ownership rights of their wires. We pay to access them.

I submit however that the Internet is not the wires. The edge service providers  and last mile service providers own the infrastructure. We purchase access from them. They DO NOT own the Internet though. The Internet has come to exist as an entity on its own. It may be hosted by or live on the wires of the service providers but the network itself is something wholly separate. The Internet is made up of the various computers, networks, standards, protocols, services, and most importantly INDIVIDUALS who live and work there. Yes, it is a place.

In order to keep the Internet open and free, it is up to the individuals to maintain vigilance over the power hungry. The power hungry entities are the usual suspects, i.e. governments and corporations.

Corporations seek to control traffic on the Internet because that can be EXTREMELY profitable. Governments really don’t like us talking amongst ourselves so much and they seek to control who can talk to whom and when they can talk, and what they say. Governments are fond of Internet kill switches and censorship. Governments, particularly our own I suspect, really don’t like seeing such a successful thing as the Internet exist without their say so, or their taxes, or their ability to exercise control and constraint on behalf of those who contribute lots of money to them.

Proponents of Net Neutrality seek to thwart the efforts of governments and corporations to exercise ownership like control over the Internet. Net Neutrality wants the traffic on the Internet to remain unmolested by corporations and uncensored by governments and unblocked by both.

Opponents of Net Neutrality see it as a government power grab or FCC over regulation. Opponents of Net Neutrality feel that the Internet has done well on its own since the day we agreed that it actually existed, so why do we need any FCC interference whatsoever?

What is interesting is that the decision on whether or not one supports Net Neutrality has fallen along the cliché and boring left vs. right political lines, with pro-net neutrality people being on the left and anti-net neutrality people being on the right. Unfortunately this has resulted in minds instantly being closed to what the actual issues are and what is at stake.

I consider myself a libertarian (because people understand this somewhat) but more accurately a  classical liberal. By definition this would put me right of center and I often agree with so called “conservative” ideals. I like to believe I look at every issue on its own though. Just because someone I might agree with on tax policy tells me Net Neutrality is bad doesn’t mean I don’t investigate for myself. In doing so I have come to support Net Neutrality notwithstanding the meaningless political labels that have been attached to it.

I would ask that those who believe in limited government and free speech, as I do, take a close look at Net Neutrality. Don’t close your mind because some bible thumping backwoods conservative tells you it’s evil. It isn’t. If you are a leftist, don’t simply believe in it because your favorite Marxist kook says “the 99% are in favor of Net Neutrality.” Read up on it. Understand what the Internet is, how it works, why it’s important, who the players are. Don’t let them obfuscate the importance of this issue by pressing your political hot buttons. They do not apply.

Conservatives, I am speaking to you in particular here. Leftists have the luxury of accidentally being on the correct side of this issue. You don’t have that luxury. You’re going to have to use your brain. You’re going to have to ask yourself how it is that rules that do nothing other than ask that the Internet remain open and free with limited governance are government over regulation and then you’re going to have to come up with an answer that makes sense. You can’t. If you understand what Net Neutrality is and you continue to insist that it’s some kind of government power grab, you’re acting irresponsibly with respect to the Internet and you are handing the Internet over to corporations to over regulate and govern because your mind is just that closed. Don’t do it.

Beware. The Keyboard Thugs are trying to hack your brain again.

Posted by Thelonious Mac on

Mac Users,

Once again, I have to report that evil people are trying to hack your brains. These people are sometimes called “hackers,” sometimes “cyber criminals.”  These are romantic terms however.  They are glamourous and they should not be. These are basically keyboard punks. They are not geniuses, they may know a bit more about your computer than you do, but that’s it. They are thieves and vandals, the Internet equivalent of of pickpockets or unethical locksmiths.

It seems they’ve cobbled together a new Trojan Horse that attempts to trick you into downloading and installing malicious software. I’ve discussed Trojans here before. Remember, this is the act of hacking YOU, the computer user, and convincing you to open the door and stand aside.

Please see “Mac Security, Landsharks, Social Engineering, and Situational Awareness.”

This one pretends to be an upgrade to FLASH (as if there weren’t enough reasons to avoid installing Adobe Flash already.).

Concerning Flash, please see Steve Jobs on Flash: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash

If you go to a website and you see something like this, DO NOT install Flash. Unfortunately it looks like the real installer and can create confusion and very easily fool most Mac users.
If you believe your FLASH install need to be updated you should go to Adobe’s website to do so. Finding anything on Adobe’s Website is an adventure in and of itself, but this link should take you directly to the Flash Installer, (and better yet, the Uninstaller as well!)
http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
Be very careful exploring the Internet. The punks are looking for brains with weak security.

1984 Wasn’t a How To Manual

Posted by Thelonious Mac on

"I will not be Pushed, Filed, Stamped, Indexed, Briefed, Debriefed or Numbered"

I fear the Federal Government. I fear it for more reasons than I care to get into, but the bottom line is that it has too much power. Of all the frightening things in the world, I am most afraid of my own Government.

I am not some crazy, backwoods, gun toting, racial supremacist (though they do come in all colors). While I fear the government, I also admire it. I like clean water, safe food, a strong defense, elections, and NASA. I do not believe that government is completely unnecessary or any such nonsense.

I’m just a man who cherishes liberty. I bring it up because I am once again astonished by the anti-liberty actions of the so called “representatives” of the people.

TEXAS REPUBLICAN Lemar Smith has introduced a bill called H.R.1981. The bill would more appropriately be called H.R.”1984.” The bill requires Internet Service providers to maintain a database consisting of information such as your name, address, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses. If the fact that they are being told to maintain this information isn’t bad enough, in a triumph of Doublespeak, the title of the bill is “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.”

In other words in order to protect children from pornographers, Lemar Smith and a bipartisan group of House cosponsors want to build a database of PRIVATE AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION ON EVERY AMERICAN CONNECTED to the Internet.

This sort of all encompassing, freedom squashing,  poor legislation is just dumb. If Apple Computer tracks the cell towers and the WiFi spots your phone passes by to build comprehensive maps of services, congressional Democrats are all over it, supposedly protecting us from big evil corporations. Yet if the government wants to build a database chocked full of private and financial information on every American connected to the Internet, they’re fine with that. They’ll even sponsor it.

The majority of the sponsors are Republicans. These people claim to be anti-big government. They claim to be the ones who protect us from government encroaching upon our civil liberties. Of these people I can only say they are either completely and utterly STUPID, they have not read and understood the bill, or worse, they are duplicitous liars willing to sell us out for whatever their reasons may be. “Protecting Children” indeed.

Anyone who cannot predict that such a database will come to be used for unintended purposes is an idiot. If Mark Zuckerberg did this, we’d all be up in arms. The United States Government is far more dangerous to your privacy than Mark Zukerberg can ever hope to be. You can tell Mark no. The government on the other hand can simply make non-compliance criminal.

Nary a day goes by where The White House and Congress don’t make it clear that they have little or no idea what is going on with the Internet. All we can do as individuals is keep watch and let them know that we expect better. Far better for the $190K+ per year we pay each of them.

I urge you to contact your representatives and tell them to get a clue. George Orwell didn’t intend “1984” to be a how to manual.

Please see: DEMAND PROGRESS information

Text of Legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981:

COSPONSORS(25), ALPHABETICAL

Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 7/15/2011
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 7/11/2011
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] – 7/11/2011
Rep Critz, Mark S. [PA-12] – 7/11/2011
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19] – 7/11/2011
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] – 7/12/2011
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] – 7/6/2011
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 7/6/2011
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 7/11/2011
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] – 7/11/2011
Rep Gowdy, Trey [SC-4] – 7/11/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 7/29/2011
Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18] – 7/19/2011
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] – 7/12/2011
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] – 7/12/2011
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] – 7/11/2011
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 7/12/2011
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR] – 7/25/2011
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] – 7/12/2011
Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] – 6/15/2011
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] – 7/15/2011
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] – 7/11/2011
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 7/25/2011
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] – 7/12/2011
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] – 5/25/2011

OS X 10.7 LION IS HERE!

Posted by Thelonious Mac on

I’m so excited!

Today, Wednesday 07/20/11, Apple will be releasing OS X 10.7 Lion. This is a major new release of OS X. Unlike previous releases of OS X, this will be the first release to be offered via download through the new Mac App Store. This release also has relatively strict requirements.

To install OS X Lion you must have:

  • An Intel Core 2 Duo, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 or Xeon processor. This does not include the Intel Core Duo, a slightly older chip. Check your “About this Mac” display. If it says anything other than what is listed above, do not attempt to install OS X Lion.
  • 2GB of RAM
  • Mac OS X 10.6.6 or later with the Mac App Store installed
  • At least 4GB of additional disk space to hold the download
  • A fairly fast broadband connection to make downloading 4GB of data tolerable. (If you regularly download movies from the Internet, this should be no problem. If you’re on some flaky ancient DSL connection you might want to start the download at night, and go to bed, and hope it finishes by the time you wake up.)

As always, Apple allows you to install right on top of the existing operating system. As always I recommend against this. Computers, even Macs, are in a state of entropy from the moment you get them working properly. You’re putting files on, often in to the wrong places. Software installs do things they shouldn’t do. Computers crash for one reason or another. Lots of little problems add up to one big problem. Installing a new OS on top of the old one doesn’t necessarily clean all of this up, and can make things worse.

I recommend that you first do a full backup of your system. Have an image backup on an external drive tucked safely out of the way. Then during the install process, tell the installer to format your hard drive. Then install the new OS clean. I recommend doing this at least once per year for any computer. It’s digital catharsis. Then re-install from your disks or installation files applications as you need them. Your backup will contain all of your old data that can be installed as needed. Sometimes putting data back, like email for instance, or iTunes data, can be tricky. If you’re not sure how to do this, ask for help.

Update: Installing Lion onto one of my computers as a test, I was not given the option to do a clean install, i.e. format the drive. In order to do this, I will likely have to make a bootable USB Flash Drive or DVD so that I can first erase the internal drive, then do the install. If you aren’t proficient at such things, it looks like you’ll have to install on top of the existing OS. ( Y U C K ).  Even more reason to have a full backup ready, just in case.

If you wish to skip all of this and slap Lion on top of your existing system, chances are it will work just fine, but I’ve seen some of your systems and the kooky things you do and the strange stuff you install so I’d do the full backup anyway. No matter what you should always do a full backup before installing any major new release of an OS.

Recently I began creating recovery partitions on client machines. Once the OS and applications were all installed, I’d section off part of the hard drive and make a copy. This way if something went wrong, we could boot from the recovery partition to fix things. OS X 10.7 Lion does this now for you. Keep in mind if you install OS X 10.7 Lion to an external drive, I’m not 100% sure where it will put this partition. The last version I saw, back in February still put the recovery partition on the main internal hard drive. This can lead to confusion if you remove your external and boot your system. It will default to the recovery partition.

There is also the issue of older software.

If you are running older versions of application software, your apps may not be compatible. Check http://roaringapps.com for a current list. Notable incompatible programs include QUICKEN 2007, (of which there is NO NEW VERSION (there is a half assed Quicken Essentials, but it should be called “Quicken Lite” for people who only have a checking account). Office 2008 is questionable. I can’t find anything that says that it will definitely work. I would let others find out for sure first, before rushing to install Lion.

You can also do a preliminary test of your system Go to the Apple Menu, choose “About This Mac,” then click “More Info.” You will be taken to the System Profiler app. On the left side of the app is the “Contents” area. Under Software, choose Applications. After it finishes building a list of your applications, look under the Kind column. If you see anything that says “PowerPC” assume that application will not run. Contact the vendor to see if there is a new version. You want to see “Intel” or “Universal” in that column.

Pictured below is a shot of a client machine running Office 2004. Office 2004 is clearly incompatible with OS X Lion. Interestingly, compatibility with LION is the only reason I’ve found to upgrade to Office 2011.

Generally speaking you should VERIFY any application that is critical to your work BEFORE upgrading.

OS X 10.7 Lion is an exciting new version of what is quite possibly the finest general purpose operating system on the market. Apple says it has over 250 new features and in the coming weeks I will be documenting my experiences with them.

If you got nothing else out of this short text, please back up your system before installing Lion.

Mac Security, Landsharks, Social Engineering, and Situational Awareness

Posted by Thelonious Mac on

The Landshark is a devious species.

There is a new social engineering scheme out there for attacking Macintosh OS X. If Safari (or any browser you’re using for that matter) suddenly pops open a dialog that says that your computer has been compromised in some way, ignore it. Under no circumstances should you do what it asks you to do. Do not allow it to download software. If you’ve already downloaded the software, do not install it.

These attacks are extremely common for Windows and you’ve probably seen them from time to time on your Mac. They allege that your computer’s security has been breeched and that you need to allow a scan of your computer. This however, is the first one that actually carries a payload for attacking the Mac, that I am aware of.

It carries a Trojan Horse “…Unlike a virus, or worm, a Trojan is a program that YOU install, and YOU give permission to run. You may not realize you’re doing it because they can be tricky, impersonating normal operations….” Keep in mind, when the Trojans opened the gates and pulled the horse full of Greek Soldiers inside, they had no one to blame save for themselves. The gates were fine.

This is the Landshark of security attacks. If you put 5 extra strong deadbolts on your door and the landshark shows up, knocks on your door, and says “Candygram,” or “Avon Calling” or whatever and you open the door, YOU WERE THE THING THAT GOT HACKED. Not the door, not the locks. By the same token, if you go to a website and it convinces you to download a security scanner for your computer, you got hacked. Not your Mac, not your PC. This is called “social engineering.”

“Social engineering is the act of manipulating people into performing actions or divulging confidential information, rather than by breaking in or using complex technical cracking techniques.” – Wikipedia

Macs and PCs have become increasingly difficult to hack directly. The weakest point in security is and always has been the squishy thing just above the keyboard. This is the world you live in now. Attacks via hostile websites are the number one way computers are compromised. Even if you run security software, if you open the kimono, you’re gonna get fracked.

“…A study by Google researchers analyzing fake AntiVirus distribution found that up to 90% of all domains involved in distributing fake antivirus software used social engineering techniques…”

Bogus Security Scan Files don't even exist on Mac

This “Apple Security Center” attack tries to install “MACDefender.” A website will attempt to trick you into downloading it and Safari or Firefox or whatever, will dutifully ask you if you really want to download it, giving you another chance to activate that brain of yours. Once downloaded, if you attempt to install it, OS X will give you one last chance to come to your senses. It will tell you that the item you’re about to open came from the Internet. If you say yes, and type in your password, it gets installed. From that point on you will notice that your computer has developed a strange predilection for taking you to porn and other unsavory websites. It could be worse though. For all you know, the version you download might have a keystroke monitor in it and as you log into your bank, it records your username and password and transmits that to China.

These attacks also come via email. By now, no one should have to tell you to not click on links in email messages, especially from unknown sources.

Trust me. You did not just win an iPad.

It looks awfully real

MACDefender is targeting Mac users through a process called “SEO Poisoning.” SEO is “Search Engine Optimization.” SEO is the practice of learning how search engines work and gaming the system to get your website pushed to the top of certain search results. It’s already a tacky practice but using it to push malware sites to the top of popular searches is despicable. You can’t even trust search engine results anymore.

You should NEVER EVER EVER let a website work on your computer. Avoid those “We can make your computer go faster” websites. They cannot.

Only download Anti-Virus software from reputable companies. The only one I trust right now is ESET. I believe ESET Cybersecurity for Macintosh is evolving into the best security software for the Mac, but I generally keep it turned off. The threat level is still too low to warrant the additional overhead.

http://www.eset.com/, is their address. Buy it and install it if it makes you feel better. Remember though, it can’t compensate for your behavior.

I also tend not to give clients the administrator password to their own computers. . I give them a standard account instead. I write the administrator’s username and password down and seal it in an envelope and stick it in a drawer to force them to think about why they need it. I even work in a non-privileged account on my own computer. You can become numb to being asked over and over for your password. Having to remember a different username and a complex password is a good way to jumpstart your brain on occasion. Also Safari has an option under general preferences for opening safe files. Make sure it is turned off.

Understand that as you are the primary target of malicious attacks on your computer, you are consequently the primary defense. The best thing you can do is pay close attention to what is going on. Rule out online security scans. That is simply not an option. Rule out online computer repair. Assume it’s a trick. Yes there are some real versions of these things however if you cannot tell the difference, assume they are all bogus. Develop an intuition about things. You might type in your password when setting up an account with a service, or when logging into the service, but that service is never going to send you an email and ask what your password is.

Don’t install pirate software, especially software downloaded from the Internet. That’s just asking for it. Even things like pirated music can be disguised. Consider that people who are willing to provide you with ill-gotten intellectual property are not ethical to begin with.

POOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

There is a concept known as SA or Situational Awareness. It is taught to people in dangerous, hostile, and safety critical environments. It is taught to people like spies, Army Rangers, Navy Seals, inner-city school children, and Nuclear Reactor employees.

“…Situation awareness (SA) involves being aware of what is happening around you to understand how information, events, and your own actions will impact your goals and objectives, both now and in the near future.“

EXTREMELY POOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

 Inadequate SA has been identified as one of the primary factors in accidents attributed to human error (e.g., Hartel, Smith, & Prince, 1991; Merket, Bergondy, & Cuevas-Mesa, 1997; Nullmeyer, Stella, Montijo, & Harden, 2005). Thus, SA is especially important in work domains where the information flow can be quite high and poor decisions may lead to serious consequences (e.g., piloting an airplane, functioning as a soldier, or treating critically ill or injured patients)…”

These days, using the Internet is a grown up activity notwithstanding all the LOLCATS. A healthy dose of Situational Awareness is a good thing. Remember, during the Windows era, they pretty much only attacked Windows. In the post-Windows-era, it’s open season on all of us.

Apple and The Enterprise: Infiltration through Consumerization

Posted by Thelonious Mac on

History of Apple and Corporate IT

In the past the one area that Apple has found difficult to penetrate has been the button down pinstripe rigid world of corporate IT, or “Information Technology.” It seemed that no matter how compelling, easy to use, and superior Apple’s products were, IT managers went for Windows. Since businesses, until recently, purchased the vast majority of computers, it wasn’t long before Microsoft Windows owned 95% of all desktops.

So why did businesses fall so deeply in love with Windows?  Well, they didn’t really. It was love for IBM with a healthy dose of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

All of this is no where near as powerful as an iPad is today.

Up until the 1970s IBM owned Information Technology. Those corporations that were big enough to need and afford computers purchased IBM mainframes. Mainframe computers were physically large. They took up entire floors of office buildings. They required massive air conditioned clean environments. Installing them often involved giant cranes, massive forklifts, and even cargo helicopters.  They were horribly expensive costing millions of 1960s dollars. They were managed by a large staff of corporate sociopaths, (we’d call them geeks today), wearing white short sleeved shirts with pocket protectors, horn rimmed glasses, and clip on ties. No one outside of this sacerdotal cult had actual access to the computer. People needing “Data Processing” done would submit job requests to the MIS department that resulted in reports being delivered back to them, much later.

DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION VAX 11/780

During the 1970s a smaller class of computers called “minicomputers” began to take center stage. Made chiefly by Digital Equipment Corporation, Data General, and HP, they began nipping at the heels of IBM. Minicomputers though much smaller than IBM mainframes, were still giants, requiring computer room environments. Most people still thought of them as mainframes even though they required a fraction of the space and cost. They became very popular with corporations because smaller companies could afford to purchase mainframe power in minicomputer packages.

THE APPLE I

During the late 1970s and early 1980s the home computer revolution began. Often called “microcomputers,” the Apple I and offerings from Commodore, Tandy, Radio Shack, Altair, and others appeared on the hobbyist scene. When Apple introduced the Apple II, the corporate microcomputer revolution was jump started. As Apple puts it, “Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II.” While this is clearly marketing hyperbole, there is actually much truth in that statement.  The Apple II was the first microcomputer to find its way into business in significant numbers. Believe it or not, an Apple computer was the darling of accountants because of a little thing called the electronic spreadsheet.

Enter Dan Bricklin. Inspired by the rapidly evolving world of microcomputer technology,  the mediocre abilities of mainframe and minicomputers to provide quality visualization, and the limited abilities of hand held calculators, Bricklin envisioned and programmed the first electronic spreadsheet, VisiCalc. In 1978 the first version of this seminal program was created for the Apple II.

(Note: Microsoft Excel would first appear on the Macintosh in 1985, long before it appeared for Windows.)

Sneaky Accountant with "Calculator"

Suddenly businesses had a mass produced computer from a reputable company along with packaged software to invest in. Accountants began sneaking Apple II computers into corporations as expensive calculators. One clerical employee was suddenly doing the work of 10 and there was no waiting on data processing for results.

This was a problem for IT or “MIS” (Management Information Systems) as they were called. Suddenly MIS had islands of corporate data popping up on office equipment they didn’t control. Let alone quality control and security issues, these little toy computers from upstart “Apple,” were signaling an erosion in their corporate authority.

The spread of the Apple II was also noted by IBM. IBM, still smarting from the minicomputer coup, was determined not to miss out on the microcomputer revolution and the first IBM business microcomputer was developed. IBM had a microcomputer, but no operating system and they turned to a little company few people had ever heard of, Microsoft.

As the story goes Bill Gates initially wasn’t interested in working with IBM and sent them packing. IBM made the rounds through all the nascent computer companies and got similar responses. IBM represented “Big Brother,” the antithesis of the libertarian personal computer revolution. Meetings between IBM and small technology companies probably didn’t go all that well. Eventually IBM went back to Microsoft. This time however, Gates purchased an OS, a CP/M clone called QDOS, from a company called Seattle Computer Products.  The OS subsequently became MS-DOS. Such was the beginning of Microsoft innovation through acquisition, a practice that continues even today. If you can’t build it, buy it.

Alright. This is the moment. This is the lightning strike. This is the point where one of the most vast personal fortunes in history is born. This is the decision that created the Microsoft we know. This is why there will never be a Microsoft again.

Bill Gates did not sell MS-DOS to IBM, he licensed it to them!

There are countless stories about the “genius” of Bill Gates, and he may well be, but this single act is the incident that made him the richest man in the world for many many years. No one knew what this meant at the time. It’s fair to assume Gates believed the deal would be profitable, but it’s doubtful he could have predicted just how profitable. In effect, he poked a hole into the IBM money bubble and cash began to flow from IBM to Microsoft. This is considered to be one of the greatest industrial accidents of all time, and one of the two biggest mistakes IBM ever made.

Take a step back. What should also be understood at this point is just how much MIS people worshiped IBM. It was cult like admiration. The white shirt, tie, horn rimed glasses look was basically a uniform as prescribed by IBM. There was a saying, almost a mantra at the time; “No one was ever fired for choosing IBM.” There was also, “I bm. You bm. We all bm for IBM,” but that’s not the one that was usually repeated in corporate boardrooms.

The IBM PC - Probably still preferred by 5 out of 10 IT people

DOS was married to the IBM microcomputer and the IBM PC was born. MIS departments took to the IBM PC because it had the 3 magic letters on it, “I B M.” It was more difficult to operate than an Apple II, consequently people needed to rely on MIS for assistance. It was perfect.

No one in MIS even noticed the Microsoft copyright as DOS booted up. Everyone, including IBM still believed that the hardware made the computer, and not the software. VisiCalc was ported to the IBM PC under DOS, and the Apple II lost its standing due to MIS love for IBM. Meanwhile, each time an IBM computer was sold, money flowed into the pockets of Microsoft, and they didn’t have to do a thing for it. The software was duplicated, packaged, and delivered by IBM. It was basically free money.

Then something else critical happened. The IBM PC was “cloned.” The interesting thing here is that IBM didn’t fight this. This was IBM’s second great mistake. The clones arrived and they too began to run licensed copies MS-DOS. Strangely, in the minds of most MIS people, the clones were still IBM computers because the phrase, “IBM COMPATIBLE,” was applied to them. Microsoft provided tweaked versions of MS-DOS to each clone maker and even more money began to flow into the pockets of Microsoft and Gates.

Meanwhile history was brewing over at Apple. Sequestered in a private building under a pirate flag, Steve Jobs and a group of engineers, computer scientists, and others created the Macintosh. Apple subsequently marketed the computer as “The Computer for the Rest of Us.”

From a technology standpoint, it brought together the most revolutionary ideas of the time, including the graphical user interface, event driven programming, and the mouse. It was beautiful, it was a computer science tour-de-force. Even so, the Mac was not able to overcome the stigma of not being an IBM COMPATIBLE computer. In addition, the Macintosh was so radically different from conventional personal computers that it would take time for people to begin to understand it.

Microsoft understood it though and immediately went to work copying the Macintosh. They eventually released Windows which initially was decidedly inferior. Over time subsequent releases of Windows eventually achieved what is known as “Good Enough” status. Businesses once unwilling to try Macintosh were now willing to try a GUI and a mouse because Windows ran on IBM Compatibles. Even though we were well into the late 80s at this point, the mystique of being blessed by IBM, lingered.

In the meantime, the Macintosh, while shunned by business because of the IBM fetish, found a steadfast niche in the world of creatives and scientists. Nonetheless, the fallacy that the Mac was for creatives and the PC was for business solidified. Microsoft had eclipsed both IBM and Apple. Illustrating the power of so called “mind share”, for the next 2 decades, Microsoft owned Information Technology.

The IBM compatible mystique was so strong that to this day some people still ask, “Which computer are you using, IBM or Mac?” The idea that IBM is for business and that Apple is not, became a cultural meme before we had the word “meme.” Even now there are woefully ignorant people running around who will say things like, “Macintosh is for artistic people and Windows is for business,” without knowing where the idea comes from.

Consumerization

In 1998, Steve Jobs returned to Apple, and shortly thereafter Apple changed direction. Projects were terminated, and a new consumer focus emerged from the company. Instead of turning out more beige boxes to compete with beige PC boxes, Apple introduced the a new charming all-in-one computer, the iMac. iMacs came in multiple colors and were targeted at the consumer market as opposed to the IT market.

It worked. Consumers began snapping up iMacs as fast as Apple could build them, and while they weren’t marketed to IT people, they began showing up in businesses as well. This process, where IT is introduced into the consumer world before it filters into the industrial world is now known as Consumerization.

When an employee purchases their own technology and brings it into the office and expects that technology to be integrated with office systems and supported by IT, the phenomenon is referred to as Consumerization of IT. Due to consumerization, Apple is having an impact on corporate IT like never before.

Apple’s shift to consumer focus caused many analysts to stop referring to the company as an IT or Computer company and instead as a consumer electronics company. By delivering the best possible IT experience into the consumer market, Apple also began to claim “Mind Share.” People have expectations of what an Apple experience will be like, and their minds are opened to having this experience in the workplace as well as the home.

Employees from chief executives on down are purchasing iPhones, iPads, and Macs and telling the IT department to deal with it. As the nature of IT shifts from the old in house servers and desktop model to one of mobile devices and cloud infrastructure, consumerization of IT will be the norm.

As of late, quarter after quarter, Macs are outselling “PC compatibles,” and a large portion of these machines are going into businesses. Today we use the buzzword “enterprise” and enterprise adoption of Apple’s technology is accelerating. When Apple infects a consumer brain with the high expectations of their products, those consumers become carriers of the Apple “virus” into corporations. Studies and surveys expect corporate adoption of Apple technology to double or quadruple in coming years.

Even more important, the consumerization of IT is yet another harbinger of, you guessed it, the Post-Windows-Era. As we shift to cloud based infrastructures architected upon open standards rather than Windows compatibility, Information Technology more and more becomes a consumer decision.

The IT department itself is morphing into a role of Information Custodians who’s responsibility it will be to manage and preserve the integrity, security, and safety of corporate data. In this new enterprise IT world, people will be more free to pick and choose the technology they prefer and IT competition will be based on who can deliver the most appealing and compelling user interface. Clearly this is more likely to be Apple and/or Google than an organization like Dell or Lenovo. Google also benefits heavily from consumerization. Traditional IT companies such as CISCO and HP are working very hard to create consumer products as they recognize the need to leverage consumerization. CISCO tends to fail at this (RIP Flip), and HP, though a very strong brand with consumers, is still playing catch up.

Recently Apple has become the Number One Global Brand. In effect, this translates to Apple having greater name recognition and value perception than McDonalds. It means more people know Apple than know the number one cigarette brand in the world. This puts Apple in a huge position of strength when it comes to consumerization.

It is safe to expect Apple to do nothing except expand its presence in enterprise for the foreseeable future.

The Cycle

Posted by Thelonious Mac on

Every new information technology starts with similar promise and excitement. It begins small, garners attention, and expands. The world becomes enamored with it, and early adopters rush to predict a brighter future predicated upon its existence. Then something happens. The once promising and open new technology changes into one that is centrally controlled by a small number of loosely connected players. We’ve seen it happen repeatedly with every major technology from radio to television.  In his book, “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires,”  author and “techno-anthropologist” Tim Wu calls this “The Cycle.” It is mandatory reading for anyone concerned with maintaining an Internet open and conducive to free exchange and entrepreneurial endeavors.

Wu states, “History shows a typical progression of information technologies: from somebody’s hobby to somebody’s industry; from jury-rigged contraption to slick production marvel; from freely accessible channel to one strictly controlled by a single corporation or cartel—from open to closed system. It is a progression so common as to seem inevitable, though it would hardly have seemed so at the dawn of any of the past century’s transformative technologies, whether telephony, radio, television, or film.”

The question raised by Wu’s book is must this necessarily happen to the Internet? Will we see the degeneration of the Internet into a closed system, controlled by just a few corporations and the government? Will Wu’s Cycle see the Internet become the harnessed property of cable and telcos? Sadly, the answer is probably. The other question is, is this a necessarily bad thing?

The Internet was arguably the most important technology to emerge from disparate yet related developments in the 20th century. There was no single inventor of the Internet. What we call “The Internet” today is the result of numerous interdisciplinary efforts. Though every new information and communications medium promises to do so, no other technology, not television, radio or even telephony, has done more to democratize education, entertainment, and the free exchange of knowledge, information and ideas. Not that it means much any more but the Internet was even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2010.

Television emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. It evolved to become a miraculous world carrier of information and entertainment. As predicted by Wu’s “Cycle,”  it collapsed and was brought under the control of a very few networks. ABC, CBS, and NBC. This network triumvirate or cartel controlled television for decades. Even so, all that was required to witness a man walking on the moon, a war in Southeast Asia, and/or the barbaric treatment of people seeking their civil rights was an antennae. Television was the property of the networks, but it continued to transform the world. Nonetheless television viewers saw only what the networks and government censors allowed them to see. Television was still a miracle, but a closed one. Then cable television disrupted the communications landscape yet again.

The cycle is peculiar to information and communication technologies. The cycle seems to take into account that information “wants to be free,” and that we the people, want to talk to one another without governments and corporations intervening. Prior to cable, television programming was restricted to the big three networks and we saw only the content they blessed.

The advent of cable brought countless new broadcasters and relatively large amounts of new content to television. With cable, people had access to hundreds of channels. The idea of “narrowcasting” developed. Once again though, “the cycle” repeated. Numerous cable providers merged into behemoths. Consumer choice almost diminished to the point of no choice at all and again we accepted the lowest common denominator of content.

Television devolved into a pay-for-connection / pay-per-view / pay-to-play medium. As the technology advanced, cable companies grew in power and additional artificial limits were placed upon the availability of content. The quip “500 channels and nothing on” became cliché.  What was once a promising medium for providing consumers with  lots of new choices, deteriorated into a horrendously expensive, tiered, rights managed, pay-per-view, packaged, myopic one way wasteland of so called “reality.”

Television, radio, film, and telephony have all been through similar cycles and are now owned by a small number of very powerful conglomerates. What we can and cannot do with those media is strictly controlled by these corporations and the government.

Meanwhile the Internet has rapidly entered the first stages of its childhood. Suddenly esoteric ideas like hypertext, interactive online publishing and a truly global knowledge base have become reality. Unlike the aforementioned media, the Internet can handle everything including images, audio, video, and text. It is the proverbial mother of all information media. More importantly, unlike old broadcast media, the Internet is not one way. It is an omnidirectional network of networks where any person or group is free to communicate with any other.

People from all over the world use the Internet to communicate, work, and even play with one another, as the difference in networking vs. broad or narrowcasting has become evident. The Internet supports the storage, manipulation, and delivery of incomprehensible quantities of information to approximately 2 billion people, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Though at first a novelty, the Internet is now considered indispensable by almost a third of the Earth’s population. The interactive network neutral nature of the Internet has turned it into more of a “place” than a medium. It is almost trite to say that it is where many of us literally live. Our lives are digitally interwoven by the Internet. The population of the Internet is greater than the populations of China and the United States combined. It is a vast “Metaverse,” a growing cyber-landscape of human production, consumption, and creative activity.

While television has turned living rooms into dumping grounds for the likes of Jersey Shore, innumerable housewives, American idols, and The Apprentice, the Internet has demonstrated that the mere ability to broadcast 140 character messages out to the meta, can literally topple governments. Clearly when we network, we are infinitely more powerful than when we simply consume a broadcast.

The Internet is poised to offer ever increasing developments including new HTML5 based websites, advanced location based services, evolving social media, storage-as-a-service, file sharing, video conferencing, virtual companies, telepresence, streaming movies, music, online gaming, telephony, photography, books, periodicals, software-as-a-service, cyber-activism, near field communications, and the intersection and mashup of some or all of the above. It’s an exciting time. We are on the verge of a whole new era of ubiquitous connectivity and cloud based services.

According to Padmasree Warrior, CTO of Cisco, it is expected that by 2013 there will be in excess of 1 trillion devices connected to the Internet. Traffic is expected to exceed 56 exabytes per month. 91% of that traffic is expected to be video. 66% of mobile traffic is expected to be video. It would be safe to define video as meaning not just movie or television type content but gaming and 3D virtual worlds as they become less distinguishable from reality.

This constantly expanding democratization effect of the Internet on Earth’s societies will also encompass delivery. Whereas the old world of computers was predicated upon Microsoft Windows compatibility, the new world will be open standards based. Rather than being forced to maintain Windows or Office compatibility, it will be required to be compatible with the Internet. Above all else, the predicted 1 trillion devices represent choice. Hardware and software developers will be free to create the most outstanding connectivity experience they can while adhering to open standards and APIs.

Consider the iPad app, “Flipboard.” Flipboard digests content from online publications, blogs, and social media. It then presents them in an interactive personal magazine format that can only be described as beautiful. In a technology world where such intelligent, creative and compelling design is the foundation upon which success is built, companies such as Apple and Flipboard are destined to succeed while organizations such as Microsoft struggle to reinvent themselves.

As “citizens of the Internet” we will choose the technology that suits and pleases us, not the technology that oligopolies force upon us. Standards, choice, and competition will rule, not coercion through market penetration. The Internet is preparing to finally deliver what we want, when we want it, where we want it, and however we want it. We are, as Padmasree Warrior puts it, heading into “the Internet of all things.”

Or are we?

The Internet is a work in progress. Despite its spectacular success, its future promise is by no means guaranteed. There is good reason to believe that the Internet has reached critical mass and that the historical pattern identified by Professor Wu and dubbed, “The Cycle,” is about to strike and strike hard. We are at that point where the Internet will shift from open to closed. Professor Wu’s description of the oscillating pattern makes it almost seem like a force of nature, though it is anything but natural.

As the Internet moves into adolescence, there is a very strong possibility that its growth will be severely stunted. While there seems to be no limit to what the Internet can do for the people of the world, there are those who look askance at the Internet and view it with fear, ignorance and concern. You need only ask yourself, who is challenged by the democratic nature of the Internet and who is threatened when consumers are presented with unprecedented choice, as it pertains to the consumption of media and entertainment? Obviously these are governments and old media corporations respectively.

Must we allow governments to strangle the Internet?

Governments including our own are already seeking to control the Internet. China is notorious for instituting policies and systems to block any traffic on the Internet that is critical of the government.  Throughout the recent unrest in the Middle East, countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iran routinely shutdown the Internet to prevent their citizens from communicating with one another and the world.

One of the primary assaults on Internet freedom will be coming from governments that want “kill switches” as well as other abilities to limit, monitor, filter, and block Internet traffic. Citizen vigilance in democratic nations is vital. Governments must not be given such control where people have the power to prevent it. If you believe that we are protected by the First Amendment, think again. The First Amendment did not prevent even the Obama Administration from seeking to establish an American Internet kill switch.

While some governments seek to maintain complete control over the Internet purely for reasons of power, the American government is different. Almost worse. In America and other Western nations such as the United Kingdom, government representatives often act out of pure ignorance and what sounds good. Who would be against a bill called, “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset?” That is the name of the Obama backed bill that attempted to give the executive branch the power to shutdown the Internet in America. In theory such power would only be used in an emergency. What constitutes an “emergency” however, is not definitive.

Government officials seeking to make decisions regarding the Internet are almost always attempting to legislate highly technical matters they are ill-equipped to understand. The impetus for such legislation is most often personal political gain and the resulting legislation is usually incongruous and discordant with the spirit and nature of the Internet.

There are currently, for instance, multiple versions of bills floating around Congress called “Do Not Track Bills.” They seek to prevent consumers from being tracked by their mobile devices without their consent. The bills are largely attention harvesting reactions to hysteria brought on by sensationalized reporting in the media.

Mobile phone makers are not tracking individuals!

They are gathering information from devices concerning nearby cell towers and WiFi hotspots. They are doing this in order to create accurate geo-location maps. The goal is to to provide better geo-location based services to mobile device users. There is nothing nefarious about this. In others words, Apple is not interested in Joe Consumer’s specific location. If however Joe launches a taxi summoning app on his iPhone, Apple would like to provide the most accurate possible data to that app so that it can say, “Here are the cab companies that service the area you are in.”

Poorly crafted legislation by political opportunists runs the risk of generating unintended consequences that squelch the development of services consumers would want. I.e. bad technology law blocks innovation. Most consumers would likely want their devices to provide the most accurate location based services possible. Yet due to the rush to legislate, this ability might become hampered in the future.

It should come as no surprise, that as people move into the Internet, governments will follow, seeking to perpetuate 19th and 20th century ideas of restraint, sovereignty, and wealth confiscation over a 21st century medium.

It cannot be stressed enough that it is the responsibility of the citizens of the metaverse to prevent their respective governments from gaining too much control over the Internet. In particular, those of us in free countries must educate ourselves and make it clear to our governments that they do not own or control the Internet, and that any attempt to do so will be contested in the voting booths and courts of the land. We the people must decide what legislation is necessary, and our representatives must carry out our directives. We have power here. We do not have to allow the Internet to fall victim to the cycle as far as the government is concerned.

Politicians and governments represent a danger to the open Internet for sure, however due to their lack of technical understanding,  they are actually a secondary issue. They choke or  turn off the Internet, just yet.

The most immediate threat comes from those who are extremely knowledgeable about the Internet, its underlying technologies, and the opportunities it presents. These are the core Internet service providers that deliver connectivity to businesses and the public. These are companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner. These are the companies that most of us get our stationary and/or wireless Internet connections from. Ironically, as our omnipresent cloud connected world develops, these are the organizations most likely to obstruct the continued evolution of the Internet as an open medium.

Core Internet service providers own large portions of infrastructure that allow the Internet to exist. They literally own the wires, in particular the wires that provide “last mile” connectivity. While no one “owns” the Internet, core service providers having control over so much infrastructure and literally millions upon millions of users are in a position to exercise ownership like control over massive portions of the Internet.

Like any other business institutions, core internet service providers are not evil. They are however amoral. They do not have a code of ethics, they have interests and unfortunately what is in the long term interests of the world, namely a free and open Internet, is not necessarily in the short or long term interests of core service providers. It should be noted the word “free” does not refer to cost, but to the flow of information without censorship or restriction. It is feared that in seeking to maximize profit, core Internet service providers will impose new self serving restrictions on the Internet. Such restrictions, should they come to pass, will have an overall negative effect on the Internet. They will stifle innovation and entrepreneurship, and bring us to the beginning of the closed and controlled Internet predicted by Tim Wu’s cycle.

It is very simple to determine what sorts of restrictions core service providers might institute.

  • Tiered Services – Though much easier said than done, core Service Providers might create a “fast lanes” on the Internet for those businesses that can afford them. Google might pay to have its traffic prioritized, for instance. One issue here is that smaller companies with competing products will not have the money that a Google has and may never be able to compete. Right now, with the neutral nature of the Internet, a small company is treated exactly the same on the Internet as Google. If service providers are allowed to create fast lanes for some edge services, they will be in effect put into the position of deciding which businesses survive.
  • Bandwidth Caps and Metered Internet – This is already in full swing. Previously consumers purchased a speed which was typically measured in bits per second from their ISP. There were no limits on how much data the consumer could download, only how fast they could download. Now, in addition to speed, core service providers are placing caps on how much can be downloaded. This comes as the nascent world of cloud services are becoming an everyday preference for consumers. Cloud storage and backup is a rapidly growing industry. Many businesses are beginning to shift local infrastructure to cloud base services such as applications and storage. In addition, cloud movie services such as NetFlix have experienced phenomenal growth and success. Bandwith caps and metered connections with punitive countermeasures will undoubtedly harm the emergent cloud services.Just recently AT&T announced a bandwidth cap of 150GB on DSL customers and 250GB on their more expensive Uverse product. Time Warner and Comcast have been experimenting with bandwidth caps in different geographical markets. Wireless companies are placing the most draconian restrictions of their customers of just a few gigabytes per month. It is estimated that already, 56% of American Internet connections are capped.
  • Throttling – Internet Service Providers will likely look to throttling as a means of perniciously thwarting competition. ISPs often offer their own movie services via pay-per-view methods, not to mention their old media television products. Companies like NetFlix offer consumers greater choice for less money. Combine throttling with bandwidth caps and the future of NetFlix doesn’t look so great.

All of these types of anti-competitive practices offend the original end-to-end design of the Internet. If allowed, they will trigger the cycle and we will see a promising new technology become a closed and controlled medium. The core Internet service providers will have Opec like control over bandwidth. They will take bandwidth, which should be a commodity, and control it via artificial scarcity.

Opponents of such practices have championed legislation and FCC rules to prevent these sorts of things from happening. This typically refers to “Net Neutrality,” a phrase coincidentally coined by Tim Wu. Net Neutrality essentially says that Internet services providers will not tamper with the traffic on the Internet. It will remain free, unrestricted, and unblocked. All traffic on the Internet will be treated equally. Net Neutrality also blocks governments from restricting and tampering with the Internet and underscores the idea that the Internet is not the property of a corporation, a cartel, or any government.

It seems clear that this is the greater good. It’s not that simple though. What we must deal with the cost of Net Neutrality because when it comes down to it, Internet services providers really do own the wires. They have spent billions upon billions building their infrastructures. The question then becomes does the government, on behalf of the people it represents, have the right to tell these corporations what to do with their property?

Think of an Internet service provider as being like a giant market. Markets must decide which products they give shelf space to. Some products they may not even carry. They make this decision based not on being evil, but on what they believe is in their best interests as far as profitability. They are after all, businesses. Applying a similar concept to Net Neutrality to a market might say “You must carry all products and all products must have equal shelf space.” In effect the property of the market has been seized by the governing body. It can therefore be similarly argued that Net Neutrality is in effect seizing the property of Internet service providers.

There is no simple solution here. It would seem that the Internet is all but condemned to repeat Tim Wu’s cycle.

So where do we go?

In order to prevent the Internet from slipping into the cycle it is not unreasonable for the government to apply at least temporary Net Neutrality rules to block anticompetitive practices. Solutions that work for the public and the corporations should be sought. Such solutions should include more public Internet infrastructure being developed because as it stands, the core service providers have no measurable competition and in some municipalities they have sued and won, preventing local governments from developing high speed Internet connectivity! Other solutions can include tax incentives for core service providers to incentivise  growing infrastructure and increasing bandwidth rather than restricting access.

If we don’t do anything, it is safe to assume that instead of being the great communications technology of the 21st century and beyond, the Internet will be a 21st century version of cable television, and we’ll be sitting staring at our service bills wondering how much more it will cost to get a package that contains Youtube or Google.

If these issues matter to you, please visit “Save The Internet.”

Mac Mini: Sweetest Little Server Ever

Posted by Thelonious Mac on
Mac Mini

Mac Mini Pint Sized Server Workhorse

Everyone loves the iPhone. iPads are an absolute hit. People are still buying millions of iPods and Macs, particularly Mac portables,  are selling like never before. While this is all great, there is one member of Apple’s family that doesn’t get the attention it so richly deserves. It is quite possibly one of the most useful SOHO or enterprise workgroup products Apple ever produced, while simultaneously being a very powerful home entertainment component.

If you haven’t guessed, I’m talking about the Mac Mini. Mac Minis are fantastic little computers, than can fill any number of business requirements.

Let’s say you’ve got an older PC. It’s got a decent monitor, and an ok keyboard. You want to upgrade the computer but you’d like to continue using the monitor and keyboard. In addition you’re considering switching to a Mac. The Mac Mini will work with your existing  keyboard an monitor. There are any number of ways to move your data from the PC to the Mac Mini. You can go as high tech as cloud transfer or as low tech as USB flash drive. Once completed you have a modern intel based dual core system about the size of a stack of 3 or 4 CD cases.

Perhaps you’re a small business considering the switch to Mac, however buying everyone a brand new 27” iMac is a bit expensive this go around. You can extend the life of all those monitors and keyboards by purchasing Mac Minis.

The Mac Mini is a beautiful little unibody workhorse. It’s about the size of a frozen dinner. About as thick as one also. It’s a 1.4 inch thick,  7.7 inch square. It’s got either a 2.4GHz or 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, which makes it faster than the fastest clerical, administrative, or knowledge worker. It weighs less than 3LBS, and has a UNIBODY design.  It’s got a gigabit EtherNet port, FireWire 800, HDMI, Mini displayPort, 4 USB 2.0 ports, an SD card slot, and audio in and out jacks. It can handle up to 8GB of RAM It comes with Mac OS X Snow Leopard or Snow Leopard Server. You can get all of that starting at around $699 for the base 2GB RAM, 320GB hard drive model.

Mac Mini Ports Galore

There are all sorts of situations in which you might buy a Mac Mini as a desktop computer for employees, students, or family members while saving on monitors and keyboards, but my favorite two uses for the Mac Mini are as small business / departmental enterprise servers and home media servers.

I use Mac Minis as servers in all sorts of businesses. When configured with Apple’s OS X Server, I find they comfortably handle as many as 20 clients. With OS X server, those can be Mac or Windows based clients. I’ve installed them as servers in everything from law offices to public relations firms. With the FireWire 800 and USB ports, expanding storage on the Mac Mini takes moments. I tend to run them headless and use Apple’s Remote Desktop from my MacBook Pro or iTeleport from my iPAD 2 to manage them. I’m fond of connecting DROBO units Mac Mini servers for mass storage.

Sample Mac Mini System

Sample Mac Mini Network

A typical Mac Mini SOHO or departmental server might consist of the Mac Mini, two mass storage units, such as a 3TB Drobo Main and an 8TB Drobo Time Machine backup. I often use an external SATA docking station to support drives for external offsite backups. Mac, PC, and iOS clients can connect to the server in any number of ways. Portable Macs and iOS devices can connect via WiFI or 3G/4G for instance. Desktop stationary Macs can be connected wirelessly or take advantage of the higher speeds offered by EtherNet. The Mac Mini, configured with OS X Server, offers an Address Book Server for your shared company contact list, iCal Calendar Server for sharing calendars, Podcast Producer, Wiki Server which can be a valuable in house communication and collaboration facility, Mobile Access Server for secured mobile device access to your server, iChat Server, File Sharing, Mail Services, Web Hosting featuring Apache, Spotlight Server, Client Administration and Directory Services, and Networking and VPN.

A Mac Mini server sells for approximately $1000 with OS X Server already loaded. This is a 2.66GHz Dual 500GB system. No optical drive is included. OS X Server is a powerful UNIX based serve that can easily hold its own against LINUX and especially Windows based servers. Licensing is unlimited, there are no per seat penalties. No sitting around trying to figure out the difference between users and seats and all the nonsense Microsoft puts you through with Windows Server. LINUX proponents will be quick to point out that LINUX can run on just about any old PC that you have lying around and it’s free. This is true but the average SOHO enterprise doesn’t have a LINUX System Administrator hanging around. Constantly having to rely on this person can become expensive. OS X Server provides all the benefits of a LINUX server while simultaneously providing the most comprehensive, elegant, and easy to use point and click interface to server management I’ve ever seen.

If you are not a System Administrator by trade you are likely to need some assistance with initial set up. After that day to day maintenance is relatively simple. My clients tend to continue to rely on me for maintenance, but thanks to Apple it’s about as lucrative as being the Maytag repair man. My management tends to be making sure backups run properly, updates and patches are applied, and creating and deleting usernames, and dealing with the occasional deleted files and lost passwords. The servers tend to run forever with few if any failures. They are annoyingly stable. Excluding any unforeseen (and highly unexpected) hardware failures or mistreatment, this little server should run for years. Good for the client, bad for my checking account. Then again, that’s just the nature of being a Mac consultant. In comparison, once a Windows specialist installs Windows Server and Exchange, they own you.

Speaking of LINUX, one of my clients does run a package that requires LINUX. I literally run LINUX in virtualization with Parallels on the OS X Server to support this. I have other clients that run a package on the desktops called Summation iBlaze. It’s a litigation support/discovery package that seems to have originally been written in DBASE, near as I can tell and still looks like it. Nonetheless it runs in parallels on the desktops and is more than happy to use the Mac Mini as a server. The server portion (for this package) is just file services.

In fact, if for some very strange reason you were so inclined, you could install LINUX directly on the Mac Mini, even create a dual boot system. It would be a bit like replacing the innards of a Porsche with that of a Ford Fiesta, but to each his own.

With a good Internet connection, i.e. Cable, DSL, T1, or Fiber, the office Mac Mini will also serve users working from home. Though I’m encouraging clients to explore external cloud services these days, many are unwilling to trust cloud services, particularly in light of high profiles failures such as the recent  Amazon Cloud crash. Many simply do not trust Google, for instance, to understand the vital importance of privacy over Google’s own advertising goals. Some clients house sensitive data belonging to their own clients and will not risk putting that data in the cloud and there are no assurances I can offer that will change that. So running their own servers becomes the most appropriate solution, and a Mac Mini with sufficient bandwidth allows them to provide their own in house cloud.

Clearly Mac Minis are space efficient. As such I often include a backup server that mirrors the system on the main server just in case something happens to the the main Mac Mini. You can also spread services across multiple Mac Minis so that if one goes down, you don’t lose all of your office services. You can dedicate them to specific tasks such as being a FAX Server, Web Server, or FileMaker Server. You can stuff the whole thing into a cabinet in the office kitchen. No computer room or closet required.

At home I use a Mac Mini that I bought refurbished from Apple as a media server. No special version of OS X is required. I also use a multi-terabyte DROBO as mass storage in this system. The Mac Mini sits on my network. It connects to my 50” Samsung Plasma via an HDMI port. It makes a beautiful monitor actually. Any media that is viewable on a Mac, I can instantly bring up on the plasma. While I could use Front Row for a fancy user interface, I just use the normal Finder to operate the Mac Mini. I control it wirelessly, remotely via my iPad or my MacBook Pro, again using ARD or iTeleport’s VNC app respectively.

My main iTunes library is on the DROBO. I launch iTunes and leave it running on the DROBO. The library is then available to my computers, as well as my iPad 2 and iPhone, all via Home Sharing. It should be noted that much of this can be done with a $100 Apple TV. My issue with the Apple TV 2 (which I have also) is that it is a rental/streaming device only. It will stream content from your iTunes library, but there are other little issues like for some mind bogglingly strange reason it does not allow you access to HULU.

Will someone please for the love of God explain to content people that we, the content consuming public, do not wish to pay for the same content over and over and over. If I subscribe to your service or your magazine or whatever, that subscription should suffice. I want the ability to then enjoy that content where I want, when I want, and how I want. I don’t care if it is on an iPad, laptop, desktop, Apple TV, XBOX 360, Mac Mini, iPhone, what freaking ever. Seriously HULU, there’s a difference between my MacBook Pro, my iPad, and my Apple TV?? Between these idiots, the evil morons at the tier 1 ISPs, and the dimwitted, self interested, duplicitous Congress, we’re going to wind up being charged for every bit that comes across our cable someday, then likely taxed on that charge. Grrrrrrrrr.

Net Neutrality people. NET NEUTRALITY. Figure it out and jump on your representatives. Sorry, I digress.

Anyway, with the Mac Mini acting as Media Server, everything works, including HULU and Blockbuster, and other services that aren’t available to the Apple TV.

Ultimately, with the Mac Mini, you have in your hands a powerful server that can provide the services of an expensive and cumbersome Windows Server, Exchange Server, and/or LINUX Server, at a fraction of the overall cost, especially when you factor in support and maintenance fees. On top of that exploring the Mac Mini as a media server is definitely worth your time.  It even makes a great little computer to replace that rusty old PC with. This is after all the post-Windows-Era.

Apple’s Amazing Quarter

Posted by Thelonious Mac on

At this point it’s becoming something of a shopworn phrase but last week Apple announced yet another amazing, record breaking quarter. While other computer and electronics companies can no longer seem to find the on button, Apple charges forward. Apple does this, notwithstanding an economy that remains horribly anemic, anemic in no small part, due to the sheer feckless and dawdling policies of those we hired to act as caretakers of our nation.  The Administration is blaming snow.

Also, those of you who insist Apple only succeeds because of Steve Jobs, keep in mind, this is without the constant presence of Steve. The truth should be clear to you by now. Apple, Inc. is a well run organization.

I finally sat down and took a look at the numbers this morning, and wow. I expected another great quarter. What I didn’t expect is just how great.

• Sales: $24.67 billion, up 82.8% year over year – 82.8% over the same quarter last year, and 59% of those sales are international.

• Profits: $5.99 billion, up 95% – And they have $66 billion dollars in the bank. They could buy Netflix with what amounts to couch change for them if they so desired. My guess though is that they are more likely outdo Netflix. Keep watching. Something is about to happen with that shiny new spiffy North Carolina data center, and not just the additional data center Apple is building right next door!

• EPS: $6.40, up 92%

• iPhone: 18.65 million units, up 113% - While other companies keep hanging disjoint bells and whistles on Android phones, the iPhone remains the juggernaut that is defining the industry. Android, as many predicted (as if this made it desirable) is becoming the Windows of the mobile device industry. The SF Chronicle and Bloomberg report “Google’s Android mobile-phone platform faces soaring software attacks and has little control over the applications, according to security firm Kaspersky Lab.” So much for the “Android is open and Apple is closed” argument. The article goes on to quote the CTO of Kaspersky; “…Applications loaded with malicious software are infiltrating the Google operating system at a faster rate than hackers did with personal computers at the same stage in development…” Kaspersky “…identified 70 different types of malware in March, up from two categories in September…”  Rut roh.You know how you constantly hear that Android is overtaking iOS (Apple’s mobile OS)? Well comScore, Inc. reported on Tuesday, April 19  that iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches have a “combined reach of 37.9 million among all mobile devices, outreaching the Android platform by 59%.” One of the interesting things about these numbers is that while iOS devices are 59% more prevalent, the hackers and malicious software freaks are going after Android. This contradicts the theory that Macs remain pretty much malware free due to lower numbers. Evil goes where it has the easiest time, period. Even Microsoft referred to Android as ” insecure and complex.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Somehow while holding a straight face, a Microsoft representative stated that “Windows Phone will eventually succeed in the business market because there is too much malware attacking the Android OS…”

• iPhone sales up 155% in the U.S., thanks in part to Verizon, and up 250% in greater China – Is there any doubt why developers continue to flock to iOS as opposed to the fragmented Android mess? It’s because, as Willie Sutton would say, “That’s where the money is.” The number of fart applications on Android does continue to grow though.

• iPad: 4.69 million units, compared with 7.33 million in Q1. – A bit of bad news but it was to be expected. Everyone knew the iPad 2 was coming and Apple just couldn’t make enough iPad 2s‘ to satisfy the “Mother of all Backlogs.”

• Mac: 3.76 million units, up 28%. Asia-Pacific Mac sales up 76%. – The Mac is stronger than ever. New iMacs are on the way, and rumors of a design change in MacBook Pros are beginning to circulate.

• iPod: 9.02 million units, down 17%. More than 50% iPod touch – Stands to reason. iPods are built into iPads and iPhones. Still iPods being sold are iOS devices.

• iTunes store: Sales of $1.4 billion – Get ready for iCloud!?

• Apple stores: 71.1 million visitors, up 50% – There you have it. Why go to trade shows? Every day is a trade show for Apple.

• Store sales: $3.19 billion, up 90%

• Cash and marketable securities: $65.8 billion, up from 59.7 in Q1.

Meanwhile, what’s happening with the rest of the computer industry? Not much except declining sales. HP is down, Dell is down, Acer is down, Lenovo is down, only Apple and Toshiba are up. Nokia just laid off 7000 people.  It would seem that focus, direction, and innovation are a bit more than cranking out prototype copies of Apple products. Just ask Google.

Further Reading:

TechCrunch