I know it seems like I’m becoming an Apple fanboy but I’m really not.  They just happen to be on a hot streak right now and my purpose on this blog is to take lessons from the people doing smart things in the technology industry.  So that leads to increased Apple talk.

Which brings me to this latest rumor recently posted by Barrons…

Trip Chowdhry, an analyst with tiny Global Equities Research, contends that 7 minutes of the June 7 keynote by Apple CEO Steve Jobs has been blocked off for a presentation by Microsoft (MSFT) to talk about Visual Studio 2010, the company’s suite of development tools. Chowdhry says the new version of VS will allow developers to write native applications for the iPhone, iPad and Mac OS. And here’s the kicker: he thinks Microsoft’s presentation could be given by none other than Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. (Or if not, at least Bob Muglia, who runs Microsoft’s server and tools business.)

Now if this is true the most likely scenario is Silverlight being ported to the two Apple platforms.  Microsoft just released Visual Studio 2010 a few weeks ago and there’s no Apple support in sight.  But Silverlight is a technology that was made to run on all platforms (being it’s Micrsoft’s answer to Flash) and is also a focus of VS 2010.

More importantly Silverlight is FANSTASTIC technology.  Microsoft has iterated quickly on it to the point where it now matches Adobe’s Flash almost feature for feature and is a lot friendlier to work. 

But it’s what this move would do for Apple that is really interesting.  Consider the following…

1.  It defuses the Flash complaints.  If Apple supports Silverlight they can credibly say they aren’t keeping competitors out and that the poor quality of Adobe Flash really is the issue

2.  It would allow programs to be developed with a common code base for Windows Phone Series 7 and the iPhone.  This is great for Apple because the new Windows Phone doesn’t look promising.  So this allows Apple to look like it’s supporting cross platform development while they’re really just propping a weak competitor up.

3.  It opens the door to a lot of new developers.  Yes, it’s true Microsoft’s developer ranks have diminished but there are still a lot of MS developers out there and they’re exactly the type of people who wouldn’t be developing for Apple products right now.  Microsoft’s unique web technology (ASP.NET) has created a group of developers who build web solutions but who have very little experience in HTML, Javascript and CSS which makes it hard for them to develop even web apps for the iPhone or iPad.  Porting Silverlight would fix that.

(Of course not all ASP.NET developers are like that but there’s a significant number who are)

4.  It starts Apple down the road to building an anti-Google coalition.  Apple’s best move right now is to find ways to paint Google as the bad guy.  The easiest way for them to do that is to start working with other companies (who are also afraid of Google’s growing power and who will also paint Google as the bad guy).  

In the end Apple has very little to lose by supporting Silverlight and a lot to gain. 

(For the record I don’t think any of this is true.  I think Microsoft is being given time because the next iPhone will use Bing as it’s default search engine.  But it never hurts to hypothesize)

Steve Jobs had an e-mail exchange with Gawker’s Ryan Tate over the weekend in which they discussed Apple’s vision and why Mr. Tate was opposed to it.

A lot of the criticism (and sensationalist headlines) focuses on a single line from one of Mr. Jobs’ e-mails.  The commentary on that line seems to miss the point so I wanted to talk about it briefly.  Here’s the line…

Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’, and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away. It is.

I can’t speak for Steve Jobs but I can speak to my own experience and I think that can shed some light on this comment. 

In meetings I like to tell people that software is all about automating tasks and, for the business folks, that’s what I want them to believe.  But that’s not what it is to me.  To me it’s a way to show people the wonders of a world that they can’t see.  A world where all the information they could ever want is at their fingertips and to get to it they need only ask.

For them to see that world the way I do everything needs to be perfect.

But it never is and when things go wrong it literally causes me pain.  Physical pain.  More to the point nothing makes me angrier than when the thing that went wrong wasn’t my fault.  

That, I believe, is what Steve Jobs is trying to say.  The issue isn’t porn or Adobe Flash but the ruined experience of computing.  It’s the fact that people are afraid to touch a button on their computing device for fear it might crash.  Afraid to let the kids go on the Internet because some porn site might popup.  And so on. 

That fear ruins computing for many people and what Apple is trying to do is fix that problem.  To create a perfect environment.  In pursuit of that goal banning certain software is no different than beveling the edge on a hardware component. 

Commentators get upset over this because they think the company is trying to take over the world but that’s never been the case.  There will always be Android Tablets and Windows PCs for those who want an unfiltered experience and I don’t think anyone at Apple objects to that. 

They’re just trying to create something better for Apple customers. 

Addendum: One point that didn’t really fit the flow of the above post was Mr. Tate’s claim that…well…I’ll just quote it…

…I don’t think it’s a technical issue at all -- it’s you imposing your morality, about porn, about ‘trade secrets,’ about technical purity in the most bizarre sense.

There’s a difference between imposing one’s morality (to force someone to adopt your moral code) and creating an environment in which you only want people who already share your morality.  An Atheist business man might want to join his local Catholic church for all the business contacts but he has no right to demand they drop the requirement that he believe in Jesus so that he can join. 

The gaming meme of late has been that Apple is becoming THE serious gaming competitor and that everyone in that industry needs to watch out.  As Nicholas Deleon of CrunchGear puts it…

The last time Nintendo took a big hit in profit, it resulted in the development of perhaps the most successful video game console of all time in the Wii. What’s Nintendo’s response going to be this time around? Yes, the big N has seen its profits drop from $3.03 billion to $2.48 billion—still a fair a bit of money perhaps to you and me, but cause for panic in the house that Mario built. While a traditional rival, Sony (with the PlayStation), was responsible for the previous rough patch, this time it’s Apple. Will Nintendo allow the iPhone to push it around?

So I wasn’t surprised when this completely unsourced quote appeared in the Times Online…

Satoru Iwata, the Nintendo president, is understood to have told his senior executives recently to regard the battle with Sony as a victory already won and to treat Apple, and its iPhone and iPad devices, as the “enemy of the future”

This seems odd since just a few days ago the highest ranking Nintendo executive in the United States was publicly saying this in response to questions about Apple…

"We have not seen any impact on our DS business. In the first three months [of this year] we've set two new sales records for the Nintendo DS. We think that through April that we’ll have the best four month time period to kick off a new calendar year that we’ve ever had with the device. So certainly we’re seeing momentum, [Apple is] seeing momentum. I think two products can succeed at the same time."

The above quote is notable because he didn’t dismiss Apple.  He specifically pointed out that Apple is showing momentum too and that he thinks they can both exist.  That’s not something you necessarily say if you’re scared of a competitor (you want to lessen competitors not acknowledge their success) 

The question of Apple and the Game Industry is a lot more complicated.  On one hand Apple has created a very threatening mobile platform.  Life-To-Date the Nintendo DS (in its various incarnations) has sold 128.9 million units compared to the iPhone/iPod Touch platform which is now at around 85.5 million (plus a million or so iPads).  That looks impressive on the surface.

But you have to consider a couple things…

1.  Repeat Business: While I’m sure some people have bought more than one Nintendo DS device the truth is they’re pretty durable and Nintendo hasn’t given customers any other compelling reason to upgrade.  So the customer-to-DS ratio is probably around 1-to-1.   While it’s not uncommon for someone to buy every other version of the iPhone PLUS an iPod Touch (I’m responsible for 3 of that 85.5 million plus 1 iPad).  So the numbers don’t equally translate into people.

2.  Purchase Intent: When someone buys a Nintendo DS they want it for gaming.  That isn’t true with the iPhone or iPod Touch.  So you really can’t compare gamer to gamer.  Again I use myself as an example.  I really don’t game on my iPhone or iPod Touch (there are a few on there but I rarely play them).  So that’s 4 sales taken off Apple’s total and I doubt I’m the only one in the non-gamer category.

Meaning the numbers don’t tell the whole story.  Then you have to look at the companies themselves.  There are a few factors that work against Apple…

1.  Licensed Material:  As anyone in the game industry will tell you the most valuable commodity in gaming is a good license.  You can get decent sales out of a game where someone flies through the air shooting but make it a game about Iron Man and you have a blockbuster.  License holders know that and accordingly they (a) expect to be paid a lot and (b) expect to be sucked up to.  Apple is too used to being in that role themselves to treat others in the same way.

2.  Game Creation Prowess: Say what you will about a platform the biggest names in gaming continue to make most of their money off making actual games and not the hardware.  That’s why Microsoft scooped up Bungie Studios (makers of Halo) and Nintendo continues to turn out Mario games with reckless abandon.   

3.  Customer Focus: Right now Apple is peddling one device to everyone.  Business Customers, Kids, Gamers, etc… That could change but in the meantime that gives Nintendo a big advantage because they can make concessions based on their specific market.  To use the above example a Nintendo DS is a lot more durable than an iPod Touch and that’s why the parent of an 8 year old is going to buy the DS instead. 

Bottom Line

Apple is in a great place.  They’ve managed to become a player in the gaming industry without even trying and they’ve made major inroads with the casual gamer who would never buy a dedicated device. 

But that’s a far cry from being ready to take on companies that are dedicated to just gaming.  Nintendo spends millions if not billions on research, development, licensing and so on and Apple just isn’t matching that. 

I have no doubt Apple could compete if they were willing to put the effort in but so far they haven’t shown that willingness. 

Techcrunch’s MG Siegler writes an interesting post in which he theorizes that Facebook and Apple’s App Store are both in danger of losing out to open solutions in the future. 

On the Apple issue I’ve already written about that and my thoughts really haven’t changed.  What I’m more interested in are the points he made about Facebook and what they mean for the company.  Here’s the quote…

I happen to think that Facebook may have found the right mixture of open and closed with the Open Graph. It’s open enough that they can continue to extend their reach beyond their already incredible (nearly) 500 million members. And yet it’s closed enough that some semblance of order is maintained and people (at least for now) will keep using it.

Thanks in part to their closed roots where a system of trust was built, Facebook was able to establish and grow the ultimate social graph. Like AOL’s mail and chat systems before it, this is a form of lock-in for users. AOL failed because it was too slow to open up their system and realize that they already had hooks in place to keep users from leaving. Facebook doesn’t appear to be making the same mistake. They already won the social networking wars, so now they can afford to open up and go after the larger web. And Google.

So while everyone fears what the Facebook-ification of the web will mean, I’d argue that the only way Facebook can continue to grow and keep their users is if they continue to open up. At some point, I’d bet that it won’t be in their best interest from a business perspective to do that, and that’s when they may start to decline. But there’s a wild-card. If the company can figure out a Google AdSense-type way to make money while continuing the march towards open, they may be able to hold on.

I agree with his conclusion but what troubles me is the idea that being open somehow represents a negative impact on a company’s business.  The non-computing world is open and there are many companies out there that make more than Facebook  The key to living in an open world is simply filling a role in the ecosystem and being the best at it. 

Facebook’s role is easy to find.  They are the identity provider and the information keeper.  They clearly know this since they’re already taking steps toward that goal (Facebook Connect for example).  But, and this is the important part, they aren’t going far enough. 

Facebook can’t seek to control the user’s information.  They have to openly give everything they have away upon request. 

This is probably the #1 rule of computing: Don’t try to control everything just be at the center of it.  It worked for Microsoft with Windows.  It worked for Google with…well…Google.  And it can work for Facebook in a social world. 

More importantly it can diffuse the backlash against them.  We’re already seeing the beginnings of a bad trend for Facebook with users worrying about how much information Facebook controls and governments starting to question Facebook’s role.  Those issues will only get worse as time goes on.

That’s really bad because Facebook’s future depends on them convincing everyone to trust them in the role of identity keeper.  So the question for them is: What gets them that trust?  The only answer I can see is opening up completely and I think Facebook’s fate depends on how fast they see that conclusion. 

Because the web has already realized it needs a provider of this information and people have already taken steps to fill the void (most notably OAuth).   Facebook needs to step up and take their place in the center of the ecosystem right now.

And Open Graph, in its current form, simply isn’t good enough.

To conclude I’d like to return to the issue of how opening up can make Facebook even more successful.  I agree that an ad network is probably the answer. I’ve already written on why I don’t think Facebook ads currently work but that has everything to do with delivery.  The Facebook page just isn’t the ideal place to put an ad.  

But I think the conceptual underpinnings of their ad system are good.  What they need to do is use their current system to out Adsense Google.  Create a system that works like Adsense but that combines the information on the page with the social info contained in Facebook’s database.  In doing that Facebook can make themselves a more valuable ad service than Adsense and supplant Google as the web’s default ad provider.

That’s the key.  Being open actually gives Facebook the opportunity to grow larger than if they were closed because openness makes people more likely to go to you for the role you fill.  Sure they’ll be opening themselves up to competition from other identity providers.  But it isn’t likely they’ll face a significant challenge anytime soon due to the network effect working in their favor.   Which makes this the perfect time to open up because they have a buffer that will allow them to iron out any bugs. 

So for Facebook there really won’t come a better time for them to step up and lead the web into a more open future.