Ones and Zeros

It’s curious.  In a world becoming more and more open-source and using more and more open-source software (OSS) Apple is thriving being proprietary.  They are using OSS in some areas, and are participating in open source projects as well.  WebKit in their Safari browser is one major example.  Yet much of their core system software is and will remain proprietary.

Certainly they’re successful.  Measured in name recognition, units sold, $20 billion plus of cash in the bank, or stock price they’re clearly a major force.  (I wish I still had my stock grant from my employee days!)

The argument in open source circles is that a proprietary effort like Apple’s will always fail in the long run when compared to open source.  IBM became a major driver of Linux, Microsoft has felt the pinch more and more, and even the federal government and DoD are proponents of Linux and open source software.  How is Apple not merely surviving, but thriving being proprietary?

I think it’s two fold.  First, while Apple is using open source software, they’re just using it where it’s not a key part of their company’s added value.  Second, they are using their proprietary software in an integrated ecosystem of software systems that all work together.  This provides a “user experience” that enough customers value over Apple’s competitors.

By leveraging open-source software (OSS) in non-key areas Apple frees up engineers and effort on their key proprietary areas.  This is a no-brainer.  Yet many companies fail to do this.  Apple’s using Mach UNIX as their base OS on the Mac, iPhone, and iPad avoiding rewriting the OS.  They spend their efforts writing more complex layers on top of the OS to provide a richer computing environment.  Better graphics, animation in the UI, richer audio, apps like iPhoto, Aperture, the iWork suite are all enabled by this as a random grab-bag of items.  By comparison Microsoft writes everything - they’re working twice as hard and getting rather less the same result.  Their last several releases have suffered by many measures.  Apple focuses only on writing the software that’s key to their system.

But Apple embraces the proprietary and customers (despite the grumbling about DRM) embrace the Apple products.  MP3 players existed before Apple, but the iPod massively expanded that market to the point where it is dominated by Apple.  Smart phones and smart phone apps existed before the iPhone,  but Apple’s remade that market as well.  Through these innovations they’ve fostered the development of things like podcasting, and created a whole new developer market for iPhone apps.

I believe they key to their success in proprietary software is that they’re creating a very well integrated software ecosystem.  Having an iPod is richer with iTunes, they enhance each other.  You get used to this, then find the iPhone works very well with iTunes too. It’s a natural upgrade path.  The lack of the involved setup and configuration necessary with many Windows software systems helps tremedously.  the Mac systems just feel right, things fit well.  The Windows seems clunky, a moved window isn’t refreshed smoothly - it’s the little things that make a system feel like it is working well.

It’s an ignored truism in software that customers just want to get something useful done.  It’s geeks like me that want to spend their time messing with software.  Yet even I want to focus on the things I want to play with - not the boring configuration & setup stuff on the way.  The Mac/iPhone software ecosystem allows me to do that.

This singular focus on how things feel and work smoothly comes, I believe, from Steve Jobs.  Certainly Apple is much larger that Jobs and all employees are important to Apple’s overall success.  But the leader stamps a personality on the company.  Jobs is famously driven a high standard of usability.  His equally famous control on information and access allows Apple to work on something till they’re happy with it and not be bound by a schedule to they are ready to release.

That’s a key point.  In engineering it’s said that there are three things: schedule, quality, and features.  You can control two, but the third must flex.  If Apple drives quality and features, then schedule must be flexible.  Their control on public information allows that.

So a way for companies to compete against OSS is to use their proprietary work to provide a smoothly integrated environment, a software ecosystem.  OSS efforts have a hard time with this since the level of coordination and interaction required is high.   Most OSS efforts (barring Linux itself perhaps) are smaller and more loose.  The weak point of current OSS projects is their democracy and openness.

(Note: I’m a proponent of OSS and have contributed to OSS projects.  I used OSS daily in my work. But I find it interesting that Apple’s been contrarian and successful in their proprietary efforts.  That probably isn’t a universal solution for companies facing OSS competition though.  Most companies can’t maintain the high standards of quality necessary the Apple solution.)

Senator Jim Bunning has now apparently raised his block against extending unemployment benefits.  His stated motivation was to impose fiscal pay-as-you-go discipline by saying “Tough Shit” to Americans.  But in May 2007 Sen Jim Bunning voted for $120 billion for the war in Iraq.  He’s comfortable going into debt for war against a country that didn’t attack us (Iraq), but not for US citizens who’ve lost their jobs due to financiers.  Financiers that are already bailed out.

There’s also plenty of spin going on to attempt to make sense of Bunning’s effort. Michelle Malkin’s saying that he just wanted everyone on the record for example. Others have said that unemployement benefits cause people to NOT look for jobs.  The first is clearly overkill.  The second is ridiculous for anyone who’s been laid off.  Frankly unemployment benefits won’t replace any reasonable salary.

Pulled the battery today.  Did it today instead of tomorrow as the winds are going to be pretty stiff around here tonight and tomorrow.  The terminal area forecast for Dulles (IAD) is predicting gusts up to 49 kts tomorrow morning at 8 AM (1300Z).  DCA (National) and MRB (Martinsburg) are reporting similar but slightly lower values.  You have to get to Elkins WV or Richmond VA to see significantly lower values.  Nevermind, at the predicted 49 kts (56 mph or 90 kph) that’s more than enough.

I used the opportunity to check the tiedowns on the plane as well.  Tying a plane down is important, a surprising number of planes get damaged not while flying but during storms on the ground.  Tie downs are important enough that the FAA wrote an advisory about it (AC20-35C) and good instructors make a point of teaching them.

Chains seem very secure and last a long time, but don’t have any flex.  So when the plane surges against them there’s a very strong jerk on the plane.  That can’t be good!  We use straps like these with rachet tighteners that are good for almost 3000 lbs per strap.  Ours are around a year and a half old now, so probably should be de-rated somewhat but they’re still quite good. Back when we used ropes I used to double them against big winds sometimes.  I don’t feel the need for that now.

I pull the straps snug.  I want the strap to stretch when a wind comes, not to jerk against the plane.  Stretching is good, jerking is not.  The impact force of the jerk is very high and can damage both the tie down strap and the anchor point on the plane.

This evening there are gusts up to 38 kts so far.  When I pulled the battery it was only gusting up to 25 kts.  A friend at the airport was kind enough to help with the cowling.  The battery’s in the engine compartment under the front cowling.  It’s not like a car’s hood - there’s about 25 or more screws holding it on and it’s picky about fiting correctly.  And with a wind that large piece of sheet metal can act like a nice sail.  I had a plan for doing it myself, but two people make the job easy.   So thanks “Dutchman”!

It was too cold with the wind chill to spend time looking at cables today; that’ll be for later.  And how’s the battery?  The open-circuit (no load) voltage is 11.7, that’s low, but not drastically so.  Sounds more and more like a cable and grounding problem.

Planes and cars are different.  I’m stating the obvious there.  But planes are more weight-sensitive than cars.  So plane batteries are smaller.  They’re just barely large enough to start the plane with little reserve over that.  Planes also sit outside and unused for longer periods than many cars do.  So the batteries have more time to self-discharge (aka lose charge).

Some cables used in planes were (for a time) aluminum cables.  Lighter, but not as conductive as copper.  Connections in cables and grounding get surface corrosion and don’t conduct very well.  Planes sit longer and get more chance to get this bad connections.

Cars are started with the  clutch in to separate the engine from the load.  Planes have no clutch.  If the engine turns, the prop turns and loads the engine.

So all of this makes starting more of a challenge.  And, there’s the idea that airplane engine tech is roughly 20 years behind cars.  The lower economic incentive combined with the FAA certification process (instituted for very good and valid reasons) has had the effect of limiting some technology applications in small airplane engines.

On the flip side, planes have an alternator to make current to recharge the battery and run the electronics.  But they also have a magneto to make power for the spark plugs too.  You can turn off the master switch in a plane with no problems.  Well, your radios and lights will stop working.  ATC might be concerned of course, but your engine will be fine and not notice a thing.  I had an instructor do this in flight to make that lesson clear.