My Utopian View (Of Hardware) - Conclusion

Over the past several posts I've been trying to identify some factors that I think help Apple to achieve a level of success in encouraging user enthusiasm and developer innovation. The five points that I made in my previous posts can be refined to this formula:

• Deliver products on your own schedule (point one). Don't try to be the first out the door having integrated some random feature. Of course, don't be last either. Rather, try to focus on being the best offering with the right features. Be discerning so that the consumer doesn't have to be.


• Develop products in a way the spurs community involvement/enthusiasm (point two). Apple has this down to a science and they develop in secret. I think that the alternative is to be radically open about the development process, as I'll discuss in just a moment. Still, involving the community offers so many benefits, including free publicity and labor, it's a wonder more companies don't do it.


• Produce products that satisfy aesthetic and emotional needs, not just technical (point three). This is a hard one to narrow down into a simple point - suffice it to say, products should have as much attention paid to their impact visually and socially as is given to their impact productively. This isn't a vote in favor of form over function - rather, it's an acceptance that form and function are more closely linked than many believe them to be.


• Provide a consistent, homogeneous platform (point four). The more that time is spent accommodating the vagaries or inconsistencies of a platform, less time will be spent expressing creativity on that platform. Though I am a user and advocate of Linux (for some things), I see the Linux platform as being the prime example of how some things can become arbitrarily hard to accomplish, leading to less creativity and more time spent just getting things to work.


• Finally, provide a clear and concise vision for development (point five). There should be one clear message (perhaps containing many voices, but one clear message) being communicated from one authority. It's that simple.

So... how does this have anything to do with a Utopian view (of hardware)? I shall now reveal. Behold!

The example that Apple shows us is that software and hardware both contribute to an overall experience. Though many think of Mac OS X as the modern Apple experience, I would suggest that OS X is possible in large part because of the fact that the Apple hardware platform allows developers to focus on creativity. Microsoft's Xbox 360 is another example of how the combination of capable hardware with focused software resources/capabilities creates a compelling platform experience. Therefore, in order to offer an experience that begins to rival Apple, special care needs to be given not just to software but to the hardware platform that anything is going to run on. In other words, I believe great computer experiences start with great hardware (and end with great software).

What does application of the formula elements that I've defined result in? I suggest that the market is ready for an organization/company to develop an open hardware platform. The key here is platform. I'm not suggesting that anybody needs to develop chips or sockets or whatever, as those don't represent a platform, or develop an awesome OS from scratch either. I'm suggesting that the platform, as represented by the components of hardware that an existing OS will run on needs to become open.

Here's my vision. An entity known as The Open Platform Foundation (or Company or whatever) assumes responsibility for developing and releasing three classes of computer system, classified as low end (~$500), mid range (~$1500) and high end (~$2500) computers. Limiting the computers to a fixed price-range and intended user base will provide some of the focus that I mentioned (points 4 and 5) being at the core of Apples successful development strategy. The OPF will seek to release a new computer every six months, staggered such that each class of computer gets updated every 18 months (points 1 and 3). This will provide a release window that will allow for periodic releases and updates of hardware in the manner that I've previously described.

The process of implementing any given model of computer will involve open discussion and competition within the Internet community at large, competing in industrial design and component configuration/architecture. The competitive, community driven nature of the discussions will serve to provide the enthusiastic involvement of skilled amateurs that Apple currently benefits from (point 2).

Upon deciding on a best design that meets the OPF goals, the OPF will function as middle man/escrow account for hardware manufacturers, allowing for volume discounts due to large purchase contracts and removing an element of economic risk. Given specifications, manufacturers will be able to bid to fill the initial run of computers from the OPF. The OPF will in turn make these computers available to the community. The OPF, acting as middle man, can take a small cut to cover operating expenses and provide funds to further research and development in areas it feels will aid the platform as a whole (this could be anything from network utilities to iLife-like software applications).

This Open Platform process would seek to distribute large amounts of high-quality and well designed computers to as large an audience as possible for very near to cost. This audience, in turn, would represent a population that inhabits a relatively homogeneous class of hardware, which could provide an attractive target for developers (point 4). Given enough regularity in the operating system(s) installed on the systems the platform could become very easy to develop on, spurring innovation just as is the case with Apple.

Why should people like the Open Platform Foundation? Why is it better than the existing providers? The answer isn't that OPF would be better than the Dells and HPs of the world in every way. It's purpose would be to help spur innovation and growth in the PC industry by providing the right sort of environment to encourage development while simultaneously increasing the reliability and serviceability of the products produced by the industry.

This wouldn't necessarily have to be a low-budget affair, either. Money could be made by the OPF through service and support contracts. This platform approach could be very attractive to corporate customers - given the open nature of the platform it would be virtually assured that aftermarket service, parts and support solutions could be had from any number of sources (not just the original equipment manufacturer). This could lead to greater stability and cost-effectiveness for corporate customers over the near and long term. Big win.

That's the big plan. I think that underestimating the power of platform consistency has created problems for the PC industry and caused Apple computer to be the only manufacturer that's producing big innovations. This is not anything against Apple - rather it's an indictment of the PC industry. This is my proposed response. Thoughts?