Answer Guy Central

When I wrote a few weeks ago about Microsoft’s cool new battery technology, I was thinking that the beast from Redmond had headed down a new road. They’re actually giving the technology away under some circumstances, and mundane as it sounds, real changes to the way batteries work are REAL change.

But then I came across a business change at Microsoft that convinced me of something ugly I mentioned last month. Microsoft Is Becoming Irrelevant.

Yesterday, I started using a new portable computer. It’s one of those Netbooks that weighs almost nothing and gives me a whole day’s battery so that when I’m out I can work on a screen and keyboard that are easier to handle than those on my Droid SmartPhone.

Like most netbooks it comes with the Windows 7, which while frustrating to an old computer geek like me is actually a pretty good upgrade. And the fact that it’s Windows 7 Starter Edition is fine; this little computer would be overwhelmed trying to do some of the things that the higher-end versions of Windows 7 can do.

And in playing with this little toy I realized that something we’ve all come to take for granted isn’t possible in Windows 7 Starter Edition. If you use Windows 7 Starter Edition, you can’t change your desktop wallpaper.

Let’s start by being clear: this isn’t really important, right?  And forget libertarian posturing like  “I have the right . . .!”  You don’t.

But here’s the thing that matters: Microsoft didn’t fail to include the ability to change wallpapers in Windows 7 Starter Edition; you can download third-party software that makes it possible. What they’ve done is leave a simple feature that the whole world has come to understand out, and made it a component of a much more complex upgrade that wouldn’t work very well on most of the computers that come with Windows 7 Starter Edition. And suggest you buy that upgrade,

And even that isn’t it.

When I was looking into this issue I came across this page. And I checked: the license for Windows 7 Starter Edition specifically forbids you from changing your desktop wallpaper. Check the link if you like, or if you have a computer running Windows 7 Starter Edition you can see the wording in paragraph 8 of the file C:\Windows\System32\license.rtf.

Business Change takes many forms. I begrudge Microsoft not one cent of any revenues they can generate. But suggesting that people perform an ill-advised software upgrade and going out of their way to point out that something as simple as changing your desktop wallpaper is illegal? Wow.

Ahh, Droid. We barely knew ye . . .

This week, Google introduced a version of Google Earth for Android SmartPhones. In large part, I don’t care; Google Earth is very cool, but compared to Google Maps it has limited real-world use.

And Google Earth requires version 2.1 of the Android operating system. Which means that it won’t run on the Droid, which has been available for just over three months.

Aside from being a Droid user and being in sour-grapes mode, maybe you think I shouldn’t care. You’d be wrong. Android is the fastest-growing operating system for SmartPhones, and Google is splintering the market for that operating system, which like Google Earth and the Nexus One is also a Google product.

Operating Systems don’t do very well when they get splintered this way. Just the introduction of viruses that act differently on one version than on another is all the proof you need of that. In fact, be cynical if you like about the Microsofts of the world being after your money, but the real reason you have to eventually upgrade to a new version of Windows  even if you think you don’t need it is because unless you do you’re open to all kinds of security threats.

I sometimes pick on Apple for the heavy-handed way they control the Macintosh OS and iPhone OS, but users of both sure do get consistent behavior, don’t they?

Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” slogan is feeling more and more like a line of . . . nothing. And as a business consultant I understand that they need to make (lots of) money. But to be as involved in the marketing of the Droid as Google was and after such a short period of time leave its users behind as they try to sell more Google-branded phones (the Droid is supported by Motorola, not Google) is just . . . bad. Evil. Wrong.

By the way: while Google Earth officially requires Android 2.1, People who use Android 2.01 can get it to work by going here.

You know . . . assuming there’s no virus.

Why is it that the more successful a company becomes, the less able it is to manage that success? Is success the business change that inevitably will ruin your business?

There was a time when anyone who understood anything about either business in general or the technology business in particular would look at Microsoft and swear it was on a trajectory of success that would never end. Sure, that flies in the face of what anyone who’s studied business knows must happen over time, but with so many business changes obviously still in front of them and the amount of talent on their payroll, surely Microsoft was different, right?

Well, of course not. Last week, this article in The New York Times called Microsoft out for their now-over-a-decade run of mediocrity, and it got me thinking: inevitability of the slide notwithstanding, is there a way to know when a company’s slide is beginning?

Let’s revisit Apple’s iPad. I was strong in my technological criticism of Apple’s Giant New Binky. I gave Apple credit for how iPad might be significant if they can pull something together: the ability to create real change in the phone business . . . once the technological and form-factor issues get worked through and the market has a chance to react.

But this big change is in the way the announcement got made; the iPad isn’t ready, and yet Apple announced the product and their marketing and partnership plans. Is this am intentional about-face from Apple’s longstanding way of doing things, or have they panicked? And either way, was it the right choice (as in, carefully thought out and with a plan to manage the business change), or just the beginning of a run down the same path Microsoft took about fifteen years ago—we’re so smart we can’t make big mistakes or be hurt by our small ones ?

When you enact business change, you create business success. When you start to believe the changes you enact will automatically lead to better and better runs of that success, you start down a bad road.

Watch Apple. Watch the iPad. Most important, watch yourself.

I was resisting the impulse to say anything at all about Microsoft’s <ahem> lovely new operating system, Windows 7. And then I read this.

I really don’t care about the new version of Windows very much. I’m happy that I can buy it (we’ve actually paid extra at Answer Guy Central just to stay away from Windows Vista on computers purchased in the last couple of years), but I have no plans to upgrade any of our computers. I just don’t see the point.

But if the article above is any indication, it seems that Windows 7 is Microsoft truly enacting business change. The software may not be all that important, but the issues surrounding it sure are! Breathe easier, friends.

An amazing idea: the worst threat to security in your computer may not be a virus, or a piece of stray mal-ware. It’s your operating system.

Or so says Brian Krebs, blogging for The Washington Post. And he’s probably right.

The issue, says Krebs, is that most of the bad stuff that tries to infect your computer does so by mucking around in your operating system, and that your operating system gets harder and harder to protect over time. This is true.

Further, Krebs argues that Windows users have the biggest problems, because it’s Windows being targeted by a huge percentage of virus writers. This is also true.

What’s fascinating (and please remember that this is not truly a Windows issue; Macintosh and Linux computers get viruses, too) is his solution: you can completely avoid having sensitive data stolen by doing something that is becoming more and more simple: don’t type anything or use shopping or banking web site on a computer  unless you boot that computer from a clean, protected, pristine CD or DVD-based copy of the operating system.

This is almost a brilliant idea. Human nature being what it is (lazy) and technology understanding being what it is (low), the idea means very little here in the real world. But with Virtual Computers becoming more and more prevalent, it’s an idea that will lead to real solutions, and soon.

THAT’S Business Change.

Let the nasty notes fly . . .

So this week Apple releases Snow Leopard. It’s the latest and greatest version of the Macintosh OS, otherwise known as OS X Version 10.6. And I have to tip my hat to them; it’s a great release for many reasons, and at just $30 it will be a great seller (And should be!), even though you might not notice the differences from what’s in Macintosh OS X version 10.5.

Volumes have been written already, and my pal David Pogue at the New York Times has covered this subject as exhaustively and accessibly as anyone. I recommend his take on the subject highly.

But for me the real issue is one that gets discussed . . . oddly every time it comes up. Apple has taken steps to address it in Snow Leopard, and it goes to our topic of business change:

Macintosh Computers Are No More Safe From Viruses than Windows Computers

Not a popular position to take when Apple fans are in the room, and one that Windows users stopped caring about a long time ago; they simply deal with the reality of viruses, spyware, and other such nuisances as part of their day.  But one of the things that Apple is acknowledging in Snow Leopard is exactly that: Macintosh computers are virus-susceptible, and steps need to be taken to protect them.

A tip of my hat to Apple for taking steps on your behalf, and I’ll be fair: big raspberries to Microsoft for making you deal with the subject (almost) all by yourself. The real message for you, though, is this:

If you’re going to believe what you read, make sure your reading material is coming from sources you can trust.