Google wants to live in the real world

The announcement from Google of the new Pixel phones highlights not just a change in direction but also a change in culture. The Pixel Phone, Daydream View, Chromecast Ultra, Google Home and Google Wifi are products that Google will now produce, with partner assistance, under there own branding. Why make this shift from software provider to hardware producer? At the moment Google is seen by many people as a search engine and email provider. Android is arguable Google's most successful software but it has been used as a platform to promote other brands.
Microsoft, has failed to convert its dominance in software into a dominance in the real world. Windows was used by every manufacturer to help sell their products but this did not help sell Microsoft as a brand. They are attempting to change this by creating the surface products, to enginer a tactil affinity for their brand.
Can Google emulate Apple's success as a hardware manufacturer, without a physical presence in the shopping malls of the world? The new products create a discussion about Google as a brand. The next step is Andromeda the merging of Chrome and Android. A software platform which will become the basis of the Google system, tying the phones and other devices to laptops and desktops. A software bridge to the real world.
The question is, has Google learnt from Microsofts example? By allowing other companies to control the quality of the products you produce do you damage the brand? Brands are built on loyalty and quality. Google has loyalty only time will tell if they have quality.

Open source for open top.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/popculturegeek/4534097974 creative commons

Car manufacturers are some of the largest industrial organizations on the planet. They control everything within their sphere of influence, from the design of the smallest component to the interface which controls the car. This interface has begun to change, as drivers give more control of the vehicle to computer systems the computer and the software it runs becomes more important. Car builders do not want to give up control of what may in the future define the car. By allowing Apple or Android to take the lead in designing the interface, the car industry may become similar to PC manufacturers. Building devices, but having no control over the interaction of the customer with the device.
Ford is attempting, by designing its own software, to first take control of the interface and to secondly become a technology company. Only the future will tell if it is easier to become a technology company rather than a manufacturer. I look forward to trying a Ford Linux.

Make the World More Open - Goodbye Ian

During the Christmas break, I reed the sad news of Ian Murdock's death. Ian Murdock was an important and influential figure within the open source world.
Ian began Debian in 1993 with the intention of creating a Linux distribution which would be well maintained and with fewer bugs than the Linux distros of the time. To achieve this Ian included with the initial release of Debian a manifesto. "In it he called for the creation of a distribution to be maintained openly, in the spirit of Linux and GNU."  In so doing he laid down much of the foundations for the practical issues of creating open source projects. The guide lines have created a frame work for many organizations and volunteers to cooperate together.
The circumstances of Ian's death have yet to be resolved, but what does seem clear is that a bright, intelligent man became confused, frighted and no one was able to persuade him that there was any other option. In a wealthy, sophisticated society it seems tragic that we are unable to notice and care for those most at risk.
Mental illness needs to be cared for, not ignored or we will lose more of those that try to make the world more open.

Narrow opions

Every couple of years I relent and somehow end up using a Windows machine. Each time like a recurring nightmare the problems come rushing back. I am a graphic designer and have been for twenty years. In that time I have seen an industry transition from an analogue technology to a fully digital one. I have played my part in this transformation, but throughout this journey Apple has been my stable workhorse. Occasionally I have baulked at the price of the hardware and dreamed wistfully of buying a sleek piece of hardware from a different manufacturer but each time the prospect of dealing with driver issues and font problems have made me back off. Sticking with what you know is a maximum that works but I worry that perhaps I'm becoming too narrow in my opinions, to prevent this I explored the world of open source software. I settled on a mac like experience on my main desktop machine at home, Elementary OS and I have really enjoyed it.Tonight I attempted to install Windows Vista onto my desktop machine to give me a permanent large screen environment when using Photoshop and Indesign. All went well until the end, Windows in my experience has always struggled with graphic drivers. When I have installed Linux on any machine there has never been an issue with the graphics driver, I can always see the screen and begin using the machine. Each time that I have attempted to install Windows I always think 'this time' it will go smoothly, instead, I end up pulling my hair out and at my age you have to be careful with your hair. Why is free and user supported software, such as Elementary able to use my graphics card perfectly whilst the operating system from one of the richest companies in the world cannot.
Is it not time that Adobe and other desktop design companies such as Quark treated the Linux platform as an equal I think they may be surprised how many budget conscious designer are they're in the World. Who would love to make a choice based on their needs rather compromising to accommodate the operating system and, therefore, the needs of two very wealthily companies?

Elementary OS: The essence of Mac in a Linux distribution.

For over twenty years I've been using Apple computers as a Graphic Designer. Apple built the hardware and offered a choice and a tool set that was not available on any other machine. Over time I invested in hardware and lots of software. The hardware was stylish very well built and competitively priced, Apple's software was intuitive and simple. Over time the hardware is undeniable well built but options have been sacrificed to make the all the machines slimmer. The software has undergone the same process, a slimming to create a more intuitive experience, the result less capability.

When I began looking at Linux it was to regain that sense of ownership which I had when I brought my first Mac. A sense that I was making a choice, not following the PC herd and being rewarded for it. I moved from OpenSuse, to Fedora and eventually to Ubuntu.  I think Canonical is trying to make a jump from the Linux community to the wider world, my only reservation is I think that another team has created an experience which beats them to the punch. Elementary OS is obviously inspired by Apple's OS X but manages to combines it with the open source community to create an operating system that has a feel all of its own.
Form and function have been proven time and time again to go hand in hand. I have often found it frustrating when discussing Linux operating systems that attractiveness is seen as un-serious. If Elementary OS could attract commercial software such as Adobe to port their software Apple would have rival in the software market which offered a much wider choice of hardware. 

What do you think? Can Elementary make that leap?