We are not nearing the end of OS innovation

Jason Hiner over at Zdnet makes the claim that we’re approaching the end of the Windows era–namely that for businesses there’s not much more innovating we can squeeze out of the Windows OS. What may come next are diminishing returns. The OS is baked.

First, he’s absolutely correct that for everything we’ve seen up to this point that the OS does pretty much what many people want. It’s good enough. The keyboard and mouse combination works just fine. Connectivity is pretty good. The Office metaphor is good enough. The form factors are adequate. The implication? For all you OS innovators out there, take a deep breath and go on vacation.

I don’t think he could be more incorrect. That’s like saying just because automobiles haven’t changed much since….hmm..20 years ago that there’s no reason to keep innovating. I think the only ones that bought into that arguement are on the verge of bankruptcy. The auto markets have changed not only because of technological innovations (computerization), but also because of external market conditions (relative price and availability of gasoline). The same exact types of influences can and will impact the computer industry.

Part of what’s going on here is that he’s defined so many caveats and restrictions to his theory, that he’s basically specified the end of growth for one tiny segment of the overall market–the data entry oriented business market. Uhm, that’s one tiny segment–no matter how much revenue it may or may not generate–does not define the future for everyone else. Discard cloud computing, smartphones, touch, and on and on, and you pretty much just have a computer with a keyboard and mouse running Office.

Get the clue to what’s going on here? He even says “mouse!!” How many people do you know today that use a mouse…on a notebook I’m asking? Most don’t. The majority of the ones who do are tethered to desktops or use their notebooks like stationary devices. Yes, like office staff sitting in cubicles. It’s about pointing devices, not just mice. But I get his point. He’s saying for a keyboard and pointing device we don’t need much more innovation.

Here’s a question for you: What makes you think businesses of tomorrow are going to even be structured in the same way that they are today? I wouldn’t bet on this. I have no idea what’s going to be more practical or feasible. A desktop? A notebook? A tablet? A smartphone? A smart card? The cloud? Hundreds of these devices networked together? Which device or devices might the office worker of tomorrow be using? I have no idea. I can make a guess for the next 10 years, let’s say, but beyond that, a lot might change.

And here’s the most important point here: If the needs change–let’s say to improve efficiency or to leverage new technological capabilities or to overcome societal necessities–the products people will use will adapt. The engineering will change. The OS will change. I can guarantee it.

Now possibly, Jason is correct, if his implication is that the future’s needs will not be much different than today’s. That I agree with.

Here’s as an example. Assume that the processor technologies continue to shrink. Let’s say they get down to a 1/2″ square for the whole computer and it runs on 1/2W and costs $100 for the whole thing. How many computers might a typical office worker have then? How might this influence what the OS provides? How easy will it be for devices to discover and connect and share with each other? You’ve got to imagine it will be different than today. The OS will change. Whether these changes are truly small or not, who knows. But I absolutely know that the way I interact with computers is not what I want. I want a lot more.

The iPhone may seem to just give people a better browsing experience, but to look at it that way is missing all the other things it’s doing. There’s the power management of the display, which is something controlled by the OS. You move phone to your ear, the display powers down. You move the phone away from your head and the display lights up. This is just one tiny OS feature that’s oh so important in an iPhone. It gives the iPhone better battery life, which in turn actually makes the device useful. Engineering matters.

I think the same is on the cusp of happening with touch. Today, we might complain about the issues leaving smudges on the screen, but that’s so narrow a view. You’ve got to step back and start taking a broader view of the world. What if you could touch anything or gesture anywhere and the OS could figure out what you’re doing? Let’s take this even further. What if a “computer” could interpret what you’re doing. Right now. Are you looking at the display? Are you standing? Sitting? Smiling? Upset?

All of this, if done well, would fall under the control of the OS.

Have we reached the peak of Windows as a metaphor for OSes? Possibly. The notion of a single user tied to a single display using a single input device and a single pointing device is I’d argue what’s really dying though. That’s what’s really going on. It’s not the OS that’s nearing the end of its lifetime.

Now in terms of a single user using a single device reading an eBook for instance, you may or may not have the same “Windows OS” running as you do on a desktop. And maybe the OS will become more transparent. However, that’s a good thing just like today automobiles are so much more stable that we don’t all have to be mechanics.

The OS fading away from the user’s focus is a good thing, however, the engineering behind it will still be critical if not more so.

I’m with Jason if he’s advocating a day when as users we won’t even think what the OS is doing–it’ll just do it. That’s good. Soon after that I’d like to see most of the IT professionals that we’re educating and putting into the market fade away too. Why do computers need this much human overhead? The computers are far too brittle. Put another way? The OS needs to improve. A lot.