Michael's Weblog

The end of Windows?

I just wrote an entry concerning OS X running on Apple boxes and the possibility of OS X running on Wintel boxes. It made me think about something that I've talked about for a long time. Is Microsoft actually looking to stop developing Windows?

Now, before you think I'm crazy or just stupid. Let's look at some facts.

1. There's been hints of this in speeches by Gates numerous times. Never anything obvious or an outright statement as such, but it's been there.

2. Microsoft has taken 3 times longer to develop Vista than they originally thought it would. That's a lot of R&D dollars to recoup. Do they really want to start thinking about doing that again?

3. Apple and Microsoft have been working together for quite some time to get Vista to work with the new Intel Macs.

4. There's absolutely no doubt that Microsoft sees web services as their real source of long-term income. This includes most software they now produce being websidized. This word I just made up means not just making them web-enabled, but making them web-based programs. I'm thinking monthly fees and better control of fighting piracy. It wouldn't be perfect, but you could tie software licenses to MAC addresses that get checked routinely.

5. People are already starting to switch away from Windows. Sure, it's an incredibly slow switch, but it's happening. At the very least, they are looking at alternatives for the first time.

I think the most obvious point is #4. Why develop the difficult part, an OS, when you can simply develop the software everyone uses no matter which OS they use?

Yet, I can't say this is anything more than a hunch. Step one would have to be OS X and Windows running on the same machine. Well, this is already happening and with a Vista - Mac Intel combination, it will simply be strengthened. Step two would have to be OS X on Wintel boxes. I argued against this in the other blog entry as a bad move on Apple's part and I still contend, for now, it would be. However, three years from now, it could be a good move, if the writing is on the wall about no new Windows EVER.

So, I say all this and I know it still may seem crazy talk. Even if remote, I think it's a possibility. The two things that may prevent all this from happening? Gates' refusal to cede the Operating System control to anyone else. Microsoft's fear that they will still have to compete with Apple on the software end of things; they might just lose that battle too.

Finally, will the US ever let Apple gain control of the OS market? Even if this all occurred, it would take decades to complete the transition. During this transition, one set of people that would benefit would be Linux proponents.

Apple hardware, Windows and Dell

Why is it that everyone seems to think that Apple will inevitably choose to put OS X on standard Dell type boxes?

I know the biggest argument they all make for this. It's that hardware that people already have will not have to be replaced if they do. I say that's a bunch of BS. It makes absolutely no sense.

First, let's look at how often companies replace their machines. I know this varies widely, but in large corporations it isn't odd at all for them to have a three to four year replacement cycle on Wintel machines. So, 1/4 to 1/3 of the machines is new every year. So, my question is what's better for Apple? Having these companies buy Apple machines that run both Windows and OS X? Or having them buy OS X that works on their current machines? Second of all, what's better for the companies? Buying OS X and having it run great on current machines, but having the Windows version on them out of date? Or buying a brand new Apple quality machine that runs not only the latest version of OS X, but also the latest version of Windows? It seems to me in both instances that it's better to buy the Apple machine. Now, this certainly depends on two things. One, that the Apple machines run Windows just as fast, if not faster, as Dell/HP/etc. Second, that the price point they are getting is nearly the same.

On the first point, I think it's beginning to be clear that Apple machines running Windows XP is clearly at least equivalent to the current Wintel boxes in performance. On the second point, one can certainly find lower cost Wintel boxes stripped of every extra for less than Apple machines. Yet, for equivalent products, I believe they are close to the same. The one place where this isn't necessarily true is laptops. I just recently priced out a Dell laptop with specs pretty close to the 2.0 ghz Core Duo Mac laptop. The Dell was definitely less expensive. Still, at the same time, I believe Apple has the quality edge on laptops and the software included for free with Apple's laptops was an advantage. The software would not really be a factor to the corporate world though. However, in the end, one has to consider the fact that getting Windows on an Apple machine will always mean purchasing a second OS, which will create a higher price point.

In the end, I really don't see selling OS X for Wintel boxes as a profitable or good business choice for Apple. Sell the corporate world Windows on Apple boxes. Let them boot into OS X for most of the stuff they need and Windows only when they need to, until one day when they find themselves in OS X all the time. What really needs to happen to make that work is being able to hot-swap between OSes. A single key-stroke to switch between OS X and Windows would be the final key. This must be done, however, without emulation. Each OS must be separate from each other. Let's see if, and I think when, this might happen. Apple could suddenly find itself in control of the Wintel world.

Apple and its iPod non-monopoly

Let's look at the facts of the case:

Apple has a huge percentage of the online music market. I don't know any exact current numbers, but I've seen well over 70% in most cases.

Apple has a huge percentage of the hard disk based MP3 player market (the iPod). This varies widely by country, but most second place manufacturers are not even close.

Apple has a large percentage of the flash memory based MP3 player market (iPod nano and iPod shuffle.

Songs purchased on iTunes are produced to be used only on iTunes player (developed for Mac OS X and Windows) or the aforementioned iPods.

So, does this constitute a monopoly? In some ways, it can seem like that. Yet, what's at the surface is not always true underneath.

First of all, consumers have a choice of where they buy. Either you buy from iTunes and have a choice between playing the music on your computer or on an iPod or buy from a Microsoft DRM branded service and remove the iPod from your list of choices or from one of a few other choices and have an even lesser selection of players to choose from or just go buy a CD. That seems like a lot of choice to me. Still, consumers know these risks upfront. Obviously, the majority of the consumers have decided to take the risk and purchase from iTunes.

Second, an argument can certainly be made that what you want now isn't what you'll always want. For example, I've purchased thousands of software titles for my Windows machine and now that I've decided Windows sucks, I want to purchase a Macintosh. Oh, wait, I can't because I've been 'locked-in' to Windows. Or more closely tied to this case, buy an iPod and in five years Sony comes out with an awesome player and the ability to switch is non-existent, right? Wrong. The first case with Operating Systems is completely true. The second case is completely false. Any one that wants to switch can. Is it easy? Yes. Is it time consuming? Yes, again. However, no one ever stated that it had to be quick and easy. I'm not going to go into the details of how this can be done, but it can. It's quite easy to find out how on the Internet, and as far as I know the method to which I'm referring is not illegal (perhaps I will get a note from Apple stating otherwise).

So, consumers have choice. They have the ability to switch, albeit using a time consuming method. So, tell me how can this be a monopoly?

Finally, I would like to reiterate what I've said in a previous blog. Why is this French law restricted to music? Why aren't movies, books and other forms of art included? Why isn't software? Why shouldn't software manufacturers be forced to produce software for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux? Why is it Ok to be locked into an operating system, but not a music service. Why isn't Microsoft forced to developed its DRM for other operating systems too. Purchasing music from a Microsoft DRM branded service not only locks you into a player that's compatible with that technology, but also locks you into the Windows OS. Yet, no one discusses this issue. Everyone simply wants a piece of Apple. Not because they are a monopoly. Not because they are predators (as are some other software companies). Not because they are taking advantage of their market share and hurting customers. No, simply because they are on top.

A virus, a worm and malicious code

First, let's deal with the it's not true. Even if it is a virus, a worm, a trojan or simple malware, it is not the first. That was some time back. I'm sure various sites can confirm the name, where it was found and what it did, but it existed, so that this is the first of its kind is not true.

The second part of the it's not true is debatable and more complex. Whether you want to call it a virus, a worm a trojan or simply malware depends on the definition of those terms and who you talk to. That's really not important though. What most of us who use computers fear is malware that runs without us knowing, infecting not only our computer, but any other computer with which it comes into contact (electronically speaking). This "Leap-A" does not do this. In fact, it takes an awful lot of user interaction to make it work. In addition, it does so only under very specific conditions. So, it is not as disastrous as it sounds. This is the true difference between Windows malware and Macintosh malware. In Windows, you have to fear the unknown, just being online can bring your machine down, can infect everyone you know. With OS X, that's simply not true. It takes user intervention to infect machines.

Does this mean that it's not harmful or that we should forget out it? Certainly not. What it does highlight is two very major issues in the computer world today.

First, user have to be mindful of what they are doing. If something comes over email or through other electronic forms of communication, even if it's originating from a friend or associate, do not automatically trust it. If you're not expecting it, or it seems odd to be coming from that person, don't trust it at all. I know this can be a hassle, but keeping your computer safe is not as easy as it once was. Careful online computing will save you from most Windows malware and Macintosh malware.

Second, in this day and age of instant information, news sources compete at being the first to report on stories to a level that never existed before. Information is great, as long as it's accurate. However, due to this competition, it's often misleading at best and wrong at its worst. This whole OS X virus thing is a perfect example of that. Once the story broke, every major news outlet ran with it. After all, a virus for OS X is big news in the computer world. Windows only sites were claiming they were right all along. Malware on OS X would come once it became more popular. Proving in their eyes that OS X is no more secure than Windows. Popular news sources gave quotes from major security based companies. Doom and gloom for Mac users. Yet, days later we see that it's not all that.

What is obvious to me is that this piece of malware is no more a virus than the trash icon, no more a worm than an email client. If you don't know what you're doing, you can delete a file in the trash. If you aren't careful, you can send a message out to your entire email list unintentionally. But either of these takes user invention and stupidity or ignorance. Just as is the case with "Leap-A". But because of immediacy needs for news sources, I will have to spend months listening to people who claim to know that there is finally a virus, or a worm, for OS X. This would be bad enough if it were true, but it's worse because they want it to be true and I am simply a Mac fanatic.

So, what did this all teach us? That news sources, especially major companies like CBS and Reuters should be more responsible with their reporting. That just because it says so somewhere online, it's most definitely not absolutely true. That quotes from companies that profit from misleading statements should not be used freely (I absolutely do not want to imply that these companies gave the quotes to mislead the public, but that the stories themselves do benefit them).

What did it not prove or disprove? That OS X is impervious to assault from malware. This incident in no way shows that. Despite its strengths, OS X was developed by humans and is a complex piece of software. There are obviously going to be faults somewhere within its code (as is made obvious by the routine updates through Apple). However, at the same time, one of its strengths is that even if someone finds those faults, OS X does its best to limit the damage it can do. There are limits to that though. The users are also human and intervention by those users to allow bad things to happen is always possible. However, don't mistake a user caused problem with a piece of malicious code that does its dirty work behind the scenes without knowledge or help from the user. No one can build an OS that protects completely from the first, so, I use OS X to be the best to help in protecting against the second.

iPods, Video and quality

It's no surprise to me that Apple's new video service has become fairly popular in its first few months. There are enough people in the world who either 'need' to have the latest gadgets or can actually utilize them for useful purposes. While most people agree with Apple, that the latest revision of the iPod is still first and foremost a music player, many people find video on it acceptable for their needs. In actuality, it looks better than I expected. Yet, Sony's PSP is ten times better at video, larger and slightly better quality image for movies. There are reasons why neither the PSP nor the iPod will be a regular portable movie source for most people.

The PSP requires the user to buy movies in a different format (UMD disc) than one normally has for home viewing and it's necessary to carry discs for every movie you might want to watch on the road. So, double the cost on your favorite movies or decide to be able to watch them in only one way (on the PSP or Television). In addition, if you're on the road for a significant time period, it's a real headache to carry around all the UMD discs you might want to watch.

The iPod gives the user the ability to carry multiple shows with the device (and perhaps one day, multiple movies), no extra baggage needed. In addition, one can use the iPod for both portable use and at home viewing (with an extra cable). Sounds like the perfect device. Yet, it's not. While the quality of the video is great on the iPod and perhaps acceptable on a monitor or even a television screen, for me, the monitor and television viewing sucks. The standard image is so small that increasing that size up to a 50" widescreen television makes it unwatchable.

So, when anyone comes out a with a portable player that matches the iPod/iTunes Movie Store ease of use with the quality of HD images I get when I watch my satellite or cable broadcasts on any platform (TV/portable viewer/Monitor), I will be the first in line to buy one.

Now, that being said, it would not surprise me if this is exactly what Apple has in store for us. With H.264 encoding, scalability becomes a lot easier. Produce once at high resolution and you get video that looks as good on a iPod as it does on a 102" projection screen. As we all know from past experience, Apple does a good job of producing items that look and feel good, but aren't quite up to the level they will be. The iPod wasn't the must have item that it now is until iTunes. The iPod Video when it actually comes out (not the iPod with video) will be as well.

Apple and Analysts

There's definitely a problem on Wall Street that almost every Macintosh user knows about. Throughout the past couple of decades, there have been numerous death tolls from Wall Street, so many that it's funny. Any Mac user over that time can certainly point to down, depressive times when Apple was still the best thing going, but it wasn't much above the Wintel market. Certainly, it wasn't enough to make hundreds, let alone thousands, of Wintel users to switch. Still, Apple made its way back and can honestly say that Macs are now back to dominate from a usability/realiabiity perspective. Yet, still, analysts love to hate Apple. They can't say anything good without also saying something bad.

Let's look at three examples that are just recently causing Apple stock to go all over the place.

Example 1:

For years, analysts have been on Apple's case about their production levels. It seems, Apple can't make enough machines/devices to satisfy demand. Analysts loved to talk about the problems Apple would have because customers simply couldn't find their products on store shelves. Granted, this was a bit of a problem. When Steve stands up on the Macworld Expo stage and announces something, I get so excited sometimes, I want to go out and buy it immediately. If I can't, it upsets me, but like most reasonable customers, I wait for quality and am happy to get it when I do.

So, about a three months ago, iPods are flying off the shelves even though it's a the second quarter of the year, and traditionally a slow sales quarter. What does Apple do, well, they ramp up production in order to fit demand. Suddenly, people can find iPods and retailers are pushing them. Good for Apple, right? Of course not, Wall Street Analysts announce how iPod sales must be softening because they are now available. There's no other clues to a slow down, yet, the Analysts have spoken and it must be true.

So, let me get this straight. Out of stock, bad because people will buy elsewhere. In stock, bad because people aren't buying. I don't get it. Now, we'll see in the middle of next month how accurate the analysts' pictures are. Let's not forget, the second quarter is perhaps the slowest shopping quarter of the year, yet, I'm sure the analysts will conveniently forget that when looking at Apple's numbers in July.

Example 2:

Creative Technology announces that their projected sales outlook will not be as high as they had expected. Reminder, this is Creative Technology (a competitor to Apple's iPod).

So, what is the reaction the Wall Street analysts give? Downgrade Apple. Apple? Yes, Apple. If Creative is not doing as well as they planned, then Apple must not be either. Did they ever think that perhaps the iPod is doing so well that Creative over-estimated their take from that market. Of course not. Thus, not only does Apple go down, but so do all their suppliers of parts. Creative never stated that the market was slower than expected. They never claimed that fewer people were buying portable music devices. No, they simply announced their sales would not be equal to the lofty goals they had set. Not a word from the analysts suggesting this might actually be a good thing for the iPod. If everyone was buying iPod, then certainly Creative would miss its sales target. But that's simply not an option.

Once again though, we will see in the middle of next month, whether they are right or not.

Example 3:

Cell phones will demolish the iPod. No worry that there's no sign of this. Don't care that iPod sales have been very strong in Europe where cell phones companies already have devices that can download and play music. It isn't a problem that cell phone companies are developing proprietary systems that only work with their phones (something Apple has been admonished for, even though it's actually not hard to get iTunes music onto other devices, although time consuming perhaps). They seem to forget that it looks as if Cingular is going to sell the Motorolla iTunes phone.

Analysts know best, the iPod will fall.

This is but a small sampling of recent reports I have read. I haven't listed specific examples of analysts on purpose. It's quite widespread and no one or two analysts are doing this. Of course, many of these analysts are the same ones that have continually predicted Apple being bought out or going bankrupt many times over. What is it that makes them hate Apple so much? Why do they not want Apple to succeed? I can't say. Personally, I have a small number of shares in Apple. I don't pretend to know any more than the average person about the stock market nor Apple in general. Most of what I talk about here is seen in hindsight, but I do believe in Apple. Even in this world where cost is more important than quality, a company like Apple that is dedicated to quality and innovation will survive and even thrive.

Apple and Intel

How does Apple and Intel talking equate to Apple replacing the PowerPC with an Intel chip? There are so many other possibilities. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is NO way that Apple will be announcing a deal to go to a new chip from Intel or to any existing Intel chip. Yet, I do believe there are some very real possibilities that would put Apple and Intel together.

1. A WiMax chip going into Macintoshes would have a realistic chance. In fact, this would make a lot of sense for both companies.

2. A specialized Video chip that would simply work on H.264 processing for video (especially High Def). This also would make a lot of sense for both companies. If Apple is planning on an online store for movies and/or TV shows, it will be almost impossible without such a chip (although nothing says it would need to come from Intel). Intel could then put it on motherboards for Windows based PCs, thus giving Apple the opportunity to write specialized code for a single chip into Quicktime. It would be a money maker for Intel and a money saver for Apple, plus it would allow for the code to be optimized on both Mac OS and Windows.

3. Apple could be asking Intel to produce G4s and G5s for Macs. Although the least likely in my opinion, it still has its advantages to both companies.

It could be any one of these three, or some mixture of them. However, I'd be shocked if Apple was planning on backing away from the PowerPC and going with Penitum or any other Intel chip. I think Steve Jobs is laughing at this kind of talk. He got just what he wanted when he sued to get the names of the people releasing information to rumor sites. There's still talk, still speculation and the buzz is still there. However, it's just guess work. Once again, I think we'll all be surprised by what is (and isn't) announced next week.

Hopefully, I won't be eating my words this time next week, but with Steve Jobs, we'll never know until he speaks.

Scrubs, Macs and NBC

Some things in the world make absolutely no sense. There is no explanation other than complete bias on a person's or company's part. One small yet obvious example of this is the whole Scrubs, Macs and nbc.com problem.

For those of you who don't know, 'Scrubs' is a show on NBC Thursday nights. While not the most popular show on NBC, it has a following and personally I like it a lot. I also am a Mac user and so it delighted me to hear that 'Scrubs' uses Macintoshes and FInal Cut Pro (Apple's video editing software package) to create the show. It's quite amazing to hear all the tales of high level video and sound production that is done on Macintoshes.

So, I went to nbc.com to check out information on 'West Wing', not 'Scrubs', since I had not seen an episode recently and was wondering when it would come back. On the front of the 'West Wing' pages, it shows a link to a video with Jimmy Smits talking about working with Martin Sheen and the 'TV' presidency. That sounded pretty cool so I clicked on the link and found an error message. It would not show the video because my browser did not support Active X elements (for those of you who don't know Active X elements are specific to MS Windows and are supported on no other platforms). This annoyed me for two reasons. First, why anyone would create web pages that utilized platform specific elements is beyond me. One of the greatest things about the Internet had always been its independence from computer platforms. It didn't matter what platform you were using, you could access the Internet equally. Second, there is absolutely no reason to require Active X when displaying video. Even video in Windows Media format can be viewed on a Mac (there is an OS X version of Windows Media player). Thus, it's inexcusable to force someone to have Active X to show video.

Well, that made me think of 'Scrubs'. 'Scrubs' uses Macintoshes to create the show. Surely, one should be able to view video about that show online. But (not surprisingly), no such luck. It had the same problem. This didn't just annoy me. It angers me. The show's production team couldn't even go online and use their machines on the set to access this video. That's incredibly stupid. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense!

I have written NBC about this problem. However, as I don't expect a reply, I can't say what their reasoning behind this is. I'm sure it has to do with their deal with Microsoft and MSNBC. Another example of Microsoft's draconian business style I guess. Now, I have a dilemma, do I stop watching 'Scrubs' because of a stupid NBC policy or do I continue to watch it to support a show that uses Macintoshes.

Let's set the record straight about Interoperability and music files

I am going to point out an article by one particular person, however, it is only because it is the most current I've read. There are a great number of articles out there, in addition to Congress's interest in the matter. The article is 5 Way to Unleash the Music by Rob Pegoraro at washingtonpost.com.

One particular section really annoys me and it relates to the interoperability of music files:

"A choice of software and hardware: Apple is the worst offender here"

and

"Microsoft Corp. understands this situation a little better: It widely licenses its Windows Media Audio format"

I wish people would be completely honest about this issue.

First, yes, Apple has made it difficult at best to use iTunes purchased music on anything other than a computer or an iPod. There are ways around this, some of which illegal, but still it's not simple.

Second, Microsoft's DRM works on a number of different players, as well as Windows computers.

Apple has a stranglehold on the online music business as well as the portable player market. Thus, a number of people including Mr Pegoraro and Congress have began to make noise about this. They want to force Apple to be compatible with more portable players. Yet, none, and I mean none, have mentioned anything about the fact that Microsoft's DRM does not work with Mac OS. Thus, if you want to purchase music to use on ANY of these other players, you MUST use Windows. Why is this not an equally important issue? I will not make any guesses at that. I'm sure everyone reading this is more than smart enough to come up with their own. I would like to ask where were Mr Pegoraro and Congress when Microsoft was using it's virtual monopoly to drive Netscape off the Net. Why isn't Congress and Mr Pegoraro interested in making software vendors create versions for every platform with equivalent capabilities, instead of just for Windows? Why didn't Mr Pegoraro and Congress step in when companies where creating websites (a medium that was built to be platform independent) that REQUIRED the user to use the Windows version of Internet Explorer? Furthermore, where were they when Microsoft announced it would stop developing a Mac OS version of Internet Explorer (not that us Mac users care a whole lot about that one)?

Suddenly, Microsoft is on the short end of the stick. They are fighting to capture a market they did not see coming. And, suddenly, everyone is worried that you can only play iTunes music on an iPod. An iPod! The only player that is truly 100% supported on both Mac OS and Windows. How are Mac users supposed to take that? I guess it's unimportant to support Mac OS with your products, but if you don't do it Microsoft's way, then you're in trouble. I hope the various testimony given at the Congressional hearings on this subject convinced them to leave it alone. Even Real asked them to leave it alone, despite their disputes with Apple. They had it right. Any action by Congress to force interoperability would stifle innovation.

In the end, users will show how they feel with their pocketbooks. Yes, it would be difficult, but if a user really wanted to switch from the iPod to one of the other various devices, they could. It's not like it's a lost cause. AND it's not like Apple should have to make it easy. However, if someone with music from a Microsoft DRM source wanted to switch to a Mac, they couldn't. Let's focus on reality.

More on Music DRM Compatibility

As a Macintosh user, I have made a conscious decision to use an operating system that is in the great minority. I do so for various reasons, some obvious, others not so much. I have also decided that certain programs will either never be available to me or will be available only after a length of time. I accept that and have little or no complaints about it.

What I do have complaints about is the sudden focus on Apple and its clear dominance with iTunes and the iPod. I have read literally dozens of articles suggesting that Apple either license their DRM to others or license Microsoft's DRM to use on the iPod. What I don't hear is anything about Microsoft's lack on compatibility.

In an article in the Washington Post (For Libraries, a New Chapter in Computer Woes), there was a quote from the Fairfax Library spokesperson:

'Apple could, if they wanted, make the iPod with the ability to recognize Windows Media files . . . but they have chosen not to do so for the time being. We regret this and hope the situation will change.'

The story revolved around the fact that the library signed an agreement with a company to provide services to offer audio books to library patrons, where they could download books onto their computers and then onto a portable device. However, the company with which they contracted offers the files only in Windows Media encrypted with Microsoft's proprietary DRM. I guess the library's solution is to make Apple conform to them. However, the public library should provide services to the highest available audience. Apple's DRM is available to both Windows and Mac users. Microsoft's DRM is available to only Windows users. Yet, this spokesperson calls for Apple to pay money to Microsoft to license Microsoft's DRM. Why isn't their a call to Microsoft to make their DRM work on Macintoshes?

This isn't the only example. Congress held hearings regarding the possibility of legislating the compatibility of the different DRMs. While I'm not sure why Apple didn't show up even though they were invited, I'm also very puzzled by the absence of Microsoft. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say that Microsoft's lobbyists were instrumental in getting these hearings together. Microsoft would benefit the most from forcing Apple to make their DRM available to others. Yet, why isn't Congress investigating the compatibility of DRM's across OS platforms? I would think this would be even more crucial to equality. It's just one more reason why Windows users find it hard to switch to a Mac. If they didn't have an iPod and had player with Microsoft's DRM, they couldn't transfer those files to a Mac. However, if a Mac user wanted to switch to Windows (although I'm not sure this would ever happen) and they were using an iPod and iTunes, those files can be transferred. It's simply another way Microsoft can lock users into Windows.

Fortunately, at the Congressional hearings competitors of Apple (including Real) were very much against such legislation, realizing that any such legislation would kill innovation in that area.

The standards set for Microsoft and those set for Apple have never been equal. Microsoft abuses its practical monopoly and gets merely a hand slap, even though their product is felt to be anti-consumer by many people (even many of those who prefer it in general over Mac OS). Yet, Apple comes out with a product that is amazingly popular due to its simplicity and reliability, and Congress is ready to force them to open up their success to others. It really makes no sense at all.