What matters most- operating systems or applications?
Michael Gartenberg has an interesting blog post today that proclaims that “operating systems don’t matter.“ He makes a good argument that it is the need for particular applications that drives what systems/operating system we choose. There is a lot of logic in that theory, but I’m not sure that it is currently that easy to make the statement that operating systems don’t matter.
Gartenberg gives good examples to show how it was special applications over the years that caused him to buy particular systems to run those applications. I can appreciate that because I have done the same in the past. The key phrase there is “in the past,” because the more I think about this interesting topic the more it appears to me that it’s not individual applications that point me in a given direction toward a product but the environment in which that product runs.
Consumers today are multi-taskers. Whether you look at computer operating systems or smartphones, we all do a lot of different things with those products. We don’t just surf the web on our computers, we do that and we interact with others via email/ IM/ Facebook/ MySpace… well, you get the picture. We are no longer tied to one particular application that is only available on one given operating system, we are all over the map.
That multi-tasking has crossed over from the computer world to the smartphone domain too. We no longer just want a good phone, we want a good phone that handles all of our messaging needs: email, text messaging, IM, web-based messaging, etc. We want to surf the web on our phones while handling all our phone tasks. It’s not the one application that drives the savvy consumer, it’s the environment in which all of this happens. And that is the operating system.
I believe that’s why the Palm Pre is such a hot topic these days. It has taken the applications we want and brought them together in an environment that looks like it will present those applications in a productive way. It’s not really offering any one new application we haven’t seen before, it’s the operating system that is different.
This points to how it is the environment that is important to the consumer. I agree with Gartenberg that consumers don’t care what OS they use, but they do care very much about the environment in which they work. It’s not as clear-cut as just saying the OS doesn’t matter. It’s the environment that makes us productive doing our thing that we pursue. That’s why even at the consumer level we have to decide what OS we want a given product to use. It’s the environment we have to choose and today that means the OS.
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
When a choice of operating system is to be made, generally application support is the driving force behind that decision. So one could easily conclude that applications matter and the OS doesn’t, and I’d be inclined to agree with that statement. But it gets hazy if you segment applications between the desktop and the web, where an increasing majority of users spend most of their time.
In truth, for most users nowadays, only the browser matters.
I want the palm pre to multitask like my computer (within reason) and hopefully have reasonable battery life.
I am just sick of the “emptiness” feeling I have with my iPhone. How long have we been complaining about copy and paste (just a small niggle) and yet we do still not have it?
I think Gartenberg’s statement was true at one time, but really isn’t anymore. If you take the classic definition of “operating system” as simply being the underlying system software on a computer, then I would tend to agree with him. In the days where you might be comparing MS-DOS and CP/M or even the early versions of Windows and Mac, I agree that the OS really wasn’t nearly as important as the programs that ran under it (or, arguably, the hardware it ran on).
What we refer to as an “operating system” today is really more a bundle of tools and user-interaction metaphors rather than simply the core system software. For most people, it is completely possible that a very high percentage of day-to-day computing tasks can be done purely using components included with the OS itself.
On mobile devices (such as smartphones and Netbooks), that percentage is so high that it wouldn’t suprise me if a very large percentage of owners never add any additional software to the system at all. The differences in user experiences on different mobile operating systems can also be extremely dramatic and a critical factor when it comes to picking the right one.
I suppose that you could make a reasonable argument that the comparison is really still between applications (in this case, ones that come with the OS) instead of between operating systems themselves, but I think that is basically splitting hairs. When evaluating and choosing between operating systems, the vast majority of people are thinking of the whole package.
I think you’re being a little too general James. When I look at my pocket PC, there’s pretty much no choice at all – I’m stuck with whatever OS the handset maker went with. But on a notebook or netbook, there is more leeway since I can choose a model with the OS I prefer. Likewise, with a desktop, I can build it myself and get any OEM OS I want.
But saying the OS is not important is not right. Even if you are a total cloud freak, your is useless/worthless without a working OS behind it. And should your notebook’s hard drive bite the dust, again you need a recovery disc with the OS and drivers on it in order to get back to work.
Perhaps I’m just interpreting the article a little different, but from my experience, a good, working OS is the difference between a device I can use versus an expensive door-stop.
Such a believe can only be made by someone not making apps on many platforms. Just take a look at the iPhone vs Android and you’ll see what I mean.
Mac OS gives you tools (libraries) very different than those given by Linux for example. The differrences in the Libraries means many differences in the *spirit* of these applications.
Then IMHO I give a +1 to the JeffGr point of view. OS is now a full bundle. And contrary at what the ambiance is. I don’t believe in a future where all app will be online (simply because of problem such as server down, wich become to be common theses days). Therefore I belive the OS weight in the balance and will weight for at least 5 years and certainly far more.
Applications, file types, and the user interface are most important. I guess that covers the spectrum from applications to operating system.
looking over the comments here, im tempted to say one should stop talking about os and start talking about distro.
think about it, all major linux distros come as a complete desktop system fitted onto a single cd or dvd these days. the install just unpacks the files that make up the live environment onto the drive and adds a boot system to the drive.
or you can boot it from a usb pen, the distinction is minimal.
in a way its come right back to when one had only floppy drives in the computer and the “os” was either on one floppy, or burned onto a chip inside the computer.
in essence the os is just a collection of drivers and a process manager. anything beyond that is applications running on top of the os, even the gui desktop is one or more app.
it always was applications. this is confirmed by user support studies since computers entered business and private live. a great part of users are/still are not able to handle their oss’es, but merely their applications.
this also is the main reason why they stick to an os, because their apps run with the one. changing this would mean big trouble.
I think the OS is more important. But most of the complaints about the iPhone (cut/paste, video, true multi-tasking, etc) have nothing to do with the underlying OS (Unix in this case). However, If they had used the old Mac OS 9, you can bet that you would never ever get pre-emptive multitasking on that phone as well as numerous other features. Bottom line: the OS will determine how many and type of features that the user interface will be able to deliver.
As companies and individuals keep developing applications, hardware, and operating systems, we’ll start to see more importance laid on a central environment on which we do computing and communications. Sure, we all care about the applications that run on the operating systems but the operating systems themselves are what consumers and professionals judge for performance. The whole point is to create an environment that brings value to the user.
Gartenberg cites that Black & Decker keep the end user in mind but I feel that he fails to bring the entire experience of getting value out of the end product.
Mobile OS concerns have recently been on iPhone software limitations and interoperability between different technologies. Mobile operating systems are built very close to their desktop counterparts since core technologies investment is expensive. Most people that use these mobile products also notice that their end-user experience is affected by all 3 factors: hardware, applications, and OSs. There will never be a perfect mobile OS for everyone but the diversified choices allow us to choose which strengths and which weaknesses we want in our mobile devices. You can’t discount one factor over another because all that matters in the end is the result you get by using technology.
Very well said. That’s the “environment” I mention in the post because it is the user experience these days that I believe is the most important factor that consumers look at. Most platforms have similar applications these days, rarely does one have an application that others do not. How well a given device/ platform produces an environment that is productive and enjoyable is what attracts the attention these days, more often than not.