RSS and podcasting

These two tech buzzwords have been getting a lot of media attention lately, and for good reason. RSS is an incredibly powerful tool that is beginning to see widespread adoption in common software, and podcasting is a specific implementation of RSS that demonstrates some of the cool stuff that's coming.

RSS, which stands for Really Simple Syndication, is an open data format based on XML. It's a compliment to HTML, but in many ways it's a lot more flexible and powerful. Basically, RSS defines a standard format for certain types of data to be represented, which in turn allows programs to gather all sorts of data from different sources and present it in a unified way. Those little orange buttons that say "XML"- those are links to RSS feeds.

As an example, let's take two web sites that essentially present the same type of information- The New York Times and CNN. Both are sites that present news articles. From an HTML standpoint, each site is designed completely differently. However, in RSS format, the sites present their information in the same, structured way, such as: Headline text goes here; author byline goes here; body text goes here; rinse and repeat. So what RSS does is force sites to present information in a consistent way.

With a program that understands RSS (such as an RSS "aggregator"), users can subscribe to RSS "feeds" from various web sites and view all of the information from those sites in a consistent way. I can have my aggregator show me all of my news sites, and what I see is a streamlined list of all of the headlines from all of them. I no longer have to go to each site manually- the aggregator pulls the content from them all and presents it to me neatly. And on top of that, I can have my aggregator automatically scan all of my feeds every, say, hour, and let me know when new articles appear.

There are a number of RSS aggregators out there. The most popular one for the Mac is NetNewsWire. However, the real power of RSS comes into play when existing tools are modified to use it so that its functionality can be integrated into your existing workflow. The latest version of Safari (the Tiger version), for example, fully supports RSS. I use Safari as my primary browser, and I've switched most of my bookmarks from web pages to RSS feeds. I've still got "bookmarks" for all of my "sites", but the RSS bookmarks now tell me when there are new articles, and I can choose to look at all of my RSS content on one page if I want to, which allows me to search across all of it and sort it any way I want.

Internet Explorer 7 will support RSS when it's released. FireFox currently supports a limited implementation of RSS and I expect it will go all the way in an upcoming release.

RSS is a very cool technology that has been used by geeks with specialized tools for a while, but will soon become common in most of the Internet-facing software we use. That's when it's going to really shine. It's definitely going to help bring information to people in a much more pervasive and streamlined manner.

While vanilla RSS is great for distributing web content, podcasting is an example of how RSS can be used to make other kinds of information delivery extremely easy. Basically, a podcast is just an RSS feed that contains structured links to music files (typically .mp3's). So just like my RSS aggregator (or Safari) can tell me when The New York Times has published a new article, a podcasting tool can "know" when a specific podcast has a new .mp3 file available, and then automatically download that file to my computer. I can subscribe to a podcast and automatically receive each episode as it's released.

The newest version of iTunes (4.9) supports podcasting.

The podcasting phenomenon is interesting in a few ways. It's a cool technology that essentially lets the Internet act like a distribution mechanism for your "audio Tivo" (podcasting client, aka iTunes). It also allows amateurs to publish and distribute their own audio content. There are a lot of amateur podcasts out there, and many of them are basically computer geeks talking about how cool podcasting is. At this point, the whole thing is pretty "meta", but the idea is big and will definitely play a role in the evolution of "radio".

So RSS for web sites and podcasting is pretty cool right now. It gets very interesting when you think about the possibilities that will come down the pipe in the future, when RSS is leveraged to "podcast" all kinds of information- not just web sites and audio.

Microsoft has announced that Longhorn is going to have extensive RSS support, and I expect to see both Microsoft and Apple doing some interesting things with RSS in the next few years. There are a number of independent developers and gurus on the forefront of the RSS revolution who are helping to pave the way- specifically, people like Dave Winer (one of the creators of RSS), Adam Curry (yes, the MTV Adam Curry- he's one of podcasting's most prominent boosters), Robert Scoble (a "celebrity" geek blogger who now works for Microsoft and blogs professionally for them), and Chris Pirillo (a professional geek- and the supporting character in this classic video).

I read these guys' sites regularly (rather, I subscribe to their RSS feeds), and if you're interested in the future of RSS, they're worth checking out.

RSS is big, and it and its offspring are going to become pervasive.

The Freedom Tower

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation released revised plans for the Freedom Tower today. Since 9/11, I've had very strong feelings about the spirit in which Ground Zero should be rebuilt. By and large, I haven't liked the Freedom Tower concept and the fundamental decisions that have been made about how to rebuild.

This afternoon I wrote and posted a pretty bitter diatribe against the Freedom Tower and those who will be making it. I wrote it, posted it, re-read it, tweaked it, re-read it, tweaked it some more, re-read it, softened it, and then just took it down. My feelings about rebuilding in the wake of the World Trade Center come from a very passionate and compassionate place, but for some reason, bitterness was the only emotion I could summon when trying to express myself.

Better to cool off a bit, I think.

But a few thoughts:

My biggest complaint with the plans for Ground Zero is that they seem artificially artful and theoretical. It's pretty obvious that there are valid concerns against rebuilding two of the world's largest buildings in the wake of what happened to them. And I think a lot of the rationale behind why the Ground Zero complex is shaping up to be the way it is is disingenuous.

People are obviously skittish about putting something up that will be as vulnerable and inviting to attack as the original World Trade Center was. I don't blame them. So what we're left with are buildings that are not as big, bold, and brazen as the originals. And only one real tower when it was two that were destroyed.

The cliched name "Freedom Tower", its light-emitting "Beacon of Freedom", and its symbolic height of 1776 feet (achieved by a 400 foot antenna) do not resonate as genuine responses to terrorism. They seem like platitudes designed to make us feel like we're prevailing over our enemies, even though it is the fear of them that has guided the reconstruction process.

This is complicated. We obviously need to do everything we can to learn from what happened and fortify ourselves better this time around. But I really do think it's fear- fear of not attracting enough business, fear of remembering too vividly what stood there before, fear of making too big of a target- that has guided the big decisions on the matter.

That said, I think the new Freedom Tower design is much better than the previous one. I like the facts that, to quote from the LMDC's site:

"the tower's footprint, measuring 200 feet by 200 feet, is the same size as the footprints of the original Twin Towers... At its middle, the tower forms a perfect octagon in plan and then culminates in an observation deck and glass parapet (elevation 1,362 feet and 1,368 feet - the heights of the original Twin Towers)."

In many ways, the new tower really does resemble the originals- which I think is critical.

I guess my biggest question is, why can't we have two of them? I think that's what's really holding me back from feeling good about this plan. It may sound trivial, but I think it's key: the duality of the World Trade Center was so essential to it. To forsake that duality in reconstruction seems to miss the point.

And why is this so? I honestly think the answer is fear.

Years from now, when the Freedom Tower is a natural part of the skyline, I look forward to explaining to my children what was there before. There were these two huge, identical buildings.

But we only rebuilt one?

Backup your stuff

If you don't have a regular backup solution in place, stand up now and go get one. I can't stress enough the importance of this. Backup is literally a life and death issue- I would probably kill myself if I lost everything on my computer.

Today, for example, I lost all of my contacts. They just vanished, and so far I haven't been able to figure out why. (I'm using Mac OS X 10.4.1 and Address Book.) Fortunately, since I have a backup of my entire hard drive, I was able to just sub-in my Address Book info from my most recent backup (yesterday), so I didn't lose anything. Having that backup literally allowed me to copy some files and get on with my life- no sweat (besides the lingering uncertainty of what caused the problem). If I hadn't had that backup, the loss of my 775 contacts would have been devastating.

There are many different backup strategies, many different backup programs, and many different backup mediums. It's confusing. The easiest way to do it, in my opinion, is to buy a FireWire or USB 2 external hard drive that's at least as big as your computer's internal drive, and "clone" your drive to the external drive on a regular basis. This gives you a mirror image of your drive, which protects you from everything from losing a few files (like I did) all the way up to a complete hard drive crash.

Most drives come with software that makes it relatively fast and easy to do this.

There are many companies that make external drives. I happen to use LaCie drives, which work well for me.

"Boffins create zombie dogs"

I dare you not to read the article with that name.

Weird stuff. I don't know what creeps me out more- the idea of a zombie dog, or of something called a "boffin" creating one.

(Boffin, apparently, is a British term for a scientific/technical researcher.)

Another Nine Inch Nails song "open sourced"

Check it out.

Paris Air Show recap

The Seattle P.I.'s got an interesting article.

Robotic women in Japan

NatGeo will inform you. The jokes, puns, and troublemaking is up to you.

All I know is, Hiroshi Ishiguru needs to be carefully monitored.

Good Linus interview

Good Morning Silicon Valley has a nice interview with Linus Torvalds.

10.4.2 is close...

I can smell it. Ahhhhhh.... so close... by end of day Wednesday (at the latest) is my prediction.

Good Longhorn info

Check out this two part article (part I, part II) for a pretty straightforward, informative look into the current state of Longhorn, the next major version of Windows.

Politics and competition aside, there's no doubt that Longhorn will be the best version of Windows yet when it is finally released (supposedly in the second half of 2006).

Exactly what it means (and how much it matters) to be the best version of Windows yet is up for debate, of course.

Coca-Cola Zero

Wow.

Just tried Coca-Cola Zero, Coke's newest zero calorie soda. It's really good. It really tastes very similar to regular Coke. Much closer than any of the other diet sodas currently on the market, and- surprisingly- closer even than the "half-diet" Coke C2 and Pepsi Edge that came out this time last year.

There must be some pretty hefty technological (chemical) advances going on in this product to be able to take such a strong step forward in texture and taste- still with zero calories- compared to the current generation of diet sodas. I wouldn't be surprised if Coke's had the capability to make this for a while but didn't want to cannibalize regular Coke sales. Now that carb-rich regular soda is almost as tainted a substance as asbestos, however, that risk is much lower.

Ironically, I think Coke Zero is probably a bigger threat- at least short-term- to regular Coke than to Diet. Diet Coke drinkers (my hand is raised) tend to drink a LOT of Diet Coke, since it's kind of like a "free" pleasure. One of the features of Diet Coke that makes it so easy to drink so much of is its really crisp, not-too-sugary taste. Drinking Diet Coke is a unique experience, unlike anything else. It's not like "drinking" a "beverage". It's just like drinking Diet Coke.

Coke Zero, on the other hand, tastes so much like regular, sugar-laden Coca-Cola that it may be difficult to drink as much of it.

Now this is a dilemma.

A perfect example of why Microsoft doesn't get it

I was browsing the news sites today when I saw a headline article about President Bush on MSNBC. I clicked on the article and saw that there was an accompanying video clip. Never wanting to pass up the opportunity to see President Bush speak, I clicked on the link.

Now, mind you: I'm doing this on my Mac.

Clicking on the video link brought up this message: "MSN Video does not support your computer's operating system." Let me repeat that: this news site's video functionality is not available on an entire class of computers. Hmm.

Just for fun, I opened Internet Explorer and tried it there- just to see if, even though I was still using the Mac, Microsoft would let me get away with viewing the video if I did it through their browser.

Nope.

Okay. That sucked (but was I really surprised?). I still wanted to see the video, so I went over to my PC, fired up FireFox, and went to MSNBC. I clicked on the link for the video... and this time was told that "To use MSN Video, you need to install some free software." I was then instructed to download Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Windows Media Player (even though I've got both on my system).

So, even if you're on Windows, you can't view MSN videos unless you're using Microsoft software all the way. To summarize: if you're on a Mac, no dice- go to Windows. If you're on Windows but use anything other than Internet Explorer, no dice either.

Finally, since I really wanted to see the video, I opened Internet Explorer and went to the article. I clicked on the video link, and... the resulting window froze with a "Detecting Internet connection speed" message on the screen. The final piece of the puzzle- the 100% Microsoft solution- was broken. Wow.

It's funny- I decided to write this little blurb before actually trying to view the video in Internet Explorer, so my ultimate failure to actually see any video at all was NOT a part of what me want to write this in the first place. And I'm going to keep that little fact out of things for now. That's for another column.

Assuming I had been able to actually view the video, what Microsoft is doing with MSNBC is forcing everyone who wants to experience video on the site to use strictly Microsoft software all the way. It's the old lock-in trick at its most blatant.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), I don't think that's the way the digital world works anymore- the future is not all Microsoft, all the time- especially not when people feel so taken advantage of.

Interoperability is key. Especially for a "traditional" news media web site- they should be going out of their way to make it easy for people to consume their news, since there's so much competition out there from both traditional and non-traditional forms of media.

Computers and computer-driven devices are evolving to the point where they need to just work. If something doesn't work, it shouldn't be because of politics (widget y doesn't want to talk to widget x because widget y is made by company z, and company z controls certain technical aspects... ah, fuck you, I don't have time for this, I'm just going to go somewhere else where things just work).

I'm not talking up an Apple-centric, or a Linux-centric, or an anything-centric future. I'm talking about a USER-centric future, and it seems like most companies are catching on to this pretty nicely. And certain companies are having a hard time with it.

I think the moral of the story is this: When I had to open up Internet Explorer on my Windows machine to view this video, I actually felt pretty condescending toward Microsoft- "Oh, okay guys, I'll make you feel like you're winning this battle this time." It was like I had to trick them into thinking I didn't care about anyone else before they'd give me what I wanted.

The attempt to force me to use Internet Explorer on Windows didn't make me feel threatened. I didn't even get that frustrated (until it didn't even work, that is). I did, however, feel like I was witnessing something very telling.

It's very clear to me that this type of attitude shows that some parts of Microsoft still just don't get it.

Fuck, this changes everything

As reported by the BBC...

JESUS!

ANOTHER helicopter just crashed in the East River!

This is not a joke!

A mashup and a widget

Here's a great mashup.

Here's a great widget.

Comments

When people write software, the actual computer code that they write is typically accompanied by plain-English comments that describe what the code is supposed to do. The intent is to document what is being done in a meaningful way so that other programmers will be able to understand how a given section of software is supposed to work.

When a program is compiled (turned from programming code into actual "software", so to speak), these comments are filtered out, which means that typically programmers assume that the only people who will read them are other programmers.

But with open source software, where the actual raw programming code is available to everyone, comments become publicly available.

Will Apple license Mac OS X?

The conventional wisdom is that even though Apple's moving to Intel chips, they're not going to suddenly change from being a hardware company to a software company that allows other hardware companies to sell "Macs". At least, not until the whole Intel thing has fully shaken out and things stabilize over the next couple of years.

I believe this as well.

However, this is the same type of conventional wisdom that had us thinking that Apple would never switch to Intel, so conventional wisdom's not doing so well these days.

This article in Fortune is quite interesting. When the founder and chairman of Dell says that he wants to sell Macs- and a number of other PC manufacturers concur- you can't discount anything.

Microsoft must be sweating.

Good.

Sushi on the next Concorde?

France and Japan made a big announcement today.

Announcing 2005's Marketing Song of the Year

Coldplay's Square One, from their new album X & Y.

This is a great song for sure, but beyond that, it's got all of the characteristics needed to propel it into the marketing saturation zone. By this time next year, I predict we'll all be really sick of hearing this song on TV commercials, in-theater advertising, and during big corporate speeches. (Assuming Coldplay licenses it for such, of course.)

It's got:

a great intro that will work really well with grand, time-lapse nature shots (sun rising, stars racing across the sky, clouds...);

a killer cascading four note guitar riff (inspired by Clocks' three note cascade for sure) that will work for slow motion shots of mothers holding babies slowly turning toward the camera, sooty firefighters, a new medical innovation making life better for the elderly;

PERFECT lyrics, including:

"You're in control is there anywhere you wanna go?
You're in control is there anything you wanna know?
The future's for discovering
The space in which we travel in"
...
From the first line of the first page
To the end of the last day
You were looking
From the start in your own way
You just want somebody listening to what you say
It doesn't matter who you are
It doesn't matter who you are"

So get ready to chisel another song onto the Mt. Rushmore of marketing-friendly music. Clocks, Battle Without Honor or Humanity (the Kill Bill song), and Vertigo: scootch over.

Awesome Dashboard widget

pearLyrics Widget

Mad Hot Ballroom

Children are amazing. Hope is worth it.

For all of the horror stories about what it's like to grow up in poverty and attend a New York City public school, we can't lose hope. That- and the amazement I always feel after being reminded that kids are in many ways smarter and more mature than adults- is what I walked away with after having seen this wonderful movie.

Steve Jobs' commencement speech at Stanford University

I think it's quite good.

NOT GUILTY!!!

The future of flight

This year's Paris Air Show is breaking some big ground, with the A380 (biggest) and 777-200LR (longest range) planes on display.

Oops

I've had to explain to multiple people that the previous post was intended to be a joke. I know that Mace Windu and Lando Calrissian are not the same person. Ditto for Sam Jackson and Billy Dee Williams. But if I hadn't known the difference, that would have been funny, right?

To me, ignorance and insensitivity are some of the funniest qualities we humans have!

Anyway, thanks to everyone who politely pointed out the truth to me. I'm glad people care enough to take the time to point out a really dumb mistake they thought I'd made. Now, I've gotta run- heading out to see the new Denzel movie.

Oops

Plot hole!

I just saw "Episode III" again, and I don't know how this one slipped past me- not to mention the legions of "Star Wars" fans that are out there. And a guy named GEORGE LUCAS.

HeLLO! Samuel Jackson's character DIES in "Episode III". It's a pretty big plot element. So... drumroll please... how the hell can he be in "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi"???!!!

Cool company

Huh?

Microsoft is finally acknowledging the value of Windows

It's about time.

Coked up

What can I say, I'm in a soda mood:

ilovetab.com
Captain Mike's Crystal Pepsi page
Which begs the question- Captain Mike?
usasoda.com

John Siracusa's take on Apple/Intel

Here.

DAMN, this guy's good.

And I think I'm done with this subject for a little while now.

One final note: Anyone who thinks that this transition means that Apple's future products will no longer be significantly different from the competition is seriously lacking imagination. Just because Apple will be using the same processors that Dell and everyone else uses IN NO WAY means that Apple's products will suddenly stop being innovative or different.

The Mac is not about the CPU. It's about the whole package, and I think Intel-based Macs will enable Apple to, on balance, make even more interesting packages.

Coldplay's new album

X & Y came out today. Initial impressions: positive, definite potential to grow into, hints of U2 and Sting (Police)...

A few questions about the Mac/Intel thing

1. What's going on with 64-bit stuff? Was all of the 64-bit talk that started happening with the G5, and ramped up with Tiger, specific to the PPC platform? I hope we're not going to have to go through a 32-bit x86 to 64-bit x86 transition a few years down the line, particularly since NOW is the time to go 64-bit (as Apple's been saying). That would be one transition too many.

2. There's been a lot of talk about what needs to be done to get applications ported to Intel (Xcode 2.1 and universal binaries), and to allow PPC apps to run on Intel machines (Rosetta), but what about device drivers and other low-level system components?

3. How will this affect the user experience (if at all)? Will Intel Macs wake from sleep as quickly as PPC-based Macs do? Are there any other subtle features that won't work as well on the Intel platform?

Hopefully, Apple, the press, and the blogosphere will get these answers out quickly. And hopefully they'll be the right answers!

Turn and face the strain

(Images courtesy The Mac Observer)

Cue soundtrack.

Change is hard. Change is inevitable. Change is good.

That's the bottom line for me on this one.

Watch the keynote

Man, Steve Jobs knows how to communicate.

The challenge for Apple going Intel...

...is that a whole new layer of complexity will need to be added to the Mac platform. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the technical stuff that's going to need to be done to ensure a "seamless" transition from PPC to x86 will be handled well and will be kept mostly behind the scenes for the average user, but still... Supporting two processor architectures introduces a hell of a lot of additional complexity to the platform.

One of the Mac's biggest advantages has always been the simplicity and elegance of its hardware and software (relative to other platforms). And one of Windows' (and Linux's) biggest stumbling points has been its complexity (i.e. support for nearly every type of hardware/software/processor out there).

Going to Intel is probably a very good move for Apple, and I'm pretty confident they're going to do it "right". The biggest challenge for them, as I see it, is to minimize the complexity of the switch and to preserve the elegance of their platform while doing it. And if anyone can do that, it's Apple.

This brings up a related point: the balance between elegance and simplicity of design versus "real world" issues in software development. While I'm not a developer, I manage software projects and am an armchair programmer/hobbyist. The Holy Grail of computer programming (and most logic-oriented enterprises) is to come up with an extremely simple set of tools and rules that, when used properly, can accomplish a set of tasks in an efficient way. The simpler the building blocks, and the more consistent the rules of their use, the better.

The real world often works differently. The real world is messy, human, and organic. Things don't always work the way they "should"- tools and rules break and are broken. Unforeseen situations occur and tools and rules are forced to do things they weren't designed to do. For example, today's air traffic control systems use computer technology that is literally decades old, when out of everyone in the world who could benefit from better computers, it would be those poor people. But in reality, the difficulty of upgrading systems that are in such constant use has (so far) outweighed the benefit of replacing them. An ATC system designed today would be so much more efficient and elegant than whatever Frankenstein mess of we-don't-even-want-to-know is currently keeping planes in the air- but only on paper.

Software's the same way. The internal workings of a program (or an operating system) need to take into account the real world situations in which it will find itself. And those situations often require a level of complexity to be introduced into the program that is unfortunate from a design perspective.

In Apple's present situation with Intel, because of ecnonomics and (to some extent) industry politics, the world of Mac software design is going to have to accomodate two incompatible processor architectures for several years to come. No engineering purist would have designed this fact by choice- it was the real world that mandated it.

In other words, in the real world, the ends are almost always more important than the means. And that's distressing to someone who (like me) worships at the alter of logic and order. The most "perfect" system can be easily defeated by the most mundane aspect of the real world.

But really, more than being distressing, that fact is inspiring (or should be). It represents change. Software is changing because it is being asked to do more complicated things, in more complicated situations, than ever before. It's getting more "real". For the previous (and current) generations of software, it was typically expected that a program's user would need to understand and obey and rules and tools of the software itself in order for the software to work properly.

Not anymore- not if software is going to be made to work for us, as opposed to the other way around. Complexity and messiness (which is not the same thing as sloppiness, by the way) are signs of software maturing- growing pains, for sure.

But the ends will justify the means.

Yup

It's official- Apple is transitioning to Intel chips for the Mac. The reality of what's happening (at least, what was announced today) seems pretty straight-forward. A week ago, most people (myself included) would have bet heavily against what happened today actually happening.

You never know.

What a day

Wow. 6/6/05 so far: Apple (about to) make historic announcement; future of NYC's West Side Stadium expected to be determined; Supreme Court gives Feds the upper hand on medical marijuana; GB cancels their plans vote on the EU constitution; Michael Jackson's fate in the jury's hands...

There is definitely something in the air. It's like a series of big gears are all turning.

Torah theft

Wired's got an interesting article about the phenomenon of Torah theft and the technical means being used to reduce it.

Apple & Intel

One more nice bit of speculation before we all find out how much the future's going to change...

Apple & Intel

It now seems likely that something big between Apple and Intel is going to be announced tomorrow. Whatever happens is going to be surprising- more surprising, I would guess, than many people think.

I just don't see the logic in Apple making an across the board transition from PowerPC to Intel x86 processors, and that being the end of the story. There's got to be something else- something bigger picture- coming as well to justify all of the technical issues that would arise.

Supposedly, we'll know what this is all about tomorrow, when Steve Jobs gives his WWDC keynote.

Boeing blog

Boeing's got a "blog" for the 777-200LR flight test period. The word blog is in quotes because the site seems more like a PR stunt than a legitimate uncensored blog.

But pretty cool stuff, though.

The 777-200LR will be the world's longest range airliner when it enters official service.

Microsoft just did something very smart

Microsoft just announced that future versions of Microsoft Office will use completely open, XML-based file formats by default. This is very big news, and it's very good news.

What this means (or seems to mean, at this early stage) is that people will no longer be forced to use Microsoft Office programs to open or save Office files. Gone (in theory) is the "lock-in" effect that Microsoft had going with Office, where people were forced to use Office because everyone else was using Office and exchanging Office files- and only Office could effectively open or save the proprietary Office files.

(Technically speaking, some non-Microsoft programs do have the ability to open and save the current proprietary Office files, but by making the native Office file format completely open XML, Microsoft is making it much, much easier for programs to do this. Also, technically speaking, currently available versions of Office can save files in an XML format, but these formats are not the "real-deal" standard Office formats.)

Removing the file format lock-in will force Microsoft to truly innovate with future versions of Office, because users will no longer be forced to use the Office programs themselves to deal with Office files. If I can download OpenOffice for free, and it's 100% compatible with Office, then Microsoft's going to have to do some really cool stuff with Office to make me want to pay several hundred dollars for it.

And that's great news, because I'd like to see Microsoft's success earned more through innovation, and less through lock-in.