Steven Troughton-Smith writing on his High Caffeine blog this week describing how easily the Palm Pre is to jailbreak.

The entire UI and all the apps are written in javascript, which in essence means the source code is available for you to modify at will, without recompiling anything.

Hardware is easy to copy, especially when you have a working example to tear apart.  The expense is in designing and testing the hardware not the actual hardware itself.  Early tear down reports are estimating hardware costs in the $140 to $170 range.

Software is much more difficult to copy.  Witness the myriad iPhone copies that have equal and sometimes arguably better (if using a checklist to compare) hardware specifications, such as the Hiphone T32.  Without access to iPhone, software clone makers are relegated to using the aging Microsoft Mobil OS.

Apple’s iPhone OS, Google’s Android OS, and now the Palm Pre differentiate on software and the subsequent usability, not simply bolting on the latest hardware.  It is the concert of software, hardware, and services all working in tandem to produce a truly great usability experience that consumer’s desire.

Google has developed Android OS as an alternative but to date the hardware and software combination’s lack inspiration.  This may change soon with many phones under development.  Google has made the source code for Android OS downloadable with an open source license and customizable.  It certainly has the potential to dominate the phone market the way windows has on the PC side for this reason alone.  It also has the potential to splinter and destroy the user experience.

Palm has made the source code easy to copy and extend, although not licensed to legally do so via open source.  Personally, I’m curious if Pre clones will start showing up with genuine Pre software, able to use the same services such as the Palm App store.

I keep reading bloggers that can not believe Apple would not want to follow the latest hot trend and build a netbook (as we know it).  This is similar to wondering why Mercedes doesn’t build a Chevy Aveo, and the answer is simple, branding and profit.

One common argument is that not everyone can afford a *real* laptop, but can afford a netbook, especially in the current economic climate.  You could make the very same comparison with the Aveo starting at $12,685, roughly half the price of the average automobile.

Another argument is that a netbook is all that most people really need, with the ability to surf the net, write a blog, or open the occasional text document.  The Aveo fills that role in the automobile world as well, with most people really just needing to move a few people, and perhaps some light luggage  from one place to another.  Most people simply lack the need to haul heavy loads or lots of people, at least in their second or third vehicle.

While the Aveo is functional, it is simply not a great user experience.  The small size makes using the vehicle cumbersome.  Similar to the user experience of small cramped keyboards and screen real estate that makes having two documents open side by side challenging.  They are functional but the race to reduce costs requires many compromises that also reduce the user experience.

Mercedes and Apple have both built brands that users expect a great user experience and quality products when they see the logo.  Producing lower quality inferior products for the masses they jeopardize losing the brand and its selling power (value).  Branding it the first reason Apple should not build a netbook as we know it.

The second reason is Profit.  Both Mercedes and Apple are for profit companies.  They have built the brand images and quality products that allow them to sell at above average margins.  Without even looking I am positive GM makes sub par earnings on the Aveo.   Netbooks are sold at razor thin margins by companies hoping that volume will lead to a meager profit.

There is simply no good reason to follow the masses and enter a market that jeopardizes the brand and makes sub par profits.  This is why the smart pundits are betting on Apple reinventing the category if and when they do enter, creating something similar to what I wrote about here.

I believe most of these writers really want an Apple but can not afford one, and therefore digress to whining about it on their blog.  I would really like to buy a new Mercedes for $13,000, but it is simply not going to happen unless mercedes invents a totally new concept of  a simple but high quality vehicle to move people from place to place, sold at a profitable margin.

As my regular readers know, I use both Windows and Macintosh systems on a regular basis.  In the past our Macs ran Safari, and our windows boxes utilized Firefox for internet browsing.  However Firefox 3 has a serious issue, in that about every 20 minutes it locks up and writes to the hard drive for about 30 seconds.  This is really annoying if typing out a blog post, but potentially deadly if playing a game.  So our windows boxes now run Firefox for general browsing, and Safari for games.

Yesterday we loaded the new Safari 4 Beta on my primary windows machine, a 17″ windows laptop with a 1920×1200 dpi screen.  By our very unscientific testing, gameplay of online Java games does seem noticeably smoother, so believe Java is running faster.  Speed is always welcomed.

Apple is advertising Safari 4 as the first browser to pass the Acid 3 test 100%.  This is great news to anyone that cares about web standards.

Safari 4 also has a plug in architecture.  You can view the standard plug ins from the help menu, and download additional ones from here.  The list is short, and limited to select third parties.  Hopefully apple will allow any third party to develop plug ins, and provide a convenient place to search and download them similar to Firefox.

Safari also features a zoom option, that zooms only text or the entire page including images.  One of my most used Firefox plugins zooms images on a page, very handy when shopping using a 133dpi screen.  Browsers have had a zoom feature for years, but they never seem to work right.  First testing on Amazon seems very promising.

The new “Top Sites” feature, triggered by the matrix icon next to the bookmarks icon displays your 6, 12, or 24 most visited sites for easy selection.  This is likely useful for general browsing, giving a quick way to select common sites.  Eye candy indeed.

The overall look of the browser in general is cleaner and less cluttered compared to Firefox 3.  I believe this is primarily do to the menu bar being hidden by default.  The menus are moved to a gear icon on the right side, similar to Internet Explorer 7.  I have tried operating with them hidden, but it did not last long.

The most visual change is the tabs now occupy the very top bar of Safari.  It does save screen real estate, but on modern computer screens I have plenty to spare.

The downside to the new tab location is the longer mouse reach for every tab open and close.  I personally use tabs constantly, often having 10-20 open at a time while doing research.

Visually finding a tab initially seems more difficult, as you are forced to look up past the bookmarks and address bar to find your tabs.  A friend countered that they are easier to find in the blue bar, than lost mixed in with the page and menus.  This is a change that will need revisited after using for an extended time to form a solid opinion.

the dedicated plus symbol to add a tab is very welcome indeed.  Right clicking in Firefox has become second nature, and the new tab button in IE seems monstrously huge.

Another friend pointed out that you can no long right click on a bookmark in a bookmarks drop down menu and open in a new tab, although using the command-click keyboard shortcut to right click the item still works.  This feels like Apple slapping my hand for trying to do something useful.

A spell checker has finally been added, bringing it up to date with other browsers.  This feature is very handy when replying to this blog post for example.

Many windows users will like the fact that the window is resizeable from all sides like normal, and does not take on the mac feature of only resizing from the bottom right corner.  As a user of both platforms this has never bothered me personally, but seems to outrage many users.

Overall it appears Apple has researched the competition well, and taken all the best features, and rolled them into one very fast browser, that is 100% acid 3 web standards compliant.   This may be the browser that displaces Firefox for my general web browsing in both Windows and OS X.

Apple has a full list of features here.

feedback [at] boldsunflower [dot] com

Peter Bright at Ars Technica explains the upcoming Windows 7 dock, and compares it to the OS X Dock.  While doing so he explains the App Centric vs. Document Centric design differences present in the two platforms.  As a user of both, I finally undstand why Word allows side by side documents in Windows, and Excel does not.  A month old, but worth a read here if you missed it.