Ask Paul: May 31 (Premium)

Happy Friday. Here is another great set of reader questions to close out the month.

Macs with iOS apps

dcdevito asks:

Paul, do you think Apple’s attempts to bring iOS apps to the Mac platform will give them a distinct advantage over Microsoft (PCs) and Google (Android/Chrome OS)?

It’s interesting to me that both Google (with Chrome and Android apps) and Apple (with macOS and iOS apps) are mimicking a strategy that Microsoft employed first: Adding a mobile apps platform to a traditional desktop OS. Of course, both Google and Apple have huge advantages over Microsoft in this regard: Both Android and iOS are established, popular, and mature, and the addition of those apps to their respective desktop OSes is a huge win for users, developers, and the platforms themselves.

When I look at these two hybrid platforms (Chrome/Android and macOS/iOS), each has different advantages over the other. Chrome, for example, is the better solution for a world in which most people
“compute” on their phones most of the time and only sometimes need a device with a bigger screen and a real keyboard and mouse/touchpad. Those devices are a lot cheaper, for the most part, too. And they support multitouch and smart pens. There are pure Chrome tablets and hybrid Chrome PCs that work like Surface.

But Apple does have one important advantage: iOS apps that are designed specifically for tablets (iPad) or are hybrid “universal” apps that look/behave differently on tablets are generally superior to their Android counterparts. Where many Android apps are just blown up versions of phone apps on tablets, most iOS apps that work on iPad are customized specifically for the bigger displays and are more sophisticated. They will be a more natural fit on macOS than are many Android apps on Chrome, and will seem more native.

But there are so many questions.

Apple has been making its iPads more sophisticated over time and the iPad Pro, in particular, can serve as a laptop-like device for some people already. Meanwhile, the Mac lacks touch/pen support, and that will make some iPad app interactions awkward unless app developers tailor them for mouse/keyboard (which they probably will in many cases; iOS apps, again, tend to be more sophisticated). Will Apple ever add touch and even pen support to the Mac? And why would they, given that the iPad Pro exists?

And then there’s Windows. A Windows PC is a horribly complex and unreliable device to use if you only occasionally need it because of its bigger screen and keyboard/mouse support. It seems like Chrome OS, or something like Chrome OS, would make more sense for most people. (This doesn’t mean the PC or Windows goes away, only that most people still using that platform over time are power users, gamers, or others with more complex needs.)

This, I think, explains why Microsoft is working on yet another simpler platform that may or may not be called Windows and may or may not run Windows desktop applications. Whether it’s called Lite OS or Modern OS or something else, Microsoft certainly sees the need. And it’s a real need.

The final question, ultimately, is … why is Apple even doing this now? If it sees iOS as the mainstream platform for the future, why even bring those apps to a legacy platform with no touch or pen support? The Mac is obviously not the future.

So I don’t know. The whole thing is very interesting. And very confusing. But from the perspective of a Mac user, getting iOS/iPad apps is a straight up win for sure.

The future of PCs, today

BigM72 asks:

What’s the next milestone in computing we’re anticipating and when do we think it will come about?

Flexible displays. Basic dual display support in laptops seems like it’s taking off now, but we’re probably a few years away from truly useful/mainstream flexible displays in smartphones and laptops. (And tablets, I guess, though this trend could spell the end of tablets.)

Will Surface ever get the ports right? (1x TB3, 1x USB-C, 1x USB-A)

Sure. They have to get it right eventually.

Will Apple ever make the perfect toaster-fridge? (A device somewhere in between the Macbook and iPad Pro 11″)

As hinted at in the answer to the previous question, I doubt it, but if they do, it will happen slowly. Do we view iOS apps on Mac as the first step towards a touch-based Mac? Or is this really just a holding pattern for now because iPad Pro is not yet mature enough as a laptop replacement for most people?

Windows 10 version 1903 questions

chrishilton1 asks:

I have a couple of technical questions about the recently released 1903 version of Windows 10.

Firstly, I installed this release on a Surface Pro 3 to test via a USB stick made with the media creation tool. I managed to set it up in the wrong way, and went to start over. With the USB inserted a second time, I booted to the stick (hold volume down whilst powering on). After a few minutes setup started, and it immediately told me I needed drivers for the inserted media. Strange as I’d not seen this the first time. I think Microsoft have built some sort of system protection into 1903, but I can’t now find out how to boot and install from USB. What is this new protection and how do I bypass? (I thought Mehedis recent article about Microsoft’s USB fix was something to do with it but I think it is a different issue).

I don’t believe this is related to the USB flaw in 1903. (My understanding of that flaw is that it is specific to 1903 and that the reason it was an upgrade blocker is because the PC would try to boot into 1903 for the first time and end up rolling back the upgrade. Now that the fix is available, that should no longer happen. I don’t really have a way to test this, but I assume if you unplugged whatever USB storage device you have, upgraded to 1903, and then ran Windows Update to get whatever the latest cumulative update is, you would get the fix and be OK to use the device going forward.)

With regards to your particular issue, I can’t imagine the problem is 1903 or the 1903 install media. Do you have a way to test a USB-based install of a previous Windows 10 version? I would be surprised if they behaved differently between versions.

Secondly, having got 1903 up, I logged in with my work account and everything seemed fine, until I came to setup OneDrive. Previously I was used to running through the setup, adding my email address and it syncing the files and folders so they were on demand, stored in the cloud and ready to fetch once I clicked them. This time the setup asked me to choose the files and folders I wanted to sync. I didn’t want to sync any, hence I unticked all, but then my OneDrive folder in W10 was empty. I waited, and had to go in and select the folders, after which it synced them down to the local drive, no longer on demand but stored on disk. This is not what I want, particularly on managed devices where I could have multiple users logging in. Has this behaviour been changed?

This sounds like a Files on Demand issue, and if it’s any consolation, this feature has never been consistent for me over the past few Windows 10 versions and many, many dozens of clean installs.

And it’s kind of hard to explain as well.

Basically, you can configure OneDrive to use Files on Demand or not. If you do, all of your OneDrive files will be visible in File Explorer by default. If you don’t, you need to specify which folders are visible, and only those folders will show up in File Explorer. The weird third possibility is that you can enable Files on Demand but also configure OneDrive to only make certain folders visible in File Explorer.

The reason it’s inconsistent is that I’ve been OneDrive automatically enable Files on Demand on first run and I’ve seen it do the opposite. I have no idea why.

On the rare occasion where OneDrive just throws up a hairball—uncommon these days, thankfully, but it has happened to me recently—I’ve signed out/unlinked the PC and then gone into File Explorer to temporarily move the OneDrive folder to the desktop. Then, I resign-in to OneDrive in the app to relink the PC and reestablish sync. When I know it’s working, I kill the desktop version.

Thurrott.net

helix2301 asks:

I see you use thurrott.net in a lot of screenshots is that your test domain?

No, [email protected] is the custom domain I created when Microsoft offered Outlook.com Premium. It maps to my original Hotmail account and is basically an alias for that Hotmail account.

I guess this question kind of personal but I really would like to know you were doing WW or WTT podcasts before the website launch and you kept and keep doing them is that part of your actually work day or something that is ab extra or something BWW lets you do. You have said on show before getting ready for and doing podcasts can be time consuming. Just wondering how that fits into a busy day of writing articles and your work flow.

Everything I do outside of BWW is my own business and unrelated to Thurrott.com and the rest of BWW. This includes Windows Weekly and What the Tech, and the Windows 10 Field Guide and any other books I decide to write. I’m also free to pursue other work as long as it doesn’t interfere with what I’m doing for BWW/Thurrott. But that is, of course, my focus, and in the time I’ve been at this company, I’ve never looked for outside work.

As far as the time commitment, yes, podcasts are time-consuming, and WW and WTT, in particular, can be a bit draining because of their length. But they’re also in the afternoons, and when those are done, I’m pretty much done for the day. I structure my mornings so that everything before 11 am or so (when Brad I do First Ring Daily, Monday through Thursday) is what I call my “deep work” time, which is almost exclusively writing. (I also go to the gym now in the mornings, so I break up this time to allow for about 45 minutes for that.) I still write in the afternoons, of course, but it’s less structured. Depends on the day.

Have we heard anymore about google getting rid of adblockers if it will a chrome or chromium thing? Just wondering cause people like you and I have gsuite accounts but if its a chromium thing it will effect chrome, edgium, brave and I think opera.

See below.

U.S. v. Huawei

kshsystems asks:

The recent kerfuffle about the US black listing Huawei, makes me think we should take a deep breath. I am thinking that this really isn’t about Huawei so much as it is about our country and its use of technology in key infrastructure. Perhaps it is time for industry to get together and create “Best Practice” security recommendations for such situations.

You are correct: The U.S. government’s attack on Huawei is really about the trade war and protecting U.S. businesses illegally. It has nothing to do about national security concerns.

The reason we know this is that the U.S. president said so this very week.

“Huawei is something that’s very dangerous,” he notes in a CSPAN video. “You look at what they’ve done from a security standpoint, from a military standpoint, it’s very dangerous. So, it’s possible that Huawei even would be included in some kind of a trade deal. If we made a deal, I could imagine Huawei being possibly included in some form, some part of a trade deal.”

If Huawei was really a threat to national security, the U.S. government wouldn’t ever consider allowing it to do business with U.S. firms, trade war or no. But the very fact that they are now dangling this possibility as a bargaining tactic with the Chinese government tells you everything you need to know.

Well, that and the whole lack of evidence thing.

Google v. Huawei

While Google is banned from doing business with Huawei, I’m guessing that this ban could be circumvented by Google allowing Huawei to install Maps, Play, Gmail etc free of charge (or at least a button that says “click here to install Google services”), and then extracting the license fee from retailers instead. Do you think this would be a reasonable way for Google and Huawei to retain their business relationship, at least outside of the US?

Hm. Honestly, I don’t think we’re ever going to see a world where Huawei is forced to not use Google apps and services. As noted above, the U.S. attack on Huawei is a trade war tactic only, and the current U.S. administration, whatever you think of it, has consistently flip-flopped on its most dramatic attacks. It will do so on Huawei, I bet.

We’ve already seen some moves back from the cliff, too. You can get the Android Q Beta on Huawei devices again. And Huawei was allowed back into the SD Association and Wi-Fi Alliance after being booted out of both. Sanity will slowly prevail.

The blacklisting is obviously just a grenade thrown in the current trade war between China and your government. Do you believe other Chinese manufacturers like OnePlus and Xiaomi will meet the same fate down the road?

No, because Huawei is the nuclear threat that the U.S. government will hope leads to trade concessions from the Chinese. I do think an agreement will be reached.

What do you make of this Ark OS thing? It’s more or less guaranteed to be AOSP based, but will it stand a chance outside of China?

I really like Huawei’s mobile products, and I have defended the firm against the unfair, illogical, and evidence-free (for the security charges) attacks from which it has suffered recently, especially in the U.S. But this Ark OS thing is pure bullshit. It’s clearly not ready, and is possibly completely made up, despite Huawei’s bold statements to the contrary. If real, I don’t think it will be ready any time soon: If this kind of thing was easy, Samsung, another firm that came to mobile dominance from IP theft and outright deign copying, would have done it years ago.

The problem, for those who hate China and/or Huawei for some reason, or who support the actions against Huawei for patriotic reasons, is that this whole thing could backfire. By showing the world the nuclear option so childishly, we have triggered a major rethinking around the world about relying on U.S. technology. This could hasten something that might have happened eventually anyway, the move, in places like China especially, to homegrown solutions and to partnering with other, less isolationist governments. This will cause irreparable harm to the U.S. economy, over time and permanently. And that is the exact opposite of the intended outcome here. Par for the course for this crazy administration.

Google, Chrome, ad-blockers, and me

AnOldAmigaUser and helix2301 ask similar questions about the same topic: Google’s recent decision to change Chrome in a way that would effectively break existing ad blockers and require their developers to rewrite them. This first came up in February, and Google responded by noting that its idea was just a proposal and that it would listen to feedback.

Well, it’s listened to the feedback and is now moving forward with this change, called Manifest v3, which will indeed break ad-blocking. Well, at least for consumers. It will apparently allow those who pay for their Gmail accounts (via G Suite) to still use the old style ad blockers in Chrome. So…

So, if Google is dropping support for non-Rules based ad-blockers in Chrome, will Microsoft be able to offer that feature without creating its own fork of Chromium?

Yes. Brave, another Chromium-based browser, has done this since its inception. But Microsoft has refused to comment on this issue so far. (Brave said it will continue using Manifest v2 in its browser as well.)

Since you have switched to Chredge, a consistent theme in your articles has been that it is all the good of Chrome without the badness of Google…yet you are pretty much all in on the Google ecosystem. What line would Google have to cross to make you curtail your use of their products?

Using Google is a compromise, and while I still plan to write something formally about why we, as people, don’t necessarily understand what we’re giving up when we use Google (or Facebook) services, I’ll just say this for now: The functionality that I get—through Google Maps, Google Photos, whatever—is too important and useful to not make this compromise. I don’t use Google everywhere, I try to use whatever product/service is best.

As for the future, I think we’re at the height of what Google/Facebook/whoever can/will get away with. Thanks to regulation around the globe, starting in the EU, these firms are finally being forced to provide better privacy protections.