Ask Paul: November 20 (Premium)

Happy Friday! Because of next week’s Thanksgiving holiday, this will be the last Ask Paul for November. So let’s get the weekend started…

Which Pixel 4a 5G?

PhilByPond asks:

I will be replacing my other half’s original Pixel XL with the 4a 5G. We did the comparative analysis with the Pixel 5 and she preferred the size (identical physical dimensions to her current XL with larger display) as well as having the 3.5mm jack.

I certainly understand that and totally agree.

But in honor of this site’s users’ propensity to over analyze technology decisions …

Also certainly understand that and totally agree. 🙂

… I am hung up on the Sub-6 / mmWave issue. We use Verizon pay-as-you-go plans in the Boston area and there is some mmWave availability. I don’t feel there is any current practical benefit to mmWave technology based on where and how she uses the phone. My concern is future-proofing the phone and that it will be a feature needed/wanted within the next 3-4 years. It’s not the $100, but not wanting to pay for something that has no or low value. Any thoughts about mmWave that will help my decision making?

Your spouse somehow managed to get four years out of the first-generation Pixel, which is commendable and somewhat amazing. I think the bigger concern I’d have here is whether that will be possible with the Pixel 4a 5G because of its midmarket processor. But given the previous success, I hope/assume that it will be good for three years. And it will be supported with new Android versions through that time period, so let’s further hope/assume that Google will continue to optimize its platform releases for this generation of handsets.

Whether mmWave will make a difference over the next three years will vary somewhat by person, but I’m going to guess that it will not impact your spouse’s day-to-day experience in the slightest, even if the world returns to normal and we’re able to be out in the world as before, commute to work, and so on. I don’t think this kind of connectivity would matter to me, either: Yeah, it’d be nice to download an entire season of a Netflix show in a minute or whatever, but you’d also have to pay for that bandwidth, and is that really something anyone needs regularly?

I would personally go for the $500 version.

Google, Nest, and Microsoft

gregsedwards asks:

Is the Google/Fitbit acquisition getting any closer to fruition and moreover, what do you expect the outcome to be? Should we expect Google to just run Fitbit as a separate organization (a la Nest) or do you think they’re planning to absorb Fitbit’s technology to their other wearables and fitness offerings, such as Google Fit and WearOS?

Fitbit indicated in its most recent earnings report that it expects the deal to be approved before the end of 2020, and I’m actually kind of surprised it’s taken this long. Addressing the most obvious concerns, Google has always been upfront about how it will use the data collected by Fitbit devices, and given that Apple dominates this market by a wide margin and Fitbit, like WearOS, is such a marginal player now, there’s little reason to oppose it from a regulatory perspective.

Google hasn’t said that it would run Fitbit as a separate standalone business, and I take that to mean that there will be some combining—devices, OS, services, etc.—of Fitbit and WearOS/Google Fit internally. And like many, I’m curious what that will look like. And which parts will lose out, so to speak, and probably disappear. It doesn’t make sense to keep doing both.

One interesting bit of speculation: Wouldn’t it be interesting if Fitbit OS became Google’s wearable platform and third parties could license it for use in their own wearables?

Speaking of Nest, Google recently announced they’re discontinuing the current Nest Secure home security system without specifically announcing a replacement. They’ve assured customers that they will continue to support the existing hardware. Given your experience with Google, what does this really mean for the future of their home security efforts? Should we start looking for an alternative?

Google is quirky and hard to read in some cases. But there are so many Nest devices, and of course a huge market for Google Home-compatible smart home products, and I just don’t see them walking away from this. That said, I often comment on how Amazon unleashes a tsunami of smart home products and services every fall and Google announces several. They have that sort of half-hearted vibe that we sometimes associate with Microsoft.

Do you think Nest will eventually be absorbed entirely into Google Home or will Google continue to sell home automation devices under that brand?

It feels like the opposite is happening, that Nest is taking over for the Home brand. I still feel like Home is a better brand, but I suspect Google thinks it’s too generic and that Nest is thus more easily defended. So I do see the two combining into a single “thing” but I bet the Nest brand wins out.

Finally, do you ever see Microsoft getting back into the wearables or home automation space or have they just given up at this point?

No, I think Microsoft is done from the perspective of making products that sell directly to consumers. And that it will continue to provide backend IoT hardware, software, and services for those companies that wish to use its platforms.

The new Edge

darkgrayknight asks:

How do you now feel about Chromium Edge? Is it still your main browser?

Yes, I use Edge and only Edge everywhere. It’s exactly what I want: A version of Chrome without Google’s spying and using Microsoft’s more trusted online account system for sync.

I have really liked the multiple accounts and use that feature everywhere. An interesting side feature is that even if the browser is “locked down” to not save passwords for accounts on one computer (work computer), if you set it to save on another computer (home), they are available on the “locked down” computer as well.

Curious. Oddly, I don’t actually use the multiple accounts feature, but that’s mostly because of my ad hoc work situation. I could see doing so with a home and work account and accessing work resources through the browser that way. But we’re just too small a company.

The future of Windows 10 on ARM

AnOldAmigaUser asks:

With all the discussion around Apple’s new processors, and the coup of getting the x86/ARM translation correct, is there any reason that Microsoft actually needs to run Windows on ARM?

This is absolutely the question of the week, maybe of the year, and I’ve been trying to figure out where things go from here. As I’ve said on a few podcasts this week, Apple’s success in transitioning from Intel to the ARM-based Apple Silicon, even at this early stage, is undeniable, but it’s unclear what impact this will really have beyond the Mac, and most specifically with Windows.

Apple gets significant benefit from the switch, since they no longer have to pay Intel for a chip. Their cost is whatever they pay Taiwan Semi to fabricate. Microsoft still has to pay Qualcomm for the chips, so they do not really see a cost benefit, but they get a performance penalty. They are also penalized by the difficulty of emulation caused by backward compatibility of apps, which is one of the strengths of Windows. If the move to ARM was to provide an option to Intel, well, AMD has taken care of that. There are Windows laptops with great battery life, LTE, and no compromises. What is the point?

Exactly right.

The thing I keep going back to is that Terry Myerson’s original goal with ARM was to give Intel a wakeup call and entice the microprocessor giant to be more aggressive about the more efficient mobile chipsets that Microsoft felts (and still feels) are the future for personal computing devices of all kinds. But Windows 10 on ARM (WOA) has been a disaster. The performance and compatibility troubles have persisted for years, making it a non-starter.

Meanwhile, Intel has struggled in its transition to smaller, more efficient chips, but the combination of a resurgent AMD and this Apple Silicon success will certainly provide the strongest-possible incentive for Intel to finally do the right thing, or at least try. And yeah, between the modern Intel and AMD chipsets we do have, PCs are in great shape anyway, with great performance, battery life, and versatility. I don’t see any reason why this platform needs to be on ARM.

If they could make a lightweight OS that could run on ARM, it might be a different story, but there has not been a lot of demand for a Microsoft operating system that was not Windows.

Also correct.

On that note, I often wonder whether Windows 10X might make more sense on ARM than on Intel, and that this could be a way forward for Microsoft and the industry, with cloud-based delivery of legacy x86 apps closing the compatibility gap. But yes, the problem is that no one seems particularly interested in a platform from Microsoft that is not “real” Windows.

Remote Play and Xbox Series S

DaveHelps asks:

I used Xbox Game Streaming for my Xbox One S to turn my Surface into a portable Xbox around the house. I just got a Series S, and was surprised that I can’t stream to Windows 10 with Remote Play. I have to assume this is temporary… right? Does anyone have any insights into when this is coming?

When I saw this question, I was positive this would just work. But according to the Xbox website, Remote Play will work with an Xbox Series S and … an Android or iOS device only.

For the heck of it, I looked at this on my own console. I have remote features enabled and properly configured, but when I try to connect to the console from the Xbox Console Companion app on Windows 10, it tells me that game streaming is turned off. When I tested streaming from that app, it failed.

I will ask about this. But I have to assume Remote Play from Xbox Series X|S to PC is happening. I cannot believe it doesn’t work right now.

Microsoft Silicon

bschnatt asks:

If ARM licenses their chip designs to others, what’s keeping Microsoft from just making their own chips for their own devices, like Apple does? Certainly they have the money. If Qualcomm is too slow to innovate (as some have said), this gives Microsoft a good reason to throw their hat in the ring…

But to what end? As another reader noted, it’s not just about the money, it’s about the amount of time and effort such a thing would require, and the business case.

Imagine they actually do it: Several years go by, the PC market contracts a bit further, Windows evolves however it evolves, and then the miracle happens: Running on its own hardware, Windows now works as well as it does on Intel and AMD hardware. Success means that nothing has changed from a user experience perspective. Why would it do this?

crunchyfrog also asks:

The early reviews for Apple’s M1 CPU on the refreshed Mini and MacBook’s has been overwhelmingly positive via the tech news that I have followed closely. Do you feel that this success will in any way affect or somehow motivate Microsoft to expand and refine or in some way accelerate their toe-dipping strategy into the ARM arena?

Aside from what I wrote above, I’ll just add that what Apple did is incredible, but at the end of the day it’s for a product line that sells 10s of millions of units per year, compared 100s of millions of units per month in mobile. This investment will help Apple save money over time because it will be less expensive to sell Macs and they can move to a single apps platform across each of their products. But on Windows, the big apps platform is the legacy one, and customers don’t seem eager to give that up. Moving to ARM just makes a lot less sense on that side of the fence.

I hope this doesn’t seem like I’m in any way criticizing what Apple did. It’s impressive. But it’s hard to understand what lesson or guidance Microsoft could get from this move for Windows. In being so successful compared to the Mac, it’s harder for Windows and its user base to make this kind of transition. May, in fact, be impossible. If x86/x64 apps can’t just work identically on ARM, there’s no point to this transition at all.

This week, on Biography…

Tiny asks:

I’ve really enjoyed your latest Member Newsletters. Have you ever thought of writing a non-technical book? I would definitely purchase your autobiography.

No, but thank you. My life is not exceptional in any way.

I do have some stories, I guess. We’ll all do. And sometimes they’re even interesting. And in a best-case scenario, contain some life lesson. Not that I’m qualified to give anyone life advice. But what I’ve come to realize is that, thanks to a few key influences—some people I’ve met and known, and some remotely via books or other media—and some luck, I’ve landed in a place where I can do what a lot of other people do—write about personal technology—but do it in a way that is both natural to me, in that it’s more personal. The newsletter has kind of landed as a place for those stories, and not really by design. Kind of like everything else that’s ever happened with me. 🙂

GeForce Now

helix2301 asks:

I was wondering what your thoughts on Gforcenow are? I subscribe for 4.99 month I get to play games on all my machines without having to download them. 5 million subscribers seems like a lot when you start looking at Stadia and xcloud. Just wondering what you think of the service.

Yep, and I was just thinking the same thing. I hadn’t really thought about GeForce Now one way or the other until yesterday, honestly, partly because there are suddenly so many of these services and surely not all of them will survive. But the pricing looks good, and the game selection is actually pretty amazing.

On that note, I will be testing GeForce Now soon.

Apple musings

Vladimir asks:

Hi Paul, I don’t like Apple but I really admire the way you acknowledge when they do things right. It’s really what separates you from the terrible fanboyism going on nowadays. Thank you for that.

Thanks. I hope it’s obvious that I just try to be honest in whatever situation. But when I do criticize Apple, to stick to this example, I’m the Windows guy and of course I would do that. That’s not what I’m all about.

Apple has now decreased the fees on the apple store to 15% until 1 million dollars. It’s only 5% of their profits from the apple store but it still benefits 98% of the developers. It also seems that they enabled the use of safari for complex apps. Geforce now and stadia already work on iOS and hopefully xCloud will soon as well. Do you think that this solves the app store problem or what more should be done?

This was a savvy move on Apple’s part, and I do like that web apps can help circumvent the remaining problems. But there are other App Store complaints that Apple still needs to address, either via antitrust or through this type of proactive change on its own part. Key among them are the issues that Epic Games raises. For example, Apple requires developers to use its payment system and will not allow them to use third-party payment systems. And Apple does not allow developers to communicate to their own customers that paid services can be paid from outside the app and thus can cost less (and Apple won’t get its cut).

Eric Sweeney cut to the heart of the problem in a tweet this week:

“We’re not fighting for a lower commission. Epic is fighting for fair competition among mobile platform companies, stores, and payment processors. If iOS were open to competing payments and stores, we’d happily return, even if Apple’s own payment service still charged 30%. Apple’s 30% commission is not wrongful, it’s just a bad deal. What is wrongful is Apple blocking competing stores and payment processors, to ensure that good deals can’t be offered to developers at all.”

I don’t think we need multiple stores on iOS for whatever that’s worth. But I do think that developers should be free to communicate anything they want to their own customers and to use any payment system they prefer. That would make the iOS app market much fairer and more competitive. Will Apple do this of its own volition? I doubt it. But I suspect it will be forced to.

A quick note

I’ll make a separate forum post about this so everyone can see it, but we’re performing some back-end services maintenance this weekend, so there won’t be any new posts on the site between Saturday at 9 am ET and sometime late Saturday or early Sunday morning. I usually try to post one or two articles each weekend day, so it’s possible the maintenance will impact that schedule, but I’ll try to work around it. This shouldn’t affect anything else, like comments, assuming that everything goes as planned.

Thanks!