Non-existent Object Oriented User Interfaces in 2008

The state of object-oriented user-interface (OOUI) technology today is quite depressing. I bet that you can not name one that is useful and in production. After all the years since I stopped using OS/2 and its innovative WorkPlace Shell (WPS) OOUI, there is yet to be anything like it in Linux, Mac, Unix or any other mainstream operating system. The closest we have today is the Mac OS X which is really an intuitive graphical user-interface (GUI).

The heart of the IBM OS/2's WPS is the System Object Model or SOM. SOM is an object-oriented system level object model that is similar to Microsoft' Common Object Model (COM). The key difference is that SOM supports inheritance while COM does not. So, in esseence, COM is really an API with object-oriented like features. SOM is truly object-oriented.

Back to the OOUI discussion. WPS objects had the capability to inherit from parent classes or other base classes. One clear feature of WPS that I miss in the modern GUI/OS world of today are Shadows. There currently is not similar analogy to this in KDE/GNOME, Mac OS X, or Windows.

In WPS, Shadows objects that point to other objects. They are like shortcuts in Windows except that they inherited all their properties from SOM. The one thing that is still a major annoyance with shortcuts is when you move the file or directory to which your shortcuts is pointing. The shortcut is really a static pointer to some file, directory or application. When you do this you get the invalid shortcut problem in Windows. The same scenario occurs in KDE/GNOME and Mac OS X. You would figure that this problem would be resolved by now. But that is not the case. Instead there are tools, utilities, tips, workarounds, scripts or whatever to fix this very trivial issue.

In an OOUI like WPS, Shadows inherit from SOM the File, Directory, or Application object. So when the underlying File, Directory, or Application changes, your Shadow automatically knows this through inheritance. This is very simple, intuitive, and just works.

I recently read that the motions by the OS/2 community (yeah, it still exists) to request that IBM open source OS/2 has been denied by IBM due to several licensing and intellectual property reasons. OS/2 source was developed collaboratively by IBM and Microsoft. On the other hand, SOM is an IBM technology that was developed after IBM and Microsoft split in the early 1990s. I just read a new suggestion ("Should IBM' SOM/DSOM be open sourced?") that IBM explore open sourcing SOM which would give to the world an object model that is proven and can be a foundation for future OOUIs developed using a modern open source methodology.

A move by IBM that makes SOM available would inject a stimulus into the state of user-interface innovation which appears to have stagnated in the past 10-years. In general when you look at KDE/GNOME, Mac OS X, Windows, and any of the variants used in Unix, they all pretty much do the same thing. They are some form of implementation of the WIMP (window-icon-menu-pointer) paradigm that Xerox PARC created in the 1970s.

I think it is time that we focus on the OOUI again. It seems to have lost its lustre so far this decade. Maybe then things will get exciting in the UI space again. If a way to tie the OOUI to the web and make it some form of OOUI that is browser based, an object-oriented web interface (OOWI) if you will, that would allow it to work on any platform! Now that would be real progress. Then we can start talking about OOWIs! Oooh weee! Wishful thinking.

Is This Disruptive Thinking?

The just announced Microsoft unsolicited offer to acquire Yahoo! for $44.6 billion is all over the news. Analysis of it cover the spectrum. One question I have is, "Is this disruptive thinking on Microsoft's part?". One thing is certain, the fear that Microsoft has of Google appears to be reaching a paranoia state. This is almost an admission from Microsoft that they did not get the software as a service (SaaS) right. SaaS appears to be outside of its 'core competencies' even though they have invested billions in the Internet.

This take over offer appears to be an admission by Microsoft that they have failed in their efforts to transform itself from a desktop Windows applications centric company to a software as a service company that leverages the web. This evolution has been an ongoing objective for the past 7-years with nothing but a 44% drop in stock value.

Google's revenues and influence on the web keep climbing while Microsoft and Yahoo keep declining. The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo will only yield about 20-30% of the web search market. Google currently owns about 60-65% of that market and keeps increasing its share.

Microsoft's achiles heel appears to be its goal to tie everything (software applications) to Windows. Yahoo and Google on the other hand are internet service based companies whose goals are to make all their services available to anyone, anywhere, using any operating system or web browser. "Is Microsft Saving Yahoo! Or is Yahoo! the Savior".

I think that a merged Microsoft and Yahoo! will encounter several cultural issues. They have vastly different cultures. The cultural intertia of both companies will be difficult to grasp and refocus into a convergence. It will be a daunting task.

There is a significant technology overlap that would cause a lot of internal disruption and team dynamics issues that are not evident on the surface. Look at how the TimeWarner-AOL deal turned out. These two distinct cultures clashed and resulted in the decline of AOL. Orchestrating a successful merger of Microsoft and Yahoo! will take some extremely well calculated and organic management decisions in a timely manner.

Google is not sitting still. It appears that the Microsoft merger's strategic goals are addressing the services for which Google is already successful. Knowing Google, they are moving on to the next thing whatever that is. We will find out sometime this year in the typical Google fashion, they will just drop it onto the world.

Basically, Microsoft is playing follow the leader. If Microsoft has failed so far in competing with Google, the merger will only complicate things for them because of all the internal reorganization that is required to make it successful. Overcoming the structural interia in Microsoft and Yahoo! is a complex strategic management undertaking. These internal tasks will be a distraction for the new combined Microsoft-Yahoo corporation. This distraction if not resolved quickly will give Google more time to innovate and pull further ahead. "Fitting the Pieces Together in an Internt Mega-Merger".

One thing is certain, 2008 is already full of suprises and it is only February!