-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2006/08/22/microsoft-fights-for-its-reputation-wheres-apple-and-google/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I do respect Microsofties for that too... and think that Google is more and more arrogant, with success !
Anyway, google is still coasting on their "don't be evil" spiel and their geek roots which is kind of funny since that might hold for this generation of board members but at the end of the day it is a corporation like all the others.
As for Apple, well, that used to be a hacker shop that had some interesting ideas about interface and how a computer should work. Funnily enough, it has also turned into... a corporation! It has become more and more unapproachable as a result. Despite all this, their fanboys are among the most rabid.
Conversely, MS has been a corporation almost from day one. MS has never been 'cool'. From Gates' godawful letter to software hobbyists circa 76 to today.
Microsoft = extrovert?
Vista for example, Dont get me wrong, I want Vista..just sometime this decade!!
Friction could be simple stuff, like the three or four different ways you can "license" XP. Or it could be complex stuff like problems with 3rd party drivers (the "we didn't make the hardware problem"). You'v laughed with us about the friction in the marketing materials before, (the ipod by Microsoft).
A great deal of what makes Apple and Google successful is reducing the complexity of what they present the end user.
Examples: Apple's simple product line reduces friction in sales interactions - you either buy a product at one of three price points or you don't.
Google has all kinds of tools under the hood - but the main one you need to understand is the little box you type words into. Less communication (marketing) is needed to explain the product, since it is self correcting. Also note that the consumer-facing product is _free_, so the need to weigh the risk of purchasing (more friction) is removed.
I don't think it is accidental that good UI design is characteristic of both Apple and Google. If the product is self-explanatory, (problems never reach your consciousness) then there's less need to blog it.
Google and Apple have traditionally - or so it seems to me - been content to let their users rave. IBM used to mumble - until they came up with a product a good many of their own employees loved - IBM OS/2 - and then they dropped the ball.
What's more interesting is the question of when did Microsoft's own products became so interesting to 'softies that they'd endure the scorn of the outside world - which knows MS software rather too well, in many cases - to boast about them? I don't recall any 'softie getting excited about MS DOS back in the early nineties; ditto about MS Word (DOS), or Multiplan.
People like Google and Apple, as their products generally 'just work'. Not always and they don't perform very well outside of their core constituency, but it's the products, not the conversation. But so what? Apple and Google's marketshare is but a fraction of Microsoft's. People might hate Microsoft, but they use it and it's a standard, sub-par at that, which is what irritates people, they have to use, and it's not very likeable.
Microsoft marketingese talks it all up, delivers it years late, with half features cut, and then sends out a small Army of MVPs and Evangelists doubling as therapists. Apple and Google keep mouths shut and surprise people...differing methodologies.
For inst, somebody responds to this -http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Invites_Mozilla_Devs_Over/1156192744 - as an attempt by MSFT to 'tape and transpose'. Excellent
e.g. Google has an online spreadsheet but it is not an Excel replacement by any stretch and it is not intended to be one, it is something entirely different based on the concept of a spreadsheet.
What about www.orkut.com ? try searching for a login id/display name that you know exists for sure. I dont think there are a proportionate amount of rants about that site.
Google and Apple have the cachet that they do because they do first and foremost what good companies need to do -- make a superior product. Would it be nice if they were more transparent and/or engaging, corporately-speaking? I guess, but whether or not they achieve that I'm still going to use their products. And if their quality slides and a superior product emerges, no amount of "engagement" is likely to keep me from using it.
I use Windows under Parallels to run vs.net and sql management studio, everything else is done in OS X. I enjoy my computing so much more since adopting this approach. Microsoft never did learn that it's not just features, but security and user experience that matter just as much.
And as I've grown older, I prefer to be called a fanMAN!
One thing I don't understand is why computer graphic artists are worshipping macs. I could understand in the 80s. not in 2006.
let's turn this around: why would you even contemplate NOT using a Mac, assuming you are given a choice? I use both platforms and I'll tell I will never spend one dollar of my own money on Windows, for the foreseable future.
You must not be a graphic artist or you'd know ;-)
No one has given them a real reason to switch since (although the Tablet PC came close, but those machines are too underpowered to really be considered for hard-core desktop publishing/photoshop work).
I know more and more graphic artists, though, who are using Windows.
None of this has changed, plus you add Bonjour networking and Final Cut Pro.
Also, TCO on Macs is near zero. With Windows, you need dedicated staff to keep things going.
Nevertheless, Apple and Google try to create "STYLE" which MS does not have.
People want be more emotional than ever. They want to "show" their emotional attraction which created by them.
MS looks like a genius group, not a stylish guys.
Apple and Google have been secretive for a long time, and Steve Jobs in particular is obsessed with product secrecy. That's part of his strategy. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are not, and it's not as much a part of theirs -- but *business* secrecy (what are we trying to do, not what are we going to make) has been. Just different. They all make money. Microsoft's "uncoolness" is also long-standing, and as much a part of the company's DNA as Apple's coolness is of its.
Take another set of examples: Wal-Mart and IKEA. Do secrecy and openness have anything to do with their reputations? I don't think so.
Oh, and as for the graphic artists, don't forget about AppleScript. That's their secret weapon for efficient inter-application and inter-computer workflow automation, and it doesn't exist on Windows.
There are a couple of pretty simple reasons (and I'm speaking as a partner in a small ad agency). First of all, Postscript fonts still aren't all the way there under Windows. Most service providers (and presses) have to substitute fonts if you've built your job on a Windows machine - even if you use InDesign/Illustrator/QuarkXPress. Most of the bureaus are using Macs, so it makes sense.
Secondly, color still just isn't as good onscreen using Windows as it is on the Mac, you can't calibrate monitors as accurately and there's nothing that even approaches Apple's ColorSync for Windows and monitor targeting. Color alone would be reason enough never to use Windows for print work. On the other hand, in all fairness, most of the web designers I know and work with prefer a Windows environment, they feel that it's a better workspace for what they do.
The final and probably most compelling reason in these days of Mac OS X is stability and reliability. I've got seven machines in this office, they're all networked to a Mac file server. They have all been up and on for three years, the only time they've needed rebooting has been when we've done system upgrades/updates. I've been able to maintain our machines and our network by myself without paying a consultant since we opened. We use time tracking software here and I just ran a query and my avarage maintenance time per month was 53 minutes. That's for seven machines and a network. There's no way I could do that if all my machines were Windows machines.
Those are some of the reasons we're "addicted".
I don't hate Windows. In fact, I recomended that my girlfriend purchase an HP laptop a couple of weeks ago. Macs work for what I do and for what my industry does. Most people don't have the same needs we do. The only other demographic group that consistantly pushes their machines as hard as we do would be the gamers and the ones that are really serious are buying AlienWare boxes that cost more than our Apple towers...
Cheers.
"It’s got zero to do with the ‘conversations’, and in fact in Microsoft’s case, the conversations do far more harm than good, all so much vaporware talk and eventual backtracking, I only need to cue up your PDC 2003 overhype as a perfect test case."
As many a defendant has learned, speaking in itself may not do you any good. You must actually have something credible to say and it must not prove to be untrue. Microsoft employees may actually do more harm than good when they try to do public relations for the corporation. Most obviously, all the sweet talk in the world cannot change the provable fact that Vista is so late that may have to renamed Horizon.
Recently, at another site, persons identifying themselves as being from Dell tried to minimize the biggest electronics recall in history. They would have done better to have remained silent. The midst of a disaster is not the time to tell people everything is wonderful.
Since you left Microsoft, I have noticed that you have had get together at your moms place, your place, selling your house etc. Now I see that you are critizing Microsoft, is this the way to get readers?
www.irin.co.uk
Yes, but they didn't do it publicly.
Apple has done a fantastic job of maintaining their good juju over the years. Certainly a strong history of good and user-friendly design has been a big part, but so did their early reputation as an "cool" employer (almost like a dot-com 20 years ahead of its time), their generosity to schools and their long years of being the underdog to Microsoft. I also think they deliberately choose icons and aesthetics (in their GUIs especially) that make people feel good.
Google's good juju started with the personalities of their founders and their convincingly earnest "don't be evil" approach. A consistent stream of "cool" features and being Microsoft's enemy help, too. They're loosing some ground as they are seen as dominant, and as they have to make pragmatic compromises (such as how to deal with Chinese law).
Dominance is almost always bad juju, especially if you're perceived to abuse it, which is a big issue for Microsoft. A history of releasing immature products and oversetting expectations hasn't helped, not to mention that most bad computer experiences happen in a Microsoft context. They're trying much harder now (in terms of both product development and general juju management) but there's a lot of interia when it comes to juju.
I would disagree that Macs are the favorite choice for your average MS hating geek, Linux certainly is, OS X has virtually no "geek chic" and is virtually incompatible with everything. The growth of the Ubuntu distro of Linux suggestd that soon Linux will overtake Mac OS X due to its open source nature,and (admittidly new) ease of use. Check out this link for a comparison between the 3, and make up your own mind, its worth a look, trust me!
http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/forums/showthread.p...
Google and Apple keep their guard up cause they can! As one mentioned... while Google and Apple are far from perfect they don't have near the negative that they have to come out and defend themselves against to begin with. And right wrong or otherwise Apple and Google are seen as more innovative.
That's right.... while obviously Google and Apple have made purchases as well... Microsoft seems to buy up the companies that innovate and/or roll over top of them!
I'm not pushing any religion so no you don't have to agree if you wish not to.
microsoft NEEDED to pay someone like you to promote their products, and to try and reduce the general "evilness" factor of the company to the public.
Apple makes such superior products that many of their fans do it for free.
How many people have you heard say that they love microsoft?
How many people have you heard say that they love apple? What's the ratio of the two?