Microsoft vs the Karate Kid(contrast.ie)
contrast.ie
Microsoft vs the Karate Kid
http://www.contrast.ie/blog/come-back-tomorrow/
8 comments
Why do you expect a $250B company to be able to dominate the market immediately?
Companies do learn, and the article clearly shows how Microsoft did in fact manage to learn and produce better and better products.
In my opinion it even missed some other big impact releases such as office 2010 web, which may be the largest player in the online docs market.
I'd say they definitely followed here but to say they created an inferior product is harsh. The Zune UI is actually better than the iPod imho. That's why they took it for Windows Phone Series 7. The Zune software is FAR better than iTunes...I won't even add imho to that one.
Isn't criticizing something (linux, Apache, Java, etc) for poor market share the favorite argument of the Microsoft Fanboy? It sure is in my experience. Those style of arguments show up in the "Windows has all the embarassing security problems because Evil Hackers target the largest market share" canard.
Poor market share despite overwhelming resources is evidence of either poor execution or a major external influence on public opinion. Apple fanboyism and Microsoft hate don't quite explain the extent of the zune's failure.
[deleted]
> grid of icons that iPhone pioneered
What? Every color screen phone I have ever owned has had a grid of icons.
What? Every color screen phone I have ever owned has had a grid of icons.
It may be harsh but this alone made it worth flagging the article for me. It is patently ridiculous to suggest the grid of icons is something new when every Symbian Series 60 (including quite a few with a KHTML based browser and 3G connectivity) did this before the iPhone.
Sorry guys, I really meant "grid of icons" in the iPhone touch screen sense. Basically since the iPhone it has been the only way to display apps. I don't think saying that is "patently ridiculous"
If you think of the grid design, what it basically says, visually is that all apps are of equal importance. Which is weird, when you think about it. Surely on a phone, ringing someone is a more important task than , say , Settings, yet the grid style (whether Apples or indeed a Symbian KHTML based) says they're of equal importance
If you think of the grid design, what it basically says, visually is that all apps are of equal importance. Which is weird, when you think about it. Surely on a phone, ringing someone is a more important task than , say , Settings, yet the grid style (whether Apples or indeed a Symbian KHTML based) says they're of equal importance
I'd say that Apple's grid style does place a higher importance on essential apps: The phone, mail, Safari and iPod icons are not only in a special highlighted region at the bottom, but never scroll away no matter what page of apps you're navigating to.
And you can edit which apps show up here - I, for example, almost never make outgoing calls on my phone - at least, compared to previous phones. I don't know if that says something about me.. or if it attests to the saneness of the iPhone's SMS app.
It's not because the iPhone made it the default that they pioneered it. I believe the OpenMoko had this interface, most windows mobile phones had this style, Android look like this since the beginning.
Good point. When eventually Microsoft has a hit sensation everyone will say, "hey they've finally figured it out" and "this came out of nowhere", when, actually, as this article points out, there is a long series of steps to get there.
Microsoft learned? If so, then why is Copy and Paste going to be absent from the Windows Phone 7 Series???
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/16/windows-phone-7-series-wo...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/16/windows-phone-7-series-wo...
I use an Android; it has copy-and-paste. I believe I have used it exactly once in over a year of using the phone - I had started composing an SMS to the wrong person and decided to copy/paste the text instead of simply typing it again.
For most users, I am guessing the most common use case is copying a browser link to an email/IM/SMS, and this can be supported without an actual copy/paste implementation. The hard part of full-blown copy/paste isn't implementing copy/paste storage, it is figuring out the UI for selecting text on a touch screen.
For most users, I am guessing the most common use case is copying a browser link to an email/IM/SMS, and this can be supported without an actual copy/paste implementation. The hard part of full-blown copy/paste isn't implementing copy/paste storage, it is figuring out the UI for selecting text on a touch screen.
you couldn't just change the addressee? well, that sucks. my "horrible" winmo 6.1 device lets' me do that, and it auto-completes based on my contact list.
but yes, copy+paste isn't all that necessary, but i can imagine mobile bloggers, among others, needing it from time to time.
btw, don't downvote me for using winmo. i'm not a fanboy, I just get tethering (bluetooth/usb), opera mini (the latest version is great), skyfire (streams flash/sivlerlight). It's a bit slow and the ui isn't great but I use a utily that helps me start apps using keyboard shortcuts and can multi-task (go figure) very easily.
but yes, copy+paste isn't all that necessary, but i can imagine mobile bloggers, among others, needing it from time to time.
btw, don't downvote me for using winmo. i'm not a fanboy, I just get tethering (bluetooth/usb), opera mini (the latest version is great), skyfire (streams flash/sivlerlight). It's a bit slow and the ui isn't great but I use a utily that helps me start apps using keyboard shortcuts and can multi-task (go figure) very easily.
My iPhone got undo/cut/copy/paste in the OS 3.0 update. The main difference in my life is when I carry my phone in my hand without locking it, swaying my arm back and forth triggers the "shake to undo" gesture, and the phone complains "nothing to undo".
They learnt that having every last feature ready from the beginning is not so important. Not having Copy and Paste from the beginning didn’t slow down the iPhone.
If the thesis of this article is correct, the most important stride Microsoft has made has not been industrial design or touch-interfaces - it's that they have learned to have their products leverage advances from elsewhere in the company and have their divisions work together towards a coherent vision.
Unfortunately, this is at odds with much of what I know about Microsoft, and this was the core complaint of Dick Brass' "Micrsoft's Creative Destruction", which was one of the more widely-discussed (and in my opinion, spot-on) Microsoft doom-and-gloom stories: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html
It is clear that Windows Phone 7 has benefited a lot from Zune...but they are in the same division, with some of the same leadership. If different Microsoft divisions can actually work together to advance a clear and coherent vision about the future of computing, Microsoft will rise to once again be a dominant power in new and emerging areas of the industry. However, if Microsoft remains a group of independent fiefdoms each looking to advance the careers of their own management, Microsoft will continue to be a super-profitable enterprise company that is mostly irrelevant in new markets.
Sadly, I think that the author is looking at the Zune->Windows Phone example and inferring a broader trend where there is none.
Unfortunately, this is at odds with much of what I know about Microsoft, and this was the core complaint of Dick Brass' "Micrsoft's Creative Destruction", which was one of the more widely-discussed (and in my opinion, spot-on) Microsoft doom-and-gloom stories: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html
It is clear that Windows Phone 7 has benefited a lot from Zune...but they are in the same division, with some of the same leadership. If different Microsoft divisions can actually work together to advance a clear and coherent vision about the future of computing, Microsoft will rise to once again be a dominant power in new and emerging areas of the industry. However, if Microsoft remains a group of independent fiefdoms each looking to advance the careers of their own management, Microsoft will continue to be a super-profitable enterprise company that is mostly irrelevant in new markets.
Sadly, I think that the author is looking at the Zune->Windows Phone example and inferring a broader trend where there is none.
Eventually Microsoft will be able to produce something as good as a current iPod. Unfortunately for them, by that time, it's quite likely Apple will have raised the bar once again with another gizmo.
It's also possible Microsoft will leave the copycat behaviour behind and start creating original products instead of knock-offs of the market leaders. That, however, seems unlikely.
I can't remember a Microsoft product that was genuinely pioneering something.
It's also possible Microsoft will leave the copycat behaviour behind and start creating original products instead of knock-offs of the market leaders. That, however, seems unlikely.
I can't remember a Microsoft product that was genuinely pioneering something.
I'd call Xbox Live a successful, innovative product, especially given the way they've continued to evolve it in a way that delivers more value to the user and gradually gets them closer to the idea of having the Xbox as the center of the entertainment system.
Personally, despite not owning one myself, I'd say that the Zune HD is already on par with the iPod Touch in terms of what the product offers. They have different strengths, overlapp in some areas, and both make excellent devices. The iPod Touch wins only when you include the content of the App Store (note that I'm making a distinction between the Store and the content there). If Windows Phone lives up to what they've shown so far, I believe that landscape may shift toward parity faster than you'd expect...
Personally, despite not owning one myself, I'd say that the Zune HD is already on par with the iPod Touch in terms of what the product offers. They have different strengths, overlapp in some areas, and both make excellent devices. The iPod Touch wins only when you include the content of the App Store (note that I'm making a distinction between the Store and the content there). If Windows Phone lives up to what they've shown so far, I believe that landscape may shift toward parity faster than you'd expect...
> I'd call Xbox Live a successful, innovative product
How, exactly? Evolving a product is neither revolutionary nor particularly original. A multi-player hub? An app-store? I am pretty much sure everything on this list was invented by someone else. XBL is a successful product, but it's the execution, not being first.
Also, having the whole Xbox user population captive doesn't hurt market share. It's not like they could go to the Playstation hub.
> Zune HD is already on par with the iPod Touch in terms of what the product offers
Also, it's not feature count, it's how well it works on the whole. The iPod was never the feature-count leader - just about every competitor had more features or could perform some tricks the iPods of that time couldn't. It's how well rounded the product is. The iPod is a solid product and was the first really usable music player. It works really well. Besides that, a Zune HD won't work with a Mac, despite the fact iPods work very well with PCs (and, with some fiddling, other Unixes).
I don't always like Apple (their DRM'ed cables are ridiculous and OSX is Unix with a 70's feel when you drop into the terminal) but I have to admit they do some really excellent products my family can use.
How, exactly? Evolving a product is neither revolutionary nor particularly original. A multi-player hub? An app-store? I am pretty much sure everything on this list was invented by someone else. XBL is a successful product, but it's the execution, not being first.
Also, having the whole Xbox user population captive doesn't hurt market share. It's not like they could go to the Playstation hub.
> Zune HD is already on par with the iPod Touch in terms of what the product offers
Also, it's not feature count, it's how well it works on the whole. The iPod was never the feature-count leader - just about every competitor had more features or could perform some tricks the iPods of that time couldn't. It's how well rounded the product is. The iPod is a solid product and was the first really usable music player. It works really well. Besides that, a Zune HD won't work with a Mac, despite the fact iPods work very well with PCs (and, with some fiddling, other Unixes).
I don't always like Apple (their DRM'ed cables are ridiculous and OSX is Unix with a 70's feel when you drop into the terminal) but I have to admit they do some really excellent products my family can use.
> Evolving a product is neither revolutionary nor particularly original.
Interesting, because the example you point to, the iPod, didn't really capture it's outrageously huge market share until the iPod Mini, which was an evolution on the original design. In fact, the entire iPod line until the introduction of touch was a steady evolution from one to the next, and continued onward winning over customers. It beat out other mp3 players despite all of them having the same features, if not more, by doing it well. Or as you put it:
>I am pretty much sure everything on this list was invented by someone else ... it's the execution, not being first ... Also, it's not feature count, it's how well it works on the whole.
Thanks for making my point for me :)
Interesting, because the example you point to, the iPod, didn't really capture it's outrageously huge market share until the iPod Mini, which was an evolution on the original design. In fact, the entire iPod line until the introduction of touch was a steady evolution from one to the next, and continued onward winning over customers. It beat out other mp3 players despite all of them having the same features, if not more, by doing it well. Or as you put it:
>I am pretty much sure everything on this list was invented by someone else ... it's the execution, not being first ... Also, it's not feature count, it's how well it works on the whole.
Thanks for making my point for me :)
"I can't remember a Microsoft product that was genuinely pioneering something."
Surface and Natal comes to my mind. But then again, I've seen both only in videos.
Surface and Natal comes to my mind. But then again, I've seen both only in videos.
Natal is not a product yet. It has been demoed in controlled scenarios and it has been announced that it will hit the market by the end of this year. Wanna bet it won't?
Surface appears heavily inspired by Jeff Han's TED presentation or a Reactable (I am sure both came first). Calling it a shipping product is somewhat of a stretch. It's more like a tech demonstrator you can buy, if they are willing to sell you one and you are willing to pay what they want for it.
Call me skeptical, but I am only counting products that you can buy at a computer store or download or use through the web.
Surface appears heavily inspired by Jeff Han's TED presentation or a Reactable (I am sure both came first). Calling it a shipping product is somewhat of a stretch. It's more like a tech demonstrator you can buy, if they are willing to sell you one and you are willing to pay what they want for it.
Call me skeptical, but I am only counting products that you can buy at a computer store or download or use through the web.
One of the most reasonable articles on Microsoft that I've read lately. Their recent products show a lot of potential and I'd be very glad to see them execute well.
The typography on that site is terrible. I have flashbacks of doublespaced reports (required by some idiotic style guide).
FWIW I enjoyed the typography (IANA graphic designer).
Use readability.
No. The Zune is criticized because before the iPod, there were no mp3 players for grandma. Apple obviously created a winning product. Depending on how charitable you want to be, Microsoft either 1) observed the same market opportunity and took longer to create an inferior product or 2) shamelessly ripped off the ipod, and did a poor job at it.
The author also compares a company with a market cap of $250 Billion to a child. The big boys play for keeps. There's no excuse for "well, they did their best" at companies of this scale. To quote another 80s movie: "Do or do not, there is no try".