Microsoft Should Leverage Envy

The low acceptance of Windows 8 (and specifically the "Metro" interface) shows the difficulties faced by Microsoft. The Windows desktop is a popular -- although perhaps not well-liked -- interface, and changes must be introduced at a pace that is acceptable to Microsoft's vast number of customers.

"Metro" is not the first change Microsoft has introduced to Windows. The first change, arguably, is Windows 1.0 with its tile-only, rudimentary display. Windows 2.0 and Windows/286 made some changes, but the next big interface change was with Windows 3.0. After that, Windows 95 introduced a number of changes, including the "Start" button.

All of these changes were accepted heartily by Microsoft customers. (Yes, there were a few dissidents, but only a small percentage of customers.)

Windows Vista and Windows 8 introduced similar-scale changes to the interface, yet received cooler receptions. Why?

I have an some ideas. They involve innovation.

Should Microsoft innovate? Specifically, should it introduce new user interfaces?

I think the answer is "no". Perhaps Microsoft should be a follower in user interface design. Rather than blaze new territory, Microsoft may be more successful in copying other (innovative) concepts.

The success of the early versions of Windows was, I believe, driven by envy. In the mid-1980s, we Microsoft customers knew the DOS text interface, and we coveted the Apple GUI. We really, really, wanted a graphic user interface. (It didn't have to be the exact Apple GUI, but it had to use graphics.)

The competition between Microsoft and Apple gave us advances in Apple's GUI and later in Microsoft Windows. But Microsoft was not the innovator; Microsoft followed Apple, and the strategy worked.

One can argue that Windows Vista and Windows 8 "Metro" are copies of Apple's products. Windows Vista is a shinier GUI with lots of gadgets (or are they "widgets"?) and "Metro" is the iOS interface with a Microsoft twist. Why are these innovations rejected?

I think the reason is a lack of envy. Compared to Windows 7, the Apple MacOS X and iOS GUIs are nice, but they are not that much nicer. Windows users are not envying the touch interface, the sliding icons, and the single-screen apps. The impression I get from Windows users is that the Apple GUIs are nice but comparable -- not superior.

By making Windows Vista a copy of MacOS X and Windows 8 "Metro" a copy of iOS, Microsoft exchanged perfectly good GUIs for different GUIs that while just as good are not significantly better. For users, this means effort to learn the new GUI with no corresponding gain in productivity or social status. It is any wonder that they are annoyed?

I think Microsoft got "Metro" half-right. I think that it is the right choice for their phones and tablets. But I think Microsoft is selling the wrong aspects of "Metro". Instead of pushing the GUI, they should be pushing the easier administration aspect. This is the innovation that people will envy.

For the desktop, I think Microsoft should build a "Metro"-like box that lives in the Windows desktop, complete with access to the Microsoft App Store and easy installation (and updating) of apps.

Microsoft's customers are a picky (and loud) bunch. When they are envious of another company's GUI, we'll know. The trick for Microsoft is to be ready to deliver that GUI quickly. If they reduce the prominence of "Metro" but keep it as an active part of Windows, I think Microsoft will be in a good position.