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.

Windows fans see the glass half-empty

Microsoft has introduced Windows 8 and its companion Windows RT. The reaction from a number of Windows fans has been less than positive. Consider these articles:

From Infoworld: Forget about Windows 'Blue' -- stay focused on Windows 7

From InformationWeek: Tell Me Again: Why Rush Into Windows 8?

From Byte (a property of InformationWeek): Windows Blue's Got Me Down and Windows Blue/9: No Desktop? No Way!

A few observations:

Some reviews are fair criticisms, others are nostalgic almost-rants: Windows 8 is not a perfect product, nor is Windows RT, nor is the Surface tablet. Some reviews point out their weak areas: battery life, responsive to touch (or not), and consistency of user experience. Other reviews focus on the feature lost: the "Start" button and plug-ins for Internet Explorer (IE).

This opinion is not universal: These magazines are long-time fans of PC computing. In contrast, Dr. Dobbs is neutral about Windows 8 and PC Week has published several positive articles.

This negativity is new (for Windows): Previous releases of Windows have been met with approval from almost all Windows fans.

A reluctance to change: The disapproving users want Windows to remain the way it is. They want the "Start" button. They want to "boot to the desktop".

The Windows user base is not in agreement about the new Windows 8 offering. This is not a bad thing: A collection as large as the Windows user base will most likely contain diversity of opinions.

The negativity in the user base is, I believe, a new phenomenon in the Microsoft community. Previous changes in technology (Windows 95, Windows NT, the .NET platform, the C# programming language) were greeted with cheers. People immediately looked at the new capabilities in these technologies.

(OK, I will admit that Windows Vista was greeted with raspberries. But its problems were many and complaints were legitimate. Vista lacked drivers, demanded hardware, and offered few obvious improvements beyond a pretty desktop.)

The reluctance to change is, perhaps, the most significant of these observations. Microsoft supporters have long been willing to try new things, and often looked at new tech with envy. Microsoft may have built an empire, but the programmers were still in the Rebel Alliance -- scrappy, inventive, and risk-taking.

One can put forward a number of theories for this conservative shift in the fans. Most obvious is that the fans have built small kingdoms of their own, and the new tech threatens their standing in the empire.

A slightly uglier theory poses that Microsoft fans have aged, and the older versions of themselves are "too old for this sort of thing". (Yet Obi-wan Kenobi did a pretty good job, in spite of that claim.)

I have two pet theories:

Theory one: The Microsoft fans were surprised by the speed of the changes. They were not expecting the large change from desktop to mobile/cloud that is Windows RT and Azure. Being the emotional creatures that we humans are, they are reacting with fear and anger.

Theory two: The Microsoft fans are angry with the deprecation (or perceived deprecation) of Microsoft technologies such as Silverlight, IE plug-ins, direct access to hardware, and self-administration of systems. The loss of these (and other) technologies means that much hard-won knowledge is now worthless, and new knowledge must be gained.

I don't know which of these theories is correct. In a sense, it doesn't matter, because I have another theory.

The reason behind the negative thinking is not important. The negative thinking is the important thing. And I theorize that the people with the negative reviews of Windows 8, Windows RT, the Metro interface, and Azure will accomplish very little with those technologies. I theorize that the people asking for the "Start" button will stay with Windows 7 and its technologies.

I further predict that it will be the people who point at Metro and say "hey, this is cool!" will be the folks who deliver interesting apps and services for Windows 8.

Of the two groups, I prefer to work with the "hey this is cool!" people.

Forced transitions can work

Technology changes over time. Manufacturers introduce new versions of products, and sometimes introduce radically new products. When a manufacturer introduces a radically new product and discontinues the old product, its customers must make a decision: do the move to the new product or do they stay with the old? This is a forced transition, as it is often impractical to stay with the old product. (New copies or licenses are not available, replacement parts are not available, and support is not available.)

Forced transitions can sometimes succeed:

• IBM transitioned customers from their early 704 and 1401 processors to the System/360 processors, and later the System/370 processors.
• DEC transitioned customers from the PDP-11 line to the VAX processor line.
• Microsoft transitioned customers from DOS to Windows, then to Windows NT, and then to .NET.
• Apple transitioned customers from the Macintosh computers with Motorola processors to PowerPC processors, then to Intel processors.
• Apple transitioned the Mac operating system from the original version to OSX.

Forced transitions do not always succeed:

• IBM failed to convince customers to move from the IBM PC to the IBM PS/2.
• DEC failed to convince customers to move from the VAX to the Alpha processor.

Now, Microsoft is looking to transition its desktop to the new model used by tablets and smartphones. (I call it "tap and swipe", since many of the actions are initiated by taps or swipes of the touchscreen.) Microsoft's vision is present in the Windows 8 "Metro" interface. The computing experience is quite different from classic Windows.

Will they succeed?

Microsoft has a lot going for it. They are big and have a commanding presence in the software market. Switching from Windows-based products to alternatives on other platforms is expensive, involving the acquisition of the software, conversion of data, and training of users. Specialized software may be unavailable on platforms other than Windows.

Microsoft also has a lot against its success at the transition. Users are familiar with the current Windows interface and the current tools. The Metro UI brings a very different experience to the desktop and to computing (well, it moves Windows into the realm of iPhones and Android tablets). There will be a lot of resistance to change.

I think Microsoft will succeed, because users have no where else to go. When IBM introduced the PS/2, users had the options of buying IBM PC clones -- and they exercised those options. When DEC introduced the Alpha processor, users had the options of moving to workstations from other vendors -- and they did.

The transition to Windows 8 and Metro forces people to adopt the new interface, but they have no option to replace Windows 7. Changing to Mac OSX will lead to a similar GUI change (I expect future versions of OSX to look more and more like iOS). Changing to Linux creates significant challenges for education and software replacements.

I *do* expect that some shops will move away from Windows. If they have no software that is specific to Windows, if their software is readily available on other platforms, they could move to those other platforms. Some will move to Linux and the LibreOffice suite of tools. Others will move to web-based and cloud-based services like Google Docs and Zoho documents. But I expect these to be a small number of customers. The majority of customers will shift, perhaps unwillingly, to Windows 8.

Don't like Windows 8? Wait for version 3

Lots of folks are unhappy with Windows 8. The complaints are easy to find: just search the web for Windows 8 and skip any pages on microsoft.com.

My take is that Windows 8, and Metro in particular, are the first version of a new product. Microsoft has a history of releasing products that are not quite right, and releasing follow-up versions that improve the product. Eventually, Microsoft releases a product that is popular. I call this the "version 3 effect", after the experience with Windows. Microsoft released Windows several times before it became popular in version 3.0, and really popular with version 3.1.

Resistance to early versions of Windows was due in part to hardware (the processors and PCs of the day were not quite ready for multitasking) and due in part to our unfamiliarity with the new creature known as Windows. (The jump from PC-DOS to Windows was a large one, and it took most people some time to adjust our mental model of PCs.)

I recall a similar resistance to .NET, with people unsure of the new thing and longing for the familiarity of the old MFC/Win32 world. (Some of the confusion was caused by Microsoft's marketing, with tagged almost every product with the ".NET" label.) Yet today we have no confusion of .NET and few developers want to return to Win32 or MFC.

The change from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is a large one. I view it as large as the MFC- to-.NET change and the DOS-to-Windows change. Microsoft has redefined the Windows API and the terms of GUI design. Instead of Win32 or even the classic .NET API, Microsoft is providing WinRT. Instead of the traditional "windows and controls" design, Microsoft is providing Metro.

These changes are large, and more importantly, they invalidate a lot of hard-won knowledge of the Microsoft environment. Developers must learn the new APIs, and much of their current knowledge is about to become useless. This, I think, is driving the anger in the development community. I expect similar anger in related communities: tech support, sales, Windows-as-component (think of the point-of-sale and kiosk systems that include Windows), and anyone who uses Windows. Microsoft has changed the rules, and people have to learn the new set.

I think that Microsoft is doing the right thing. The wrong thing would be to keep Windows as Windows, to not move towards the model of tablet computing. That path would allow Apple, Google, and Linux to surpass Windows and make Microsoft irrelevant.

Metro isn't classic Windows. It also isn't perfect, or even demonstrably better (yet). I expect Microsoft to learn from their experience and improve their product, as they have in the past. If Windows 8 is "version 1", then look for one or two service packs to improve the product -- those will be "version 2". The "version 3" product, the one that gets it right, will be Windows 9.