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.
Showing posts with label Window 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Window 8. Show all posts
Monday, February 3, 2014
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The real reason we are angry with Windows 8
Windows 8 has made a splash, and different people have different reactions. Some are happy, some are confused, and some are angry.
The PC revolution was about control, and about independence. PCs, in the early days, were about "sticking it to the man" -- being independent from the big guys. Owning a PC (or a microcomputer) meant that we were the masters of our fate. We controlled the machine. We decided what to do with it. We decided when to use it.
But that absolute control has been eroded over time.
We have gradually, slowly, gave up our control in exchange for conveniences.
Now, we have come to the realization that we are not in control of our computers. Our iPads and Android tablets update themselves, and we lack total control (unless we jail-break them).
I think what really makes people mad is the realization that they are not in control. We thought that we were in control, but we're not. The vendor calls the shots.
We thought that we were in control. We thought that we called the shots.
Windows 8, with its new user interface and its new approach to apps, makes it clear that we are not.
And we're angry when we realize it.
The PC revolution was about control, and about independence. PCs, in the early days, were about "sticking it to the man" -- being independent from the big guys. Owning a PC (or a microcomputer) meant that we were the masters of our fate. We controlled the machine. We decided what to do with it. We decided when to use it.
But that absolute control has been eroded over time.
- With CP/M (and later with MS-DOS and even later with Windows), we agreed to use a common operating system in exchange for powerful applications.
- With Wordstar (and later with Lotus 1-2-3 and even later with Word and Excel) we agreed to use common applications in exchange for the ability to share documents and spreadsheets.
- With Windows 3.1, we agreed to use the Microsoft stack in exchange for network drivers and access to servers.
- With Windows 2000 SP3, we had to accept updates from Microsoft. (The license specified that.)
We have gradually, slowly, gave up our control in exchange for conveniences.
Now, we have come to the realization that we are not in control of our computers. Our iPads and Android tablets update themselves, and we lack total control (unless we jail-break them).
I think what really makes people mad is the realization that they are not in control. We thought that we were in control, but we're not. The vendor calls the shots.
We thought that we were in control. We thought that we called the shots.
Windows 8, with its new user interface and its new approach to apps, makes it clear that we are not.
And we're angry when we realize it.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Windows 8 is version 1.0
Lots of people have critiqued Windows 8, and they seem to have forgotten the "rule of three" for Microsoft products. (The "rule of three" states that the early versions of new products are lame and that the third version of the product is the potent one. This rule also applies to the movie "The Maltese Falcon".)
Windows 8 is a step in a new direction for Microsoft. It defines a new UI and a new method for distributing software. It makes older versions of Windows obsolete.
There are a lot of changes, and I don't expect Microsoft to get it right on the first release. (They didn't with Windows, or with Visual Basic, or with .NET, either.)
What I *do* expect is that Microsoft will learn from their experience and release new versions. I expect a follow-on to Windows 8. Perhaps it will be called Windows 9. Perhaps it will be called Windows 8.5. Or Windows 8.1. Or maybe "Windows Tablet" or "Windows Mobile". Or maybe something prosaic like "Windows Touch". I don't know the exact name.
What I do know is that Microsoft releases new versions of its software. I expect a new version of its mobile device software, suitable for phones and tablets. I expect that Microsoft will fix the problems of the first release (what we call "Windows 8").
So I am not judging Microsoft solely on its Windows 8 product. I believe that they will release another version, and that later version will fix problems -- and change things.
Laud Microsoft or laugh at them. But don't expect them to stand still.
Windows 8 is a step in a new direction for Microsoft. It defines a new UI and a new method for distributing software. It makes older versions of Windows obsolete.
There are a lot of changes, and I don't expect Microsoft to get it right on the first release. (They didn't with Windows, or with Visual Basic, or with .NET, either.)
What I *do* expect is that Microsoft will learn from their experience and release new versions. I expect a follow-on to Windows 8. Perhaps it will be called Windows 9. Perhaps it will be called Windows 8.5. Or Windows 8.1. Or maybe "Windows Tablet" or "Windows Mobile". Or maybe something prosaic like "Windows Touch". I don't know the exact name.
What I do know is that Microsoft releases new versions of its software. I expect a new version of its mobile device software, suitable for phones and tablets. I expect that Microsoft will fix the problems of the first release (what we call "Windows 8").
So I am not judging Microsoft solely on its Windows 8 product. I believe that they will release another version, and that later version will fix problems -- and change things.
Laud Microsoft or laugh at them. But don't expect them to stand still.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Microsoft's new revenue model
Windows 8 brings a number of changes to software. A new UI, a new Windows API, and a spiffy new logo. But there is one other change that has gotten little discussion.
Windows 8 brings a new revenue model for Microsoft.
Microsoft's former revenue model was to charge end users, server operators, and developers. That is, Microsoft charged fees for software that they provided (think Office), for programs running on servers (think SQL Server and Exchange), and for development tools (think Visual Studio). It is a system that has worked since the beginning of the PC era -- but it has a hole.
The hole in this revenue model has been third-party software. Were I to build software and sell it, I would pay Microsoft for the development tools (third-party development tools have long been pushed aside) but after that I was free to sell my software to anyone, with no royalties to Microsoft. The revenue collection point (the "tollbooth") was on the development tools.
Windows 8 moves the tollbooth for third-party software. Microsoft has moved the tollbooth from the receiving dock on third-party manufacturing facilities to the front door of the retail center (the Microsoft App Store, conveniently operated only by Microsoft).
This is the model used by Apple. Apple charges nominal fees for development tools and mandates that all apps are distributed through iTunes, where it can collect a part of the action.
One can assume that Microsoft will reduce the cost for development tools, perhaps even open-sourcing parts of their development tools. Doing so is in their best interest. The more people they have developing software for Windows 8 and selling (through the Microsoft App Store), the better for Microsoft. It is better for Microsoft to collect 30% on the sale of $5 retail units (sold in millions) than 100% on the sale of $500 development kits (sold in thousands).
Likewise, look to see Microsoft reduce the complexity of development for Windows 8. Instead of a large API with intricate calls, look to see a simplified API with easy-to-understand calls. A complicated API is good when you are selling the development tools; a simple API is better when you are selling (or collecting on) the retail units. You want to encourage the development of new apps.
I expect that the Windows 8 API will undergo a number of changes in the first few versions. Unlike the classic Windows API, the changes will simplify the API, not make it more complex. Microsoft has strong incentives to make it easy for the development of Windows 8 apps. (Besides the revenue model, Microsoft must compete with Apple and Android.)
The new model holds for the Windows 8 retail apps, the ones sold through the Microsoft App Store. For applications that run on servers, the old revenue model applies. Expect a bifurcation of Microsoft products and pricing, with cheap and easy-to-use tools for the development of retail apps and expensive and hard-to-use tools for server-based applications. (Until Microsoft releases their Microsoft Server App Store, which lets it collect revenue on the sale and use of server-based apps.)
Windows 8 brings a new revenue model for Microsoft.
Microsoft's former revenue model was to charge end users, server operators, and developers. That is, Microsoft charged fees for software that they provided (think Office), for programs running on servers (think SQL Server and Exchange), and for development tools (think Visual Studio). It is a system that has worked since the beginning of the PC era -- but it has a hole.
The hole in this revenue model has been third-party software. Were I to build software and sell it, I would pay Microsoft for the development tools (third-party development tools have long been pushed aside) but after that I was free to sell my software to anyone, with no royalties to Microsoft. The revenue collection point (the "tollbooth") was on the development tools.
Windows 8 moves the tollbooth for third-party software. Microsoft has moved the tollbooth from the receiving dock on third-party manufacturing facilities to the front door of the retail center (the Microsoft App Store, conveniently operated only by Microsoft).
This is the model used by Apple. Apple charges nominal fees for development tools and mandates that all apps are distributed through iTunes, where it can collect a part of the action.
One can assume that Microsoft will reduce the cost for development tools, perhaps even open-sourcing parts of their development tools. Doing so is in their best interest. The more people they have developing software for Windows 8 and selling (through the Microsoft App Store), the better for Microsoft. It is better for Microsoft to collect 30% on the sale of $5 retail units (sold in millions) than 100% on the sale of $500 development kits (sold in thousands).
Likewise, look to see Microsoft reduce the complexity of development for Windows 8. Instead of a large API with intricate calls, look to see a simplified API with easy-to-understand calls. A complicated API is good when you are selling the development tools; a simple API is better when you are selling (or collecting on) the retail units. You want to encourage the development of new apps.
I expect that the Windows 8 API will undergo a number of changes in the first few versions. Unlike the classic Windows API, the changes will simplify the API, not make it more complex. Microsoft has strong incentives to make it easy for the development of Windows 8 apps. (Besides the revenue model, Microsoft must compete with Apple and Android.)
The new model holds for the Windows 8 retail apps, the ones sold through the Microsoft App Store. For applications that run on servers, the old revenue model applies. Expect a bifurcation of Microsoft products and pricing, with cheap and easy-to-use tools for the development of retail apps and expensive and hard-to-use tools for server-based applications. (Until Microsoft releases their Microsoft Server App Store, which lets it collect revenue on the sale and use of server-based apps.)
Friday, August 31, 2012
Microsoft is serious about WinRT
The month of August taught us one thing: Microsoft is serious about WinRT and the new Win 8 UI.
I suspect that most Windows developers were secretly hoping that the Windows 8 UI (formerly known as "Metro") were a grand joke, a big bluff by Microsoft. But the release of Windows 8, complete with UI-makeover, has shown that Microsoft was not bluffing. Microsoft is serious about this Windows 8 thing.
The new Windows 8 UI is quite a departure from "good old Windows". It is a bigger change than the change from Windows 3 to Windows 95. Windows 8 introduces "tiles" (bigger and better app icons), swipes, taps, mouseless operation, and even keyboardless operation.
The changes in Windows 8 are not limited to the UI. Windows 8, in its "RT" flavor, boasts a new API, a smaller and more focussed API that breaks many current programs. (Programs that use the "classic" Windows API are permitted to run under "Windows desktop" mode on full-blown Windows 8, but cannot run under the more limited Windows 8 RT environment.
Worst of all, Windows 8 (in the new UI) eliminates the "Start" button. This change, I think, surpasses all others in terms of shock value. People will tolerate new APIs and new tiles, but they know and love their Start button.
But Microsoft is serious about these changes, and -- perhaps more shocking than anything Microsoft has done -- I agree with them.
Microsoft has to move into the tablet space. They have to move into mobile/cloud computing. The reason is simple: mobile/cloud is where the growth is.
The Windows platform (the classic Windows desktop platform) has become stagnant. Think about it: When was the last time that you purchased a new Windows application? I'm not talking about upgrades to Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat, but a purchase of a new application, one that you have not been using the past? If you're like me, the answer is: a long time ago. I have been maintaining a Windows platform and set of applications, but not expanding it.
The Windows platform (the classic desktop platform) has achieved its potential, and has nowhere to grow. The web took away a lot of the growth of Windows applications (why buy or create a Windows-only app when I can buy or create a web app?) and the mobile/cloud world is taking away the rest of Windows desktop potential. (It's also taking away the rest of Mac OSX potential and Linux desktop potential. The web and mobile/cloud are equal-opportunity paradigm shifts.)
Microsoft recognizes this change, and they are adapting. With Windows 8, they have created a path forward for their developers and customers. This path is different from previous Windows upgrades, in that Windows 8 does not guarantee to run all previous applications. (At least the Windows 8 RT path does not -- it has the reduced API that restricts apps to a limited set of operations.)
Windows 8 RT is a big "reset" for the Microsoft development community. It introduces a new API and a new toolset (Javascript and HTML5). It discards a number of older technologies (a big departure from Microsoft's previous policy of maintaining backwards-compatibility). It forces developers to the new tools and API, and knocks lots of experienced developers down to the junior level. In effect, it sets all developers on the same "starting line" and starts a new race.
But the tablet and mobile/cloud worlds are the worlds of growth. Microsoft has to move there. They cannot ignore it, nor can they move there in gentle, easy steps. Apple is there today. Google is there today. Amazon.com is there today. Microsoft must move there today, and must force its developers there today.
I see this move as a good thing for Microsoft. It will cause a lot of change (and a lot of pain) but it keeps them competitive.
I suspect that most Windows developers were secretly hoping that the Windows 8 UI (formerly known as "Metro") were a grand joke, a big bluff by Microsoft. But the release of Windows 8, complete with UI-makeover, has shown that Microsoft was not bluffing. Microsoft is serious about this Windows 8 thing.
The new Windows 8 UI is quite a departure from "good old Windows". It is a bigger change than the change from Windows 3 to Windows 95. Windows 8 introduces "tiles" (bigger and better app icons), swipes, taps, mouseless operation, and even keyboardless operation.
The changes in Windows 8 are not limited to the UI. Windows 8, in its "RT" flavor, boasts a new API, a smaller and more focussed API that breaks many current programs. (Programs that use the "classic" Windows API are permitted to run under "Windows desktop" mode on full-blown Windows 8, but cannot run under the more limited Windows 8 RT environment.
Worst of all, Windows 8 (in the new UI) eliminates the "Start" button. This change, I think, surpasses all others in terms of shock value. People will tolerate new APIs and new tiles, but they know and love their Start button.
But Microsoft is serious about these changes, and -- perhaps more shocking than anything Microsoft has done -- I agree with them.
Microsoft has to move into the tablet space. They have to move into mobile/cloud computing. The reason is simple: mobile/cloud is where the growth is.
The Windows platform (the classic Windows desktop platform) has become stagnant. Think about it: When was the last time that you purchased a new Windows application? I'm not talking about upgrades to Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat, but a purchase of a new application, one that you have not been using the past? If you're like me, the answer is: a long time ago. I have been maintaining a Windows platform and set of applications, but not expanding it.
The Windows platform (the classic desktop platform) has achieved its potential, and has nowhere to grow. The web took away a lot of the growth of Windows applications (why buy or create a Windows-only app when I can buy or create a web app?) and the mobile/cloud world is taking away the rest of Windows desktop potential. (It's also taking away the rest of Mac OSX potential and Linux desktop potential. The web and mobile/cloud are equal-opportunity paradigm shifts.)
Microsoft recognizes this change, and they are adapting. With Windows 8, they have created a path forward for their developers and customers. This path is different from previous Windows upgrades, in that Windows 8 does not guarantee to run all previous applications. (At least the Windows 8 RT path does not -- it has the reduced API that restricts apps to a limited set of operations.)
Windows 8 RT is a big "reset" for the Microsoft development community. It introduces a new API and a new toolset (Javascript and HTML5). It discards a number of older technologies (a big departure from Microsoft's previous policy of maintaining backwards-compatibility). It forces developers to the new tools and API, and knocks lots of experienced developers down to the junior level. In effect, it sets all developers on the same "starting line" and starts a new race.
But the tablet and mobile/cloud worlds are the worlds of growth. Microsoft has to move there. They cannot ignore it, nor can they move there in gentle, easy steps. Apple is there today. Google is there today. Amazon.com is there today. Microsoft must move there today, and must force its developers there today.
I see this move as a good thing for Microsoft. It will cause a lot of change (and a lot of pain) but it keeps them competitive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)