Technologizer asked several tech pundits what Microsoft should do to keep Windows relevant. I’ve been wondering for a long time why Microsoft doesn’t spin out an indie division that has one mission:
Kill Windows
Apple sees that the personal computer isn’t going to remain top dog forever. So rather than let someone else kill off the Macintosh, the company is using iPhone OS devices to do it themselves. They’re not fighting the future. They’re creating it.
I doubt Microsoft could deliberately take aim at its cash cow unless they formed a wholly-owned but independently managed subsidiary. Then again, I don’t imagine Microsoft has the chutzpah to try to replace Windows with anything. But just imagine what all of those handsomely-paid Microsoft researchers could come up with if they were turned loose, if they were given free rein to create an OS built from the ground up to be light, fast, and ready for the Ubiquitous Internet, where distinctions between client computing and cloud computing are irrelevant.
Jimmy: Papa, why didn’t Open Source take over the world the way all of the men with ponytails said it would?
Father: Well, Jimmy, they were some very smart people, but they weren’t very good at making things work in an obvious fashion.
Jimmy: What do you mean?
Father: Here, I’ll show you something from long ago. This is called a “mailing list preferences page”. What do you think the primary task of this page was, son?
Jimmy: Can we talk about “television” instead? This makes my brain hurt.
To the people who created Mailman, thank you. You have created something valuable and given it away, which is a wonderful thing. I’ve singled out Mailman only because this admin page is a useful example of a larger issue.
It may sound like I’m looking a gift horse in the mouth. Perhaps I am. But it’s become increasingly obvious to me that Open Source developers need to do a better job of pulling interface designers into their ranks. Design isn’t something you paint over the “real” functionality of an application in order to make it more attractive. Good design is integrated into the development process. Good design makes an application work better for the people who use it. Increasingly design is also the primary differentiator for applications.
Reactions to Apple’s iPad are mixed, but generally speaking they fall into three distinct camps:
Flop: This is another Newton/Cube/apple tv, and Apple will never be able to deliver on the hype.
Just Another Device: This is essentially a variation of the netbook, and we’ll have to see how well consumers respond to it.
Trailblazer: The iPad will move us into a new computing age, one in which regular consumers finally will get what they want.
Flop
The Flop camp is best represented by the hundreds if not thousands of reader comments on tech websites. One example:
Its physical size is going to make people think of Tablet PCs, and there will be lots of Net Tablets running Windows and Linux to remind people of what they’re missing. Unless Apple brings full multitasking OSX to this product, customers are going to feel burned, expecting a PC and getting a cell phone with a big screen and no voice.
In other words, the iPad doesn’t fit into any existing categories. What isthis thing? Another commenter believes netbooks are superior to the iPad:
Because the netbook is WAY cheaper. Because the netbook can multitask. Because it doesn’t need dongles to connect to a projector or use a SD card. Because it has a webcam. Because you can install whatever you want on it. Because it has USB ports. Because it has a real keyboard integrated into it. Because you can replace the battery. Etc, etc…
Notice the focus on hardware. If a netbook is a Humvee, the iPad is a Yugo. Focusing on software, another nonbeliever distills his objections even more vigorously:
No Flash OR multitasking??? So this thing IS just a big ass iPhone minus the phone. Wow.
Just Another Device
The Just Another Device folks tend to see potential in the iPad, but they are concerned about specific details. The Atlantic Wire’s roundup of objections highlights some of their concerns:
Unproven as an eReader
No camera
No Flash
The iBooks online store won’t be all that great
Adapters are required to plug in USB, etc.
The iPad’s price is oft discussed in this camp. Even though Apple priced the iPad hundreds of dollars below most analyst’s predictions, the fact that it doesn’t include (pick your favorite feature) dooms the device to failure. Many of the writeups that focus on price/feature comparisons include a line like this one from a Gamer’s Circle piece:
Let’s see if the Apple cult followers will be enough to keep this one afloat.
The subtext here isn’t difficult to suss out: If you actually want an iPad, you’re a moron who will throw your money down the drain for whatever hip, cool fashion accessory Apple foists on you.
Trailblazer
In the tech community the believers are outnumbered. But if the majority view in the computing world were always prescient, there would only be 100 programmers worldwide, and they’d all be working on mainframes.
Rob Foster points out that the audience for the iPad isn’t nerds, geeks, or IT analysts: “It’s for everyone else.” Steven Frank, who makes Macintosh software, provides perhaps the most insightful analysis of why so many people in the industry are bothered by the iPad, and why it is not meant for them:
… to that dramatically greater number of people, what do you think is more important? An easy-to-use, crash-proof device? Or a massively complex tangle of toolbars, menus, and windows because that’s what props up an entrenched software oligarchy?
So Who Is Right?
I’m in the Trailblazer camp. I’ve been using Macs (and sporadically, Windows) for two decades, but there are still things about the desktop metaphor that create little complications. There are everyday hassles that I, like every other computer user on the planet, have grown so used to that I accept them as the Natural State of Things.
The endless possibilities provided by personal computers also create myriad problems. Have you ever struggled with a print driver? Have you ever wondered which control panel or preference setting to adjust? Have you ever received a cryptic error message? Had an application take down your entire system? Had to nuke and pave your system because of a virus or inexplicable malfunction? O’Reilly’s latest Windows Annoyances book weighs in at 672 pages. Apple’s support discussion boards are filled with questions and gripes.
When I first got my hands on an iPhone, I felt that I was glimpsing the future of computing. Many of the tasks I used to do on my MacBook Pro are now handled by my iPhone. I can do actually do some things with my iPhone that simply can’t be done with my MacBook Pro. The mental overhead associated with managing the device is reduced. It gets out of my way so I can focus on what I want to do.
And the iPad can do an awful lot of the things regular everyday people want to do. The computing industry is still talking about discrete features when they should be talking about the unified whole. If, as I believe, the iPad will function in the same smoothly integrated fashion as the iPhone, that unified whole will be tremendously compelling.
The iPhone isn’t perfect, and the iPad isn’t either. But for the first time, the millions of people who have never felt truly comfortable with computers will be able to use a system that combines elegant hardware, a radically easier user experience, and seamless Internet functionality. Their embrace of the iPad approach will startle those in the industry who are wedded to what Steven Frank calls computing’s “Old World”. My prediction: Apple will sell millions of iPads, and the rest of the industry will scramble to keep up as Apple again redefines computing.
What’s more, building a computer based on a mobile OS throws out one of the biggest advances Apple has made in recent years: the ability to run Windows programs natively. And that means that none of your Windows software will work. For that matter, your Mac apps won’t run, either.
The battle between MacOS and Windows reminds me of watching partisans debate the merits of the latest American and Russian fighter planes. The Cold War is over, and the drones now rule the skies. I’ve often found myself in the thick of OS arguments, and they are real and important to people like me who care about the utility and functionality of the computers we use daily. But these conflicts are products of an era that is on its way out. Over the next few years Apple will face a far different struggle, as it races to define how everyday people will use cloud computing. Google, Microsoft, and Amazon won’t be sitting on their asses either.
Apple is already moving fast. Look at the iPod and the iPhone. The primary job of the OS in both devices is to get out of the way. The real stars of the show are iTunes and the App Store. While iTunes is a good piece of client software, its real mojo derives from its ability to get the content you want from the cloud to your device. And the direct integration between the App Store and the iPod/iPhone shows that the iTunes middleman won’t be around forever.
Apple has shown a willingness to set fire to its ships in order to conquer new territories. The iPod mini was a runaway success when Apple killed it in favor of the nano. The company has successfully pushed to make laptops the center of gravity for the Macintosh lineup, and the MacBook has been a huge hit. But it wouldn’t surprise me if Apple put the hatchet to its baseline notebook, bringing in the tablet as its replacement.
Yes, there will be plenty of users who need raw CPU power for apps like Aperture, Final Cut, Photoshop, and so on. Yes, some business apps also require a lot of juice. Apple has plenty of spiffy Macs to sell you if you need to run Mac and Windows apps. But if you use email, a web browser, and MS Office to get your news, communicate with people, work on documents, crunch numbers, and manage your multimedia library, increasingly the real heavy lifting for all of those activities takes place in the cloud. As for MS Office, the bullseye on Microsoft’s bag is big and red. Google and other players have shown that for many if not most documents, the bloated Office pig is unnecessary. Apple has been honing iWork for years. It’s not a stretch to envision MobileMe-synchable versions of Pages, Numbers, and Keynote running on the tablet.
Now imagine purchasing these and other apps from the Tablet Store. The iPhone App Store has been a staggering success as a software distribution platform, and controlling software distribution has been a big part of Apple’s success in the 2000s. Why wouldn’t Apple leverage the distribution power of an App Store for the tablet? And as more and more apps rely on the cloud, why wouldn’t developers continue to follow the money? Apple receives over 10,000 App Store submissions per week. There are a lot of iPhone developers out there, no matter how you slice the numbers. If Apple makes developing for the tablet only a minor adjustment for iPhone developers, the number of iPhone/tablet developers could soon dwarf the number of Mac developers.
As the hardware power of the tablet increases and Apple’s integration of device and cloud continues, the Mac may come to be seen as something of a relic, powerful but dated, a muscle car in an electric car era. Will it be 5 years from now when the last Mac rolls off the assembly line? Will it be 10 years? Whenever it comes, I expect the Mac’s demise will come at the hands of its maker, not at the hands of competitors.
I used to be fairly fit. I wasn’t a triathlete, but I wasn’t a couch potato either. Getting back into reasonable shape is going to take some work. Yet task of creating a healthier lifestyle for the long haul will be far more challenging.
Over the past few months I’ve realized that my brain is also getting flabby. The inklings have been hitting me obliquely. Reading Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln reminded me of the virtues of a dedicated opposing force. But was I challenging my own assumptions the way Lincoln did? No. Not even close. I was scooping up like-minded souls in Tumblr and Twitter. It amazed me that there were so many wonderful people out there in the Twitterverse and in Tumblr Land. It shouldn’t have surprised me, since I was following people whose views I found clever, well-argued, and at the very least, interesting.
Many observers suggest that microblogging is a particularly odious form of narcissism. This misses the mark. Narcissism permeates our society, from blogs to personalized license plates. Twitter and its ilk are drops in that vast ocean. But Nathan Roberton’s suggestion that Tumblr is lousy for anything but agreeing with people all the time made me think about just how much the design of microblogging platforms influences participant behavior. To paraphrase McLuhan, the platform is the discussion.
I’d already been noticing the similarities between compulsive channel surfing and daily Tumblr use. The Tumblr content on my dashboard tends to be visual rather than textual. And it is juicy stuff. Amazing, lush landscape photos composed with breathtaking artistry compete with Pictures of Beautiful People for my attention. It’s a staccato barrage of visual meth, devoid of context, presented in staccato bursts, proton torpedos aimed right at the center of the lizard brain. Yes, like an addictive drug, the high is what brings you back.
The Twitter experience is more like watching TV news. You receive lots of small chunks of information, most of it useless in your daily life, and much of it redundant. Yet you fear that the one snippet you don’t catch will be The One True Chunk, the singular piece of information that will make it worth your time investment. So you dutifully dip your brain into the stream of tweets every day. Or twice a day. Or every hour. Or constantly, the way some people keep CNN yammering in their living rooms even when they’re not home. Thankfully there are plenty of good chunks of info, crafty puns, well-delivered sentence truncations, and links to nifty new websites. But after all that sifting, am I like the crusty old ‘49er with a back sore from squatting at the riverbed, and just a grain or two of gold to show for the effort?
Why does it feel useful but hollow?
I think it’s because microblogging is untethered, both as a producer or forwarder of thoughts, and as a recipient of these thoughts. I have tweeted about my commute over Highway 17, expressed my outrage at the latest political stupidity, and forwarded excellent commentary from a well-known UI developer. Some of these brief messages have resonated with other Twitter users, which has led some of them to follow my tweets. But when do I get unfollowed? My guess is I get unfollowed when I write something a follower dislikes. That’s when I tend to unfollow someone. As long as you don’t post 50 tweets a day, if I like what you’re saying, I’ll probably follow you. But after five or ten tweets rub me the wrong way, you’re off my list.
More often than not we’re not really having a conversation in Twitter. Sure, there are people I send direct messages to, and I do have back and forth discussions of a sort in Twitter. But most of the hundreds or thousands of tweets I’ve made aren’t conversations. Twitter is serial micro-broadcasting. I have a message, and I want the world to hear it. You have a message, and you want the world to hear it. If our messages overlap in some fashion, chances are we’ll find each other, so we can feel good about those messages, and so we can spread that goodness. If our messages are antagonistic to each other, we’ll likely never encounter each other in the Twitterverse, because subjecting yourself to a stream of messages you disagree with is like agreeing to test out new waterboarding techniques each day.
Does this mean Tumblr is just useless eye candy and Twitter is just mental masturbation?
No. They can both be very useful. I don’t have a TV, so when I need to look at Interesting Things, Tumblr is there for me. When I tire of seeing the top five news stories over and over again on mainstream media sites, Twitter is there for me. But there’s an itch that neither of these microblogging tools can scratch. That’s the desire to engage in meaningful dialogue, to find people who challenge me, who help me learn more, and whose opinions I value even when I disagree with them.
It turns out this form of mental stimulation is particularly important as people get older. I turned 42 not too long ago, so I read the recent New York Times piece How to Train the Aging Brain, by Barbara Strauch, with particular interest. According to the article, there’s good news for middle aged folks:
The brain, as it traverses middle age, gets better at recognizing the central idea, the big picture. If kept in good shape, the brain can continue to build pathways that help its owner recognize patterns and, as a consequence, see significance and even solutions much faster than a young person can.
She quotes Dr. Kathleen Taylor, who advocates pushing your brain beyond its comfort zone in order to build good brain health. One way to do this is to seek out ideas and opinions that don’t jive with your own. Dr. Taylor lays it out:
If you always hang around with those you agree with and read things that agree with what you already know, you’re not going to wrestle with your established brain connections.
Since I do a lot of my “hanging around” online, I’ll need to replace at least some of my Tumblr and Twitter time with something else. I could subscribe to a few blogs created by smart people who will test my assumptions. Perhaps it’s time to revisit Newsvine, a site I’ve long admired, but could never really sink my teeth into. Or maybe I’ll dive back into Slashdot, a community that used to consume ludicrous amounts of my time. Then there’s LibraryThing. I’m not sure what I’ll do, but as shiny as Tumblr and Twitter are, I need some mooring, some context, and some sense that I’m not just patting myself on the back and being entertained. Shifting my online habits may be as difficult as getting back into running, but I figure I’ve only got one brain, so I should try to keep it healthy.
Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz was smart to enter into a search deal with Microsoft. Many observers seem to believe that Microsoft pulled a fast one on the ailing Web pioneer. Make no mistake, Yahoo is in trouble. That’s exactly why they need to focus on their core competency.
Search has never been Yahoo’s competitive advantage, and no matter how hard they’ve worked to catch up to Google, they haven’t had the muscle for it. Microsoft, on the other hand, has been trying for years to take down Google in search. In Bing they finally have a search product that isn’t embarrassing by comparison to Google. Leveraging Microsoft search technology will help Yahoo keep its customers happy without draining resources at Yahoo that should be directed at doing what they do best.
Microsoft has failed time and time again on the human side of the Web. Content is just not their bag. Social applications are not their bag. Yahoo does both of these quite well. Google’s mathematical, reductionist, relentlessly quantified search is not the only route to money. Bartz gets this.
Mark your calendars and come back in a year to taunt me if I’m wrong on this one. I definitely seem to be outnumbered, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the wisdom of the crowds prevailed. Still, I think that by shedding old baggage, a leaner, more capable Yahoo could emerge.
Mistakes happen in every business. But these days you have to assume that any mistake you make could become public knowledge. When United Airlines broke David Carroll’s guitar and didn’t compensate him for the loss, he poured his frustration into a YouTube video that has been viewed millions of times and has done tremendous damage to United’s reputation and its bottom line.
Or consider Horizon Realty. They sued a former apartment tenant to the tune of $50,000 because of these words she tweeted: “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.” In bringing a libel case against this Twitter user, they generated a solid dose of attention and criticism. Did the tweet do $50,000 worth of damage to the company? It is doubtful that a Twitter user who had only 20 followers and tweeted infrequently had much pull.
But here’s the thing: As soon as she got sued, her tweet instantly became the subject of public scrutiny. Even if Horizon Realty wins the lawsuit, they’ll at best look like bullies and at worst will generate even further negative scrutiny from Twitter users, bloggers, and the mainstream media. Imagine if instead of responding with a lawsuit, Horizon had replied with a tweet along these lines:
Hey @abonnen, are there any maintenance issues in your apartment? Please direct message us so we can get to the bottom of it.
A message like this shows responsiveness and a desire to make the customer happy. It’s done in public, so anyone who is watching @abonnen’s twitstream can see it. Who knows, if they’d responded in this fashion, she might have started singing Horizon’s praises. Real customer accolades are difficult to earn, but they’re much more valuable than any PR or marketing campaign.
Imagine how different things might have been if United Airlines had engaged in a real dialogue with David Carroll after his guitar, the source of his livelihood, was broken? Again, United may have been operating within its contractual obligations when it refused to fix the problem. But in so doing, they created another, much bigger problem.
You can’t control the message. But you can engage in conversations with your customers and with the broader world. Don’t hide. Engage.
America’s Founding Fathers engaged in intense debates about how the United States should be structured. Many of the towering figures of that era were in nearly violent disagreement with each other for years. But they managed to build a disparate band of former colonies into a nation.
Decades later, the newly-elected Abraham Lincoln brought several of his most intense and capable opponents into his cabinet. During the biggest crisis the nation ever faced, he encouraged vigorous cabinet debate. At times the cabinet members were at each other’s throats. But under Lincoln’s leadership, the nation survived.
Hiring people who agree with you makes your life as a leader easier. You seldom get into arguments about your decisions. Nobody challenges you.
Nobody challenges you is another way of saying nobody tests your assumptions. Nobody vigorously examines your direction. Nobody pushes you to come up with better plans. Nobody is helping you be as good as you can be at whatever it is you are doing.
Years ago I led the development of a secure web application that was designed for internal corporate communication. One of the team members was a born contrarian. He’d tell us why a particular feature wouldn’t work. He’d point out how a nefarious user could game the system. I admit that at first this grated on me. But then I realized the full value of his criticism. He was revealing problems that would manifest if we didn’t change the design of the application. What seemed like sand in the gears was really a big lighthouse beacon, warning away from dangerous shores.
Thankfully he raised his concerns early in the development process. As we reworked the system, I explicitly placed him in an OPFOR role. His job was to pretend to be a malicious user. He analyzed the system accordingly, and as he brought flaws to the surface, we would fix them. This was a huge learning event for me, but more importantly, the development process actually went faster and more smoothly. We delivered the project ahead of schedule, and the client was thrilled.
If you’re in charge, having in-house skeptics may seem like a challenge to your authority. But if you’re secure in your role, they can help you exceed your own limitations.
Social media tools can be a tremendously valuable means of connecting with your customers, but you can’t just throw money at Twitter, Facebook, and your blog and expect to get any real benefit.
I spoke with a client yesterday who wanted me to create a social media strategy for his company. I impressed upon him the importance of authenticity. Sure, I could write his blog posts and tweets for him, but I don’t have his professional expertise. At the end of the day, I’d be merely adding to the chaff created by countless other inauthentic bloggers for hire, and doing next to nothing to advance my client’s credibility.
He would have to get involved. He would have to write.
Unfortunately, writing takes time. Whether you’re tweeting occasionally, posting religiously to a blog, or weighing in with comments on other people’s sites, there is an opportunity cost to social marketing. If you’re busy writing, you’re not busy billing.
Determine how much time you really have to devote to social media. Then think about your writing style. Those factors will help you determine which social media tools are right for you.
