Why Windows Just Can’t Win
wired.com"Oh, and can you guess when Apple — now the world’s biggest company — announces its first earnings post-iPhone 5? Oct. 24. "
Uh, yeah. An earnings report is going to steal the thunder of a product launch.
"It doesn’t matter if Microsoft creates the greatest operating system in the world if it then allows others to junk it up. And, ultimately, it means that Microsoft isn’t in control of its brand."
No one can succeed if they give up absolute control of their platforms to OEMs ... oh wait that's exactly what android does. And OEMs put (non-uninstallable!) crapware on android phones, and they still sell. Only Apple is pushing the complete control angle, and while it works for them, it's hardly the only model that could work.
I love android phones, and while I won't be getting a windows phone, I think this article's arguments are pretty weak and don't have enough substance to back up that link bait title.
I feel like consumers are clamoring for an Android phone that runs stock Jelly Bean. The Nexus 7 shipped with stock Android 4.1 and it has been very successful in the tablet market.
I agree, and I have liked the nexus line myself for exactly that reason. But I think it's dumb to say consumers won't put up with crapware, because they do.
"Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet. We're working to bring devices to more countries as quickly as possible. Please check back again soon."
Which country are you in?
indeed, reportedly Google sold about a million Nexus 7s in Q3 when it was available in only some markets http://www.slashgear.com/google-said-to-have-sold-up-to-1m-n...
In comparison, Amazon sold 5 million Kindle Fires from last year to end of August.
This article critiques the theatricality of MS's release process quite thoroughly and concludes that it is not the same as Apple's.
This is true, but nobody should give a crap.
What's important is that Windows 8, the surface, etc. are actually good.
Until Apple came along and turned computers into fashion accessories, brand image didn't matter so much. Now it clearly does. What the author ignores is that brand image is a product of many things, with press releases being only a small part for most companies (They are a somewhat larger part of Apple's brand). A long track record of high quality and innovative products coupled with clever advertising is what makes or breaks a brand like Apple's more than anything else.
Microsoft's brand is currently rather mediocre. Missteps over the last decade have really hurt it, but Windows 7 did go a long way to help it recover. Vista, as maligned as it was, was actually a really good OS saddled with some bad default settings (e.g. The overly obtrusive UAC). Windows 7 brought some minor innovations to the interface, greatly improved the default settings, and added a little bit of "cool" with details as subtle as just adding some unusually funky and artistic default backgrounds. Windows 7's default backgrounds made OSX look like the bland, boring corporate OS that Apple has long tried to brand Windows to be!
Movie studios often keep stinkers under strict wraps until opening weekend. If they advertise enough and prevent the film from being savaged by critics until the day of release they can still get a good opening weekend out of a poor film. Good films are frequently shown to critics or at film festivals well in advance of general release. This "festival route" builds word of mouth.
If MS had kept Windows 8 under wraps until a big press event this month and then hyped it as the most awesome thing ever, just like Apple does with their products, few people would likely believe them. By broadly distributing a release candidate for Windows 8 and showing the Surface publicly prior to release, MS took the "festival route" and built a big word-of-mouth effect. MS's brand isn't what Apple is, and they were smart enough to realize they have to do things differently, and did.
So much hate for Microsoft. I'm at awe. Like one commenter on the article's page said, If Apple would do that kind of launch experiment, everybody would praise them for how revolutionay they are.
Microsoft has a real chance of claiming a big chunk of the market, not from Apple, but from the messy Android ecosystem, with a clear brand and a simple product lineup.
It's not hate, it's a big sigh. Like -- jeeeeeeez. Some cool stuff bubbles up in Redmond once in a while, and it gets squashed, hobbled, cancelled, thwarted, squeezed, hidden.
People said the same exactly thing w.r.t Android when Windows Phone 7 was released. I think history speaks for itself.
The WP7 was a flop indeed. They launched it almost without any backup. With the W8 product line however, they rebranded everything, creating an unitary brand image, much like Apple did a while ago. And that's why I did the Android statement. They provide to all the predominantly tech savvy users of Android an unified experience that is not Cupertino flavored.
The tech savvy Android users? They would be the last people to switch to WP. That thing does not have a viable way to run unsigned applications. No proper multitasking, no proper notifications. What exactly about WP is supposed to attract tech savvy users?
Tech savvy user WP user here. I just bought a lumia 800 for very little cash over a galaxy s2. Why? It's actually less clunky than stock android or touchwiz. I haven't found a use for multitasking on the phone yet. Notifications are fine - I have no idea what you are talking about.
The lumia is actually to be as blunt as possible, fucking marvellous.
I doubt you've used one.
I have used a friend's Lumia 900 running WP 7.5 actually.
I hate the fact that apps are not retained in memory long enough. They always start over. Also, launching an app from the home screen launches a new instance instead of resuming the current instance.
Notifications are even more terrible. There's no way to access previous notifications. There's no central place where all notifications live. You can't access them from the lock screen.
Yes, all these are quirks I've found as a tech savvy user. Because of these reasons, I cant see myself ever using WP.
Besides, just the fact that you cant run unsigned applications (and there's no viable "jailbreak") is an instant turn-off for power users. So, to suggest that these people will leave Android is hilarious at best.
I haven't experienced the retention issue myself. My pattern of usage is to only open from the tiles. I tend to use the back button to navigate through previous contexts (hold it down and then slide left/right to pick a task/open application).
Regarding notifications; you know about tiles right? They have status on them i.e. unread count etc. A notification is pretty just a poke in the ribs to check the tiles rather than a queue of things to do.
Jail-break and run unsigned apps? Yes there is for nearly all devices - see xda-developers.com. I really don't care about this myself though. Mobile telephones have never been open platforms. Even Android is a fragmented minefield in this respect.
It's just different.
How is it "less clunky" than stock Android?
Its more consistent, responds instantly to everything, 100% intuitive, never requires reference to a manual, silky smooth and everything was blatantly obvious, configuration was beyond easy for everything and everything works flawlessly straight away.
I spent 2 days with a loaned galaxy s2 first and it had none of the above. It was slow, clunky and inconsistent and pretty damn hard to get it to sync with my pc. It also lost outgoing emails when plugged into exchange.
The three other people I've shown it to (android users) remarked at how it is quite better than the diatribe against it and they found it intuitive.
Does it really respond instantly to everything, or does it just start a 3 second animation after you press on something? Big difference. Because the animation is used to hide how slow it is in the background to process the stuff.
Way under a second for anything. The transitions (not animations as you put) are there to show where something has moved to as well as hide some latency. Check the metro guidelines that Microsoft published around using transitions.
This is the great irony of Android. Not only do many iOS users never use it (and thus when they think Android, they think Froyo or even Gingerbread). That, and they're so used to their iPhone that is the standard. Even when I can do things just as intuitively or easily.
I bought a galaxy s2 for all of those tech-savvy reasons, to find out that one year later I don't actually use any unsigned apps and don't want to run down my battery with multitasking.
My wife got a lumia 710, and in many ways it's a better phone than my s2, the quality of the software is noticeably better (even of the 3rd party apps). My next phone is probably going to be a lumia.
I would be delighted if you were to describe the proper multi-tasking in Android. I thought we had something called activities.
What I meant by that is that, in WP, if I leave an app running, and then come back to the home screen and tap on that app's tile, it will start a new instance; not resume the old one. Also, WP closes apps way too early in the background.
I assume (s)he's referring to Services.
I think that you are missing the factors why tech savvy users of Android use Android and not iPhone. It is not the vendor of the tech, it is what you can do with it. With WP8, Microsoft copied from Apple exactly those things, that Android users do not want.
I sat in on a MS presentation the other day, and it was a disaster. The terminology is off the chart confusing, the presenter constantly dropping terms then backing off with "oh but we aren't supposed to call it that" and then "oh but if marketing isn't listening i'll just call it that" ... back and forth.
It took forever just to explain metro (not metro) and windows RT (not metro but metro) and windows pro (with metro but not metro, i mean RT or ARM, or modern UI). ARM but not intel, desktop but including ARM/RT/metro but not metro. Just build apps for windows phone (but not mobile), but metro no wait not metro on mobile (i mean phone).
Honestly really crazy stuff, round and round.
MS's propensity to attempt to create new buzzwords and terminology, though one of the least consequential functionally, is probably one of my biggest turn-offs with them. I'm a straight-shooter and prefer to be communicated with in the same way. It's like they're playing a psychological game, trying to get your mind to play something up better than it actually is....simply because it has a new and novel name.
Just call it what it is already, damnit. If you so happen to invent something new -- then by all means, call it what you want -- but please quit taking old ideas and applying the old web 2.0 naming convention everywhere.
So Windows can't succeed because they've announced their products and aren't spacing the announcement and the codename used for the design language is actually a trademark owned by someone else?
I'm sure that people are buying the new BMW 5 series because they like the name of the design language (Flame Surfacing) and because it was launched in Hong Kong. The actual quality of the product doesn't matter.
I completely agree with the following from the article:
"Even when Microsoft has a great product on its hands, even when its product, engineering and design teams manage to hit one out of the park, it won’t matter once the business team comes in and ruins it for everyone."
The whole history of all screw ups from Microsoft just confirms that.
Yep. There was a great article a while back about how the Start button orb for Windows 7 and the Start button search box (one of the best features of modern Windows) were thought up and programmed very quickly, but took several months to be properly implemented and debugged because of management.
My bet is that small, cheap and really good 7" tablets will all but kill MS in the consumer sphere next year. Fair or not (the Nexus 7 looks great), Apple's going to popularize the form factor, and it's going to change people's expectations. A lot more people can afford a $200 - 300 tablet as a Christmas present than a $500 one. Women will find them more purse-friendly and way more parents can afford them for their kids, which is going to tilt developers even further from Windows.
MS won't be able to change their software or their business model fast enough to compete with ubiquitous $200 computers.
Wait, Windows 8 and Windows RT are different things?
Definitely.
Windows 8 runs as Windows 8 and as Windows 8 RT. However, there's also WinRT which is something else:
WinRT == Windows Runtime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime
"Not to be confused with Windows RT"
Now
"Windows RT (formerly known as Windows on ARM) is an upcoming version of the Windows 8 operating system for ARM devices such as tablets. The RT acronym does not officially stand for anything.[1] It will officially only run software available through the Windows Store or included in Windows RT."
Homework: try to explain that in less words. :)
Windows 8 is a desktop/laptop/tablet OS aimed at home users
Windows 8 Pro is a desktop/laptop/tablet OS aimed at businesses/power users
Windows 8 Enterprise is a desktop/laptop/tablet OS aimed at large businesses (only available via volume license)
Windows RT is a tablet only OS aimed at the iPad/Android market (and can only be delivered via an OEM on a device) Like the iPad and Android it can only run apps available via the Microsoft App Store.
Surface RT is a tablet running Windows RT (so aimed at iPad/Android tablet owners).
Surface Pro (available early 2013) is a tablet running Windows 8 Pro and is more or less like an ultrabook with higher specs than the Surface RT. As it runs Windows 8 Pro it can run all apps that any other Windows 8 Pro computer can it is not limited to the App Store like the Surface RT is.
WinRT is the new Windows Run Time. Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinRT as it explains it better than I can in one sentence.
Thanks. Only after reading your response I understood.
Microsoft developed the Windows version for ARM. But then some big shot in Microsoft decided:
"No, you can't mention ARM in any name, we absolutely don't want to mention ARM anywhere in our propaganda or any other material. Our customers should not be aware that this thing like ARM processors exist. Intel promised to make something like ARM in just a year or two. Or we're going to make something. Or whatever, we just don't want to mention ARM. Verboten."
Underling1: "Oooh, how are we going to refer to the darn thing now?"
Underling2: "I know let's reuse the name that these developers use for the thing they produce, this WinRT thing. We'll call it Windows RT"
All together: "Bravo!"
Is this a submission for the homework? I think it was supposed to be fewer words en toto, not per nomen.
I've been a Software Engineer developing software for 10 years and I don't understand one word of that.
If I'm confused, I have to wonder how the average Joe is going to keep up.
If they keep this up, I agree Windows just can't win.
Kinda. It's confusing. Windows RT is supposedly "Windows 8 on ARM", a restricted version of Windows 8 where Win32 is not available to non-in-house developers (applications must be developed using WinRT a replacement API not to be confused with Windows RT as WinRT is also available to Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8); all applications must be distributed via the Windows Store; the fate of the Windows 8 desktop is unclear (though it won't be very useful if there); a bunch of software or capabilities are unavailable in RT (Windows Media Player, Media Center, Remote Desktop, Homegroup, ...).
The simplest way to think about it is probably to think that WindowsRT is to Windows 8 as iOS 9 (iPad) should be to OSX 11 should the current trends of the latter pair keep going
See http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/17/3514556/windows-8-vs-wind... for more info (and a hint as to how confusing it is)
Windows RT is a version of Windows 8 built to run on ARM processors. "Metro" style apps can be compiled to run on Windows RT and downloaded from the Windows App Store. However traditional desktop software cannot be compiled for or installed on Windows RT.
"However traditional desktop software cannot be compiled for or installed on Windows RT."
What you meant to say that existing Windows apps cannot be installed or run on Windows RT. Technically they can be compiled to ARM, but there is no way you can install them. And Windows RT cannot emulate x86.
I don't mean to be that guy but it's called Windows Marketplace not Windows App Store.
No, it's called the Windows Store
Easy - Windows RT = Windows Restricted Tablet; you can only use apps from Microsoft's app store.
Windows 8 is the real deal - you can still use apps from outside the app store.
"With Surfce looming, Microsoft fails to explain Windows 8 vs. Windows RT to consumers"[0]
Not only that, but you are likely much more tech sophisticated than the average consumer which makes this even more damning.
[0] - http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/17/3514556/windows-8-vs-wind...
And not to be confused with the _original_ WinRT that many of us grew to love: http://www.pds-site.com/Bsquare/WinRT/default.htm
Port access and IRQs without writing an actual device driver.
That's a good one.
The German company 'Metro' is not exactly small.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_AG
It has 66 billion Euro revenue and 250000 employees. It's the fifth largest retailer in the world.
Kind of unlikely that they give up their trademark name or sell it to Microsoft. It's not worth fighting for. Especially since Metro sells Microsoft products.
As Lt. Commander Worf would say, "We shall see".
Oddly enough, this is probably the only reasonable response. Of course, you don't get clicks by saying, "let's wait and see." You have to go out, pants off, hopping on a table and shouting, "Windows 8 can't win!" So, that's what people will write.
With Windows 8, I think we'll probably see more mild annoyance as folks buy new PCs for their homes. After two weeks, they'll likely get used to it, then we'll never hear another word about Windows 8 failing. I just don't see the change being so enormous that users will really care long enough to affect anything.
It'll probably be like Vista: a lot of people dislike it without using it, some dislike it for a specific reason (like drivers), and most get along with it just fine and don't really have any problems. The UI changes are enough to probably increase the size of the group complaining, especially the group that hasn't used it, but I don't think it's enough to stop Windows 8 from succeeding in the long run.
Yeah, the big change will be that there won't be a big change: the Windows PC market will continue on its slow decline, with Apple eating a slowly increasing share of Microsoft's lunch and profits. Windows RT, and the Surface RT will do slightly, but only slightly better than all of Microsoft's previous tablets. (Why Gates killed the Courier project is still beyond me). Window Phone 8 will do slightly better than Windows Phone 7, but in a few years will be about as obscure.
This article demonstrates the increasing gap between tech reporters and consumers. Announcements and marketing aren't the metrics for the quality of a product. Design, user experience and features will ultimately decide whether the latest line of Microsoft products succeeds.
But he does have a point with bloatware and control over the brand. I commonly associate the Windows brand with garbage software that comes pre-installed on every PC.