Comments on: Value Tax, and the trouble with Vista

By: Zbigniew Lukasiak

Zbigniew Lukasiak — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:16:23 +0000

It is interesting to hear a similar attack on Microsoft now. A real truning point. Relentless fighting with backward compatibility problems used to be the Microsoft way, they put layer over layer of compatibility hacks just to make the end user happy. Exactly opposite of what you accuse them here. But that brute force strategy obviously had diminishing returns – the mountains of code kept growing and the complexity of it even faster. I did not have good links to support that – but a quick googling found for example this article: http://haacked.com/archive/2006/10/01/Is_Backward_Compatibility_Holding_Microsoft_Back.aspx

By: srp

srp — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:00:54 +0000

This is pretty simple. Microsoft’s open systems strategy (a legacy of IBM’s original clone-friendly policies) involves a tradeoff. You get low cost and product variety by giving up some system integrity and coherence. Did MS push this tradeoff frontier as far out as they could in launching Vista? Maybe not. Would there still be a tradeoff even with perfect execution? Absolutely.

Apple’s stuff works well together because they only allow very limited hardware/software combinations that they tightly control. On the other hand, you have far less choice of equipment, peripherals, etc., and you pay more for the same level of raw performance on average. You’re at the mercy of the decisions of the 120 people or so who decide on products at Apple–Jobs and his Politburo.(I say this as a happy Mac user.) If they decide you won’t have a removable battery, or an on/off switch, or a tablet computer option, you won’t. Period. The Microsoft world, by contrast, has a vast number of competing providers of everything but the core software, which means you get more choices but it’s harder for MS to herd the cats on items like drivers.

You pay your money and take your choice.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:53:08 +0000

Microsoft seems to have forgotten that the consumer’s final verdict is based on experience, not blame placement. It’s also interesting to see microsoft adapt to a market environment in which they are still the leading producer of software, but are losing portions of the market to linex and apple. Their reaction seems to be to expect to lead the companion producers (HP, Logitech) around by the nose and blame them for not towing the line.

By: peter spear

peter spear — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:29:23 +0000

i agree with ed’s assessment of the commodity mindset of the microsofts and HP’s of the world but would push back against the notion that this is how the iPhone buyers are experiencing their relationship with the product.

it’s been shown that mac users are much less likely to let others touch and use their macs than a PC owner. (http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/05/casual_fridays_mac_users_dont.php)

and while a commodity mindset is justified by relatively old school notions of obsolescence, it seems to be pretty well dismissed by apple’s ability to leverage emotion and designed accomplishment into the equation – precisely by assuming this responsibility.

By: Ed Brenegar

Ed Brenegar — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:55:42 +0000

Grant,
I don’t think that either MS or HP see this as a responsibility. Instead, it is my guess that they see every product as a commodity with a limited shelf-life. It is sold and not repaired but replaced by the next version. This is certainly the case with cell phones. They are expensive throw away items. Don’t you think the first buyers of the IPhone feel that now? If a phone lasts for two years, you are lucky. I just bought a new laptop, and went from Win2000 to Vista Ultimate. One of the things that drove me to get a new one, other than the constant repairs to the old one, was the fact that various software companies stopped updating their programs for Win2000. The laptop I replaced, I used for five and a half years. Doesn’t seem like a long time, but as commodities go, it is a life time.

By: Tom Asacker

Tom Asacker — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:24:51 +0000

Very interesting post. The burden only exists, however, if the option to avoid the burden also exists. It reminds me of Levy’s curse approach to innovation. “If I hear someone curse, it’s a sign to invent something.”

By: Daria Steigman

Daria Steigman — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:51:26 +0000

Hi Grant,

Great post. Microsoft has some solid products (maybe not Vista), but they seem to have forgotten that none of that matters if they alienate their core customers. Absolutes don’t provide value. I realize that no company will make everyone happy, but why draw a line in the sand that’s pretty much guaranteed to make me unhappy and looking at my options?

Best,
Daria (a fellow U of C alum)

By: Matt Mantey

Matt Mantey — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:00:53 +0000

Grant – and so continues the evaluation of a brand, that an ad campaign with Bill and Jerry as the stars can’t just redo with media dollars and cinema-like production.

By: Speed

Speed — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:06:36 +0000

Microsoft Outlook 2003 and 2007 have spam blockers. Microsoft Hotmail too.

By: peter spear

peter spear — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:53:16 +0000

this is a cool post. it reminds me that starbucks, like microsoft, seem to have borne their strategies at a time when they could simply choose to stop providing value at the level of experience.

that line in the sand is an oddly chivalric, “we have finished our efforts here and we trust you to make best use of our expertise in the way that you want. we would not dare presume to know what you want.”

i listened to john maeda’s TED talk yesterday and he had a beautiful observation on simplicity and mass. We want more of that which we enjoy and less of that which causes us pain.

also – i wonder if you had any thoughts on the vista blind experience-test work? it’s called the mojave experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsStHxtVr_w