I’ve just seen some visuals (or concepts) of the latest Windows7 design. This look like a copy of Apple’s mixed with navigation systems off the 10yr old SGI 3d apps I used to use… It’s nice to look at for a few minutes, but operationally on a day to day basis? Not so sure – too cluttered any inconsistent.
Also, if we’re completely honest it looks a bit thrown together by a bunch of people from the Web2 ‘bug button’ community. It’s just a bit of a dog’s breakfast. Read what this is below:
Meaning: Dogs Breakfast
An unappealing mixture of many things… a hodgepodge… a
disorganized mess… but probably still usable (or consumable in the
case of food.) From the idea that a dog will eat anything and feeding
it a mixture of whatever is on hand. (Unappealing because only the dog
finds its breakfast appealing… if you see or smell the dog food in
the morning, as you’re feeding the dog, it may well turn your stomach.)
Man oh man! You would think that each new release should achieve three main goals.
1. Add much needed functionality
2. Fix or remove broken functionality
and
3. Make the operating system easier to use… Here are my initial thoughts on this.
1. Add much NEEDED functionality
There’s a big difference between NEEDS and WANTS (Ask ya parents). Looks like they’ve just said ‘Yes!’ to every feature asked for and added even more anyway. All the extra features and functionality cost the users as I bet this level of GUI and feature set will require a higher hardware cost at the consumer end. ie: “Get Windows7! (but add another gig of ram!)”
2. Fix or remove BROKEN functionality
Hopefully they have fixed the plethora of issues in XP and Vista, but this looks like a full code upgrade? Does that mean we’ll be ‘Beta Testing’ yet another power-hungry MS operating system? Why can’t they ‘Refine’ their systems rather than continually ‘redevelop/redesign’ them? All that does is mean that Microsoft are always on the back foot from a stability perspective.
3. Make the operating system EASIER to use
Firstly, these screens are a work of art to look at, just like a forged Apple/SGI/Rembrandt. Trouble is through that an operating system should not be a ‘Work of Art’ but rather an ‘Operating System’. ie: A system to operate in on a daily basis. A decent OS should be elegant, but take a back seat to the real work being done in other applications.
An OS doesn’t earn you money, Excel, Photoshop, AfterEffects, Coldfusion etc do. The OS should be a platform that your working apps sit on. It should be secondary. This is where Microsoft don’t get it. I don’t want the OS interrupting my daily work.
just want it to work! When I’m on a deadline with a large client project I can just imagine the OS screaming “Look at me! Love me! Look at my widgets and dials!” and I’d say back “Bugger off – I’m working! and you’re just a lowly OS!”
The reality is that nearly all the apps I use daily worked fine back on XP and that was really stable! So Why do we actually need such a major rehash! All it does is make people have to learn a new way of working that will change again the next time Apple turns a corner and MS follow. I know MS want to hang around with the cool crowd (Apple) but they should drag their users around the block with them. We just want a smooth ride.
Anyway. Any system my grandmother couldn’t use is too complex. My grandmother couldn’t use this (and could use XP) so enough said. Throw your comments in the pot below – keen to hear people’s thoughts on these screenshots…
Republishing Note:
Anyone is welcome to republish this article as free online content, provided that the paragraph below is included in the full form as shown.
————-
About the author:
Julian Stone, CEO – Project Management Software visionary for: ProActiveSoftware.com, ProWorkflow.com & Julian101.com
This is India. It’s where many companies send their outsourced support services and call centres for a more ‘efficient’ operation… Hmm… There’s some irony in Telco’s like Telstra etc sending support to India!
I know that the actual support centers are a little flasher, and they probably use cable ties to tidy things up a bit. But thought this was a laugh for the week after reading through the NZ ‘Digital Strategy’ paper. It says we need Fibre connectivity to compete on the world stage, but India are competing nicely and they’re doing it with spaghetti comms and tin cans tied together with string. Just give us reliability in NZ!
Disclaimer: Some people think I’m serious about this (been contacted by some Indians from 2x telcos :-) ). for those with no funnybone, this is a lighthearted humorous post. Don’t take it seriously. And yes I’d gladly poke fun at my own country/govt if the opportunity arose – we in NZ have plenty to laugh about! We should all learn to laugh at ourselves more. ;-)
Republishing Note:
Anyone is welcome to republish this article as free online content, provided that the paragraph below is included in the full form as shown.
————-
About the author:
Julian Stone, CEO – Project Management Software visionary for: ProActiveSoftware.com, ProWorkflow.com & Julian101.com
————-
Rod Drury wrote an interesting post over on his blog about what he would do if in charge of Microsoft. Have a read of the post – here’s the link:
http://www.drury.net.nz/2008/05/24/if-i-was-in-charge-2/
But as much as I agree with nearly all his points, I wanted to expand on point number 15 about assigning a design dictator. Here’s the comment (or essay) I posted. Thought I’d repost it here as it ties in with some other topics I’m covering. Here’s my thoughts on the ‘Design Dictator’ comment…
Re: Number 15. The comments about the design dictator and rebranding. Whilst I think it’s a great idea, it’s not quite that simple in reality. if you really wanted to rebrand Microsoft here’s what I’d do.
1. RENAME ‘MICROSOFT’ TO ???
Lets face it – it’s a lame name these days. And the name carries too much baggage – period! No amount of design will erase the memories of the past. It may take a decade or two of turmoil, but new generations coming through will appreciate and accept the new brand. And this is a multigenerational corporation so rebranding needs to be though out as such.
2. CHOOSE THE DESIGN DICTATOR WISELY! Trust them and step back!
Microsoft shouldn’t ’seek’ the designer. This would amount to ‘old thinkers’ choosing who to represent them – not a good idea. A third party should be appointed to find the designer. A hard task, and it could take some time, even years, but if this step is rushed, all could be lost – there would be one shot at this, so for the future of the company it would need to be the right person. Someone prepared to die for the company in order for it to live. Redesigning MS would be a few decades work so that’s a fair chunk of life to commit!
It can’t be a ‘Multiyear Contract Job’ for the designer. Look at Steve Jobs – it has their passion, nothing else – just that job and a pile of love!
3. DESIGN IS AS MUCH ABOUT CULTURE AS IMAGERY.
Let’s face it – Apple has great design, but also great culture. If Microsoft just rebranded, did a few screens and box shots (a few thousand…) all it would be is a facade. Cool people buy Apple Products. Nerds and geeks buy Microsoft products. Yes it’s a generalization – but 90% of the world’s population would probably agree. See the problem?
You can make cool products and branding for Microsoft but you’ll find it near impossible to shift entrenched Apple users from their stunning gear – this is because they love the gear, culture and Steve (God). So that means Microsoft would need to compete with Apple by not grabbing Apple’s customers, but rather taking their current users and trying to sell them ‘Cool Microsoft Rebranded Stuff’.
Hmmm.. Ever tried to make the nerd at school look good for the nightclub? He’s bright, he’s intelligent, he ‘does the job’ but despite putting him in baggy lowriders and a hoodie, he’s still a nerd. You can make a duck wear a tie, but he’s still a duck.
Or simply put, You can rebrand Microsoft, but you can’t reculture Microsoft users ;-)
4. VIRAL SPREAD
To be effective with a rebrand you need to impact the ‘design culture’ of Microsoft. Apple does so well partly because it releases a ‘cool toy’, their fans love it, buy it and most importantly ‘talk about it’ to other people. Great design spreads virally, but ONLY when the customers CARE about the design. Here’s the problem that reinforces my ‘Design Culture’ comments. Ready? Here it comes…
“Apple users CARE” – “Microsoft users USE”.
For example; Rod loves his Apple gear so he blog about it, Twitters about it, Allows people in the street to touch it etc. This is Great marketing for apple – It’s free!.
Microsoft could rebrand but would they have the same viral spread? I’d bet anything that they’d have a lot less viral spread than Apple if the rebrand was good. But if it was bad they’d have a HUGE viral outlash, and worse – it’d be ammo for Apple who, as history tell us like to get the boot into Microsoft at any chance – good on them too! if MS had some balls they’d take a few decent shots at Apple!
IN SUMMARY…
These are some initial thoughts on the issue. I’ll sum up though by saying that I believe rebranding Microsoft has to happen at two levels. Firstly, start to change the company culture from within for a few years – shake up the business by taking shots online at Apple, then secondly (and ONLY when the culture starts to shift) CHANGE THE NAME AND BRAND – RELAUNCH THE BUSINESS! Not just the design!
if done right, a relaunch of a company of this size could be the biggest thing to ever happen online! Once and for all it would lay the Microsoft baggage and history to rest.
Question is… Who’s got big enough kahunas to make this happen?
Republishing Note:
Anyone is welcome to republish this article as free online content, provided that the paragraph below is included in the full form as shown.
————-
About the author:
Julian Stone, CEO – Project Management Software visionary for: ProActiveSoftware.com, ProWorkflow.com & Julian101.com
————-
As a designer and ex industry creative, I was really interested to see this post over on Ben Kepes’s blog. Here’s the post…
http://diversity.net.nz/how-important-is-design-for-saas-offerings/2008/05/23/
Here’s my comment on the issue…
Design is everything! and its nothing! If you have function without form, people are slow to adopt and will tell people your design sucks.
If you have form without function, people tell people the tool is awesome (even if it doesn’t meet their needs). So you’ll get higher signup rate with higher churn.
But then forget all that because all industries treat design differently anyway. ;-)
Good design can help viral spread in (for example) vertical creative and IT sectors as people like to ‘be seen to use the cool tools’, however interestingly enough… in the general SME market that XERO and IPayroll are approaching, design means diddly squat – it’s functionality and usability that matters (design is just the icing on the cake).
Note: I do like the XERO design (slick) and dislike the IPayroll design (too 1998) personally.
Yes you need a tidy design, but the SMB market will be captured by meeting their needs at an affordable price without pee’ing them off through usability issues. It could be a wet fish with a screen for the SMB market – but if it ‘does the job’ it’ll sell.
Simple as that!
I’ll put it differently…
If approaching vertical markets like creative or IT, it’s the ’slickest solution’ that gets the rave reviews. people are fickle in verticals and chase the ‘new hot thing’ so if you don’t ‘meet their needs’ you won’t be in the game for long. We’ve been working hard at ProWorkflow (Project Management Software) for some time to strike the balance between nice design and solid function.
But in the general, wide SMB market, it’s the solution that ‘does the job’ that’ll sell. These people can’t be fooled. If it doesn’t work, they’ll drop it. Forget pretty buttons, 72pt type, mirrors and glows. the SMB market just want you to ‘fix the problem’ whereas many vertical niches want to ‘look cool first, then fix the problem second’
Disclaimer. I’ve been selling to thousands of SMB’s and verticals for 5-6 years and the secret to closing a sales is whether you use design, usability, functionality or pain as the ’sales closer’.
Knowing which approach to use and when comes with broad experience and experimentation.
Maybe someone should start a business doing ‘Design As A Service’ specifically for SaaS business wanting to use Web2 approaches on new platforms?
We’ll call it DAAS for SAAS on PAAS!
Oh! and FYI… this is an example of exactly what not to do design wise…
Check out: http://www.zogix.com/God Awful! When Web2.0 design goes bad! Cutesy bubbles, shadows, pink and HUGE type (cos we’re all blind). This is an example of design not being applicable to their market. And there’s no relationship between their site design and the product design.
Republishing Note:
Anyone is welcome to republish this article as free online content, provided that the paragraph below is included in the full form as shown.
————-
About the author:
Julian Stone, CEO – Project Management Software visionary for: ProActiveSoftware.com, ProWorkflow.com & Julian101.com
————-
Ben Kepes just posted his thoughts on the XERO end of year results on his Diversity blog. Go have a read as it’s an interesting business venture that many are following with interest:
http://diversity.net.nz/xero-year-end-results/2008/05/14/
Here’s my comment on the blog post.
What it amounts to I believe is that XERO is like no other business in the sense that, remarkable product or otherwise, to build a sustainable SaaS business just takes time and hard work (and watching the balance sheet).
SaaS businesses in the early years always looks ‘on the surface’ like they’re finding sales hard as the revenue always appears less than people expect. This is because the very nature of SaaS is many, small payments, monthly. It takes time to build the revenue, and for quite a while it seems like not a lot is happening – but then the revenue picks up. And SaaS revenue is like gold!
When you have thousands of committed customers paying monthly, it takes a major event to dent the revenue stream. SaaS becomes a solid revenue model, compared to traditional software service companies that may have only a few high paying customers. ie: When they lose a customer – there goes 250k and some jobs.
I do wish XERO all the best, and New Zealand’s tech community is watching with great interest, but what we all want to see is XERO get to the positive cash flow – covering overheads, before the cash in bank runs out. A XERO success is good for everyone…
So yes, looks like they need to ramp up fast, and they’ll know that and be working towards it… But my comment for the day (We’re in SaaS too) is don’t judge a SaaS businesses potential by it’s first years results. it’s the nature of this type of revenue stream to be low initially, then (if they have a winner product/model) it grow exponentially.
What we don’t want to see is linear growth. These business models should grow exponentially.
As a side note. It takes some balls to run a company with public financials. I wonder what comments we’d all make if we could publicly scrutinize each others business accounts?
————-
About the author:
Julian Stone, CEO – Project Management Software visionary for: ProActiveSoftware.com, ProWorkflow.com & Julian101.com
————-
