Oh, boy – talk about opening the floodgates. Robert Scoble asks why Microsoft products suck.
This has provoked any number of responses far more eloquent than I can make them – they crash (but so does lots of software); they’ve got clunky interfaces (but the worst interface of all time came courtesy of Lotus); they’re not open source (but neither is Apple software). So no point in rehashing those arguments: here’s mine:
They’re bloated: technology is moving towards small pieces, loosely-joined – but M$ products are bloated behemoths of marginally-useful functionality of which < 10% ever gets used. And it’s all a compromise – I go pale at the very thought of an IIS server because it’s been nailed on top of file and print functionality with the end result that neither works particularly well.
Microsoft can’t respond fast enough: Without exception, every interesting, exciting, must-have new development I’ve seen in the past three years or so has originated from somewhere other than Redmond. Firefox, PHP, NewsGator, iTunes, the iPod, RSS, SubEthaEdit – the list just goes on and on. I’m sure that deep in the bowels of the organisation there are any number of people who are having as good, if not better, ideas – it’s just that they can’t get them through the layers fast enough.
They’re evil: Microsoft could be an incredible force for good if they wanted to be – they’re bigger than any government can control. But instead, they’re a convicted predatory monopoly who (we have to assume, because their past behaviour suggests it) would boil down their own grandmothers for glue if they thought there was any commercial advantage for it. They’ve squandered any brand equity they once had. I’m sure that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer and Robert Scoble are kind-hearted, considerate and personally-principled individuals, but once they’ve taken the Microsoft shilling I want to count my fingers after metaphorically shaking their hands, because the organisation is so flawed and corrupt. They’re the Enron and the News International and the Wal-Mart and the Nike of the software world – sometimes it’s impossible to avoid dealing with them, but afterwards I always feel just that little bit unclean. Instead of embracing the incredible possibilities that digital media could bring, they’re cosying up to the media oligopoly and helping to prop up an ever-more redundant business model. Rather than positioning their products on the basis of them being the best tools for the job, they seek to lock me in with proprietary and ever-changing file formats. I’m not a customer, I’m owned – it’s not “embrace and extend”, it’s about “embrace, extend, lock-in, control, squeeze, and control some more”.
Every organisation eventually fails – the classic illustration of this is comparing the FTSE-100 or Dow indices in, say, 1904 and 2004. Most of the names are gone, because industries rise and fall. But when other industries died they didn’t do too much damage (aside from the individuals whose livelihoods disappeared) in the long-term. But Microsoft is in such a unique and overly-powerful position that when it fails – and history suggests it will, eventually – the damage it could inflict as it thrashes around in its death-throes is so much more widespread and pervasive, because by this time much of life as we know it will have gone digital.
What I think I’m trying to say is that it’s not really about the products sucking – it’s the organisation. And great products aren’t going to solve that problem.
I agree with each point you make.
BUT.
Any person I’ve ever meet from Microsoft has been so unexpectedly nice, passionate about what they do, and determined to make their software better that I can only presume that somewhere in MS there is a pocket of devil spawned middle managers who keep MS in the ‘evil as sin’ realm.
Sure their products could be better (faster, less bloat), sure they could make turnaround faster (actually they couldn’t, they have too big a market share for that to be a reality), sure that middle pocket is evil.
But on the whole I think they suffer from over hyped bad press. I don’t recall my laptop EVER crashing, my home PC only a few times (and it’s been a thirdparty, unsupported driver for my cable modem that makes that happen), and if you are smart enough then you don’t have to buy into the monopoly. I use what software I want.
In saying that, I still want a bite of Apple.
I agree with each point you make.
BUT.
Any person I’ve ever meet from Microsoft has been so unexpectedly nice, passionate about what they do, and determined to make their software better that I can only presume that somewhere in MS there is a pocket of devil spawned middle managers who keep MS in the ‘evil as sin’ realm.
Sure their products could be better (faster, less bloat), sure they could make turnaround faster (actually they couldn’t, they have too big a market share for that to be a reality), sure that middle pocket is evil.
But on the whole I think they suffer from over hyped bad press. I don’t recall my laptop EVER crashing, my home PC only a few times (and it’s been a thirdparty, unsupported driver for my cable modem that makes that happen), and if you are smart enough then you don’t have to buy into the monopoly. I use what software I want.
In saying that, I still want a bite of Apple.
Hmm.. I am certainly no great advocate of MS and their ways, but I would make a few points on your text.
Yes those apps are big, but then I know plenty of folk who really do use 80% of the features of Word, Excel etc – and thats really the point. Personally, there are entire Menus in MS apps that I never access, but I’m not ‘everyone’ and some people (amazingly) do need Styles, templates, embedded spreadsheets and stuff.
If you only want to type text and change font, then don’t buy Word – there are better tools for that.
I disagree with you that MS cannot respond quickly. This has generally been their policy, not because they can’t. Because of their dominance, in a real sense they do not have to innovate or risk. It is better business practice for them to watch and learn, before developing (or acquiring) new product.
They also have huge legacy issues. If Joe Shareware chucks out some amazing tech, it affects no-one. If MS radically change something, many millions of people can be affected – so it does make total sense that they are more cautious. Don’t think for one moment that Bill and chums aren’t very much aware of the latest innovations.
Finally, to state that they are Evil is just naive. They are a ruthless and highly effective business, and their motivations are not yours. Sadly, the do not have an obligation to improve the world, or to be ‘good’ necessarily – they have an obligation to shareholders and I think those shareholders would tell you that they are pretty happy with how the company performs.
In many ways it is bad for an industry to be so dominated, but that happens in Capitalist societies sometimes. MS will fade one day, monopolies generally do.
I’ll shut up now.
Hmm.. I am certainly no great advocate of MS and their ways, but I would make a few points on your text.
Yes those apps are big, but then I know plenty of folk who really do use 80% of the features of Word, Excel etc – and thats really the point. Personally, there are entire Menus in MS apps that I never access, but I’m not ‘everyone’ and some people (amazingly) do need Styles, templates, embedded spreadsheets and stuff.
If you only want to type text and change font, then don’t buy Word – there are better tools for that.
I disagree with you that MS cannot respond quickly. This has generally been their policy, not because they can’t. Because of their dominance, in a real sense they do not have to innovate or risk. It is better business practice for them to watch and learn, before developing (or acquiring) new product.
They also have huge legacy issues. If Joe Shareware chucks out some amazing tech, it affects no-one. If MS radically change something, many millions of people can be affected – so it does make total sense that they are more cautious. Don’t think for one moment that Bill and chums aren’t very much aware of the latest innovations.
Finally, to state that they are Evil is just naive. They are a ruthless and highly effective business, and their motivations are not yours. Sadly, the do not have an obligation to improve the world, or to be ‘good’ necessarily – they have an obligation to shareholders and I think those shareholders would tell you that they are pretty happy with how the company performs.
In many ways it is bad for an industry to be so dominated, but that happens in Capitalist societies sometimes. MS will fade one day, monopolies generally do.
I’ll shut up now.