Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Encouraging OEMs to Beautify Computers
Grooves writes "Microsoft has shipped a 'Vista Industrial Design Toolkit' to PC manufacturers, meant to
encourage them to design computers that are more visually appealing. From the article: 'From color palettes to suggestions about how the power and reset buttons should appear, the kit basically describes Microsoft's vision of what a Vista PC should look like. The look features accelerated curves and purposeful contrast, among other qualities.' The report goes on to say that Microsoft wants 'PCs to be objects of pure desire.' Sound familiar? It's hard to see budget-conscious OEMs stepping up to this."
I desire my PC to be pure of spyware, security flaws and unstability.
We want you to look more like a Mac.
Unless encased in Jessica Abla, it will never be an object of desire.
MS is just trying to grab a few sales away from Apple at the expense of the OEMs. Why not? MS doesn't have anything to loose on this one - the OEMs are the ones taking the risk.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Would you really want to take design suggestions from MS? I can't think of anything they've designed (on their own) that looks like I'd want to put my name on it and sell it.
It's true that Apple attracts a certain "I don't know what" kind of person. Apple's success, however, is not based on its cosmetic appeal. Apple offers much more beyond just its good looks. It's like Apple and and its users signed up on eHarmony and found each other. If Vista is stable and easy to use, then MS won't need the glitz and glamour to attract customers since they already have a majority of the customers. MS will only have to retain customers, which it can do with a great Vista release.
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good." - Bill Gates.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Sounds like Microsoft should try getting Apple to ship Macs with Windows.
Haiku for you!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Oh, sure. After all, we know how unbelievably gorgeous Lenovo laptops are.*
Actually, I suspect that this, more than anything else, is a sign of just how concerned Microsoft is that Apple is about to eat their lunch. The "beautify the box" message is inteneded as a point of product differentiation, but the only other product in this space who is doing better than Microsoft here is Apple. Unless you know of a company who is making really attractive Ubuntu boxes. (And if so, please let me know. I have a birthday coming up.)
* I should note at this point that in my previous job I administered a lab full of IBM ThinkPads. They were absolutely monster workhorses, and I have nothing bad to say about them. I mean, other than the fact that I was stupid and didn't set BIOS passwords right away, and as a result lost one laptop to some MBA student thinking he'd be cute and setting a boot password. Whoopsie.
Then please explain MS's 95% marketshare versus Apple's 5%? Shiny only wins when all else is equal. Most consumers are bang-for-the-buck types, and Windows boxes win that battle hands down. It never ceased to amaze me how add-ons for Macs were always twice (or more) expensive than their "PC" counterparts. I would submit that Apple finally "got it" when they started using standard DIMMs (versus proprietary), PCI-based graphics (versus proprietary), IDE drives (versus SCSI), USB (in addition to firewire), standard monitors, and now Intel CPUs. If anything Apple has moved much closer to a Windows PC, and so it is only natural, to combat the threat, that MS attempt to close the "shiny-ness" gap.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
I'm not sure I agree with the "Be like a Mac!" comparison. For most PC manufacturers, having their own "look and feel" has been part of what has given them a strong brand name. Sure, Microsoft wants to grab some of that brand recognition beyond just the bootup splash screen (and the desktop look and feel), but I also think this will create more than just brand recognition for Microsoft -- I believe it will also produce an interesting "playing field" for companies beyond the Big Four (Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, Toshiba). Consider the smaller OEMs and white box companies -- by providing a standardized look and feel, this will open the door of opportunity for many more companies. Sure, the big guys probably don't WANT this (they want to keep their look and feel in order to keep their branding strong), but it could create a new competitive atmosphere by giving smaller companies a foot in the door to compete on the look and feel front.
I've always loved third party cases and keyboards and monitors moreso than the Big Four for the same reason that I've always liked clones -- they've pushed the envelope before the big guys did. The downside is that the clones never seemed to sell well in the corporate environment nor in the newb home environment; the clones were just powerhouse sellers for us geeks. By having Microsoft "dictate" what they want to see, we may actually see more third parties offering competition to the Big Four, which in turn could see prices drop a bit more, which could push more legal Microsoft products into the fray.
All around, there are some Mac-branding similarities, but I don't really think that is Microsoft's desired goal to miMac (mimic the Mac, in my vernacular). I think it is just a good idea that will help the little(r) guys, and still give the big guys a chance to offer different products that the market can choose from.
Introduction: How to Steal Back the Market from Apple - i
Getting Smart: Our new user interface needs some magic and copies Aqua -1
Making Titanium-looking cases from inexpensive aluminum -2
Preventing dual-boot -3
Wacky driver troubleshooting -4
Thwarting competing anti-virus makers-5
Understanding why we have so many versions of the same thing, and how to sell it -6
Learning how to shave like Steve Jobs -7
Appendix A: Stock options manual for new employees
Appendix B: Using your wife's PR company to kill everyone's love for you
Appendix C: Why Longhorn isn't a cheese
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Put nipples on the reset and power button. If you're going to reboot the POS everyday, why not get a little titty with it?
Trolls make great pets. Adopt one today!
Dear Microsoft,
It seems that you are doing a lot of things lately to tell me what I want out of your products. Vista's new UI, and now these fancy industrial design specs.
Guess what? I couldn't care less what the shape of my PC is. It is under the desk with my UPS, subwoofer and trash can. And I have no need for a fancy new desktop UI, especially one that takes resources away from what I actually want to do with my computer, like photo and video editing.
What I want is excellent software, compatible with open standards, for a reasonable price. You used to deliver this. When you delivered virtual memory and preemptive multitasking, you were ahead of Apple. Now you seem way behind. And also, I want you to support open standards so that I can use other products with others that haven't paid you a licensing fee, such as open source. I'm not a sheep to lock in. Hello Linux and OSX.
And your prices are far from reasonable. The fact that I can't transfer a OEM Windows licence from one PC to another is rubbish. The fact that you want $399 for the standard edition of office, which I have paid you for several times over the years is robbery. I was happy with the functionality of office five years ago. Why should I need to buy it again? Hello, Open Office.
I'm not a sheep, Microsoft. You used to be innovative. Now you are all about marketing. Its been fun, but we're breaking up!
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
On one of my rare walks through Walmart yesterday, I noticed a DVD player for $34.00.
:)
It's hard to imagine that there is $1200 worth of electronics in the new Dell computer I just got at work. As cell phones and iPod-like devices become ever-more powerful at sub-$200 prices, it's going to cast an ever-more powerful spotlight on the PC market. I've thought for some time that we are on the verge of seeing PC's become commoditized like calculators.
This latest blurb from Mircosoft is an attempt to stop PCs from becoming generic commodities - because once they start to look like that consumers will expect them to be priced like that.
I already do.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
If anything has "boy racer" looks, it is Alienware et al. Apple designs may not be for everyone, but they are generally clean and simple, while the "boy racer" look is anything but. Case windows, cold cathode tubes that flash in time with the audio, LED fans, and gaudy paint-jobs are more in the realm of PCs than Macs.
/usr/games/fortune
Ummm, no. Your claim is specious. You seem to be saying that Microsoft got 95% of the market by leveraging their market dominance in an "illegal" way. You don't get 95% marketshare by being a monopoly; you become a monopoly by getting 95% marketshare. The "illegal anti-trust" activities are only "illegal" and "anti-trust" once you already have dominant marketshare, which they achieved by providing superior value (in conjunction with the hardware vendors) to the consumers.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
I believe that is due to misshaps that Apple made during the early and mid 90s (this is before Steve Jobs and OS X). Apple had a hard time creating a modern OS (Pink, Taligent, Copland), while Microsoft started to improve their OSes to the point that they surpassed the original Mac OS in stability and performance while almost matched it in usability (Windows 95 and especially Windows NT-based products). In 1999, I'd choose Windows 2000 over Mac OS 9 any day for most tasks. Had Apple's failed OS ventures actually didn't fail, then perhaps Apple's marketshare would be much more substantial.
Windows and non-Mac PCs are still selling very well for a few reasons. Businesses are still heavily dependent on Windows software. But the biggest reason why MS has 95% and Apple has 5% is the price of admission is much lower. You can buy an entry level desktop for $300 and an entry level laptop for $600. It would come with some Celeron processor, a somewhat shabby graphics card, the traditional bundled applications (that don't really play together with other applications, unlike iLife and OS X's integration), and XP Home. However, this is what 90% or so of the computer population wants to buy; a computer fast enough to do email, word processing, photo editing, DVD watching, web browsing, music downloading, and other everyday tasks. For them, that $300 Celeron machine or $600 Celeron laptop would suffice.
Now, if you spend $600 (or $1100 for the laptop), you can get a Mac. The Mac comes with OS X, iLife, a pretty nice processor (1.5GHz Core Solo for the $600 Mac Mini, 1.66GHz Core Duo for the $800 Mini, and 1.83GHz Core Duo for the $1100 MacBook), decent graphics (I'm typing this on a MacBook now; the Intel Integrated Graphics on this machine isn't very hampering unless you are a intense gamer, which I am not). All of the iLife applications work together. I enjoy the searching capabilities of Spotlight and use them every day. I like how Spotlight is integrated with all of my other applications. For a Unix hacker like myself, the terminal is just a click on the Dock away. I don't have to worry about bad drivers, malware, viruses, or anything like that. I work with a peace of mind.
Macs are worth the price. When I showed my parents and siblings my Mac and fooled around with it for a few days, they fell in love with it. They were sold on buying a Mac, and they are now saving up for a iMac. The problem is that cheaper PCs are good enough for 90% of the market. Windows XP "just works" now (as long as you keep an eye on security), and Vista will be far better than XP (insert "it's a copy of OS X here"; say what you want, but Vista is still better than XP). Perhaps they haven't had exposure to OS X; my parents were sold on the Mac within a few days. Perhaps they still must have a Windows PC for their jobs (and they don't know that Intel Macs can run Windows natively). Or, perhaps that money is an issue for most people.
Many people say that in order for Apple to increase its marketshare, they should release OS X to all x86 PCs. After owning a Mac for a few days, I'll disagree. Most users don't know how to install an OS, assuming that they know what an OS is. Plus, part of the benefit of buying a Mac is that you know that all of your hardware works. You don't have to scrounge the Net looking for drivers; your hardware in most cases "just works." Finally, it will make Apple have to compete with Microsoft in Microsoft's domain: OSes. Apple would be back in the Spindler/Amelio days of cloning and red ink. The best way for Apple to raise its marketshare is to lower its price of admission and provide some more variety in Mac offerings (while retaining a clear-cut consumer/pro line). How about a Core Solo MacBook for $700? How about knocking down the Mac Mini to $500 again just like it was originally was in January 2005. How about releasing that iMac for Education to the general public for $999? That will make a large increase in Apple's marketshare, because they will be much closer to the price points that most consumers buy their computers at.
Those OEMs couldn't "beautify" anything if their life depended on it. If they could, they'd already do so. The best they can do is steal Apple's 3 year old designs.
...that nobody's going to buy it because of the operating system.
As a starting point, I'd like to suggest designers read, "A Whole New Mind" by Daniel Pink, and check out some articles at: http://www.danpink.com/. Furthermore, I suggest visiting IDEO http://www.ideo.com/ideo.asp. Pay special attention to their "method card" deck. Lastly (for purposes of this discussion) I suggest visiting http://www.mcdonough.com/# . The common thread in all this is DESIGN. William McDonough says that the need for regulation indicates a failure in design.
2 ,00.asp http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/ ) to really innovative interfaces ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet_project http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/).
The design of the product goes 'way beyond just cosmetics. There is only so much you can do with an enclosure for a PC board, but there is LOTS you can do with the system as a whole. Case modding is just a place to start. Functional design improvements are being made in everything from the input devices ( http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,111201
The IDEO method cards are different from the "Creative Whack Pack" or "Thinkertoys" cards, in that they redefine the product design domain. The jobs of the future are going to be design jobs requiring both high creativity and high technical ability. If someone in India or China can do your job as well and cheaper than you, or if a computer can do your job better and faster, your job is obsolete.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
You seem to be saying that Microsoft got 95% of the market by leveraging their market dominance in an "illegal" way.
They were convicted of using their dominant market share (gained via IBM's entry into the PC business back when Apple and Commodore were the top dogs) to maintain their current market share. The question was, "Why does MS have 95%....", not, "How did they get it?"
Microsoft got dominant because they road on the the coat-tails of the dominant computer force of the time (IBM). They maintained their dominance through unethical behavior (the whole DR-DOS thing, followed up through Netscape, etc).
The "illegal anti-trust" activities are only "illegal" and "anti-trust" once you already have dominant marketshare, which they achieved by providing superior value (in conjunction with the hardware vendors) to the consumers.
I thought the question was about how Microsoft has 95% share today (which they don't, any longer), rather than how they got it? In that case, the GP poster is correct.
But, 'superior value?' Not by any real metric I've ever seen. Microsoft gained market dominance with IBM. Once Compaq cloned the hardware, Microsoft made exclusive distribution deals with them (Compaq just needed an OS). Every big manufacturer of computers went to Microsoft for the OS, because Microsoft was the only game in town.
When DR-DOS started picking up market share because it provided superior value, Microsoft basically told the computer sellers, "If you want to ship MS-DOS, you can't give the consumer the choice of DR-DOS." Later, when MS-Windows finally took off (with MS-Windows 3.1), this restriction had some serious teeth. Later, they used similar "deals" with the distributors to lock out WordPerfect and WordPerfect Office, which provided superior value to MS-Office.
This whole scenerio has been repeated several times in the course of Microsoft's rise to dominance. It was their one way of locking out competition.
There was never one time when Microsoft offered "superior value." There was a time when they had an exclusive deal with IBM (the 800-pound gorilla of the day), because IBM as a corporation didn't take the PC market seriously. By the time the PC took off, Microsoft was already firmly entrenched in the distribution channels, whether it was IBM or Compaq or Gateway. Then it turned out that IBM could eventually produce a superior operating system (OS/2), but didn't know how to market it. Gah! Idiots!
Microsoft ended up where they were because the hardware was a superior value proposition, and they worked it so that they were the only software that could get sold on that hardware. Microsoft worked hard to keep competitors out of their distribution chains. They have been so convicted in several countries, not just the US.
So again, the GP post was correct.
In conclusion, I'd say that Microsoft has hindered progress, not helped it. By locking out competition, Microsoft has been a regulatory force on the industry, pushing their goals on everyone else. And, near as I can tell, they've done this with never once providing "superior value."
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Me, I love the English language. I don't have anything against the French you know, but their language just isn't as developed. I dunno, English just has that.... je ne sais quoi.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.