Slashdot Mirror
Woz Worries Microsoft Is Now More Innovative Than Apple
First time accepted submitter yvajj writes "According to a techcrunch interview, Woz believes that Microsoft is now more innovative than Apple. Per the interview, it seems as though Apple is now just doing newer versions of the iPhone, and are potentially headed into a rut. Another gem from Woz is the fact that he treats all new hardware as something new to learn from and does not approach it with any preconceptions (irrespective of who the manufacturer is / what OS etc.). A great short interview from Woz."
Interesting interview.
That's refreshing to hear instead of the typical /. preconceived garbage they carry around, calling people as Apple fanbois or Micro$oft; and predicting doom and gloom for every corresponding company's new product launch. /.'ers ability to predict product success is about as good as predicting the stock market.
Why should he be worried? Innovation benefits everybody, no matter who does it!
Woz should probably be cheering for Apple's demise at this point...
Just imagine if IBM had been as good at shifting shiny cyrptographic lockboxes and patent litigation back when Apple was getting started. They would have sued his hacker ass back into the garage for good and we'd all still be speaking EBCDIC.
That people are going to take this interview and run with it. The Woz is saying he likes hardware. He uses all types and gives it a unbiased review. He said he can see Microsoft being more innovative than Apple. That is all. He isn't saying Apple is doomed and Microsoft is the new king. I think The Woz is a great guy as i've said before in another post and this is another great review from someone who loves hardware and not companies.
seems like one of the few people in the valley who've managed to retain their techno-weenie spirit despite enormous corporate success.
Are people blind? Seriously?
One look at the surface running windows 8 is enough to prove that microsoft is massively innovative these days. If anything, they might be too innovative.
For putting on a new skin/overlay to cover up the 'start' button?
The start of the interview eerily echos the likes of RMS talking more about fear of the cloud; Ownership [Device and Data] and Subscription services, which I personally believe is a more interesting topic that this pissing contest topic.
The question about innovation has troll written all over it. The answer was not as the summary suggest "Microsoft is more innovative than Apple [or Google]", but that Microsoft seemed to be looking for revolutionary innovation as opposed to [Apples] post Jobs evolutionary innovation. Woz explains what he means; Apple is simply producing improved versions of its own products rather than creating new markets [post Steve Jobs]. To be honest I think the word innovation is stretched very heavily to mean something completely different, from what I would say it meant.
The discussion of whether innovative[sic] people [Scott Forstall] are being pushed out for being like Jobs[Innovative but not nice], Woz and I paraphrase a little basically says Apple creating great products despite Jobs [uses words like dis-admire?; rough; not friendly; real rugged bastard; put people down; make them feel demeaned].
Woz handled what seemed to be a interviewer with an agenda, with honest answers [or at least came across as such] that unfortunately are hidden behind a summery that does the same.
I've been using Windows 8 for weeks. The start menu is now full screen instead of a button, which makes it easier for me to start my programs and the tiles provide information without having to open anything. My email, news, calendar, weather, and stocks all display what I want to know with no effort on my part. I think it is an improvement. I used to have to go to Start -> programs -> and search for my program's folder and try to click on the executable without clicking on the Help, Order, Uninstaller, or Read Me. Now, unless I click on All Apps, the start screen hides all that for me and I need only a single click to get what I need. Administration is easier with just a single right click in the lower left. Holy shit, why didn't someone do this sooner. The start menu is a giant pile of shit that I had to scroll though and search through. With Windows 7 I always created a new toolbar because the start menu sucked. Now I just click. What is your specific grip about it? How long have you used it? Are you a just karma whore?
It is easy to come up with lots of "new" products.
It is NOT easy to come up with a single new better product that people want to grab out of your hands.
Give Microsoft some credit? MS typically makes shitty clones of popular products. Windows 3.11 was an ugly clone and copy of the Mac. Nothing innovative. Netbios was their poor attempt of copying VMS networking technologies. Word was a copy of Wordperfect. Excel was bought and was a cheap clone of Lotus. IE a buggy clone of Netscape etc.
Windows 8, Surface, and Windows Phone, are innovative and new. Metro may suck on the desktop but I could use it on a phone or tablet. It is the first time in recent memory that MS is actually trying something new and different.
Maybe non power users and hipsters will like it? We are just old and set in our ways, but for most uses a tiny tablet that has a keyboard attachment and a tile UI is innovative.
MS is no longer the monster riding on IBMs monopoly. MS has never faced competition like this before. It was their nightmare of the internet multiplied over by apps and devices that use the internet as their platform which has the inertia to compete. What does MS have to gain by making poor knockoffs? Nothing.
http://saveie6.com/
Unlike many people who posted here, I actually saw the entire video. I am not a Steve Jobs fan or an apple fanboi.
I do admire Steve Wozniak, though. ( though am not his spokesperson - this is my interpretation )
IMO, what he's saying is that
- Small, incremental evolutions by Apple in their products will not help Apple in the long run.
- The delta between Apple and it's competitors is reducing.
- Apple needs to create newer product lines AND/OR create bring out more 'revolutionary products'
He probably means that we're not seeing the kind of 'jumps' that we saw from iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4
or the creation of the iPad.
To conclude, he does not think that apple is doomed per se.
He is just worried that the pace of innovation might be slowing down at apple. Like all geeks, Woz believes in catching problems earlier rather than later.
You know, this makes me wonder...
Apple (Steve Jobs) was known for telling customers that it "just works" and for having limited options because the way it works is--obviously--the "best" way.
I wonder if Jobs ran his company that way too...just telling his people what to do, rather than teaching them how to arrive at good decisions or good designs on their own. If so, then they really wouldn't have a clue what to do now that he's gone.
It seems the pendulum is swinging back towards Microsoft. If you live long enough, it will swing back (or away from MSFT) again.
It reminds me of the days when data was stored on main-frames, mini's, etc. with distributed green-screens... it went to PC's (stored locally), and now the cloud, then...
It's the pendulum.
Wozniak is a rational voice in a world of fanbois that sees benefit in innovation. Saying that Woz is not qualified on the grounds that he is no longer involved with Apple is erroneous at best. Woz was a true innovator, more so than myself or any other /. commentor and is perfectly suited to comment on his perception of what qualifies as innovation.
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
Actually, Word was a contemporary of WordPerfect, not a copy. Lots of us used Microsoft Word for DOS. It went through 6 major versions before the Windows version.
I had an iPhone for two years, an Android (HTC Evo) for two years, and I recently got a Nokia 920 with Windows 8. All vey different experiences, but from an overall polish and usability standpoint, Windows 8 is the clear winner. The UI is wonderful. Apple still has the upper hand on hardware (not screens though), and Android has the upper hand in apps and 'openness' (if you even care about that). But when I got this device I felt like I did when I first got the iPhone. Maybe that feeling is what he is referring to.
Oh please. Woz didn't say that he believes that Microsoft is more innovative than Apple. He said he has seen Microsoft do some things that seem more innovative than what he has seen from Apple in the last few years. ... they don't.
But he admits that he doesn't even know the people currently in charge at Apple all that well, so how is he supposed to know what Apple is developing right now?
I mean, we all know how secretive Apple is. It's also no secret that Microsoft does do a lot of basic research; they frequently show promising tech demos. The original surface anyone? But it's Apple who creates actually successful products while Microsoft largely seems to be content making new versions of Windows and Office every now and then. It's just now with their latest tablet efforts that they are trying something new for a change. And that means new for Microsoft. There's not all that much new for the market in that product.
Or to take it from another perspective: I believe Microsoft *does* have the resources to produce a really innovative and compelling product. It's just that
Also, I have to comment on this sentence of the original article:
"if Tim Cook should stumble, Apple might consider bringing [Woz] back as their CEO."
That's just ridiculous. Look, I like Woz. He's obviously a really nice guy. And he's very smart; I mean, he built the original Apple-II almost on his own. But let's be honest: He's not a very good business man. He would make a *very* bad replacement for Tim Cook. And you know it.
We're off to see the wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Woz
We hear he is a whiz of a wiz, if ever a wiz there was
If ever, oh ever a wiz there was, The Wizard of Woz is one because
Because, because, because, because, because
Because of the wonderful things he does
We're off to see the wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Woz
What made Sony once great is that the manager never stopped his engineers from trying anything and everything and it gave them a great range of products and a name for quality (Yes I know it popular to hate on Sony now but the company used to be very different when it was still a pure Japanese company). And gosh isn't that "do whatever you want and we see what comes out of it" just like Googles 20% idea except Sony had it at 100% (and because engineers are engineers, got 140%)?
Focussing on one product, one the core business is a great way to die slowly. It is something managers just don't get, which is why management should be restricted to bean counting, and stopped from running companies. The lower engineers should run the company, the CEO should just make sure that the money is accounted for and try not to steal to much of it.
MS is indeed an innovative company, they have a LOT of ideas. It just never materializes into products people can buy because MS keeps trying to maximize profits. Take gaming. Halo 4 was actually named in the same list of earners for MS as Windows and Office... that is quite a lot for single game. And is Halo 4 available for that Windows? No it is not. Because MS decided to maximize its profits by focussing on its console instead it is hurting its own OS by starving it of games. (If I don't need a PC for gaming I can run OSX just as easily, gaming is the one lockin remaining).
There is absolutely no reason for MS not to produce games that run on both Windows and its console and even encourage it. Instead it spends hard cash discouraging this. It is one manager trying to focus on one product and not the business as a whole.
It is the approach of trying to maximize everything in terms of profit that actually hurts MS badly. When it launched the Zune it launched it with a new DRM scheme and shop incompatible with what they had been selling to MP3 player makers before. Gosh... that is a HELL of a way to get them to buy into your stuff again. First you force them to adopt your scheme, then you launch a new one for your own player.
The Surface is another example. Google can do it because the Nexus are nice phones but bare ones. But the Surface is a full blown competitor except MS can afford to subsidize the hell out of it. OEM's can't and are already on razor thin margins to begin with. And in order to maximize MS sales, the expensive Surface doesn't even come with a full Office license, with Office being the only selling point the device has. It is understandable they want the extra cash but it is no way to market a product already perceived as behind before launch. Of course, if they did include a full office for "free" the OEM's would be even more upset, but you already upset them so why not go the whole way? (Remember that if you have office on your PC and on your tablet, you now have two licenses to pay for despite only using one at a time)
Windows 8 is another example. The simple fact is that Phones, Tablets, Consoles, PC's, Laptops are different devices. Trying to get people to use them all the same way is stupid. It would like fitting your bicycle with a steering wheel because well, your car has one? Why not a unified interface for all vehicles? It has been said time and time again, holding up your hand at above heart height is tiring. And for large desktop spaces, some of my monitors are actually out of reach.
Enabling touch for every interface means Fisher Pricing it to hell and back and desktops have always been about putting as much information as possible on it. I don't WANT huge buttons on my NON-touchscreen monitor just in case I might one day spend extra money just so I can have fingermarks on my screens.
But MS wants to focus on one product, one interface to rule them all and in darkness bind them... gosh and how did that end in Mordor? Oh yeah, but tying all your power into one focus point, you die along with it.
The Kinect is another great example. It is a very interesting product but NOT because MS wanted it to be. They jus
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
My gripe: I run remote desktops. Sometimes from an iPad, sometimes from an android tablet, sometimes in windowed mode from a windows PC. Nearly everything does not work with remote desktop. There's no start button to click. There's no way to run an app w/o getting to start. There's no way to simulate gestures when you don't use a mouse. Productivity is way down with this thing.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
iPad Mini Commercial (Jimmy Kimmel)
Excel was actually always an in-house Microsoft thing. Originally it was called Multiplan and was actually very popular for a while. Like the poster mentioning Word, it's a contemporary of its main competition, not a copy.
IE was originally a licensed and rebranded version of one of the old mosaic browsers. I'm sure the name is on the wiki somewhere, but it was definitely not attempting to clone what would be the Gecko engine.
The fact is, Microsoft has always tried to compete, not copy. They've tried to do things better than the competition and not exactly like it. Like any company, they've had their share of failures and successes, but it's DEFINITELY not fair to say Microsoft has been riding the coattails of anybody - especially not in the modern day where its success was mostly through buyouts of very successful, good pieces of software. Every large company does this.
None of this, however, hides the fact that the Metro interface is awful for desktops and trying to force it on the desktop in order to force users to use their app store is and already has sewn some seeds of contempt. Microsoft is definitely making a HUGE gamble on this and arguably a mistake as well.
Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
I've used Windows 8 for weeks as well, at work (the nature of my job) stretching back to the summer previews.
The start menu that is now full screen (that you seem so enamored with), doesn't really do it for me. On Windows 7 I could hit the windows key, and start typing to search installed apps. Now the windows key flips screens, and desktop -> metro, does not focus the search feature. No, I get to hover in the corner with the mouse, in order to pull the search "charm" from the side, to click it and search.
As for specific gripes, have you actually tried using any of the metro apps? Like to view pictures for example? The "Photo" app only lets you see ones your Pictures folder (Library->Pictures). I've got games and apps that don't happen to use that as the default directory. As a result, I need to copy or move all my pics into this ONE place that is usable, or hunt them down in the explorer for desktop mode, then double click (causes a "flip" to metro mode) to view each one. This blows chunks and my compromise (for now) is to enable the small preview mode (lower right toggle).
Fundamentally, the whole grafting together of desktop and metro interfaces isn't as smooth as it could be. Novice users are going to be totally mystified why one half of their system sees files and the other one doesn't, and they aren't really going to care much about the metro app directory sandboxing.
I can't help but notice you posted anon, and then have the balls to accuse somebody of being a karma whore. Seems like you are a major shill that doesn't want to be outed or attached to a real user account.
I've used Windows 8 for weeks as well, at work (the nature of my job) stretching back to the summer previews.
The start menu that is now full screen (that you seem so enamored with), doesn't really do it for me. On Windows 7 I could hit the windows key, and start typing to search installed apps. Now the windows key flips screens, and desktop -> metro, does not focus the search feature. No, I get to hover in the corner with the mouse, in order to pull the search "charm" from the side, to click it and search.
Actually, you don't have to pull the search charm up to search. Just start typing whenever you're on the start screen and it'll assume you're doing a search. It's definitely annoying that type-to-search isn't obvious -- it seems like discoverability is not so great with Metro, but hey, if you're still reading, at least you have a solution to one problem that sounds like it was annoying as hell. For what it's worth, I preferred the start menu from before because I could still see my desktop while I was searching.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am a Microsoft Employee. No, I do not work on any of the teams designing the modern UI. There are parts that I think are awesome, and parts that I think are poor. We'll see how users end up handling it and (I hope) our designers will push through good improvements based on the usage patterns and frustrations that occur, but only time will tell.
I'll have to try that. My experience with RDP is originating from Windows 8, I haven't RDP'd into it as I only have a few Windows 8 I dial into (Dameware, LogMeIn, Teamviewer). So for me it works great. I will test your issues. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I also have an issue with NextPVR which needs to start full screen on a second monitor. I'd like to use Windows 8 but it is not yet supported because there is no simple "Boot to Desktop" switch without third party software. I guess Microsoft only cares about the ubiquitous tablet and phone environment and not the custom software application. You point out a legitimate issue. Nice post. I hope there is an easy workaround as it is an immature operating system, but this could be bad.
MS typically makes shitty clones of popular products.
That oversimplifies the situation to the point of not being a useful statement.
Windows 3.11 was an ugly clone and copy of the Mac.
No, both the Mac and Windows were attempts to make something similar to the Xerox GUI system (that both Jobs and Gates had seen). And in those wild and woolly early days there was a lot of cross-pollination between the Windows and Mac worlds.
At the time, the Mac was hands-down more beautiful, more elegant, and more polished. Windows 3.x was partially burdened by a bunch of GUI conventions invented by IBM called "CUA" (Common User Access); this is why the shortcut for "save file" was not Ctrl+S, but rather Shift+F12 or something like that.
I'm sure there is stuff in Windows that was on the Mac first, but it is hardly accurate to say that Windows 3.x was a "clone" of the Mac. Heck, I think it was 1987 before Mac OS could even do color, and Windows was full color all along. Windows always had menus on each window, Mac always had a top-of-screen menu bar. All sorts of differences.
Netbios was their poor attempt of copying VMS networking technologies.
I don't know anything about this so I will take your word for it.
Word was a copy of Wordperfect.
Good grief, no! Where are you getting this? Word was originally released with the so-called "multitool" interface, a weird sort of menu system. WordPerfect was designed to be used mostly via the function keys (and everyone had little function key overlays to remind them what Shift+Control+Alt+F9 did and all the others). WordPerfect used embedded codes and had a "reveal codes" command; Word used properties that were attached to characters, paragraphs, sections, or styles.
Here's a primary reference: My mission: write the world's first wordprocessor with a spreadsheet user-interface. It took five years to repair the damage.
Word for Windows was available before there ever was a WordPerfect for Windows, so I don't think your claim makes sense in the GUI world either.
Excel was bought and was a cheap clone of Lotus.
Just as Word evolved from the "multitool" version of Word, Excel evolved from Multiplan, Microsoft's first spreadsheet. Per Wikipedia, Multiplan was first sold in 1982, and Lotus 1-2-3 came out in 1983. Excel was not bought; you are mistaken on that point.
Multiplan and Excel were nothing like Lotus 1-2-3; Borland tried making a menu-compatible spreadsheet that actually was like 1-2-3, and got sued.
IE a buggy clone of Netscape etc.
Microsoft licensed a browser called Spyglass Mosaic and customized that into IE 1.0. Spyglass Mosaic was sort of based on NCSA Mosaic, the first popular web browser ever. In no sense can either Mosaic be considered a clone of Netscape, given that Netscape 1.0 was also based upon NCSA Mosaic!
Probably as IE evolved, it copied stuff from other browsers. That happens. IE also pioneered stuff, a lot of stuff we don't really want (remember ActiveX?).
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
A little bold statement - but not exactly inaccurate.
Apple didn't invented or innovated absolutely a single product that make success under his grisp - aside the Apple II.
Apple Phone, Newton et all - Apple's innovations, but utter failures.
iPod, Mac OSX, Intel Macs - commodities established by someone else that Apple adopted, improved and then re-released under his brand.
I would not claim "perfectness", but they did a God damned good job on all these.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
This is precisely why quad core Android phones with 1GB of memory were having their arses handed to them by iPhones with supposedly "slower" processors and less memory. It is really the "software" that makes all of the difference and it is why even the superphones have laggy UIs compared to iOS devices.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Windows 3.11 was an ugly clone and copy of the Mac.
Not really anything alike unless you think having a GUI makes it a clone.
Netbios was their poor attempt of copying VMS networking technologies
Wrong on all accounts. Microsoft did not even invent netbios.
Word was a copy of Wordperfect.
They were nothing alike outside of both being word processors.
Excel was bought and was a cheap clone of Lotus
Oh please all of the concepts and shit came from visicalc which lotus, quattro..etc ripped off.
IE a buggy clone of Netscape etc.
IE started from the Mosaic codebase.
Windows 8, Surface, and Windows Phone, are innovative and new
They copied Apple in all the crappy ways that matter... app store, absurd vendor control over software environment, no customization options, dumbed down, skyhook crowdsourcing without asking, narrow developer platform requirements.
Maybe non power users and hipsters will like it?
I hope someone does.
Try Start8: it does away with the Start screen, and returns the Win XP/7-style Start Menu, and plus other adjustments to the GUI.
A much better experience if you're not using Win8 from a touch device. When I get one, I look forward to Metro - it just doesn't help me on a desktop with a mouse and big monitors.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
But also some stuff we do: XMLHTTP requests (now AJAX) and iframes.
I'm not a MSFT fanboi, but credit where it's due... in tune with the rest of your post.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
Netbios was their poor attempt of copying VMS networking technologies
You know that David Cutler was brought in from DEC to be the lead for the NT team while it was being designed, right? Cutler himself had said that WNT -> VMS+1. The whole system is modeled after VMS, except more modern, the people who designed VMS designed it, after all.
IE was never a clone of Netscape (IE didn't suck, compared to NEtscape at least, for one).
Word was a contemporary of Word Perfect, not a clone.
Excel wasn't bought, but if you're going to argue it to be a clone of Lotus, one could argue Lotus was a clone of Visicalc.
MS is no longer the monster riding on IBMs monopoly.
What monopoly? Are you from the bizarro universe where there was no Commodore/Amigia, Atari or Apple?
Have you seen Windows 8?
Yes, he probably has. A large part of innovating is coming up with new ideas.
Metro in Windows 8 is certainly a new idea in terms of trying to come up with a user interface that is interchangeable between phone and desktop. It might be the MS have made an utter hash of it, but learning to innovate well takes time and MS has probably forgotten how. The fact that they are trying to find a new user interface (Metro) that is a radical departure from Windows7 is very gutsy though.
I am not entirely convinced Metro will every work in terms of combining a desktop OS with the portable device OS though since the screens on desktop PC's are just getting bigger and bigger and I do not want to sit that close to it. I can barely touch my desktop screen if I am a comfortable viewing distance away and it would simply not be comfortable for me to sit like that all day long with my arm fully outstretched.
In terms of laptops and tablets though I can say a place for windows 8. That fact is that most portable pointing devices on laptops are shit in one way or another apart from just carrying around a mouse or using a touchscreen. The problem with touchscreens is that people like me with big clompy fingers still have trouble getting the same level of precision you can get with a mouse.
The idea of a new wave of devices that are tablet based and useable in that form but can scale up to a laptop if needed is very appealing. Maybe what is needed to make this possible is to throw away the idea that we use the same OS on desktops and laptops as mice might be a great fit for a desktop, but any attempt to make it work on a portable device has never been perfect.
If you have a portable device OS that is geared much more around larger icons that can actually display information as well (ie: tiles) or a single full screen app being visible at once that strikes me as being a good idea that can work, even on a laptop that has traditionally shared the desktop OS. Just trying to do this is actually quite innovative, even if you utterly fuck it up.
I dont read