the same plan.

I've been thinking that Microsoft and Apple have more or less the same plan, when you stop and think about it.

With Microsoft, I see the future in the XBox.  A powerful, versatile box that snuck Microsoft into the living rooms of millions, and has expanded from a gaming platform to a communications hub, a direct link to the cloud, a place to buy content, rent movies, and interact with your social network.  The XBox took what Microsoft did best, complex systems run with massive scale and compatability, and sold it initially as an entertainment product.  Buying an XBox is buying into the framework Microsoft is building, and the relative ease of use that comes with having that in place, and purchasing other Microsoft products.  

If this interoperability is pushed further, Microsoft will be inseparable from the entertainment practices of countless people.

With Apple, the future is clearly the iPhone.  You could argue that the iPod was about getting Apple into the lives of potential users, showing them the way Apple software worked.  The iPhone took that unprecedented brand loyalty, and snaked it into other aspects of your life.  A shocking amount of my communication comes through my iPhone, as does a notable portion of my entertainment.  It's my gaming, video, audio, telephone, email, facebook, etc etc etc.  Apple dropped the 'Computer' from it's name not that long ago, which I considered a clear, telegraphing move.

The plan is more or less the same: stake out a segment of people's lives, and put the computer there.  Make your product, your company, the point of contact for that location.  Take the computer out of the bedroom, or basement, or living room.  Take the computer out of the computer.

Microsoft is taking the living room, with the XBox, and potentially with the Surface table.  Apple is taking your pocket, and your personal telecommunications.

It's the same plan.  And the only question is, which one is more important in your day to day life, and your connections with others.  The living room, or the cell phone?

consistent branding is more important than continuity.

A good friend, who recently got some serious blog attention for noticing that even stuff aimed at the casual gamer hates macs, pointed this out to me.

They're updating the PC based version of the XBox Live Marketplace.  And have decided to give it the moronic title of "Games for Windows - LIVE XXXXX" where XXXXX is replaced by a selection from random user suggestions.

And it's embarrassing.  I've avoided commenting on the Seinfeld ads extensively, in part because I'm convinced the value will become apparent in the longer campaign, and in part because I think my distaste is Apple fanboyism gone rampant.  But this I have to comment on.

The XBox, and XBox Live, are the crown jewels of Microsoft's image.  Despite hardware that fails regularly, it's a premiere system, and in my informal observation, the number one choice of the hardcore gamer.  XBox is the brand you want associated with a system that is going to be a one stop competitor for Steam, iTunes Music Store, and who knows what else.

The product should be called XBox Live on every system, I'd think.  When you think of XBox, you think Microsoft Gaming, not specifically a console.  The marketplace should be the same whether you browse it on your Zune, your PC, or your XBox 360.  You should be able to buy products from any of these consoles, and have them download when you turn the appropriate device on.  You should be able so share and organize content between them.  XBox, in terms of appreciation, is the glue of users loving Microsoft.  Make it the glue of your digital distribution strategy.

I'd go as far as to release XBox editions of Vista, optimized for the hardcore PC gamer.  Why not?  It's a brand extension, but it needn't dilute the brand value, because it's the same idea.  Ideas don't have to be bound to a format, that's the first lesson of the digital copying era.

blackberry vs iphone.

I'm weighing in now; the people who love to argue that the iPhone is overpriced, over-hyped, and inferior to the Blackberries they have been using for the last couple years, are the equivalent of the people who until 2003 or so, would argue that Apple products were overpriced crap, and that Windows was vastly superior, and the far more intelligent choice.

You're confusing familiarity with usability. You're arguing that a cheaper, more limited experience is always better than a more expensive, broader one. And, more than slightly amusing since we're living in the soon-to-be cloud computing age, you're arguing that a full featured, desktop class mobile web browsing environment isn't a game breaker.

We're living in times of change. Microsoft has stopped copying Apple in favour of Nintendo, and the new 'sensible' choice in competition with Apple is RIM's Blackberry.

[N.B. - I am currently less than 24 hours into owning an iPhone. I am reserving the right to revise my impressions if this just turns out to be afterglow.]

microsoft will never be cool.

Not too long ago, I read an article in Fast Company about Crispin, Porter and Bogusky being hired to more or less make Microsoft cool. This is a reasonable task, from the outside – one of the most prevalent, powerful, successful companies in the world. The problem is that Microsoft is inherently the antithesis of cool. As evidenced by the recent unveiling of their new Xbox 360 Dashboard project at E3.

This is an important moment in Microsoft history. They’ve finally stopped copying Apple, and started copying Nintendo.

Microsoft wants to be cool, that’s easy to understand. Cool equals new customers. But Microsoft, to me, seems based on a simple premise that’s very hard to pull off. They wait to see what resonates with consumers, and then they remake it, with the benefit of having the most money, the best people, and the largest built in market of users.

This isn’t cool. This is the opposite of cool. And despite the model working in every other aspect of the business, you can't copy someone else's ideas and become cool. No matter how much money, time and talent you invest.

Microsoft buys success by operating on a level above, strategy-wise, from their competitors. But not as a leader or a puppet master. As a very rich, very talented follower.

I feel for CP+B. This is an impossible, endless task.

laughing at microsoft - becoming common in my life.

Two posts in one day? Something disruptive must have happened.

I recall, earlier this summer, a conversation with a friend, relating to the UX of the iPod, and what could trump it. This pops back into my mind because the iPod touch is basically forcing me to laugh at microsoft.

The Zune was interesting because it had a big screen (a beautiful screen, from everything I've heard) and wi-fi. These were the features that everyone saw and started muttering 'iPod killer' over. And with good reason. When bitching about the iPod's UX (which took some thinking, but there were still complaints) my major problems were 1) no search mechanism on the ipod itself other than scrolling, 2) have to be hooked to a computer to download music. This discussion went immediately to how simple it would have been for MSFT to address at least one of these issues, if they hadn't put so much effort into appeasing the DRM lust held by music labels, tv networks, movie studios, et al.

I'm not laughing at Microsoft because they are releasing a new set of Zunes into a marketplace that refuses to stay static long enough for them to play it safe. I'm laughing at Microsoft because the Zune proves, to me at least, that they can no longer even steal ideas and improve on them effectively. The fact that there was a wi-fi enabled, bigger screened competitor available for so long, and they managed to make it less appealing not in spite of the wi-fi, but BECAUSE of it, boggles the mind.

And then Apple walks back into the throne room and says 'Oh yeah, wi-fi, cute idea. Maybe we'll let people use it for what they want, and what it can do'.

I'm laughing because the idea of being able to download music directly to your music player is actually somewhat revolutionary in the current western marketplace. I'm laughing because I want it so badly.

observations on open source

When I first made my never-far-from-the-conversation switch to Apple, I decided I was going to put my actions up against my words, and use OpenOffice for all of my text editing needs. And, for a little while, it was tolerable. When a fellow user and friend switched back to microsoft Word, he did so because OpenOffice felt like 'a windows app that just happens to run on a mac.' I later corrected him that it was much more like a linux app that just happens to run on a mac, but you get his point.

I persevered. But, today, I reached my breaking point. The hassle of settings, of formatting, of doing pretty much anything other than entering text, was getting to me. Hell, the hassle of saving a set of changes, and then opening .doc files to find that they had reverted, got to me. Moreover, my friend was right. The interface was hideous, counter-intuitive, and didn't work well with anything in a .doc biased world.

Today I learned something very odd. Microsoft products can look appealing. Apparently only when they are coded for a Mac, though. Confusing. Still, I had to abandon my open source ideals, and for one simple reason; it doesn't work well enough.

It works, inarguably. I COULD, if forced, live with using only that one program. But, for me, open source isn't just about escaping the tyrrany of massive corporations, or harnessing the power of crowdsourcing. For me, open source is mostly about creating alternatives to fight the limitations intentionally imposed on users for corporate gain.

Today I learned that unintentional limitations and failings are worse, on an individual experience level. Worse because being unable to do what you are supposed to do will always be more glaring than being unable to do something the designer doesn't want you to do.

Still, using Word makes me feel dirty. Maybe I should switch to Pages...