How to (sort of) re-invent Microsoft...
Among the things people feel Microsoft is getting right with the Xbox One is their claim that they are listening to the consumer feedback. Reps have stated that the system is changing based on feedback and if they deliver it could potentially end up having some great positive word of mouth promotion for both the product and the company.
This is reminiscent of, to a degree, Windows Phone 7 and Windows 8.
The problem is that Microsoft's most "visible" product is Windows and the changes there are too small, too few and too late. And when that happens, listening to feedback just backfires.
So, this is kind of a double edged sword.
I personally liked the Windows 8 that Microsoft had originally envisioned. The fact, however, is that I appear to be a part of a minority out there. And, while some praised the changes Microsoft made in Windows 8.1 that made it more Windows 7 like or absorbed some of the suggestions for alleviating the changes, they took too long to deliver for many, there weren't enough of them and they were too small.
My case in point is the Start button. They added it back... but it doesn't do what it used to do. So, you now have a feature that aggravates both the people who liked the new approach and those who liked the old. For the few who liked the new UI, this consumes un-necessary task bar space. For those who liked Windows 7 it wasn't the visual of the start button they liked, it was the functionality. And that is still not there. It seems like they accepted that they needed a better visual cue for how to get to the new start screen and just decided to try and kill 2 birds with one stone and do it via the Start button.
But, that is an old rant. Just brought up to illustrate my point.
The best example of doing this right I think was in Windows Phone 7. Updates weren't frequent per se, but they were coming out more often than they do now and I would say that they were coming out "often enough". And not only that, the updates often contained at least some new features exactly in the form that people generally had requested and wanted them. For the very small group of us out there who bought into Windows Phone at that time, we were laughing at iOS and Android users. While our platform wasn't as fleshed out, it had amazing momentum. The team behind it at Microsoft seemed intent on pleasing us. Developers were welcomed with open arms. They got early OS updates, free phones, support, you name it.
The kind of momentum the platform had in its first years, if it had kept up, would have seen Windows Phone OS become meet feature parity with iOS and Android inside of 2 years and beat them not long after.
But then, just as quickly as it started it, it stopped. Just as Windows Phone 8 started to surface updates stopped. Communication stopped. And enabling developers stopped. The SDK for Windows Phone 7.8 didn't come out until about the same time the actual OS was released. The WP8 SDK wasn't released until after the launch of the OS. Developers weren't given early access to either OS. Support and features died at that point as well. And both amongst developers and avid techies excitement around the platform died. All of this combined with the secrecy surrounding WP7 devices not being eligible for WP8 drove many away from the platform.
Xbox One currently seems to be in the same "mode" WP7 was at the beginning. Seems, because we haven't seen the fruits of this yet. id@xbox is still restrictive to most developers and we haven't yet seen the update that turns every Xbox into a dev kit. And, even if it does deliver, it could still do a 180 just like Windows Phone did and shut itself off from consumers after a few releases to placate the masses.
If Microsoft embraced, as a company, the ideals that the Windows Phone team had during its first year, then I think Microsoft could change consumers perception of the company on a wide scale within 1-2 years. And I think that as long as they iterated on releases faster (accepting that each release would contain less new content and fixes) and responded generally to the biggest complaints and requests about their system that they could even keep that positive image without giving up on their currently strategy of releasing overtly locked down systems.
On the other hand... if they can't commit to that as a company, then they need to start finding the modern solution to giving developers a platform that enabled them to do the great things they did in Win32. Their OSes and stores in their modern interfaces are simply too restrictive for a company that doesn't react fast enough or in meaningful enough ways most times.
And there is the heart of it. They either need to be more permissive or more reactive. Being permissive allows OEMs, partners and even consumers to flesh out the product on your behalf. Being reactive allows you to respond to what the market wants without relying on 3rd parties. Both have trade offs. Both can be gambles, especially if done wrong. But who ever found success without some measure of gambling? Obviously, the ultimate gamble, and the ultimate potential payoff would be to do both.
This is reminiscent of, to a degree, Windows Phone 7 and Windows 8.
The problem is that Microsoft's most "visible" product is Windows and the changes there are too small, too few and too late. And when that happens, listening to feedback just backfires.
So, this is kind of a double edged sword.
I personally liked the Windows 8 that Microsoft had originally envisioned. The fact, however, is that I appear to be a part of a minority out there. And, while some praised the changes Microsoft made in Windows 8.1 that made it more Windows 7 like or absorbed some of the suggestions for alleviating the changes, they took too long to deliver for many, there weren't enough of them and they were too small.
My case in point is the Start button. They added it back... but it doesn't do what it used to do. So, you now have a feature that aggravates both the people who liked the new approach and those who liked the old. For the few who liked the new UI, this consumes un-necessary task bar space. For those who liked Windows 7 it wasn't the visual of the start button they liked, it was the functionality. And that is still not there. It seems like they accepted that they needed a better visual cue for how to get to the new start screen and just decided to try and kill 2 birds with one stone and do it via the Start button.
But, that is an old rant. Just brought up to illustrate my point.
The best example of doing this right I think was in Windows Phone 7. Updates weren't frequent per se, but they were coming out more often than they do now and I would say that they were coming out "often enough". And not only that, the updates often contained at least some new features exactly in the form that people generally had requested and wanted them. For the very small group of us out there who bought into Windows Phone at that time, we were laughing at iOS and Android users. While our platform wasn't as fleshed out, it had amazing momentum. The team behind it at Microsoft seemed intent on pleasing us. Developers were welcomed with open arms. They got early OS updates, free phones, support, you name it.
The kind of momentum the platform had in its first years, if it had kept up, would have seen Windows Phone OS become meet feature parity with iOS and Android inside of 2 years and beat them not long after.
But then, just as quickly as it started it, it stopped. Just as Windows Phone 8 started to surface updates stopped. Communication stopped. And enabling developers stopped. The SDK for Windows Phone 7.8 didn't come out until about the same time the actual OS was released. The WP8 SDK wasn't released until after the launch of the OS. Developers weren't given early access to either OS. Support and features died at that point as well. And both amongst developers and avid techies excitement around the platform died. All of this combined with the secrecy surrounding WP7 devices not being eligible for WP8 drove many away from the platform.
Xbox One currently seems to be in the same "mode" WP7 was at the beginning. Seems, because we haven't seen the fruits of this yet. id@xbox is still restrictive to most developers and we haven't yet seen the update that turns every Xbox into a dev kit. And, even if it does deliver, it could still do a 180 just like Windows Phone did and shut itself off from consumers after a few releases to placate the masses.
If Microsoft embraced, as a company, the ideals that the Windows Phone team had during its first year, then I think Microsoft could change consumers perception of the company on a wide scale within 1-2 years. And I think that as long as they iterated on releases faster (accepting that each release would contain less new content and fixes) and responded generally to the biggest complaints and requests about their system that they could even keep that positive image without giving up on their currently strategy of releasing overtly locked down systems.
On the other hand... if they can't commit to that as a company, then they need to start finding the modern solution to giving developers a platform that enabled them to do the great things they did in Win32. Their OSes and stores in their modern interfaces are simply too restrictive for a company that doesn't react fast enough or in meaningful enough ways most times.
And there is the heart of it. They either need to be more permissive or more reactive. Being permissive allows OEMs, partners and even consumers to flesh out the product on your behalf. Being reactive allows you to respond to what the market wants without relying on 3rd parties. Both have trade offs. Both can be gambles, especially if done wrong. But who ever found success without some measure of gambling? Obviously, the ultimate gamble, and the ultimate potential payoff would be to do both.
Comments
Post a Comment