Advocacy
Dojo (HowTo)
Reference
Markets
Museum
News
Other
Myths
Press
General
Hack
Hardware
Interface
Software
Standards
People
Forensics
Web
CodeNames
Easter Eggs
History
Innovation
Sightings
Opinion
Martial Arts
ITIL
Thought
|
By
Mitchell
Parks
Copyright 1999
CompuThing Consulting
The Initial iMac Effect is Great
This past Christmas I bought my nephew (10) and niece (8)
each their own iMac. The most fabulous part of entire event
was seeing my nephew jump up and down for a good five
minutes and hearing my niece loudly exclaim, "Thanks Uncle
Mitch!"...which was indeed quite an accomplishment because
she usually suffers from a severe case of "cat's got her
tongue". My nephew continued to tell me thank-you probably
20 times over the next two days. Yes, they were both
ecstatic to have received such an uncharacteristically cool
and extravagant gift from Uncle Mitch.
And let me say this...the iMac is even more impressive at
home than in the store. Though I had seen one at a local
retailer, it was definitely more stunning freshly removed
from its box and sitting on our kitchen table. It garnered
several wows, gasps, oohs, and aahs (by the way, no one has
even missed the floppy disk). My parents, who have never
really "wanted" a computer before, are already saying they
are going to buy one when prices are lowered.
Novice Struggle with MacOS
With the "main event" over and the task of helping my
siblings set up each iMac for their children began, I became
painfully aware of just how awful and daunting that task can
be to a novice user. I, for the first time, became ashamed
of the Macintosh operating system...in this case version
8.5. Though there is little question among objective people
that the Macintosh operating system is substantially
easier-to-use and less trouble-prone than the Windows
operating system, that comparison is much like asking,
"Would you rather be hit in the face or kicked in the
testes?" (or ovaries, as the case may be).
Having worked as a PC/Mac support technician for nearly four
years and fielding literally thousands of support calls, I
realized that both Mac and PC systems have substantive
user-interface failings. While setting up each iMac, I began
to see the MacOS through the eyes of my novice brother and
somewhat novice sister (both elder). I repeatedly found
myself having to back up and explain things that are simple
to me, like folders, filenames, menus, desktop, etc. Things
that I thought were intuitive, really weren't to those that
have had little or no exposure to computing.
This new perspective made me realize that the MacOS I
defended so vehemently for years, isn't user-friendly at
all. In fact, it is quite obtuse and difficult. One might
argue, "Well, that's just the way computers are...there's a
learning curve that we all must surpass." You know, that's a
cop-out and I don't buy it. It's even akin to scoffing at
the thought of a machine that carries people in the air or
men landing on the moon. Rather, I believe it is more likely
that the computer industry has simply not "Thought
Different" for a long time.
Consider this...when you first turn on your Mac, what do you
see? File, Edit, View, Special, Help, and various icons
including Hard Drive and Trash Can. The tutorial in the Help
menu explains simple tasks, but is extremely
incomplete...for good reason. The population of choices on
the desktop (including menus and submenus) is far too large
and nondescript. Though the goal of the MacOS interface has
long been to protect the user from the inner-workings of the
computer, it is evident that it fails miserably at this if
you take a simple tour of the Apple Menu. Admittedly, the
MacOS does better than its competitors when it comes to
protecting the user, but it still has far to go.
For instance, consider some of the questions I fielded,
"What is a Hard Drive?", "How do I get on the internet?",
and "What do I do next?". My first brazen response was to
say (though I didn't do so aloud), "Well, think!". That's
when I realized that the MacOS wasn't as intuitive as I
thought it was. I realized though that users should not have
to figure out what a Hard Drive or Trash Can is, how to get
on the internet, or what to do next. But rather, the user's
very next question should (optimally) be answered before the
user has even mentally formed it.
So, how can the interface be improved? Well, the interface,
to be truly intuitive, needs to eliminate objects on the
desktop that are not IMMEDIATELY understandable by the
novice user, such as "hard drive". In addition, the user's
next action needs to be "obvious". It is clear that making
the interface more intuitive is going to take substantial
rethinking. I didn't say it was going to be easy. It may
even take a new computing paradigm...not unlike the MacOS
was in 1984.
With the goal being so intuitive that the next action is
"obvious", it would help if it were modular based upon the
experience of the user, and educational in a non-obtrusive
manner that increases the depth of instruction as user
experience increases. In addition, it will likely require
reinventing how one connects to the internet and uses
applications. Users should not have to know what DNS, POP
and SMTPs are. In addition, applications should play by the
same rules...be more accessible, intuitive, and grow as user
experience grows. Though I had little exposure to OpenDoc,
it certainly seems to me that it was heading in the right
direction.
The company or company of persons that lead us to this next
level in user experience, will indeed change the
world...again.
The High Cost of Bill Gates
Part of what prevented the industry from "Thinking Different" was forced upon us by Bill Gates. Until the loosely knit group of Microsoft competitors and concerned consumers recently gained the strength to slow Gates' ambition of putting a Windows interface on everything with a microchip, consumers and competitors were forced to play the hand they were dealt:
- Lack of operating system choice at our local retailer (actually, there were very few alternatives to choose from...OS/2, Be, Unix, and perhaps one or two others, but what other alternatives could have been, and what innovations could these choices have yielded had there not been Microsoft induced barriers to entry).
- Coercive tactics that prevented manufacturers from offering operating system choice.
- Platform DEpendence.
- Coercive marketing tactics that restricted business and home consumers from purchasing products that compete with Microsoft.
- New product introduction dates that were repetitively and grossly understated with the design of garnering "mindshare" and "resource allocations". The effect is that once consumer mindshare was won and business information system funds were allotted for these new products, competitors have little chance of reversing consumer and business purchase plans. There is a word that defines this tactic that Gates has deployed so frequently and successfully..."Vaporware".
- Threats of discontinuing support if competitors would not leave markets or kill their product altogether.
- Applications that do not "make nice" with competing programs by enabling users to easily transfer files. Many users reported losing their files altogether when trying to switch from a Microsoft product to a competing one. Microsoft went as far as to present misleading information to the user that suggests switching to the competing Microsoft product is an "error".
- Microsoft applications that do not "make nice" with previous releases of the same Microsoft application, often compelling users to upgrade.
- Untimely deaths of products that were substantially better than the competing Microsoft product, but failed in the market as an indirect result of Microsoft's coercive and manipulative practices. Can anyone say OpenDoc vs. OLE?
- Bloated applications that require substantial investments and resource commitments, shrewdly ensuring that users will be resistant to switching to a competitor.
The High Cost of Irresponsible Consumerism
Another reason the industry has chosen not to "Think
Different" is that, given the opportunity, consumers will
choose to be ignorant. I've heard for a long time that
consumers are smart, blah, blah, blah. From what I've seen
occur in the personal computer industry, consumers choose
the path of least resistance and generally "do what everyone
else is doing". That's not smart for a teenager succumbing
to the peer pressure of smoking, and it's not smart when
choosing a personal computer.
There was (and is) a cost to this irresponsible consumerism.
Consumers, and businesses for that matter, bought up cheap,
trouble-prone PCs by the millions creating a huge industry
of "Windows" support books, "certified" technicians, and
costly layers of administrators and support techs, which
ultimately accelerated Gates' arrogant dictatorial position
he is in today. Worse, technicians and even techno-saavy
consumers take pride in their knowledge of how to
troubleshoot their computers. Yet, their knowledge is vain
and near worthless.
Why is their knowledge near worthless? Computers are
designed to further humankind's productiveness. When a
substantial number of humans are occupied with
"troubleshooting and repairing" they are adding little of
nothing to advance the human condition...they are only
working to keep others productive. Humankind would
accomplish and advance more if these individuals were being
productive as well.
What could more productivity mean? Well, it could mean a
vaccine for AIDS or cancer, it could mean better brakes for
cars, it could mean a more economical way to feed children,
it could mean a new energy source which eliminates energy
concerns forever or that made teleportation a reality. Of
course, I'm fantasizing here, but we must not slight the
important fact that we humans have a somewhat moral
obligation to occupy our "working" time with only those
matters that add to productivity, and thus, the human
condition, not matters that vainly occupy our time with
troubleshooting and repairing. A major breakthrough in our
human condition and quality of life could truly be at
stake.
Ultimately, consumers and businesses ended up paying
billions of dollars purchasing technical books, courses,
training employees, etc., and losing untold hours
troubleshooting their computers and
forfeiting free time that could have been spent with
children, loved-ones, or just simply fishing. All for the
sake of "doing what everyone else is doing" and choosing a
cheap PC. We must train ourselves to think more responsibly
when choosing a computer as consumers. Computers are unlike
other consumer products, like the shoe, for example. The
shoe, enables the foot. The computer, enables the mind. We
can choose to strive to maximize its potential and improve
life on this planet, or we can regard it irresponsibly and
pay the price by working longer for more subtle, less
momentous achievements. Though, should we choose rightly, we
are assured that our achievements will beget achievements
and our momentum will beget momentum.
We have become slothful and desensitized to illegal business
practices that manipulate us and trample the competitive
market system. We have only a vague memory of why our
forefathers fought wrenching legal battles to prevent
monopolies and other illegal business practices. We must now
remember. We must now repay our forefathers with the
diligence to defend what they fought for and to punish those
who abuse these laws and principles with arrogant disdain.
Let all men be called to action and remember...remember that
competition spurs innovation and when innovation occurs,
progress is achieved. Conversely, if competition is
inhibited, all of mankind suffers for it. Indeed, we may
never have landed on the moon, had our fierce competitor,
Russia, not challenged us in the space race.
Surely we have foregone advancement by our shortsighted
consumer choices and ambivalence towards unfair business
practices. Yet we will continue to forego advancement, if we
are satisfied with a personal computing alternative that is
only moderately superior to that which Bill Gates offers
us...namely, the MacOS. The same is true for UNIX in
enterprise computing. We as consumers must continually call
into question that which industry offers us and challenge
them by being smarter shoppers and look less to quick fixes
and more to long-term value. More than not, that will mean
to shun "doing what everyone else is doing".
Apple's Greatest Wound
Was Apple, the personal computer innovation leader that
set the pace for so long, asleep and innovatively dead prior
the iMac revolution? Actually, no, they were not, but it
sure seemed that way to the average consumer. What the
average consumer did not know was that Apple had more
desperate and pressing issues at hand.
For years, pundits blamed Apple's downward spiral on
charging prices that were too high, not licensing the MacOS,
offering a cluttered product mix, etc. Yet, there is a very
good argument that had Microsoft been engaged in appropriate
business practices instead of the manipulative practices on
both consumer and competitor they were, Apple would have
continued to innovate its operating system and continued to
prosper.
Consider this...what happens when you cut your foot badly?
Your complete attention turns towards stopping the bleeding
and remedying the wound. What was the Apple wound that
caused their marketshare spiral? Part of it was their prices
and the shortsightedness of consumers, but certainly not all
of it. Apple's most serious wound was Microsoft's
manipulative and coercive business practices. How can ANY
organization compete against Microsoft when they are doing
everything in their power to prevent a level playing field,
i.e.., any number of the bulleted items above? The answer
is, they cannot. When Apple's marketshare started falling,
they started trying to fight a nebulous enemy...illegal
business practices. Their corporate strategic response had
the effect of a shotgun blast to a stop sign...many dents,
but not much success. There were several good ideas, such as
OpenDoc, but these responses could not compete with an
illegally manipulated competitive market. Repeated failure
to stop the blood loss drove a corporate disarray which
promulgated questionable strategies, interdepartmental
rivals, and general employee dissatisfaction. The result was
that their most important asset...the MacOS...was left
behind and lost its focus on innovation.
It makes sense that it took a design "fashion
statement"--iMac, to markedly turn the tide of Apple's
fortunes during this desperate time. The only area that
Microsoft has little power over--the design of the computer
hardware itself--was possibly the one innovation that Apple
could use to combat the resounding suck of the Microsoft
monopolistic vacuum. Existing consumer Macintoshes of the
time may even by some standards be judged better than the
iMac. Afterall, they did use the same version of operating
system...8.0 (which means they had same functionality), and
the iMac did not come with a floppy disk. However,
hardware-wise, the iMac launched a design revolution that
consumers have been yearning for.
Apple is not the only one to have suffered during this
period. All consumers suffered because any competitor that
tried to or even thought about competing against Microsoft
met with a "barrier to entry" brick wall or even flagrant
threats. Major and minor software developers found that the
only way to make money was to stay away from any market that
was opposed to Microsoft and only develop for Microsoft
products or Microsoft-friendly solutions. But was this
industry gravitation towards Microsoft harmful to
consumers?
Consider all the software developers that could have chosen
to develop software that made computing easier rather than
being forced to develop for the only profitable game in the
industry. Consider if Apple had been able to provide
substantive innovations for the MacOS instead of spending
its time and resources fighting an enemy that they could not
see or touch. If Microsoft had been restrained, the most
profitable game in the software development business could
possibly have been improving the user-experience, rather
than developing another "me too" program for a lousy
operating system.
Just think about it...from the late eighties to the present,
if there had been no competitive barriers to entry, we could
possibly be deeply immersed in a new computing paradigm,
enjoying a user-friendliness experience that dwarfs even the
MacOS. Who can say what startup company or forward-thinking
software developer could have REALLY changed things. But
now, we will never know.
Recently, I have seen every evidence that Apple is working
to design hardware with user-friendliness in
mind...beautiful, fruit-colored, all-in-one computers;
Firewire, USB, the new G3's door, cable reduction, etc. I'm
just eager for them, or someone else, to step up and make
those same kinds of dramatic ameliorations to software.
|
