Posts Tagged ‘microsoft’

Internet Explorer 8: the unfaithful ex-girlfriend

// April 23rd, 2009 // 0 Comments // Featured, Fun, software, Writing

Sorry, but Im with someone new, and its better (photo by Michael Sarver)

Sorry, but I'm with someone new, and it's better (photo by Michael Sarver)

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer IE 8 showing up now is like an unfaithful ex-partner showing up a long time after you’ve found someone better looking and less likely to break your heart.

Wrote this post after Amnesia Razorfish asked me to write about IE8, for Microsoft’s http://microsoft.com.au/ie8debate. You can find other opinion-leaders and read their leading opinions there (warning: many are not as funny as mine). I’m impressed Amnesia Razorfish and Microsoft were up for constructive criticism since IE8 is such an important product. Evidence Microsoft is learning to listen and ready to begin changing. You can contribute your opinion on http://microsoft.com.au/ie8debate or just twitter with the hashtag #ie8debate

There was a time (though it seems like centuries ago now) that Internet Explorer had me by the heart-strings. It was the mid-nineties, I was but a young stripling then, and all I could think about was the beauty and the power of the internet. I was a producer with a small internet business called Yahoo! that hoped to make some money selling ads on web pages when people went searching for stuff (as if!) and Internet Explorer was one of two browsers that most consumers used to access what many people still called “the world wide web.”

Back then Internet Explorer (IE) had a small but rapidly growing slice of the market and I was in love with her promise of fast times, with her sexy interface. (Can an interface be “sexy”? Can I get a “hell yeah” from the geeks in the audience?) In those days, compared to Netscape Navigator, Internet Explorer was attractive; alluring, even. IE was great for me, great for Yahoo! and great for our customers. She made me look good, and she was going to help me make money — who can ask for more from a girlfriend?

Then the relationship began to go bad.

IE started to get carried away with the power she had over me. She wanted more money to keep Yahoo! search as an option for IE users searching the web. She wanted me to adopt new technologies like ActiveX that weren’t compatible with Navigator. By now, Navigator was just another browser I was just friends with, but that wasn’t enough for IE — she wanted me all to herself.

Then she started to hang around with a bad crowd, and developed a crack habit. Spyware and malware and all manner of nasty types started exploiting security vulnerabilities I hadn’t noticed when we first started dating. She had a problem, and although she kept releasing updates to address each vulnerability, there seemed to be a new crack in her armour almost every week.

At first I thought it was just a phase she’d grow out of. Slowly the crack habit began affecting the time we spent together — I’d have to download and install a big new patch before I began browsing the web, and it was costing me money and time in bandwidth (which was expensive and slow back then) just to maintain our relationship.

Even then, I probably would have stayed with her if it weren’t for two of her friends: MSN and Windows.

There’s a common observation in single guy relationship theory: the more beautiful the woman, the more likely she is to have a needy, unattractive best friend. The unattractive best friend (who my mate Tony calls “the bonus monster”) doesn’t like you, and will always be around just when you really want to be alone and romantic. She will undermine you, and if you’re not careful, she’ll manage to shut you out altogether.

IE’s bonus monster was MSN, this overweight, insecure, unattractive consumer web portal that kinda-sorta-wanted-to-be-AOL-and-Yahoo!-put-together. At first I didn’t believe MSN was a threat to my relationship with IE because nobody who knew how to change their default homepage really wanted to use it. But soon IE started to insist that we think of MSN’s feelings on every decision we were making; including MSN in everything we did together, even insisting I use MSN if I was going to do something online. Ick.

Then there was IE’s fat, clumsy and often aggressive big bully brother, Windows. At lot has changed since Windows got in trouble with the law and lost, but back then, Windows was a pretty scary guy to deal with. There was a tiny core at the centre of Windows — a brainstem that remained almost literally unchanged since the Jurassic equivalent of consumer computing evolution — and on top of that, all manner of computing services had been stacked, sometimes carefully, sometimes haphazardly. Sometimes the stack would fall over several times a day.

(Once I taught myself to juggle during a two week period of hell when Windows would crash my laptop hourly and then take 5-10 minutes to recover itself when I rebooted.)

Microsoft, IE’s dad, decided about mid-way through our relationship that it would be a good idea for IE to spend more time with Windows, and began insisting that they hang out together in what became an uncomfortable, unnatural way. It seemed like the more successful IE became, the more determined Microsoft became to make IE take care of her bully brother. Sometimes it was like Windows and IE were just one person; they started sharing a plate, started hugging a little too closely, began finishing each other’s sentences. It was wrong on so many levels. It was incest. And yet, when the courts finally sought to intervene, for a while Microsoft tried to say it was no longer possible for Windows to exist without IE. That was so weird it was embarrassing.

I’d been through a lot all this time, putting up with the constant downtimes, updates and workarounds I needed just to stay in this relationship, but I still had eyes only for IE. At least, until poor bloated, dependency-addled IE could no longer keep up with advances in HTML itself. And I bought an iPod.

See, for the past decade my employer had chosen the operating system I used at work, and while my shiny new iPod worked OK with my Windows laptop at work, I was blown away by the ease-of-use and clean simplicity of my iPod. I’d used Macs before in the past (I’d been a Mac evangelist and Editor of Australian Macworld magazine before there really was an Internet) and I began to wonder if perhaps the great times I was having with my iPod would be the same if I tried using Mac’s OS X instead of Windows.

When I left Yahoo! to go do my own thing, I bought a Mac. On my Mac there was IE, but not the IE 6.x I was used to, just something slow and clunky labelled IE 5.x. Not very much like the IE 5.x I’d used on Windows before. There was also Safari, another browser from Apple, which was basic and short on some features I’d miss a bit, but it was much faster than IE, and it was really stable.

There was also this new girl: Firefox. Somehow while I’d been focused on just getting by in my tumultuous relationship with IE, the un-sexy, clunky Navigator I’d known in the ’90s had dramatically changed. After a near-death experience and a long time in rehab she had gone into a kind of group therapy called Open Source and come out transformed. She was now everything I might want, and as my needs changed, the open source community ensured that she not only changed with my needs but often anticipated my needs before they changed. She was light, she was fast, she was flexible, and I could dress her up with themes to suit any occasion.

She was even OK that I was still good friends with Safari and wanted to stay that way. I’d found the girl of my dreams.

So a few years went by. Then just the other day, Firefox and Safari and were are at the coffee shop, working and talking via Twitter and Skype and Jabber with our friends, and you’d never guess who walked in. Internet Explorer 8. Looking cleaner, less seedy, and for a change, not joined at the hip to her scary brother Windows and her ugly best friend, MSN. I hardly recognised her.

So I asked Firefox and Safari if they’d excuse me, and I moved to another table to talk with IE 8 for a while. And every thing I learned just made me certain I’d made the right decision in leaving her.

She made it clear that she wanted me back, but I don’t think she even really knows what I want anymore. Yes, she has has some new features but I’m not overwhelmed by them, in fact, I’m not even whelmed. They’re very similar to stuff I already get with Firefox and Safari. Yes, IE 8 is now less befuddled with crud than before and more able to support the advanced scripting web services like to do these days, but that’s something I’d expect of any modern girl.

We went through a lot together, IE8 and I. I know it hurt both of us, not just me. But it takes a long time for those scars to heal. It takes a lot of upside for me to give her a second chance. I can’t see that upside in her right now.

And I’m a Mac guy now. Is there an IE8 for Mac guys? Ah, no. In fact, there isn’t even that terrible IE 5.x for Mac users anymore.

Sorry IE, but you’re the unfaithful ex-girfriend, and I’m in a better place now.

When I first started as a web producer, everybody I knew worked with only Netscape Navigator and IE in mind and they did it only from PCs. Now, in my consulting gig at Pollenizer.com Our team are nearly all Mac-based and we work mainly in Firefox and Safari (when we’re not testing for browser-compatibility). Times have changed for me. How have they changed for you?

Mobile ads are working for brand advertisers

// September 8th, 2008 // 0 Comments // Advertising, Mobile

Tweak o’ the knob to Gavin Heaton for locating Chris Schaumann’s recent presentation on digital brand advertising in the Asia Pacific region (see the presentation below.) Only 5% of advertising budgets in the region are spent online so it’s no wonder that Schaumann finds 65% of all marketing spend in 2007 had no effect on consumer behaviour.

For me, the numbers that really struck me were on slide 43, which researched 21 mobile branding campaigns and found a 24% increase in brand awareness, 12% increase in message association, 5% increase in brand favourability and 5% increase in purchase intent. I’ve never been much of a believer in mobile brand advertising, preferring instead to apply it to social marketing and click-to-buy. But here’s some clear evidence that mobile brand advertising works – at least, in Asia.

There are some other surprising results to be found in Chris’ presentation comparing YouTube, embedded video and TV for delivering video ads. You won’t believe how well YouTube scored against TV…

Digital Branding 

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: digital branding)

Your tax dollars at work: Powerhouse Museum promoting Hotmail

// April 1st, 2008 // 0 Comments // Advertising

Initially I assumed the Powerhouse Museum’s plan to print out and archive hundreds of the ‘best’ emails from around Australia was just an April Fool’s joke.

After all, it’s never easy to sort the real news stories from the pranks on April 1st. Journalists have too little time between deadlines and too many pages to fill to check all of their facts, all the time. And we in the blogosphere, squeezing our blogging into thin slices of our day jobs and housekeeping, have even less motivation to think before we speak. Meanwhile, those of us with time for mischief, such as the most excellent Darren Rowse, keep coming up with plausible prank stories.

In the end, a lot of April Fools prank stories to go press online these days.

Sadly, the Email Australia campaign, announced by ninemsn, Microsoft and the publicly funded Powerhouse Museum, is not a prank. Even worse, it’s a thinly-veiled marketing exercise for Hotmail, designed to temporarily inflate the user registration numbers of Microsoft’s webmail product.

It seems like a prank because the museum is asking everyone in Australia to send in their ‘best’ emails and enter them in one of eight categories (Life and Laughter, Touching Tales, Family, Love and romance, E-mails, Embarrassing typos, Current affairs and Complaints.)

Wouldn’t that be a fun job, sorting through all the entries in each category to decide which were worthy of archiving, which were the best, and which were least likely to lead to get the original author, ninemsn, Microsoft and the museum sued for defamation? That’s not one I’d be putting my hands up for.

Yes, the terms of the promotion state that you not only take on liability for establishing copyright of the material, but also take on the risk of any legal action arising from, say, using someone else’s forwarded email which then turns out to be a snippet from a novel or something that the subject of the email decides is defamatory. Good luck with that.

You’d expect the Powerhouse Museum to choose the best emails in each category, but no – it’s a ninemsn/Microsoft promotion, and ninemsn gets to do the selection, thanks very much. Here’s a tip for contest entrants: try inserting a few references to how great Hotmail is these days, how much you enjoy using MSN Messenger on your new Windows Mobile phone, and how amazing Windows Vista is these days since they shook out the last remaining glitches. Now you know who’ll be judging the entries!

The final pinch-and-a-punch for this particular first day of the month is the news that all emails must be sent from a Hotmail account. And if you don’t already have a Hotmail account, a handy link is provided to allow you to sign up for one.

So now what might at first glance appear to be a misguided but worthy effort to capture a little online culture for prosperity is revealed as a grubby attempt to artificially inflate ninemsn’s Hotmail subscriptions for a month or two.

Not very many people are likely to use that new Hotmail account for anything other than entering the competition, since Hotmail is indelibly stamped with the spammer’s seal of approval. Even if Hotmail is less prone to spam than it has been in the past, most of these casual one-time users won’t stick around to find out.

How sad to see a major Australian museum involved in such a thinly-veiled marketing promotion.  "Marketing is punishment for a bad idea" said Andrew Hyde on Brian Burns’ blog the other day. How very true. If only it had all been an April Fool’s joke.

Can the snake swallow the elephant?

// February 2nd, 2008 // 0 Comments // strategy

Microsoft swallowing Yahoo! is either going to be fast and ugly, or slow and ineffective. And I’m being positive! Scott is even less hopeful.Good friend Goonker said it best. Referring to Steve Ballmer’s quote that he feels “putting these things (Microsoft and Yahoo!) together with a great integration should be quite an accelerant to progress.” Goonker says, “accelerant as in: flame out quickly?”I appreciate that Microsoft recognises it needs to take drastic action if it’s to get back into the game, interweb-wise.Today’s offer is a big premium on the market price on the previous day’s close and is sure to be higher than any price Microsoft may have taken to the table with Yahoo! in the past.According to Comscore, Google has 77% of the search market globally, with Yahoo! only 16% and MSN a piffling 3.7%. So an acquisition might garner Microsoft a total of less than 20% assuming no overlap. I don’t know the revenue share but I’m guessing it’s in-line with that. Ballmer suggests it could save the two companies $1B a year, but I’d bet it would be costing $100m a year over five years to smash the two vastly different companies together.Microsoft’s web technologies are as unrelated to Yahoo!’s as the Dark and Light sides of the Force. Before you even begin your Comp. Sci. degree you’ve already made a decision to join one camp or the other. There’s no love lost between the two sides, and very few developers jump from one camp to the other mid-career.Perl, PHP and Ruby developers carry PowerBooks with startup stickers on them, ride a bicycle and wear a tee and jeans. They are too skinny. They are more likely to have an iPod earbud in their ear than a phone. Microsoft developers wear chinos and a business shirt or collared tee, carry a black generic laptop identical to their coworkers. They are a little overweight, but only because they have a good wife at home who loves to cook. They have a full schedule of meetings and tasks always with them in their Exchange-connected phone, which they carry in a leather holster on their belt, with a blinking-blue Bluetooth headset always jammed in their ear. They think the Zune is “kinda cool” but like a quiet working environment (Frank, I love you anyway man).So the only way to borg Yahoo!s products and get them running an all-Microsoft backend would be across the vacant desks of the various Yahoo! development teams, vacant because you’d either fired them or they’d beaten you to it and taken a job elsewhere. The number of senior developers with prior experience migrating global-grade FreeBSD/Apache/Perl platforms to .NET would be approaching zero. I can’t see Flickr running on .NET, ever.Yet Microsoft can hardly continue recommending its web development products to the market while running its own consumer internet business on competing products.Working for a Bay Area startup at the moment, and it’s a tough market to be hiring developers, so a flood of ex-Yahoo! developers into the market would be good news for us and the other Bay Area startups. Most of Yahoo!’s huge developerbase is here in Sunnyvale and that big silo of developers will just fall over and empty out. That should bring hiring costs and avg.-time-to-hire way down.Good point from good friend Luke: if the deal goes through it tightens the market for startups hoping to be acquired, leaving only Microhoo and Google as the big startup-buyers in town. Could we see Cisco step forward as a new force in consumer web acquisitions? Or HP, Intel or Apple? Each owns some consumer-facing web platforms already, each has a hardware business that could benefit from consumer lock-in via a compelling web product.If I still held Yahoo! shares, I’d take the money. If I still held Microsoft shares, I wouldn’t be happy about a deal happening.Because, the way I see it, Microsoft absorbing Yahoo! is either going to be fast and ugly, or slow and ineffective. 

MSFT & YHOO: can the snake swallow the elephant?

// February 2nd, 2008 // 0 Comments // strategy

Microsoft swallowing Yahoo! is either going to be fast and ugly, or slow and ineffective.

Good friend Goonker said it best. Referring to Steve Ballmer’s quote that he feels “putting these things (Microsoft and Yahoo!) together with a great integration should be quite an accelerant to progress.” Goonker says, “accelerant as in: flame out quickly?”
I appreciate that Microsoft recognises it needs to take drastic action if it’s to get back into the game, interweb-wise. 
Today’s offer is a big premium on the market price on the previous day’s close and is sure to be higher than any price Microsoft may have taken to the table with Yahoo! in the past.
According to Comscore, Google has 77% of the search market globally, with Yahoo! only 16% and MSN a piffling 3.7%. So an acquisition might garner Microsoft a total of less than 20% assuming no overlap. I don’t know the revenue share but I’m guessing it’s in-line with that. Ballmer suggests it could save the two companies $1B a year, but I’d bet it would be costing $100m a year over five years to smash the two vastly different companies together.
Microsoft’s web technologies are as unrelated to Yahoo!’s as the Dark and Light sides of the Force. Before you even begin your Comp. Sci. degree you’ve already made a decision to join one camp or the other. There’s no love lost between the two sides, and very few developers jump from one camp to the other mid-career. 
Perl, PHP and Ruby developers carry PowerBooks with startup stickers on them, ride a bicycle and wear a tee and jeans. They are too skinny. They are more likely to have an iPod earbud in their ear than a phone.  Microsoft developers wear chinos and a business shirt or collared tee, carry a black generic laptop identical to their coworkers. They are a little overweight, but only because they have a good wife at home who loves to cook. They have a full schedule of meetings and tasks always with them in their Exchange-connected phone, which they carry in a leather holster on their belt, with a blinking-blue Bluetooth headset always jammed in their ear. They think the Zune is “kinda cool” but like a quiet working environment (Frank, I love you anyway man).
So the only way to borg Yahoo!s products and get them running an all-Microsoft backend would be across the vacant desks of the various Yahoo! development teams, vacant because you’d either fired them or they’d beaten you to it and taken a job elsewhere. The number of senior developers with prior experience migrating global-grade FreeBSD/Apache/Perl platforms to .NET would be approaching zero. I can’t see Flickr running on .NET, ever.
Yet Microsoft can hardly continue recommending its web development products to the market while running its own consumer internet business on competing products.
Working for a Bay Area startup at the moment, and it’s a tough market to be hiring developers, so a flood of ex-Yahoo! developers into the market would be good news for us and the other Bay Area startups. Most of Yahoo!’s huge developerbase is here in Sunnyvale and that big silo of developers will just fall over and empty out. That should bring hiring costs and avg.-time-to-hire way down.
Good point from good friend Luke: if the deal goes through it tightens the market for startups hoping to be acquired, leaving only Microhoo and Google as the big startup-buyers in town. Could we see Cisco step forward as a new force in consumer web acquisitions? Or HP, Intel or Apple? Each owns some consumer-facing web platforms already, each has a hardware business that could benefit from consumer lock-in via a compelling web product.
If I still held Yahoo! shares, I’d take the money. If I still held Microsoft shares, I wouldn’t be happy about a deal happening. 
Because, the way I see it, Microsoft absorbing Yahoo! is either going to be fast and ugly, or slow and ineffective.

"You are coming to a sad realisation, cancel or allow?"

// February 8th, 2007 // 0 Comments // Advertising

Until today I’ve maintained my silence on Apple’s ‘Mac and PC‘ TV ad campaigns, figuring anyone who reads my blog is capable of finding them on their own. They’ve been making me chuckle all along, and while I doubt they do much to convert existing Windows users, as an Apple customer they’ve reinforced my decision to go Mac and reminded me of why I should think twice about ever going back to Windows.

The latest series, highlighting the challenges of upgrading a PC to Vista, are just as funny, but my vote for the best-ever so far is the ad titled ‘Security‘, featuring an annoying bodyguard representing Vista’s security features. It’s certainly a realistic portrayal of Microsoft’s style of security – keep peppering the user with jargon-laden decision points they don’t understand the cause or ramifications of, until the user is driven to switch off security altogether.

Microsoft’s problem with security, Vista, Windows and software in general is that it really doesn’t understand regular people. By ‘regular’ I mean people who don’t work in IT or have technology as a hobby; people who lack the jargon vocabulary and the commitment to figure out what Microsoft’s software is trying to tell them.Microsoft’s Redmond campus is a giant technology black hole that attracts like-minded technologists who design and build software primarily for themselves and people like them. If you’re not a geek when you start at Microsoft, the culture will eventually get to you.

A good friend of mine working for the company says, in his experience, that Microsoft is great at producing large, hugely complex, challenging software products that take many years to architect and require massive and lengthy licensing fees to recoup on. But when it comes to understanding regular, ordinary people, Microsoft just doesn’t get it. Certainly history suggests that Microsoft products typically have a large footprint, a lot of features, and they cost a lot (unless they’re free, when Microsoft wants to collapse a market it wants to dominate in.)

Anyway, watch the ad (requires QuickTime). The last line is priceless; “You are coming to a sad realisation: cancel or allow?”

Technorati Tags: , , ,

"You are coming to a sad realisation, cancel or allow?"

// February 7th, 2007 // 0 Comments // Advertising

Until today I’ve maintained my silence on Apple’s ‘Mac and PC‘ TV ad campaigns, figuring anyone who reads my blog is capable of finding them on their own. They’ve been making me chuckle all along, and while I doubt they do much to convert existing Windows users, as an Apple customer they’ve reinforced my decision to go Mac and reminded me of why I should think twice about ever going back to Windows.

The latest series, highlighting the challenges of upgrading a PC to Vista, are just as funny, but my vote for the best-ever so far is the ad titled ‘Security‘, featuring an annoying bodyguard representing Vista’s security features. It’s certainly a realistic portrayal of Microsoft’s style of security – keep peppering the user with jargon-laden decision points they don’t understand the cause or ramifications of, until the user is driven to switch off security altogether.

Microsoft’s problem with security, Vista, Windows and software in general is that it really doesn’t understand regular people. By ‘regular’ I mean people who don’t work in IT or have technology as a hobby; people who lack the jargon vocabulary and the commitment to figure out what Microsoft’s software is trying to tell them.Microsoft’s Redmond campus is a giant technology black hole that attracts like-minded technologists who design and build software primarily for themselves and people like them. If you’re not a geek when you start at Microsoft, the culture will eventually get to you.

A good friend of mine working for the company says, in his experience, that Microsoft is great at producing large, hugely complex, challenging software products that take many years to architect and require massive and lengthy licensing fees to recoup on. But when it comes to understanding regular, ordinary people, Microsoft just doesn’t get it. Certainly history suggests that Microsoft products typically have a large footprint, a lot of features, and they cost a lot (unless they’re free, when Microsoft wants to collapse a market it wants to dominate in.)

Anyway, watch the ad (requires QuickTime). The last line is priceless; “You are coming to a sad realisation: cancel or allow?”

Technorati Tags: , , ,