Submitted by Brett Stevens on Mon, 09/08/2008 - 21:17.
The PC industry mirrors American politics. On one side, you have the conservatives who focus on making a gadget work correctly. On the other side, you have the liberals who focus on making it look good to others. The liberal side does not trust individuals to understand logic, so it focuses on image. The conservative side depends on individuals to understand long-term consequences, and so avoids risk for the sake of keeping people focused on a central idea. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
I would like to submit a radical proposal: the PC industry should focus on user experience. We don't own our PCs permanently. We use them for a finite number of hours, probably a couple thousand a year, for three to five years and then ship them to landfills in Asia and Africa (more on fixing that later, but it's another story). For those eight thousand hours, approximately, we need the PC to enable us to accomplish certain things.
The Linux guys get this less than others, because they assume that most people are OK with using a PC to be using a PC -- programming it, configuring it, mucking about -- when the truth is what Windows understood long ago, which is that people want their most common tasks to be accessible, and are more dependent on software working consistently year after year than they are on the latest stuff. People think of PCs as a tool.
Part of what defines that tool is how effectively it can be used, including user experience. If a hammer required you to use it with your knees, it would be less effective. Similarly, computers should make it easy to accomplish common tasks, and to keep the PC maintained.
While I am a die-hard Apple hater, and am amused that only just now are people finding out that Apple products not only have a high failure rate but have a low rate of lasting past three years, I think we should all acknowledge what Apple did right:
* Consistent, minimalist interface across all applications.
* One source for support, and local support in retail stores.
* No junkware, crapware, etc. on the PC.
* Default configuration just works.
* Occasionally brilliant interface design.
* Light-colored, pleasant-looking machines.
Of course, it's only fair to point out why Apple is defective. The company is flaky because it is based on the idea that what computer you use constructs your identity. This creates a hipster economy of slavish, cultish users and a company that does not mind raping them, which means that for those of us with higher standards -- those of us who don't need a computer brand to complete our identities -- we're always subjected to the lowest standard that this cultlike group will tolerate.
This low Apple(tm) standard:
* Poor mechanical design of hardware.
* No useful upgrade path.
* Inconsistent company strategy and support of hardware and software.
* Impervious to suggestions because they already have slaves.
* Legions of pretentious zombie slave fans.
Apple went wrong when it launched the Mac, although it also achieved its greatest success. The previous Apple computers were designed for multipurpose use, and were both hacker-friendly and "just make it work" friendly. With the Mac, Apple wanted to beat the IBM clones and Microsoft, so it designed an idiot-friendly machine, and immediately ran into the limitation that a true idiot machine will be unable to do the non-idiot tasks many of us need to do.
Ever since then, they've been making their Macs more like PCs, even to the point now where the physical hardware is like the PC. The path along the way is littered with failed past initiatives, discard projects of promise, political intrigue, drama and more drama. Why? Their plan was unrealistic from the get-go. Windows, which actually started about the same time the Mac hit the drawing board, was an incremental, kaizen-friendly germ of an idea that has been built until it reached a usable level.
The triumph of Windows is the triumph of Microsoft: they united diverse hardware and software tendencies around some common standards, made them easy enough for 90% of users to work with and modifiable by the rest, and called it a day.
But, as others have pointed out, the Windows model needs to be more forward-looking. We're all used to and expect that software, hardware and the OS are unified. We need more. We need a user experience that doesn't blow up in our face, we need vendors we can trust to solve a problem so we don't have to go running to the Geek Squad, we need machines that look like our favorite appliances and function like them -- reliably, without us having to worry about fiddling with the machine.
I have used Vista and I like it. Despite all the bloviation from the blogosphere, it's a nice OS that will need many small tweaks and modifications in order to get it up to its full potential. These will happen with the glacial pace of a company that hires 65,000 people in a trellis structure of management. However, they will happen.
Vista's biggest problem is its resource use and general size. The thing is huge, and it seems that most of that bloat is there to help with the many contingencies of backward compatibility. Microsoft got this message and is preparing an extension of the Server 2008/Vista core that will be lighter, and will in all probability run older software invisibly in virtual machines. This is a smart move.
Microsoft is seeing how much people value the user experience more than the machine working perfectly on a technical level. They love Windows XP because while it doesn't always work the first time, most people out there can figure out how to fiddle with it to get it to work, or find a neighbor who can. They hate Microsoft because the company stumbled in a huge and stupid way over security, and because buying a PC is such a daunting process, and then the PC will show up filled with junkware, an insane default configuration, and no software.
In order to dominate the new PC market, Microsoft is going to have to focus on the user experience. What does the person see, from the moment they decide they need a new PC to the moment they recycle it, and what are the annoyances? What impedes them simply sitting down, plugging it in, and getting work/play, like they do with a Nintendo, blender or television?
The ancients said that every great strength is a great weakness, and that every great ill is a great opportunity. Microsoft's great strength could well be its weakness, but opportunity abounds for them to correct this situation and make PCs the average person can enjoy easily. It's not rocket science.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
A question.
What are the "non-idiot" tasks that can be done on a PC that can't be done on a Mac? In my experience, the two are pretty much equal in their ability, so it seems to me Apple has succeeded in creating the computer that can be used "reliably, without us having to worry about fiddling with the machine" (ie. the "it just works" experience).
You seem to have lost the point about computers
Computers are tools, they are there to aid us in completing tasks. Rather than making ridiculous allegations such as Apple's "Legions of pretentious zombie slave fans" (Apple have an incredibly small market share of computers, less than 10%) as a basis for labelling myself a die-hard Apple hater/lover and trying to fill the role of that persona, I will talk about *personal experience*.
I used to use Windows based PCs, they came in very handy when I started to work with music applications. As I used the tool at a higher level and asked more of it, I found it let me down more - it took much longer to complete the slightly more demanding tasks, it often crashed inexplicably losing my work (sometimes immediately after rebooting) and required a lot of time and attention be paid to the system before doing any actual work.
Subsequently I purchased an iBook, with eMagic's Logic (before eMagic was bought by Apple) and since then, to the day, my work rate increased, the power of my computer as a compact studio tool increased rapidly (resulting in a far superior standard of work), I was never a victim of viruses/hacks or the Virus Protection Software industry with it's persistent renewal requirements. Most importantly though, when I wanted to write music, that's exactly what I did/do. No unexpected crashes, no lost work, no hours spent configuring external devices because the computer refuses to recognise them. These kinds of experiences are the difference between an effective computer and an ineffective computer. Remember, the computer is a tool.
In respect to your comment about Windows XP: "while it doesn't always work the first time, most people out there can figure out how to fiddle with it to get it to work, or find a neighbor who can." I have never had to go through experience with a Mac, nor has anybody I've known.
Apple as a brand can be criticised in many ways, as can Microsoft or any other brand that exists, and there are plenty of points in this article that I could attack, but I'm really not interested in a Mac v PC debate - it's pathetic and unfortunate that a great publication like Corrupt has been lowered to that standard. Use whichever platform allows you to complete your tasks most effectively and most efficiently.
You seem to have missed the point of the article
It pretty much explained what you already did, minus the frivolous anecdote and Mac worship. He already mentioned that it *is* a tool, but whoever's coming up with a design for the next OS or whatever, should try to make it work based on user experience and needs.
(Also, if you feel that Corrupt has lowered its standard, why not write a better article?)
I feel the need to reiterate:
Why people complain and have problems with their computers? It's because they think it needs to be preconfigured for them. The computer needs to know what you want to do, and if the person using it is getting overwhelmed by all of the ambiguity, options, and technical terms, then the operating system needs to be dumbed down for them. By dumbing down the operating system though, you compromise power.
iMac is perfect for simple people who want an entertainment center or something to type their college reports up on or whatever, and then they can throw it away when it becomes outdated, so they can make room for the next fancy disposable toy that Apple releases in 5 different colors. A plain Dell desktop can be used in public libraries, offices, and schools, so custom software can be made to accommodate whatever data those organizations need to store. A customized and self-assembled PC with top-notch hardware is perfect for a person who likes to waste their time on gaming, or uses their computer to edit film, music, and so forth.
The reason Apple's iMac works out of the box is because the GUI is simple, and because a large sum of your money went to a shiny plastic box with only decent hardware. All of the "nerdy" bits of computing are swept beneath the rug. When you want a hardware upgrade, you have to take it to a special Apple store though. This means that the computer is largely out of your control, and inaccessible to the user. (unless you're using PowerPC or whatever, which is a fairly excellent compromise, but the operating system is largely inaccessible.)
Also keep in mind that the only reason Mac doesn't really get hit with viruses is because it isn't as widely used. If everyone switched to Mac, that's where all of the virus script writers will be as well. Mac will become buggy as it strives to release updates and patches more quickly to its growing consumer base. It's not like the problems of the world suddenly end when you switch to a Mac or start driving an 'eco-friendly' Prius or begin to drink organic coffee.
Programmers/hackers are more apt to work with a tool they can customize to their needs, like Windows or a Linux distro, where they have access to everything they need to tweak within their system. They happen to know exactly what they want and need out of a computer when they use one. Unfortunately, the average user is left out of the know in most cases, and if they fiddle around with the wrong settings, they might break something, and they're left without a useable tool.
As you can see, there is no computer for the Everyman. This image just about sums it up:
http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=121502676076dw0.jpg
Re: You seem to have missed the point of the article
For a start, there's no Mac worship at all. I related a user experience of increased reliability and productivity. Simple as that. Because it is actual experience it's more valuable than hypothetical users/situations, and actual experience was missing from the article so I wanted to relate something valuable like that to the discussion. So, I didn't read the article as having explained exactly what I had because it was littered with a heavy anti-Mac approach (rather than my idea that different tools can be used for different jobs - you wouldn't butcher a pig using a Swiss Army Knife).
To explain my position in difference to that approach, I'll quote your explanation of the article: "whoever's coming up with a design for the next OS or whatever, should try to make it work based on user experience and needs."
Could I suggest that if a Mac (including the OS) doesn't suit your needs, then you don't buy one? Why make several tools (Macs & the various PCs and operating systems) that can suit a wide range of needs (effectively then the same tools in different packaging) when you can have specialised tools that allow you to work effectively in a particular area? Macs have always done well in creative industries for this reason. I actually think where Apple have gone wrong is to try and make a 'one-size-fits-all' type Mac with it's more recent OS update.
The idea that came across strongest in the article, which is why I criticised it, was that Apple was an iniquitous corporation because it tries to force everybody into a single mould. They have a very small market share, as you indicated regarding the virus scenario, so I don't think that's a realistic threat is it? As long as people (like yourself, I believe) who want to have more control over the OS and may just use it for emails/study, or there are public libraries and offices that would rather use Dell, then we have the option of using either.
To take away an option because it works 'out of the box' is just stupid. Everything has pros and cons, each individual needs to weigh up theirs and make a decision based on that. If the original author truly thinks that they are useful tools (as you suggest) and shouldn't be used to hook in gullible sheeple attracted to their prettiness, then I'll suggest he doesn't get so caught up in the image debate himself. Sheeple are sheeple, and if Apple don't do it, someone else will and in fact, there are plenty of manufacturers who already do.
Good info
Excellent article, Brett. Glad that no one here is afraid of defending the pros of owning a Windows-based machine.
I'd also like to see (and even contribute to, though I probably have limited experience compared to you) an article about building one's own PC, or at least selecting components and managing them effectively. And I'm not talking about peripherals, I'm talking about choosing a motherboard and CPU, a case, a power supply; the more technical stuff.
Not an issue.
Most people that want to use a computer can figure it out, and the available systems work well enough for the tasks that we need them for. You say we need this and that for our computers: we don't, and it is questionable whether computers have been a positive development whatsoever for humanity.
I agree that technology should function well, but this is not a topic of any great importance.
"... questionable whether
"... questionable whether computers have been a positive development whatsoever..."
A great point, though I did also read this article as a metaphor / allegory for insight into organization of society or life in general and not only computers. Seen in this light or wider context, this topic becomes relevant.