January 21, 2005

simple? playful?

zzzzzz7654159.jpg
When I think of Apple, I basi­cally think of two things– the Mac and the iPod. Sure, there are many kinds of Mac– big ones, wee ones, desk­tops, lap­tops, color­ful, not-so-colorful, but somewhere in my mind I have this pla­to­nic idea of “The Mac”. And same with the iPod.
But with Mic­ro­soft when I think of what they make, what they stand for, I’m all over the place– XP, video games, Longhorn, CE, Win­dows this, Win­dows that… more than 30 seconds trying to piece it all together makes my head ache.
Ear­lier I sug­ges­ted that Mic­ro­soft nee­ded to be more “play­ful”. Would it be out of line to sug­gest that Mic­ro­soft brand also needs to be more “sim­ple”?
Sim­ple and play­ful. Anything wrong with that?
No, I’m not saying their pro­duct or brand needs to be more like Apple’s. Howe­ver, I do think they need to bet­ter arti­cu­late what it is that’s GOOD about the com­pany. And what is good about a com­pany, any com­pany, is never com­pli­ca­ted.
Sure, I think Robert Sco­ble is doing a bet­ter job of selling Mic­ro­soft– telling folk what’s GOOD about wor­king there– than anyone.
Frankly, I think he’s doing a bet­ter job of selling a large com­pany than anyone alive, ad agen­cies inc­lu­ded.
I just hope he’s the future.

13 Responses to “simple? playful?”

  1. Jack Cheng says:

    Mic­ro­soft aims to make objects of USE. Apple tries to create objects of DESIRE that hap­pen to be use­ful (or maybe “easy to use” is a bet­ter term) at the same time.
    There are a ton of com­pa­nies out there that make objects of use. They can do a lot of cool things, but they’re all over the place and not aesthe­ti­cally invi­ting. There are a ton of award-winning desig­ners out there that make objects of desire. Sleek lines, mini­ma­lis­tic. But the result is that they end up being impos­si­ble to use.
    When it comes to com­bi­ning the two, nobody does it bet­ter than Apple.

  2. Firas says:

    Remem­ber, mic­ro­soft is a plat­form com­pany, mainly, not a pro­ducts com­pany.
    There are very few ‘objects’ they make, like the Xbox etc. The Win­dows this, Win­dows that is meant to be deplo­yed by /other/ com­pa­nies, which dilu­tes their brand a bit. But at least they rake in the cash.

  3. hugh macleod says:

    Well, as a bran­ding exer­cise Apple inte­rests me less, simply because it’s so UTTERLY defi­ned already.
    And it has a very clear idea about what kind of “expe­rience” they want their user to have.
    Short-term this is a strength, long-term this is a weakness.

  4. Hugh, when are you going to start pod­cas­ting? My guess is that you will be a natu­ral and take off very quickly. I don’t have the back­ground in sound but I’m trying to get up to speed.
    I would love to hear you play the Sax.
    ssd

  5. John says:

    I think MS company’s strength is its reach, rather than the qua­lity of its pro­ducts and ser­vi­ces. MS doesnt repre­sent to me a broad array of pro­ducts but rather as a leve­ra­ged posi­tion.
    Sure, MS has good peo­ple in the comp­nay, all com­pa­nies do. But democ­ra­tic mecha­nisms or sense of humour will con­ti­nue to pall in the face of their actual main asset — dic­ta­ting choice through mar­ket domi­nance. Its doubt­ful that democ­ra­ti­za­tion of mes­sa­ging, or enthu­siasm will let us for­get the sha­dow MS has cast on inno­va­tion. So a thou­sand flo­wers wont neces­sa­rily bloom at the feet of Sco­ble and other MS blog­gers.
    MS pro­bably has to break into sma­ller pie­ces, and adopt a busi­ness model other than ” your money, our pas­sion”  — which is tough to do for a widely held publicly tra­ded com­pany. Apple’s not neces­sa­rily morally supe­rior, it just doesnt have the bag­gage that MS as the com­pu­ting super­po­wer has. Maybe Im pes­si­mis­tic, but I think that MS is a com­pany whose pre­sence is avoi­ded, and whose pro­ducts are put up with, not loved. Tough sell.

  6. Ron says:

    MSFT has a fan­tas­tic hold on a huge deve­lo­per and VAR com­mu­nity which has, in part, hel­ped them get to where they are today. You could say they have fan­tas­tic “tar­ge­ted con­ver­sa­tions” with this group and will con­ti­nue to do so.
    We do busi­ness appli­ca­tions using Open Source tools, even in a cli­mate when Open Source is all the rage, it is still a very hard sell in the cor­po­rate envi­ron­ment to do anything non-MSFT.
    They have no need to have their brand mean anything in par­ti­cu­lar to the ave­rage “consumer”.

  7. /pd says:

    Hugh: Ithink you just gave Robert his best b’day pre­sent for the wee­kend party !! :) -
    YOu nai­led it down on the dot — “I think Robert Sco­ble is doing a bet­ter job of selling Mic­ro­soft– telling folk what’s GOOD about wor­king there– than anyone. ”
    I think Ad agencys should create a new title for within their sphere of oepra­tions. i.e. “Pro­duct Evan­gi­lest” and let them have a blog away !! :) -

  8. Hugh, do you really think Mic­ro­soft can pos­tion itself as either “sim­ple” or “play­ful?” They have 20+ years of his­tory that doesn’t reso­nate with either of those words.
    Cus­to­mer expe­rien­ces to over­come: scary, dif­fi­cult, unfor­gi­ving, mys­tif­ying, inti­mi­da­ting, impenetrable.

  9. Tom,
    Yes, and that’s just what I feel after pla­ying Halo 2! :-)

  10. /PD: it’s the second best birth­day pre­sent. Someone else gave me tic­kets to the Seattle Sonics bas­ket­ball game tonight. They were seats almost on the floor. Check out the pic­ture from my seat: http://scobleizer.textamerica.com/?r=1955521
    It was awe­some.
    Oh, while we’re tal­king about fun and games these guys sure weren’t having fun pla­ying bas­ket­ball. You’ve never seen more serious or intense peo­ple in your life.
    If you can’t play around on the bas­ket­ball court, I won­der how those of us in more boring busi­nes­ses are sup­po­sed to cope.

  11. Ed Byrne says:

    Hugh, I think the pro­blem is that if Mic­ro­soft sim­pli­fied there brand (like XP and MSN and bring everything under that) it wouldn’t do their image of being a mono­poly any good. Apple can do it because of their small mar­ket share, they need to do it. Mic­ro­soft can’t afford to be a 2/3 pro­duct ‘brands’ company.

  12. I get the Halo 2 part, Robert, and dam­ned if you’re not doing won­ders to change those 20+ years of expe­rien­ces cus­to­mers had before you got there. But, those years mean lots of frus­tra­ted folks who’ve spent hun­dreds of hours in Cus­to­mer Sup­port sup­port con­ver­sa­tions which all too often ended with the phrase, “well, looks like you’ve have to re-install Win­dows,” to have the words “sim­ple” and “play­ful” come to mind when they see the name Mic­ro­soft. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an “Evil Empire” guy, but that’s a lot of miles to tra­vel.
    How ’bout the speed of those guys on the court?

  13. Hey, that graph is pre­ci­sely the W.L. Gore org model I refe­ren­ced in an ear­lier com­ment re: MSFT beco­ming more play­ful…
    You’re on the right track, Hugh…
    See http://www.opportuniTV.com for some of the key details you are mis­sing…
    Excerpt:
    Toward ‘Land of Oppor­tu­niTV’
    The making of a star­tup comedy about making Ame­rica the Sili­con Valley of cus­to­mi­zed life­long lear­ning and career ser­vi­ces, the glo­bal mar­ket that Peter Druc­ker says will be the big­gest over the next 30 years