roblog

Orioles Fire Trembley. Grassroots Campaign Underway to Find Successor

With the firing of Orioles manager, Dave Trembley, and the lack of real interest in the opening, a grassroots campaign is underway to hire a local legend.

Orioles Manager Watch
Hire Dave Bender

That Was Misguided: Observations on The NYTimes Article on Windows Mobile 6.5

Wow.

Reading the NY Times article covering Microsoft’s latest release of Windows Mobile, I was struck by how many things are just plain wrong here. Not factually, but rather philosophically.

A colleague of mine pointed out this article as the only example of a positive review of the new OS. (It’s not. However, since most observers realize the new OS is just as bad as it has always been, any assessment that can even be construed in the slightest bit as non-negative deserves some attention. Just based on the title alone, one might think Windows Mobile 6.5 is pretty good. It’s not. Still.)

The overall message of the article is that Microsoft has recognized that its mobile software isn’t stacking up to the competition. So to fix the problem, they turned to their top…marketing executive? (To be fair, they did put a glossy new UI on the OS. But they apparently focused most of their efforts on solving the problem through marketing.)

Are you kidding me? Microsoft is lagging behind the competition because their marketing isn’t up to snuff? Look guys, it’s fairly simple. Your OS really isn’t that good. OK, it sucks. And frankly, it’s hard to sell things that suck. But that’s not really a marketing problem, it’s a product problem.

So, where would they ever get the idea that they have a marketing problem? Why, their marketing department of course! Ask the right questions of the wrong people, and you’ll likely get the wrong answer. If you ask a designer why something doesn’t work, he’ll tell you what is wrong from an interaction point of view. Ask an engineer, and she’ll focus on the underlying technology. Turn to a marketing executive to solve a problem and you’ll find - amazingly - that you have a marketing problem.

Don’t get me wrong. Everybody wants to help - and that’s great - but they will help the only way they know how. So come on, don’t engage marketing unless you have a marketing problem (unless of course you want to couch your problem as a marketing one - which is what I think this is all about). Honestly, are things that bad at Microsoft that they have lost faith in their engineers’ ability to deliver solutions? I really have a hard time believing that. But why jeopardize your reputation?

So, anyway,  Microsoft brings in Todd Peters, the Staples “Easy Button” guy. His solution? Another easy button. Really? Microsoft is now requiring phones that use their software to include a button with the Windows logo on it. Apparently, this button is the “star” of the upcoming TV campaign that will pitch the new OS. Seriously, is that all this guy has in his wheel-house? Buttons to communicate simplicity? (Peters says, “We’re trying to simplify and have people say ‘It’s a Windows phone.’” Are we? Maybe from a marketing perspective. But from a consumer point of view, aren’t we just trying to find phones that do the job?)

Peters also says that one of the problems he found was that “consumers did not even know that Microsoft made phone software.” Furthermore, consumers “could not tell which phones had Microsoft inside by looking at them in a store.” While these observations may be legitimate, they are not the problem, and I would argue that - based on the track record of Windows Mobile - consumer ignorance in this area would be a plus. Based on his comments, I’m inclined to think that Mr. Peters agrees. Apparently Microsoft considered creating a completely new brand for its mobile software. But, in the end, they’ve decided to no longer “advertise the name Windows Mobile, even though that is still the operating system’s name.”

So the ultimate solution to the market share problem is to slap a new UI on the same old lousy operating system, market it as easy to use, and hope that people will buy it based on the Microsoft logo? What then? Hope they don’t figure it out? If they don’t figure it out in the store, they will eventually. (In the final analysis, Microsoft Mobile 6.5 is just so much turd polish. And under the glossy veneer is the same old piece of crap.) And what will you have then? Angry customers tied down by two-year contracts. And two years is a long time to stew over being screwed. Microsoft may (but not likely) increase their market share in the short term with the 6.5 OS, but all they stand to gain is a few more future, former customers.

How Microsoft can overlook this is beyond me. By the time Windows Mobile 7 arrives (which may or may not solve the real problems), consumers will have such a bad perception of Microsoft in the mobile space that they’ll move on. And then they’ll have a real marketing problem on their hands.

The Comcast Letters: Part 2

Dear Comcast:

Honestly. Is it a joke with you guys? Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure knowing the pain you cause me?

I just have to ask: Why is the TV/VCR button nestled in with the channel number buttons? (See photo of May 20, 2009 for reference.) I need the TV/VCR button to switch between the Wii, the DVD player, and the regular TV - the “Input”, as it were. (Which is in fact the secondary label next to the button.) Is there a use case I don’t know about? Could it be that I am a fringe case?

And why do I have to hit the TV button in order to make the TV/VCR button even function at all (and only sometimes)? Of course, the TV button is nowhere near the TV/VCR button, which only adds to the fun. It took a while to figure that little relationship out.

Trying to put it all in context, I am,

Your Friend,

Rob

Dear Comcast,

Why do you hate me?

Seriously. I only need a few of the 53 (Fifty-three!) buttons you’ve offered me. (“Offered.” Like I had a choice. While we’re counting: the answer is 6. Maybe 10. Buttons that I need, that is. Not counting the channel number buttons. OK, so like 20.) Yet you’ve spread them out across the entire device. And they’re so small and close together. And my eyesight isn’t what it used to be. (Now, I know that isn’t you’re problem. But isn’t the population as a whole aging? And aren’t we forcing them to switch to digital cable, which will make them all have to deal with this remote - or one like it? So, couldn’t you at least take that into account?)

Let’s see, so many complaints…so little time… Let’s take a really simple example.

It’s Wednesday night. Lost is on. So is the Carolina game. (Note to self: write letter to ACC scheduling committee, re: coordinate Carolina and Lost next season.)

All I need to do is quickly switch back and forth between ABC and ESPN/MASN. But the LAST button is kind of buried in the middle and doesn’t stand out in any way (see photo of May 20, 2009). Unless I keep my finger on it, I’m going to have to look for it every commercial. (Eyesight going south, remember?) Add in the potential nightmare of someone actually calling me during my Lost/Carolina stress-fest. (What are they thinking?) Now I have to mute the TV. Good luck with that. The MUTE button is buried even further in. It’s near the LAST button, but there’s no real order or sense of priority so it’s a crap shoot.

I’m sure you’re thinking, “Why don’t you just DVR Lost?” Right. I don’t watch enough TV to bother having the service. Plus, then I’d have to learn how to use even more buttons on the remote. At least now I can sort of block out entire sections of the remote. What I’d like to do is pull off all the buttons I don’t need, or create a new device with only the ones I do need.

The long and short of it is that you’ve made it harder to watch TV. Wasn’t convenience the point of the remote? I always thought convenient and easy were somewhat synonymous. Thanks for highlighting the distinction.

Your Friend,

Rob

There Will Be Ramifications

My colleagues and I spent the day reviewing requirements for the next version of an application that has just recently seen its initial release.  Facing a time crunch, V1 was the victim of many spur-of-the-moment decisions with the primary objective of shipping product (which we did).  Many of these decisions were the result of some fairly typical circumstances: unclear or incomplete requirements, too few resources applied to design activities, etc.  The long and short of it is that while most of the functionality got into the app, the design team was more than a little unsatisfied with the way it all hung together.

Back to today…

We’re going through the requirements trying to figure out how we can integrate new functionality into what is essentially the wrong design. Our fear has always been that if we don’t ask the hard design questions up front and solve the root of the problem, we’ll just bolt on all this new functionality and make a bad situation worse.

“Otherwise,” I said, “there will be serious ramifications.”  To which my colleague responded, emphatically: “Only if they take it seriously.”

Which made me think: Even if you don’t take them seriously, there will be ramifications.  Which, as it turns out, I was able to “prove” on the whiteboard.

With a tip of my cap to Craig Damrauer, let’s do the math*:

For serious and ramifications, where S = serious and R = ramifications: 

SR / S = R

Additionally (bad pun intended):

(S + R) - S = R

So, there you have it: Proof that whether you take them seriously or not, there will be ramifications for the decisions you make.

*Disclaimer: I’m not a mathematician.

Happy now?

I’ve blogged.  Now leave me alone, Benno.