The idea is exciting, but the execution is awful.
88 karma · joined July 30, 2011
My team has been debating about building something similar for years. I just want it to exist!
I can't help but wonder, why go so far out of their core competency? Maybe they've invested in a support team and hope to generate ROI? It just doesn't seem to make sense from a focus perspective.
Promising a client concepts, then immediately asking for an extended time, only to learn that you may have to ask again can be considered a nightmare, depending on the client.
Are you on a speedy networked desktop? You get the bells and whistles version. Are you own a tablet with less bandwidth? We note this, and load the appropriate version. Are you on a mobile phone on the move? We load the mobile edition which is about efficiency and speed. The user doesn't need to make decisions, but the site architect should be seamlessly making them behind the scenes.
Also, I'd love it so all versions to have the same content, optimized for all homes. If I visit another mobile/tablet site that reduces content for "my convenience" I will start punching web developers. :)
Getty makes its money on both ends. They're also slowly rising the purchase prices for both user submission sites to be around $70/photo average compared to $10-20 two years back.
It seems that saying one out of ten MMOs do well would be generous.
The problem with this approach is if the market responds negatively. I feel this way right now with Coda 2, as it feels over designed and targeted at an odd-case web developer. I truly hope I'm wrong with Coda 2.
But the point remains, if you swing for the fences and miss with a MAXVP then don't be surprised if you go back to the minor leagues. (I made a sports reference nearly successfully...I'm calling everyone I know!)
When you get an iPad you realize laptops have instantly become less useful. iPads fit into a tiny bag, they have crazy battery life, and they can do many things as well as a desktop. It is a no brainer to carry them with you instead of a laptop, as they do 90% of the things you need a computer for very well.
Having a nice text editor/FTP program would be greatly welcomed.
Gloves would give significantly greater control, flexibility, and functionality. Three examples:
1) Control: Since the computer is aware of my digits significantly more complex movements are possible. With two hands you'd have a ton of customization.
2) Flexibility: I can do all actions sitting comfortably from my chair. My arms don't have to leave the arm rests. Or, I can be across the room swiping through my media or photos.
3) Functionality: Fingers, or motions like raising a hand, could act like key commands. Want to submit a password? Turn your hand like a key. Want to refresh a page? Drum my fingers. Want to clear the screen? Slide my hand across the table. None of these would be possible with LEAP because each would be obscured by or outside of the field of view.
Similar tech seems to already exist in Microsoft's Kinect. It can also cover entire rooms, but would do so more usefully. And the technology is already there to identify human hands, skeletons, and faces.
I want amazing technology just like you, but we need to be willing to not trumpet bad ideas just because it could be cool given enough effort/marketing.
You're literally arguing a logical fallacy by the way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof
But not all ideas are good. It violates Fitt's law by placing all user interaction within a vertical band next to your computer. This is very uncomfortable and decreases the usefulness for most applications (because missing the interaction band is likely).
If these were wireless gloves that I could more easily (with my arms in any location) then I'd love this.
I'm focused on the consumer, because I feel Microsoft wins enterprise by default. Who is the competition? Open source? I've been laughed out of Fortune 50 meetings for suggesting it. Small to Medium size software firms? They just don't integrate with Windows or Office as well. No one in the enterprise ever gets fired for choosing Microsoft. This is changing, but it will take years.
The problem is that the enterprise is a limited field. Once you sell to the Fortune 1,000 there isn't anywhere to go, outside of creating new products to resell to this group. This is why Microsoft feels like they are meandering, they need new revenue streams. This is also why they don't work so well in consumer products. Running after market leaders in hopes to find a revenue stream pisses off consumers.
Consumers are a different story. There are 7 billion individuals that don't have a procurement department. They buy smaller goods more often. There are entire industries that could be changed with one breakthrough product.
Comparing Microsoft and Apple is natural. Microsoft begs this comparison with its technology competitors by entering their markets and taunting them. They just do such a horrible job they don't feel like competitors.
MS Stores built as fancy luxury consumer hubs. Xbox 360, the billion+ dollar winner for MS last year, was born out of building hardware with software. The Nokia Lumia 700 is effectively the same mix of hardware and software (as Nokia was shadow taken over). The Zune was. Safari, Firefox, and Chrome lead the browser revolution, and all I see on TV now are IE commercials. Zune Marketplace. Windows Phone (the blackberry ripoff). Bing. Silverlight.
The rumor I'd heard was that Courier was killed because independent teams created the device components. When put together it wasn't refined enough to pass review. Plus, they didn't see tablets as a viable market...again. Fingers crossed there was a much cooler reason.
I'm happy to say leaders from the Courier team left and started Paper on iOS. It is a dream to use and shows that they had the talent to make the Courier happen, if given the chance. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paper-by-fiftythree/id5060038...
Ha, ha - agreed on the start menu as well. I really do wish MS well (they can't have not tested this, right?), as their plan is pretty much a Hail Mary pass. But these sorts of decisions don't instill hope.
This is so false it is painful for me to read. I'm embarrassed for the author.
"The company's core competency is a process it uses for entering and consuming existing industries. After it enters a market, it rides off the innovations of its competitors, uses its existing brand power and sheer size to tackle a large surface area at the bottom of the market, and then, finally, it develops a valuable platform on top of the new market. As the platform grows, it slowly squeezes out the existing players."
Name one instance of this in the past 15 years. One. Oh wait, the author lists a few!
Xbox? Well, they have operated at a loss for the first seven years or so, ousted the entire create leadership team (Bach and Allard say howdy), and now are turning nice sums of coin. But this isn't truly Microsofts win, it is the entire industry's failures. Nintendo and Sony are seeing bad times. The currency difference is hurting Japanese companies, who are tired of innovating. Even many lead game designers are admitting the Japanese are years behind the US market. With Sony in turmoil and Nintendo trying to figure out how to right the ship, it is no wonder the years Xbox has seen a profit are only recently.
"Windows Mobile"
In 2010 Ballmer himself said they' lost a "whole generation of users". They dropped the ball so hard that even after the debut of the iPhone, when Google realized it was time to explore a new approach to Android, Ballmer didn't understand why it would be popular. Ballmer displayed a weak passion for mobile yes, but the crime here is that he displays no vision.
Windows 7 is years too late. Nokia will die in a vain attempt to give this OS a chance, but it will never work. The audience only sees two contenders in the ring.
"Windows" This is the only horse worth mentioning. It, and thus Office, are the default winners. Xerox, Kleenex, and Windows. They win this category by default as 99% of users could care less about the OS they use.
But there are an insane amount of products not mentioned here! Where are the Zunes, the silverlights, the Vistas, or the Azures? There are hundreds of horrific decisions we all watch spiral out of control. Remember the Kin? How I so wanted to play with its awkwardness. Or the Courier? How I pulled at my hair when they killed not only the product, but laid off the entire team. Remember Ensemble or Bizzare Creations? They made some beautiful games. Remember Surface? Remember a decade of IE's disgraceful finger in the face of all web users?
This is a history of successes? It sounds like a meandering path of exploration, where one in one hundred connects. This is luck.
The overall premise here is that Microsoft deserves a gold star for existing. They made 6.3B profit last quarter! Give them a break.
For comparison, Apple made 11.6B profit last quarter. That was a 47% increase from the previous year, which also had a 41% increase. These products were ideas that Microsoft had left behind, too busy swerving around trying to find a mission. Apple took the best ideas and developed a valuable ecosystem to grow as a platform. Sound familiar?
I love how open and direct 37signals culture is. Very inspiring.
sigh
This is garbage.
Really. I can't imagine a quicker way to fill a room with B-players.
Alone Woz couldn't have had the sense to sell blue boxes, the gumption to complete Breakout in a crunch, or build a computer that worked with a color TV, or design the elegant Apple II. He would have stayed at HP and been a great mid-level manager. He now lives the life he wants, without having to worry about about money, all because he worked with a team.