Apples and not apples
Posted: July 30, 2008 Filed under: microsoft 1 Comment »
I’ve commented before a couple of times that Microsoft could release the MacBook or iPod and everyone would declare it a dud. The products that the blue monster releases which are good (Messenger, Office, Visio, the server products etc) are ignored while the company’s detractors happily pick apart shortfalls of products like the Zune, or Windows Live Hotmail.
Possibly the best expression of this I’ve ever read is this article. Read the body first and then read comment 13!
So, it appears someone at Microsoft has had the same idea. Unfortunately they had it about Vista. Now the best I think I could say about Vista is that it has a couple of cool interface elements and features. Certainly it’s miles behind mac on ease of use, and considerably behind XP on stability etc. Is it a complete bag of spanners? Well of course not, most of the time…. But it needs to be amazing if it wants to be seen as amazing (like Office 2007 is).
Microsoft has been telling us a variation of that story for the last couple of years. I’d have a lot more faith in it if Gates himself hadn’t laughed at the product. In the Mojave Experiment, the team attempt to prove the product is actually pretty cool (it’s just had a pasting in the press) by running test user groups on Vista but telling the users it’s a new release (called Mojave).
Apart from sounding like a misunderstood teenager, what’s wrong with this picture?
- We have no idea how the research was carried out
- We have no idea what operating system the test users were currently using. 98 perhaps.
- This is very cynical, but we don’t really know what the users were tested on (was it XP / Mac / Sugar?)
- The worst parts of owning Vista are the bits that don’t happen in a lab (like it freaking out coming out of sleep) or being slow after the first hour or so, or taking hours to do certain random tasks
- It seems the test was carried out on Cray super computer
The really careless thing about the marketing campaign (which appears to showcase about 55 users, although some of their contributions are only a few words):
- No one dislikes Vista in the tests. Come on!! You could be road-testing free, unaddictive cocaine and you’d find someone who decided they didn’t like it for some reason. That’s what research is like. I bet even Apple gets the odd negative comment in groups. (Here we really see the marketing agency crumple to their old fashioned ways despite trying to harness genuine testimony)
- How, on earth, did they get permission. By the structure of the ‘tests’ the users must have only given permission for this use after the test. Why would they do that.
- The whole point is that when guided through the OS, customers find they like it – i.e. it’s not intuitive and features aren’t discoverable.
- Doesn’t this stink of calling customers stupid
Ultimately, I bet the top three complaints about Vista are
- speed
- compatability
- stability
The user experience is not built out of a list of features. It’s a much more complex sum than that: everytime you can’t work out how to use it, or it jams, or it crashes, or it just goes off and does something weird, deduct one point. Everytime you find a new thing you love, or something is really obvious, or it confounds expecatations (like resuming quickly from sleep, leaving the USB powered even when switched off), add a point.
On that basis Vista simply doesn’t get far enough away from zero.
Let’s not go crazy
Posted: July 20, 2008 Filed under: copyright, music Comments OffThere’s an interesting story being reported about a Pennsylvania mother called Stephanie Lenz who received a letter from Universal Music because a clip she uploaded to YouTube had a prince song in the background (‘Let’s go crazy’).
The clip is 29 seconds long, of very poor quality, and the song in the background is barely audible. However the letter demanded the clip be removed because of copyright infringement.
Lenz has decided to take a stand against the decision and has backing from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The point she makes is that organisations should think twice before accusing huge numbers of people (the recipients of these ‘take down letters’) of having commited federal crimes.
For Universal, it’s another spectacular own goal likely to lead to clear legal presedence against their current methods of protecting copyright.
Obviously particularly ironic considering Prince now routinely gives his music away for free, it is of course a great little illustration of the deep need for us to reconsider (and relax) copyright laws and to rethink the meaning of ‘fair use’ of purchased or public material.
via George Parker.
Now we know what the future looks like
Posted: July 19, 2008 Filed under: agencies, democracy, demographics, design, development, Economics, engagement, Futurama 1 Comment »The whole phrase is ‘Now we know what the future looks like, what would we like to do with it?’
For the second post in a row I’m afraid I’m in a rather idealistic mood. But it seems to me, now, that we look at the structure of business and marketing as it’s being done by the market leaders, we look at posts by visionaries like this one, this one and this one, and we think we pretty much know how this is going to shake out…
The question of micro distribution of corporate reputation has been answered. The question of finding value inside organistations through enablement of individuals has been proven. The question of whether we think better separately or together has been answered.
So, my point is this. In the Future (doesn’t really need a capital does it, since it’s only a couple of minutes away), if we assume that we will broadly have a marketplace of ideas where we all now can have our say. If we will have a world where communities of interest can be powerful, and massively devolved. If we will have a world where companies can thive by coming up with powerful ideas and finding ways to communicate them quickly and powerfully. Then what do we want out of that world?
It probably sounds a bit irrelevant but it’s an important question. Because we’re not, any of us, I think really after better mp3 players, nor mobile phones, nor fruit smoothies.
But we also don’t really have the passions of the past. If we live in big cities, at least, we’ve started to see the back of racism, sexism, for the most part, intollerance; what are we worrying about now? Knife crime? I know it’s a serious question but it’s very recent and very media orientated. House prices? Economy? That’s just not intereting, really.
I think it’s about this (you’ll read a transcript of a Clinton interview about finding similarities rather than differences). For all the things that have been resolved, we live in a world where far too many inequalities exist for the wrong reason (there are good reasons for alot of inequalities of course).
But I’m in intrigued about views here.
If we’re all going to be a position where we have all this extra information, all this extra access to cheap, easy, global media, all of this ability to form communities, how do we use this to moderate our behaviour for the better?
And more to the point, what is we actually want to achieve? Or are we all going to turn into Miss World, and look for world peace and happy families.
The life of Riley
Posted: July 15, 2008 Filed under: blogs, cluetrain, twitter 1 Comment »I know it’s a sort of liberal utopian wet dream and I keep going on about it, but a number of things today have pushed me towards the view that our future will move significantly away from mass media, and that the change will happen much faster than most people currently expect. Indeed, the speed of progress in this change is really starting to accelerate, to become wholly entwined in the daily life of our media, and a frame of reference with which even the latest to adopt are becoming very comfortable.
The first thing is the sad story of the death of Olive Riley, the web’s oldest blogger.
Here’s an extract from an early entry:
“You 21st century people live a different life than the one I lived as a youngster in the early 1900s. Take Washing Day, for instance. These days you just toss your dirty clothes into a washing machine, press a few switches, and it’s done.
I remember scratching around to find a few pieces of wood to fire the copper for Mum.[...]
Some time later, when the fire had gone out, Mum would haul the clothes, dripping wet, out of the hot water with a strong wooden copperstick, and that was jolly hard work. The clothes weighed a lot more sopping wet than when they were dry.
Then she would feed the wet washing into a machine called a mangle. It had two large rollers with a narrow gap between them, and a big metal wheel that had to be turned by hand. That was my job – and it was real hard work for a small kid.
[...]
Thank you to all my good friends who have sent me interesting emails and loving hugs by commenting on my blob [sic]. Love to you all, and please keep writing those comments.”
The second thing is a small thing. And it’s not, in itself, anything remarkable, but somehow it struck me particularly today. For a brief period years ago, I worked alongside Amelia Torode, who has a well-known blog. Amelia’s always had interesting things to say and often novel viewpoints on the things I’m interested in, so I read her blog and follow her on Twitter. This evening I saw this in a twitter gadget:
The link takes you to this post on her blog. It’s exactly the sort of thing Hugh Macleod does all the time, and Scrobble used to do right up until I deleted him from Twitter and Google reader because I was having an overload problem. The post itself is really interesting and I’m glad I followed the link. But it got me thinking: isn’t this cross promotion actually a bit like this:
And this:
I don’t know how many people read Amelia’s blog, or follow her Twitter, but they’re all pretty interested in what she says in those places. And so, it’s probably a pretty successful advert.
In the same vein, several million twitters promoted the iPhone last weekend,. Could brands really think of any places they’d rather be promoted? Even including search.
The third thing is Twitter’s acquisition of Summize, a small search-engine technology. Why is that interesting? Well look here or here, or here. This is the technology which will make twitter content available to people who don’t know the contributor (strapline: See what the world is doing — right now.”).
What will I be telling my grand kids when I’m 108 (assuming medical science figures how to reconstruct brain cells in the next 70 years)? ‘Well Johnny, you wouldn’t believe what we had to do in the old days. We had to promote all our blog entries on Twitter manually.’
Dead bloggers’ society
Posted: July 13, 2008 Filed under: blogs, dead, marketing 2 Comments » 
Damien Mulley is a fabulous Irish blogger who came over to London to attend Interesting 2008 recently. On his way there, he stopped off at Conchango (where I work) to talk to us about the effect blogging was having on newspapers in Ireland. It was an interesting presentation, although – for me at least – the most interesting thing was Damien’s passion for what he’s doing (as a hobby) and his disdain for the laziness of journalists, and the speed at which they appear to descend into a very cynical approach to news gathering.
So far, so 2.0. I have absolutely no doubt that journalists will come to use bloggers as primary sources, just before their jobs vanish completely in a puff of disintermediation. That’s not to say we don’t need guides and editors. If anything we’re seeing a rise in the need for curation. But that curation can and will come from different mechanics. Anyone who is close to a national newspaper these days will see this trend being enacted inside their walls as well as outside.
But the thing that Damien said which really intrigued me – shortly before I left him to a predictable fate with Conchango’s harder-core of drinkers – was about the future of internet content after the author’s demise.
Sorry, it’s not cheery, but it’s also not something that I’ve ever really heard discussed. And it’s going to become a big question very soon.
In the old days, when a famous author would pass away, his or her editor and publisher would have decisions to make, as might benefactors, as the intellectual property of the work may be vested to future generations. Time for a retrospective perhaps, or - for the Presleys – some serious consideration about what rights must be reserved.
Damien’s comment was that he had been asked to will his (Google) page rank to another company. Damien is – I believe - a top 20 blogger in Ireland, and his site has a lot of Google juice. That juice is worth a lot of money in the right hands.
But a wider point also exists for those of us who don’t have top-flight blogs (which certainly includes me). What about all those bits of content we’re all chucking up on the web nowadays: Flickr albums, Facebook profiles, Ugly MySpace pages, blogs, twitter statuses, all that. What will happen to those when we’re no longer sucking in our breath? Should Google, WordPress etc delete them, conceal them, mark them ‘deceased’, keep them forever? Will it become part of an executor’s job to edit the ‘about us’ pages of blogs to amend ‘Tom is no longer with us’?
Who owns the page rank? Can my next of kin add loads of Viagra CPC ads to my blog?
And more to the point. When we have 5 generations of bloggers who are no longer on this mortal coil, how will Google manage to tell apart content from the living?
Taught out
Posted: July 7, 2008 Filed under: agile, learning Comments OffKen Robinson (presenter of the excellent TED talk ‘Do schools kill creativity‘) has recently appeared onto the web in another presentation at London’s RSA on how paradigms need to change in education to keep up with the changing circumstances we face in society.
(It’s a long talk at 55 minutes but well worth setting aside the time).
This talk comes a week or so after an interesting story in The Economist into what – if anything – can be learned from looking at schools abroad (paywalled). In that piece, the Economist urges caution in merely borrowing shiny snipets from foreign education success stories, advising instead that education departments should look to leading performers (such as Finland) to understand the harmonious and aligned nature of the ambitions of unions, teachers, parent the government and so on, as well as the underlying cultural difference which underwrite much of the education success.
Robinson’s take is startlingly different. He’s sees he problem as requiring a fundemental change in approach. Our current system, he believes, is highly influence by the Enlightenment (a belief in the superceding power of reason) and the industrial revolution. Because of that background, our system is orientated around producing workers fit for an industrialised society. And, until recently, it has also been tightly geared to producing them in the right proportions: lots of workers, some middle managers, and a few doctors and lawyers.
Isn’t this exactly what school intake felt like, even as early as 11? As a class-decider? Wasn’t that even what it was like 10 years ago, getting through university admission.
But now, Robinson argues, when we are unable to make confident predictions beyond next Tuesday, we should be looking to educate children more broadly in adaptability and creativity; we should be looking to remove our prejudices about the differences between vocational and academic; and we should be very wary of training lateral thinking out of our children.
The school system, Robinson maintains, is also often very faddish. Is ADHD really on the rise? Robinson points to a map showing incidence of the problem in the US. What we see is occurence strongly correlated to particular states where we would expect the most information overload. It is, in fact, he argues an epidemic of the faddish sort amongst parents and teachers.
Echoing some of the thoughts in Faris Yakob’s ‘I believe children are the future‘, Robinson points out that humans are the only species that imagines things; the only race that tries to predicts it future, or understand its position in the cosmic scale. And that this imagination should be cherished and encouraged, not stubbed out with Ritalin and other supressant drugs.
As usual, Robinson is incredibly engaging, amusing and insightful. But for me, the most interesting thought was about the concept of current schools as ‘industrial’ artefacts – not just in the structure of their output but in their methods and practices. In his talk, Robinson suggests that perhaps we want to return to something more organic (or agrarian?).
How do schools actually work? In many ways they do appear to echo mass-production industrial practicies. Children are batched through, they are treated in very standard ways. Defects are collected together at the end of the line, individual workers (teachers) do not necessarily have the ability to respond to different circumstances differently, the ciriculum is the same for every child (Henry Ford’s: ‘any colour, so long as it’s black’).
And, so, to come back to my other pet topic - should we actually be thinking about how we can learn from lean to empower teachers (as a group, not just as individuals) to create more individualised schooling, or to do more to shape the schooling which is available more to the individual child (engineering challenge I guess in Lean) that comes into the system. And how also can we minimise the inventory effect (grouping pupils by age in Robinson’s language).
Want to try some more Lean principles? What about: ‘deliver as fast as possible’; ‘amplify learning’ (from one pupil to the next); ‘decide as late as possible’ (that’s certainly not something that’s made it into schools in this country); ‘see the whole’; ‘build integrity in’….
The answer appears to be about allowing much more flexible teaching and marking to foster exactly the sort of creativity most kids are born with.
Let’s hope Robinson keeps on his crusade. And the educators start to learn from this – more radical -thinking, rather than just borrowing from our neighbours in Europe and the US.



Recent comments