Lessons iPhone Should Teach Microsoft
|
Ever the idea-troll, Microsoft could take a page or two from this phone's book. |
Microsoft's channel, hardware, services and software partners could learn some lessons, too—and demand changes from Microsoft or go more on their own.
Less is more. Microsoft tends to disclose loads of information about products long before their release. Exactly how does that generate anticipation? If someone gives up the whole synopsis of a book or movie, what incentive is there to read or watch? Microsoft tells so much of the story, there's not enough discovery—or worse, people think they have enough information to make a purchase decision without really evaluating the product.
For Microsoft, which on the desktop is in the business of competing with itself, enterprises easily can stick with what they've got without ever looking. Too much disclosure really is too much.
Apple typically keeps a tight lid on new products but had to disclose iPhone early. If for no other reason than FCC approval process, iPhone information was bound to get out. Yet Apple managed to give away seemingly loads of information, while trickling out more, particularly as the product launch approaches. Each iPhone revision, based on the release of more information, feeds the anticipation.
Curiosity draws attention and builds anticipation. Microsoft should keep its mouth shut more often about new products. Selective information release, by way of blogs or even leaks, can generate buzz. The bloggers and reporters will trip over themselves and each other for more information—"the scoop"—generating anticipation and providing loads of free advertising.
Marketing matters. Apple's iPhone marketing is brilliance. A supernova's brightness can exceed that of its galaxy. The iPhone marketing approaches supernova luminosity (if the device disappoints, however, the light could equally dim as it would with the fading star). Apple started by giving out just enough information to generate excitement; Web chatter continued to keep buzz high.
Late last month, Apple started pumping up the volume with real marketing. First came the TV commercials, followed by new features disclosed during Apple's developer conference. Since then, Apple released more information about features, like longer battery life and YouTube support, in trickle-like fashion while also revising the iPhone home page several times. Late last week, Apple added a 20-minute iPhone "guided tour" video, which is the Internet equivalent of an infomercial.
Apple is right to advertise, and to do so aggressively. Products don't sell themselves, or usually, anyway. The iPhone may be hotly hyped, but there still needs to be loads of advertising. I saw two different iPhone commercials during last night's "4400." I stopped fast forwarding the DVR to watch both. Apple's marketing is aggressive.
What about Microsoft? The company must have spent loads in early Vista marketing, which focused more on gimmicks and display ads. Vista marketing perhaps is that supernova, which shown brightly and then dimmed. Maybe I watch the wrong programs, because I haven't seen a Vista TV commercial since March. Ad campaign consistency is crucial to marketing success.
Promise less and deliver more. Who doesn't like a happy surprise? Products that deliver more than the manufacturer states bring customers unexpected joy. The manufacturer states features A, B and C but also delivers X, Y and Z. Surprises generate good feelings about a brand, also endearing customers and increasing likelihood they will buy again.
Apple has crafted to a science the practice of delivering more than promised. Product buying is typically an emotional rather than intellectual process. Surprisingly, Microsoft treats it like a product feature check-list process. I assure you that for the IT manger who missed his or her kid's winning soccer tournament game because of a new operating system migration, buying new software is an emotional decision. If there's a bad feeling from this deployment, surely that IT manager will put off the next upgrade as long as possible.
Microsoft advertised Windows Vista's "Wow," but who got it? Microsoft Watch comments weigh decidedly against Vista. Maybe the happy campers are so blissful they don't bother to comment. Vista is just too much fun for them. That said, the amount of bad Vista experience comment chatter is a noisy room. It's hard to ignore.
Consumers are gateways to the enterprise. Microsoft's Windows 95 success started with consumers and moved to enterprises. This migration pattern is ongoing. Products like BlackBerrys, laptops, Palms and Wi-Fi routers (the latter as rogue devices and many unsecured) started with people buying personal devices they also used for work purposes.
Apple's mobile devices will show up in the enterprise. It's inevitable, and the product's appearance in the office likely will stir up more interest for personal and work use—same as BlackBerrys and Palms. Some people that see a co-worker's iPhone will buy, too. Microsoft spends too much time hawking its corporate image (e.g., "Your Potential. Our Passion" commercials) and not enough time wooing consumers. Vista is a missed opportunity to woo enterprises through consumers.
Something else: IT managers are consumers, too. Constant brand exposure, especially if positive, is going to influence them.
Software plus services isn't enough. Apple has done remarkably well delivering end-to-end products, where it does hardware and software. With exception of Surface and Xbox, Microsoft relies on third parties to do the hardware. Zune is a good hybrid model, where Microsoft provides the software but a single third-party, Toshiba, does the hardware (to be fair, even some Apple hardware is manufactured by somebody else but designed, engineered and sometimes assembled by the company).
If iPhone succeeds, Apple will have shown that a traditionally end-to-end technology company can have its cake and eat it too. Apple developed the hardware and software, but AT&T will deliver the service. The package may function like a tightly integrated end-to-end product, but that's not what it really is.
With respect to Web 2.0, Microsoft talks lots about software plus services. A better approach would be software plus hardware plus services. The company is headed down the right path with Xbox 360, which is end-to-end Microsoft software, hardware and service. That said, Microsoft depends too much on its own services rather than engaging potential partners, the way Apple has done with AT&T.
How Microsoft engages its partner channel, whether for hardware or services, is part of the problem. More products could be seemingly more end-to-end deliverables even with multiple developers, manufacturers or service providers.
The question: Should Microsoft play partner favorites? Absolutely. Not all partners are equally created. Some do better work, and preferential arrangements could encourage other partners to do even better work. Apple played favorites by giving AT&T the long-term iPhone exclusive contract. AT&T probably had to do many things Apple's way to get that tight service-to-software-to-hardware integration; AT&T's incentive was the iPhone exclusive. Microsoft would be rightly sensitive about exclusive contracts because of its U.S. antitrust case. But the company doesn't have to be exclusive, just more selective.
When replacing something good, the new thing has got to be a whole lot better. Michael Gartenberg, a JupiterResearch vice president, has blogged numerous times about the "good enough" problem. When a product reaches a certain threshold of being good enough, successors or replacements must deliver a whole lot better experience.
According to the Consumer Electronics Association, the DVD is perhaps the most successful CE category. It's displacement of VHS tapes, recorders and players happened at rapid pace. The end-user experience was a whole lot better, in terms of convenience, audio and video quality of the storage media. DVDs are more durable than tapes, hold more content and the content is more easily accessed. DVD's success, like the CD, is measured by consumers' willingness to repurchase content they already own in the newer format.
If iPhone lives up to the hype and expectations set by the cool-looking demos, it could transcend the "better enough" threshold, as did the DVD.
Because Microsoft competes against itself on the desktop, the onus to deliver a whole lot better experience is much greater. Windows Vista really needed to deliver the "Wow" Microsoft advertised. Increased complexity is one of several reasons why Vista isn't better enough.
Successful products share in common the phrase: "I want one." In 1983, a photographer friend asked me to listen to his CD player, which cost him a whole bunch of money (more than $1,000, if I rightly recall). He played Men at Work's "Down Under." My reaction? I want one. DVDs, DVRs and LCD monitors are among the other technologies that brought on a similar reaction. Microsoft Surface is another example, even though consumers won't be able to buy one anytime soon.
These products share something in common: They must be seen, heard or touched to be understood. When the DVD or DVR were new products, it was hard to explain how much better the experience was than the VHS player or recorder.
Microsoft's undoing is the focus on familiarity, of ensuring that so many of its products have similar look and feel. How exciting is the familiar? "Geez, thanks, boss. This version of Office reminds me so much of the older one."
By contrast, Apple created an exciting-looking new user interface for iPhone. The company claims that Mac OS X is at the core, but very few of the UI elements resemble Apple's desktop operating system. By contrast, Microsoft clearly set out to make Windows Mobile mimic many Windows desktop UI elements. How exciting is that, really?
There are good reasons why fashions go in and out of style. Gap may give its stores a similar look, but the contents inside regularly change. Familiarity has its limits; Microsoft needs push those limits, as it did with the Office 2007 Ribbon.
Related Posts:
- iPhone: Enough Already, Microsoft Watch, June 22, 2007
- An iPhone Skeptic Speaks Out, Microsoft Watch, June 11, 2007
- An Apple a Day..., Microsoft Watch, June 11, 2007
- Microsoft Scratches the Surface, Microsoft Watch, May 30, 2007
- A Smarter Smart Phone?, Microsoft Watch, May 22, 2007
- Tell Me About Dial Tone 2.0, Microsoft Watch, March 15, 2007
- Where's the 'You' in iPhone?, Microsoft Watch, January 10, 2007
- Apple's Son of Newton, Microsoft Watch, January 9, 2007
Comments (25)
Joe,
You have jumped into naming iphone the product of the century without the product being on the market yet. Let's be patient and actually see how successfull the iphone will be...There are many skeptics out there with valid arguments about the relative success of this product...
Posted by evan | June 25, 2007 2:51 PM
No Evan, Joe is simply pointing out how an effective marketing campaign works. Love it or hate it, you have to admit that Apple knows how to market consumer products like iPhone. In comparison, look at how poorly Microsoft rolled out their latest consumer product, Zune. The TV and print commercials were lame-o, and the web sites associated with Zune Marketplace weren't even finished!
Then we had to suffer ridiculous excuses from the likes of Bill Gates, Robbie Bach, and Steve Ballmer, who actually claimed they expected limited acceptance for Zune. I guess there is one thing Microsoft excels at -- executive CYA.
Posted by jerry | June 25, 2007 3:07 PM
Joe,
remember that Microsoft is a very developer friendly company.
They could and should not hide a new version of a product from the rest of the world until launch.
The iPhone seems to be a closed platform with the ability to run applications in a web browser.
That be enough for the mainstream consumer, but not for the industry and business users.
Posted by Jason | June 25, 2007 5:20 PM
M$ should learn marketting from Apple ?
Even though MS came with OS later than Apple they have 95% market share. so you mean with great marketting it should be 100%?
We cannot say iPhone marketting is successful before we see actual results after launching. I, for one, beleive because of recent over marketting - it will definitely disappoint users !!!
And just to reming you - THIS IS MICROSOFT WATCH.
Posted by DD | June 25, 2007 5:22 PM
Is Microsoft's PC business becoming a failed business model? The Vista launch so far suggests that Microsoft's "partners" were asleep at the switch. Less reliance on the likes of ATI, nVidia, HP, BestBuy and Dell and more emphasis on XBox- and Windows Contact-like products may be in the future.
Posted by Roger | June 25, 2007 5:54 PM
roger, search through this link
http://vcsy.blogspot.com/
Posted by B.Clanton | June 25, 2007 6:24 PM
a crock of shit if i ever see one. remind me of premature ejeculation, which curiously, afflicts most apple fansboys.
Posted by lucifer | June 25, 2007 8:05 PM
Microsoft quite simply has no news, I mean other then security fixes or security issues windows isn't in the news. All new products were released about 6 months ago now. So what does "microsoft watch" focus on? The products and issues other companies have. Pretty sad if you ask me. Anything apple does is huge and typically is successful and the iphone judging from the 20 min tour, now that is one sweet looking device. I will get one when my current contract is up with Verizon, I wanted to switch to At&T anyway.
Posted by something | June 25, 2007 9:00 PM
Joe try to advise Microsoft based on an unreleased product.
iPhone will only be released on 29 June. Joe's argument and advice may be totally irrelevant after 29 June when we actually look at the iPhone
I fully agree with the comments by the first reader Evan. Put it further , it is an irresponsible comment
How come eWeeK does not check the quality of its columnist ?
Posted by Eder | June 25, 2007 9:29 PM
Hey DD, marketing guru, what are Microsoft's market share numbers for Zune, XBox, and the ever popular SPOT watch? Hint, most are well South of 40%.
The OS license numbers you cite are very high - exactly what we'd expect from vendors contractually bound to pre-load machines before they ship. When consumers have a choice, the numbers tell a different tale.
Posted by jerry | June 25, 2007 10:17 PM
Apple does such a great job of marketing, that the Mac's worldwide market share has skyrocketed all the way to 2%. -grin
The downside of massive amounts of hype, is that the actual shipped product has to live up to it. If not, the product itself will be seen as a disappointment.
Posted by TomT | June 26, 2007 9:59 AM
Bad News for MS Shareholders
This sounds like really bad news for MS shareholders. Investors buy MS shares, as well as the shares of other horizontally focused software companies, for the very high profit margins associated with good companies in that sector. If I'm an investor holding MS stock (and I'm not, I shed all my MS stock years ago after my manager at MS tried to set me up several times with DUI arrests), I'm thinking the hey-day of big profit margins is gone and about to be replaced by the far more risky and lower profit margins associated with hardware. While it is tempting to look at the iPod as a representative product success, it is a big anomale. Bottom line is that hardware is a much tougher and low margin game than software. Bad news for MS shareholders.
--Doug Hettinger
Posted by Doug Hettinger | June 26, 2007 1:45 PM
Microsoft also need to learn to produce good software; too many of their products are satisfactory or average at best. I have a Windows smartphone & it sucks. It's the only phone I've ever had that has special hole to reboot it, & it needs rebooting quite often.
If the iPhone can do the same as Windows smartphones with less problems then it will blow MS out of the water, & MS knows it hence a lot of negative articles around at the moment.
Posted by Marcus | June 27, 2007 8:36 AM
I have to take exception to several points.
1: Less is More
While less is more may make sense for the marketing of a toy such as the iPhone or the XBox is doesn't make sense for the marketing of an OS. As a developer I need lots of details on what is coming down the pike. If you were doing development on the iPhone would you be pleased with Apple's current approach? What if everyone in your office had to have the iPhone up and running 3 days after release? Would you be pleased with the level of info at this point? What would the Open Source advocates have to say about this sort of marketing from Microsoft? (Hint: I'm guessing they'd spew trash talk - I've been noticing a pattern)
2: Software Plus Services Isn't Enough
This seems like an odd request coming from a site called microsoft-watch.com. So you want Microsoft to deliever the hardware as well as the OS? Gosh, their attempt to provide a browser with the OS nearly got the company split up by the Federal Trade Commisson. This advice could only be given by someone living in a sealed plastic bag - entirely oblivious to the years of litigation that result when Microsoft tries to make anything approaching a complete package.
3: When Replacing Something Good, the New Thing has to Be a Whole Lot Better.
Is the iPhone compatible with previous versions of iPhones? Is the iPhone even going to work with any other service besides AT&T? I know, let's have MS build a new OS that targets only one hardware configuration and requires Verizon Cable to access the internet. What would microsoft-watch.com have to say about that? I'm guessing it wouldn't be pretty. Obviously, when you have to work on every computer, every type of internet connection and maintain backwards compatibility (on some level) there are going to be sacrifices.
SUMMARY
I don't think Microsoft is perfect - but giving marketing advice to a company that owns 90% of the desktops, based on the performance of a company that owns 2% of the desktops, sounds a little bit silly to me.
The marketing of a disposable toy such as the iPhone is going to be different than the marketing of an OS - yeah, you have some good points but much of your stuff is apples/oranges - er... apple/vista or something like that.
The iPhone is a toy. It isn't necessary for business - it is a gimmicky flash in the pan that will begin clogging landfills within 12 months. While you have some substantive points you might want to direct your marketing advice to the Linux people.
Posted by Jeff Thelen | June 27, 2007 8:41 AM
Grumpy Mr. Thelen writes: "The iPhone is a toy. It isn't necessary for business - it is a gimmicky flash in the pan that will begin clogging landfills within 12 months. While you have some substantive points you might want to direct your marketing advice to the Linux people."
Twenty five years ago we heard comments like "The personal computer is a toy. It isn't necessary for business - it is a gimmicky flash in the pan that will begin clogging landfills within 12 months."
Oh, and who will ever need more than 640KB of memory?
Change is usually painful. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Posted by allister | June 27, 2007 10:11 AM
My buddy joined MS from HP as Marketing business analyst. He says it's like a morgue. There is no consistent marketing direction and budget are not proportionate. He was part of the HP's "The Computer gets personal again" brainchild, not hired by MS to save Vista ... his accessment, "many strategy needs ctrl-z".
BTW - One thing in common, 2 IT helpdesk calls a month. Vista and Office 2007 just won't play together.
Posted by etino | June 27, 2007 11:15 AM
Silly Mr. allister writes: "Change is usually painful, Lead, follow, or get out of the way?"
What does that have to do with any of Mr. Thelen's excellent points? I'm sorry ... did you even read Mr. Thelen's post?
Normally I just skip these silly rant articles ... and most of the silly replies. The quick thought that goes through my mind is "Yea ... whatever!" and I move on to useful information.
Regarding Mr. Thelen's: "stuff is apples/oranges - er... apple/vista or something like that.".
Recently, in another post I used the apples versus oranges analogy too. I defined the "something like that" as:
IT IS Apple VERSUS
DELL, HP, SONY, TOSHIBA, HITACHI, ACER, FUJITSU, GATEWAY, IBM, NEC, SAMSUNG, TOSHIBA, ALIENWARE, and hundreds of thousands of small businesses ready to build a PC exactly to your specs from the thousands of device/memory/motherboard manufactures.
For that matter, if you are into it, you can even be your own computer manufacturer and build your own computer ... like the gamers do.
Should I go on? The point is ... compare product makers to product makers ... not product makers to suppliers. Microsoft is a supplier to those companies I mentioned above.
It's Apple versus Oranges ... where Oranges are all the other PC makers. In the other post, I started referring to those PC makers as the Oranges ... and all those who have an "Orange computer" belong to the "Oranges community".
I find it "quite odd" (as David Letterman would say) that in 1984 ... when that great ad by Apple came out ... the one with the lady (in full color) running through the masses (in full black and white) to smash the "BAD OLD IBM" guy ... "yes, yes ... at last we are free from the tyranny of the tyrants" (back then IBM).
Hey, Microsoft "moved on" ... not Apple. Microsoft moved on by supplying PC manufactures with the best "unified" interface they could make to run on thousands of devices, motherboards and components. Imagine that task with Apple's task of just getting their stuff to run on a single machine ... one that they created and maintain strong proprietary control over ... while the Oranges spend the last twenty two years competing with each other and selling most of the world's computers.
So here we are 22 years later after the great "Apple" will set you free ad ... and guess what ... their main PC (the thing with OS(y/x) on it - not the iPhone) advertising strategy is exactly the same ... "bash the big guy". The only problem is that they are trying to fool you into thinking the "big guy" is Microsoft because there are so many Oranges and it would be too tough to try and bash all of them. So they try to bash one of their suppliers ... "Microsoft".
Don't fool yourself that Apple has not had many problems with its OS and machine upgrades over the years. Software spewing over silicon pathways to present you with the information content of your choice is an incredibly complex problem. It's amazing that anything works ... from your cell phone on up. Apple (via its marketing hype and "country club" community) is able to keep a lot of its problems on the down and low.
Remember ... over here in the Oranges community, the world is wide open. There are way more players here (suppliers/manufactures/etc). Things that can go wrong is increased exponentially. It's amazing that Microsoft could maintain any coherence or sense of community over the hardware that has appeared and disappeared over the years.
Mr. Wilcox, please review or compare products and product marketing in the context of their marketing realm. It serves no useful purpose to compare the marketing strategy of the iPhone to a software supplier. Instead ... compare the marketing of the iPhone to their competitors ... the Blackberry, LG products, Motorola, Nokia ... etc.
Mr. Thelen, I'm sorry to say that no matter how hard we try to post logic ... in some places it's often a lost cause. So we must do what we usually do when we come across these kind of pages ... just say "Opps! Wrong door!" and "move on" to useful information content.
Posted by GZFrank | June 27, 2007 12:17 PM
This is a ridiculous comparison. Compare iPhone to Xbox or some other toy marketing. You can't draw the same conclusions about the majority of other products. The Vista comparison is idiotic. I have another one to consider. Take SQL Server 2005. iPhone might have a couple dozen features with the majority being shown in a 30 second commercial. SQL Server 2005 released with well over 10,000 new features and upgrades to thousands more. Just how do you trickle THAT out? There were hundreds of thousands of articles and posts as well as over a dozen books written about the product before it was even released. In the first month, Microsoft sold more copies of SQL Server 2005 than Apple will sell iPhones for the rest of this year.
The people buying iPhones are interested in eye candy. The people who recommend, buy, and deploy 99% of Microsoft's software are interested in DEEP knowledge, tons of information, and a boatload of training to work with it. These products don't just go poof with idiots camping out for days to buy them, because a typical enterprise can consume tens of thousands of man hours doing something you would think is "easy" like upgrading an OS. It is easy when you upgrade 1 machine, try doing it with 1,000 machines without disrupting any work.
Try to stick to valid assertions. iPhone marketing is interesting, still isn't going to get me to buy one. But an iPhone has about as much in common with Windows (including Vista), SQL Server, Visual Studio, and Office (the products which account for about 80% of Microsoft sales) as an apple has in common with the space shuttle.
Posted by Mike | June 27, 2007 1:24 PM
GZFrank, Joe's article commented about marketing. Most of the replies that followed show why the typical MCSE is kept far away from customers and anything to do with product promotion or advertising. Microsoft is a company dominated by insular, linear thinkers who will never understand how to effectively market products. Your post eloquently demonstrates that simple truth.
Posted by allister | June 27, 2007 1:32 PM
I want to echo the point made that Microsoft is very developer friendly and that they frequently start talking about future products in order to generate interest in the developer community early enough for them to be able to start getting something together.
Regarding the iPhone and the ads I've seen so far, I can tell you that there is no way that thing is going to run as smooth as they show - the wonders of editing. It has already been shown that it will take much longer to bring up youtube videos then they are implying in the comercial. You can also expect the thing to have trouble holding a charge with a touch screen like that and the graphics engine it will need to make it work anywhere near that well.
I also wonder given the obvious problems Apple is having with security (see the recent Safari release) how secure a connected device like the iPhone will be and how long it will take to be hacked. Just watch.
Posted by Michael | June 27, 2007 5:02 PM
Mr. allister said: "Microsoft is a company dominated by insular, linear thinkers who will never understand how to effectively market products."
Wow! My view is that they have never been insular ... competitive maybe ... but not insular. Microsoft has included more companies and people in their bread basket than any other computer company has in all of history.
My experience is that they really went all out to make it one of the most developer friendly communities of all time ... especially for the individual developer.
They were not "linear thinkers". Their thinking allowed Microsoft to grow exponentially.
How can anyone ever say "they will never understand how to effectively market products"? Just look at their success.
Mr. allister said: "Your post eloquently demonstrates that simple truth".
No. My post did not demonstrate "that simple truth". In fact it suggested that Microsoft was dominated by practical, greatly inclusive, and future thinking (and really good at business) people.
GZFrank
Posted by GZFrrank | June 27, 2007 5:53 PM
GZFrank gushes: "In fact it suggested that Microsoft was dominated by practical, greatly inclusive, and future thinking (and really good at business) people."
Yes, the MSFT share price over the past six years certainly adds credibility to your claims. I suppose ignoring that "minor" detail is not insular thinking for people who are "really good at business".
LOL
Posted by allister | June 27, 2007 8:14 PM
Mr. allister,
Whatever.
LOL
Posted by GZFrank | June 27, 2007 9:28 PM
The IPhone is for impulsive techno geek who can afford the real $3000+ phone+contract cost.
Posted by ozialien | June 27, 2007 9:42 PM
iPhone, Vista, Zune, Mac, MaxOsX are the TOYS, so what you guys talking here about? Both MSFT & Apple are playing with each other to force you to buy their - that's all. And they're successfull in that - Apple with players and phone, MSFT with Vista.
I don't see a reason to talk about it so much. The product attractivity is based on hundreds of different things that differs for each person. We're different - products are different - that's all.
Posted by Nick | June 28, 2007 10:41 AM