Seven: One Windows, One Role
|
News Commentary. Microsoft's "out-of-box experience" priority means no roles for Windows 7. |
I had hoped that Microsoft would take a role-based approach to Windows 7. But, there won't be roles, according to a Saturday blog post by Steven Sinofsky, senior veep of the Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group. He gave some pretty good reasons.
In the post, Steven explains that customers well received Windows Server 2008's role-based approach. "The desktop PC (or laptop) is different because there is only a single PC and the roles are not as well defined. Only in the rarest cases is that PC dedicated to a single purpose," Steven writes.
"In nearly every study we have ever done, just about every PC runs at least one piece of software that other people do not run," he continues. "So we should take away from this the difficulty in even labeling a PC as being role specific."
Steven regards the PC for the unique device that it is. Most products are created to do one or two things. The PC is unusual in that it's like a Swiss Army Knife that can do many things pretty well.
Steven is best known for his role working on Microsoft Office, where with versions 95 and 97 a role-based installation process didn't work well. He explains:
"We thought we could have a setup wizard ask you how much you used Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access, or a taxonomy that asked you a profession (lawyer, accountant, teacher). From that we were going to pick not just which applications but which features of the applications we would install. We consistently ran into two problems. First, just arriving at descriptors or questions to 'categorize' people failed consistently in usability tests...Second, we always had the problem of either multiple users of the same PC or people who would change roles or usage patterns. It turns out our corporate customers learned this same thing for us and it became routine to install everything.'"
For Seven—as I assume for previous Windows versions—Microsoft is very concerned with what Steven called the OOBE, or out-of-box experience. "For Windows 7 we are working closely with our OEM partners to make sure it is possible to deliver the most streamlined experience possible," he writes. "This goal would run counter to introducing a 'profiling' or wizard help [to] gauge the intended (at time of purchase) uses/usage of a PC."
He's right that the out-of-box experience is crucially important. First impressions can make or break the emotional connection to a product or brand. Microsoft's big problem with Windows Vista is one of bad first impressions. Consumers brought home shiny Vista PCs, only to find that their existing scanners, printers and other devices wouldn't work. There were no drivers, and for some hardware there still are none. Businesses ran into a rash of application compatibility problems. Both customer groups dealt with increased complexity, like User Access Control prompts or changes to the user interface.
"Our context for the out-of-box experience would be that we don't want to introduce complexity there, where customers are least interested in dealing with it as they want to get to the excitement of using their new PC," Steven asserted. He's right. Microsoft doesn't want to do that.
Still, I'm taken aback a bit, because of Windows Vista SKUs. Microsoft's five major versions absolutely assign functional roles and monetary value to them. Business for small and midsize operations; Enterprise for large businesses; Basic for low-cost computing; Premium for most consumers; Ultimate for everything in the box.
With these assigned roles come feature decisions that don't fit well with many customers. Large businesses wanting Vista Enterprise must purchase through Software Assurance. Small businesses looking for BitLocker encryption typically would need Ultimate, since most wouldn't want or meet the volume-licensing requirements.
I've long argued that there should be one version of the operating system. Apple does it, and quite effectively. There is a role for roles, too, but coming from the OEM. I agree with Steven that the customer out-of-box experience could rapidly degrade through role-based setup. So let the OEM assign the role, based on the hardware configuration. What rule book says that all PCs have to be all things to most people?
Some OEMs already are making role-based decisions through their configurations and marketing. Mini-notebooks and netbooks are good examples. Their small sizes, lower selling prices and hardware configurations narrow these portables' roles. For example, they're well suited for Web applications.
I like Steven's priorities. Microsoft would do right by Windows 7 and its customers and partners by getting the out-of-box experience just right. Good luck.
Comments (9)
Howdy,
Thanks for reading and commenting on the post.
In the context of the comments and email (~1500) the discussion of roles was not quite at the level you describe above (SKUs and packaging), but much more granular. Folks were talking about roles much more connected to specific roles such as "gaming" or "browsing" with a specific implication that such roles improve system performance #the quote was "Some have suggested scenarios such as gaming, casual use, business productivity, web browsing, email, 'lightweight usage', and so on."#.
The suggestions were not really about more conceptual approaches such as home and business. Some have commented on the packaging strategy and it is worth noting that while some have said we should have one SKU, many have suggested that we have numerous SKUs, just different ones than we have now.
The post was trying to make the point that #a# it is very hard to define roles at this granular level when people very rarely have PCs dedicated to such specific activities and #b# the performance benefits are hard to show in practice.
As you read the blog maybe keep in mind that we're having a dialog so the context that resulted in the topic might be relevant.
--Steven
Posted by Steven Sinofsky | September 8, 2008 12:51 AM
There's no way Microsoft is going to give up on having multiple SKUs. It gives them an opportunity to charge more for extra features--do you really think they'll say no to any chance to boost their profit margins?
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | September 8, 2008 1:25 AM
Given that Apple makes money selling hardware and not selling OS X, there's no reason for them to have multiple SKUs.
Microsoft instead makes money selling software so, has Lawrence said, it's quite reasonable that they will keep multiple SKUs.
As a user I can live with multiple SKUs but right now there are just too many, at least Home Basic and Home Premium should be colapsed in one SKU.
I also understand that the role base setup can be a bad user experience, but Microsoft should improve the Windows Features control panel UI to make easier to enable or disable groups of funtionalities.
Home users should not be forced to open the Services management console in order to disable indexing or other Windows funtionalities.
There should be one place where all Windows components can be browsed by category and turned on/off very easily (maybe even give the opportunity of deleting from the hard drive to make room on netbooks or on other small devices).
Posted by EnricoG | September 8, 2008 7:03 AM
Agree with previous posters: Multiple SKU's is about the money. Microsoft won't give that up. Their caring for customer's stops at that point even though they have a ~75% profit margin from their Windows business. They want more and more. And they wonder why people don't listen to what they say anymore. The blabber about roles is silly when the mask is already off by virtue of the SKU's.
Posted by Phil | September 8, 2008 7:29 AM
Joe wrote
"I've long argued that there should be one version of the operating system. Apple does it, and quite effectively."
----------------------------------------------------
Actually I am on the fence on this one. Probably because I am a Linux user. One of the greatest criticisms of Linux is that it is too fragmented. But looking closer, part of the reason for the growing popularity of Linux IS its diverse and wide range of operating systems to choose from.
For instance, DSL Linux ... while it can run on machines made for Windows 95 it also can run on the most modern high end machine. Yet because it can run on a Windows 95 machine, it is limited in scope on what it can do.
Ubuntu, Open Suse, Mandriva and others are designed for higher end machines. Xubuntu a lighter weight version of Ubuntu will run very good on Pentium II and III machines with a max limit of 256 MB RAM.
Then you have other fine operating systems like Knoppix 5.3 which brings its special features to the desktop and probably is the best Live Linux CD out there.
On the Open Suse 11 DVD, you have your choice of desktops, KDE, Gnome or "other" (take your pick).
My point? In Linux, one can customize their desktop and add features, change things around, do anything pretty much anything you want. Or one could just install Ubuntu (for example) and leave it as is and change nothing.
This is what Windows needs to do on its next OS, let the consumer change the look of the desktop. Add features, delete features, add or delete games, applications at will, minimize the operating system or greatly expand it if the consumer wanted.
The DRM in the OS could be removed for those that didn't want it, or add it in for those who wanted Blu-Ray capability.
Let the consumer make it more bloated than Vista or minimize it so that it will run on older Pentium II and III machines...much like Linux does already.
Microsoft could in theory just release just one OS, and let the consumer/end user decide for themselves what they want.
But the kicker here would be that it would just sell for one price instead of the module approach that was mentioned a few months ago.
If Microsoft wanted to be truly innovative and beat Apple and Linux at its own game, thats how it would be achieved.
Posted by Ralph | September 8, 2008 8:13 AM
I agree with Stephen that roles are too hard to define and would not really make much benefit or sense for Windows users. The Server roles are just to cut costs for basic web servers and increase it for more complicated ones, the security is also more manageable if you have less services listening by default.
From a marketing perspective roles on the desktop would be suicide. If they define a role and limit the machine to that then they lose the USP of Windows. The netbooks are all basically "Web, Email, IM, Skype, Word Processing" role computers. Windows is an "Anything you like" role computer.
If Windows used standard roles then it would be much easier to compare a Linux machine to a Windows machine. The Linux machine could advertise the same role names and it would be much easier for consumers to make a decision. Windows must keep the public thinking that if they choose another OS then some of their apps will not work. Roles would take emphasis away from applications and move it to functionality.
Posted by billybob | September 8, 2008 8:30 AM
I am all for choice, but when it comes to consumer machines, less choice is better.
Imagine going into a car showroom, choosing a car, and when you go to make the purchase the salesman gives you a 2 page long list of choices for everything from the type of oil to the spark plugs, steering wheel diameter and type of exhaust and you have to choose now, without any guidance. Sure, you can buy all of those and replace the ones you get, but only 1% of people actually do that in practice. Here choice == confusion.
Posted by billybob | September 8, 2008 8:44 AM
I agree with billybob, and the car analogy fits this topic better than I had anticipated.
What I think (Choice == confusion) really means is related to design issues that the customer has absolutely no knowledge of. For example, for the exact same model: A wide choice of colors: Easy. A basic choice of yes/no to the trailer-towing packages: Relatively easy. A wide choice of engines and suspensions and transmission computer configuration options: Difficult for most people.
The manufacturer should never allow choice to take the place of proper design. UAC pop-up? Very bad and confusing: How is a user supposed to make that choice? Wide range of roles: Very bad and confusing: what is the difference between Home, Home Premium, Home Ultimate, Home Server, and on and on and on? A decision based on cost weighed against some vague notion of "ultimate sounds better than premium... hmmmm... oh, what the heck." is not choice.
Microsoft built its empire on giving consumers something that just worked (well, sort of, but it did work better than the alternatives)... and draconian vendor lock-in deals. The desktop colors and application sets were easily customized, so in this area (choice==friendly). But the design, such as it was, presented no choices. Windows 3.1 was Windows 3.1, and Windows 95 was Windows 95. No Home, Business, Ultimate foolishness was thrown in. Here, (Lack-of-choice == friendly).
Posted by Philosopher | September 8, 2008 11:10 AM
@ Philosopher
That's why they should use "profiles".
For Example, a less experienced user will choose the profile "home&office" and would get a limited menu of customization. More advanced stuff will be configured by the profile.
A more advanced user will choose "workstation" and will have a more complex menu of customization.
You could create various degrees of customization this way. Or just 2: "Standard" and "Advanced" profiles.
Posted by bb10 | September 9, 2008 8:16 PM