Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Next Microsoft

minimallyminimal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 355 posts

Re: The Next Microsoft

#131

Post by roc »

thematt wrote: post #39
geori wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could have easily made the same criticism of Apple in the mid 90s. Microsoft can definitely be saved. You just have to fire Ballmer and put a visionary in charge. There are still some really good people working at Microsoft. Unfortunately, the leadership and vision haven't been there. Nobody has been willing to take risks. They took a risk in killing the OEMs and building Surface in house. They now need to take a big…

I used the think the same thing, but it's not clear to me that Microsoft "needs" saving. They're growing the enterprise side of their business quite fast and the problem just seems to be that investors expect them to be the next Apple, whereas Ballmer is turning them into the next IBM. They'll still make boatloads of money on the enterprise side and that'll be enough to keep them floating for decades to come, so I co…

If Ballmer was aiming for the next IBM, he'd have spun off Windows Phone as IBM sold off its PC business. They wouldn't be buying companies and pouring resources into it and pissing off the OEMs by pouring resources into Surface.

And if they were just shooting for Enterprise++, keeping Windows Phone and Surface to keep enterprise device sales under their umbrella, they'd be spinning off the XBox and consumer media properties.

But they're not spinning anything off. They're still expanding into new spaces. And they're fighting for consumer money harder than ever.

I'd say the evidence suggests that, even though it could be wildly profitable if it went the IBM way, Ballmer still wants Microsoft to be all things to all people.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#133

Post by creamyhorror »

stcredzero wrote: post #62

- Apple - Skeuomorphic - Google - Hybrid - Microsoft - Purely digital I agree that this is one of the things Metro has right. It's even more "about the content" than Google or Apple is. In the case of Apple, I think this may be intentional. Apple is also about the personal. Skeuomorphic interfaces can be used to evoke memories associated with physical objects and past technology.

This rings true for me. The retro look of Winamp brings back vivid memories. I'm not sure how well Metro's content-is-everything aesthetic will go down with the public; it's bold, but possibly too much so.

This proposed rebranding veers a bit too cold (or Orwellian, as someone else said) for me, despite its futuristic appearance. I'd be afraid that MS would turn out to be an amoral megacorp that was trying to develop weaponize alien lifeforms. The style is cool; a bit too cool. Still, a lot of respect to the designer for putting this great piece of work together.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#135

Post by ricardobeat »

abhinavsharma wrote: post #50
zbowling wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Which leads to some of the most awful and crazy designs decisions. Look at the upgrade to 64 bit. In Windows 16 bit days you had the C:\Windows\System directory. In Windows 32 bit, you gained C:\Windows\System32 for your system libraries. In Windows 64 bit you would assume C:\Windows\System64 right? Nope. 64 bit dlls go in to System32 and 32bit dlls go into SysWOW64. WTF? Same goes with Program Files (32 bit…

Though I agree with your general point about Microsoft being hampered by legacy support (but for other reasons such as having 2 UI paradigms of Metro and Windows together), I don't think this is the best example. The everyday user really doesn't care what folder their software is installed to as long as its easily accessible from the desktop/programs.

That is until they need to scavenge and mess around the file system because of a virus, failed uninstall, missing DLL or something. Then they really care.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#136

Post by ippisl »

jiggity wrote: post #105
programminggeek wrote: post #6

This is great. It will never work. A brand has to reflect the culture of how a product is made, sold, experienced, etc... Microsoft is not about simplicity, it's about feature creep. Microsoft sells software and licenses to big companies. Big companies don't want simple, they want value for their money - features! A better brand promise would be Microsoft - It Does Everything! Look at Windows 8. Is it going metro onl…

If this design makes you uneasy and go "But that's not Microsoft!", slap your gut and tell it to listen because that's just the branding talking. Take a step back and recognize that EVERY emotion you feel about Microsoft is arbitrary. Branding is just the mental handle we use to talk about the automatic emotions we get. That is the tough part about branding: it happens unconsciously. It is that surge of instantaneous…

But why should i even care about an advertising campaign , when i can look at youtube videos, reviews, and ask my friends about microsoft's products ? if microsoft's product is cool enough, or solves some specific problem i've got, i'll probably hear about it.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#137

Post by pooriaazimi »

What I particularly hate about MS branding right now is those stupid, unnecessary (TM) and (R)'s that follow names of their products... Just look at this picture for God's sake: http://www.minimallyminimal.com/storage/post-images/microsof... or head over to their website: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx

It's ridiculous. So "Windows" is a registered trademark of Microsoft. Big deal, but why put it after every single mentioning of the name?! Doesn't it bother you ( = MS marketing guys) to see little dots (they're so little that you can't even say if they're (tm) or (r)'s!) after product names? Isn't it ugly in your opinions?

Apple doesn't do it. Google doesn't either. Oracle does it too, however. Congrats, MS; you're as uncool as a database company.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#139

Post by mkr-hn »

cubtastic71 wrote: post #46

wow - you apple-fied microsoft. I don't feel like it's a new image or brand identity, rather just try to fit them into that "other" brands persona. interesting concept, but I think it misses the mark on the actual audience of the brand.

What about it resembles Apple's branding?

Re: The Next Microsoft

#140

Post by jarek »

ssmc wrote: post #51

Yeah, great work. Pretty impressive; how long did all that take you? Pretty Apple inspired though; as someone said in the comments above maybe Microsoft does need to have separate public entities much like the way telecomms up here in Canada are doing (Koodo/Wind etc.)

Nitpick: while Koodo is owned by Telus, Wind is independent. Chatr, Fido, and Virgin are some of the other brands owned by the big operators. (Solo was another one, I just learned they're being killed off by Bell now.)
Post reply on HN