The Next Microsoft • Hacker News Board

Re: The Next Microsoft

#331

Post by commandar » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 6:37 AM UTC

idspispopd wrote: post #324

commandar wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Instead the designer can shine by showing how they can invigorate 'boring' brands, how they can elevate the mundane to fantastic. Microsoft is about as close as you can get to the very definition of a "boring" brand, and has been for some time. They're a well-known brand, absolutely, but it's hard to find anyone that's excited about them as a company.

They certainly are boring. The problem is that they have had high moments in the past which is what this designer is competing with. They should take a brand that has always been boring and make it shine.

>The problem is that they have had high moments in the past which is what this designer is competing with.

When? I'm asking that seriously. They've always been pervasive, but I can remember at least as far back as the late DOS/Win 3.11 era, and I can't recall any point in that span where they've been a "cool" brand. The Xbox is about the closest thing I can think of, but that's always felt like some weird thing Microsoft did that happened to work out cool than anything that defined Microsoft as a brand.

They're nowhere near as bad today as the mid-late 90s when every story about Microsoft on Slashdot was accompanied by a photoshopped borgified Bill Gates, but they really could use a shot in the arm branding wise. The Metro stuff they're doing now is distinctive, but there isn't really any driving philosophy to the marketing at this point. I think the linked article does a great job of providing it that.

That said, many of Microsoft's problems have as much to do with management as anything. I'm pretty much convinced they're going to continue to flounder as long as Ballmer remains CEO. You could have the best branding campaign ever devised and it's going to be worthless if there's nothing worthwhile driving the company behind that brand.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#332

Post by pacomerh » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 6:45 AM UTC

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…

You are totally right with this, the big companies want to see more for their money. They don't understand minimal. I'm sure we'll get there some day, but right now the closest thing to minimal appreciation goes to the apple users, and the complement to that are the people who relate 'more & inexpensive' as better. I know that, when I show my dad some kind of minimal design he always goes, "where's the rest?, they're wasting so much space here."

Re: The Next Microsoft

#333

Post by idspispopd » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 6:48 AM UTC

commandar wrote: post #331

idspispopd wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They certainly are boring. The problem is that they have had high moments in the past which is what this designer is competing with. They should take a brand that has always been boring and make it shine.

>The problem is that they have had high moments in the past which is what this designer is competing with. When? I'm asking that seriously. They've always been pervasive, but I can remember at least as far back as the late DOS/Win 3.11 era, and I can't recall any point in that span where they've been a "cool" brand. The Xbox is about the closest thing I can think of, but that's always felt like some weird thing Micro…

Windows 95.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#334

Post by brandoncapecci » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 6:55 AM UTC

wilfra wrote: post #312

Spearchucker wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not biased so much, maybe, but definitely subjective. I have more faith in Microsoft than I do in any other big tech company. It's easy to forget that any commercial organisation's mission is to make money, which makes it inherently self-serving. Microsoft, Red Hat, Google, Apple, Oracle, Facebook and so on all exist to make their shareholders rich. And yet we seem to think that they exist to make cool products, or t…

"...Facebook...exist to make their shareholders rich. And yet we seem to think that they exist to make cool products," Zuck specifically said this isn't true in his letter to shareholders. They make money so they can build, they don't build to make money. If you simply observe his own lifestyle and the choices he's made with Facebook, it is pretty clear money means very little to him and that he absolutely loves runn…

Interesting conjectures...

On the other hand since Zuckerberg's being an arrogant asshole preceded his wealth, one can argue that this sing and dance number that fools you is actually just history repeating itself.

I think I'll base my opinion on him from actions rather than what I read in a multi-billion dollar letter... as if he would realistically say anything else...

One thing is for certain though: his stock has underperformed because his company was considerably overvalued, not because he wasn't a kiss-ass to the street.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#335

Post by hef19898 » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 9:04 AM UTC

blhack wrote: post #73

Dear everybody, Are you paying attention? This is how you build a portfolio. Did microsoft ask this person to do this? No. But he did it, and it's brilliant, and now he can put it in his portfolio under "speculative work". And then he gets a job doing this. I can't tell you how many people I talk to (I live in a college town, and frequently go to bars and strike up conversations with people) who just finished, or are…

Remembers me of the proposed HP revamp that never was. But where HP was great, this one is just plain brilliant. Microsoft, hire that guy and use his concept!

Re: The Next Microsoft

#336

Post by mattdeboard » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 9:43 AM UTC

jsprink_banned wrote: post #313

mattdeboard wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're really upset about being banned, aren't you?

Quietly ignoring the final two paragraphs of my original comment since you have nothing to contribute, and are instead attempting to undermine my contribution with a pithy, underhanded dose of snark, aren't you? (The irony is that you unintentionally reinforced my point, so, thanks!) Hacker News is far too full of comments such as these, and I can loosely translate them all: I'm completely unprepared for this convers…

You do a great job of undermining your own point. "Hacker News is so full of bullshit! It sucks! Let me spend 4500 calories and six hours trying to convince you of this!"

Ok.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#337

Post by echo_wang » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 9:49 AM UTC

It may hurt.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#338

Post by drostie » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 12:01 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #315

drostie wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If LessWrong is our touchstone then indeed some forms of group-think are presumably unavoidable. I mean, I'm working on a new religion; given only that knowledge and no actual content, can you guess how I'd be received by Less Wrongers? What if a postmodernist came by? An eugenicist? It is often easier to laugh with our community than to really try to see the world from the alternate perspective and really work out a…

Hmm, as an avid LessWrong Lurker, I can share my first impressions: Religion: does it have any basis in reality? That's a real question, as I know of a religion that does: copyism¹. Also Note that LessWrong did come up with a winter solstice ritual. Post modernism: as far as I know, this is just confusion. Even if it's all in our heads, well, that's how the world works . Anyway, it empirically seems that magical thin…

I dunno. "Does it have any basis in reality" sounds somewhat bizarre. Think of points in the board game Settlers of Catan (or choose your favourite): do they have any "basis in reality"? In some ways yes, in most ways no; and in any case there is something seriously wrong with the person who sees the points in the game as belonging to the material world, rather than belonging to a social field of interactions. Religions are about authentic living, meaningfulness, mindfulness, and reminding yourself with ritual of that which is most important. They are about experience for its own sake, especially experience which invokes the Other. I understand the temptation to reify Otherness in the supernatural and/or look for it in the material; in that sense I agree that some religions strive to have a basis in reality. I would not characterize it as a universal trend or a universally applicable question: just to take the three Abrahamic religions, it applies extremely well to Christianity, only imperfectly to Islam, and extremely poorly to modern Judaism.

If I knew a way to help people feel whole which was not religious, I would pursue that instead. The world does not need a new religion; it needs more authentic interaction, more Real People if you like. But questions of meaning and completeness and fulfilment seem to be deeply religious, which is why I sit down every night to meditate and/or write for an hour.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#339

Post by pbreit » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 1:12 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #240

wilfra wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are underestimating the impact of being well known on HN for something like that. Nearly everybody who matters reads this site at least sometimes.

Nearly everyone who matters reads this site at least sometimes and might possibly come across a discussion about a 3 year old article.

This is totally false. I would say hat few who "matter" ever visit or participate here. Of the 1000 or so acquaintances of mine in the Bay Area tech industry, man who "matter" I'd say 50, tops, have ever spent much time here and fewer have posted.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#340

Post by mkr-hn » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 1:45 PM UTC

bluthru wrote: post #317

mkr-hn wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Purely digital" means it avoids real-world metaphors like postal mailboxes, analog clocks and magnetic tape.

Metaphors are part of visual communication. Blatantly disregarding metaphors creates unnecessary confusion and abstraction--it separates the interface from culture. Remember, all of this stuff is ultimately (and most truthfully) 1's and 0's. There is always abstraction. It is best to choose the abstraction that is most DESCRIPTIVE.

Did you look at the examples? No one is talking about getting rid of metaphors.