Microsoft's Terrible Surface Commercials

Microsoft recently released a commercial for the Surface Pro. This commercial is in the same vein as the Surface RT commercial released last year.

The commercial is also rubbish.

Why is this? It's because in an attempt to look 'cool', 'hip', and 'edgy', Microsoft has failed to inform the public what its product actually does. This is an especially terrible idea when you are clearly lagging behind the market leaders. What are the market leaders doing right with their commercials that Microsoft is doing wrong?

Apple's iPad Mini commercial takes half as much time (roughly 30 seconds) as the Surface Pro commercial (roughly 60 seconds) to explain twice as much to the user in a more easily digestible format. This particular commercial shows that the iPad A) can let you communicate in real-time via voice and video, and B) comes in different sizes (standard iPad and Mini).

Amazon's Kindle Fire HD commercial has a narrator discussing the various features that the device has, overlaid to video showing people using the device in real-world scenarios. In 30 seconds, the video shows us that you can read books, play games, watch movies, play music, and communicate in real-time via voice and video.

Google's Nexus 7 commercial, at 60 seconds, is the same length as the Surface commercials yet is so much more informative. The commercial shows us a little girl reading a book with her mother, using a drawing app, communicating in real-time via voice and video with her grandmother, playing a video game, and using Google voice search to find out how far away the Earth is from the moon.

What could someone possibly learn about the Surface Pro from the commercial? If they are paying very close attention, they might possibly see that it has a stylus, connectable keyboard, and kickstand. Everything else gets lost in the blur of song and motion. Microsoft's competitors communicate the value of their respective devices in a very efficient manner by crafting short stories that resonate with the viewer. We already know why we want to communicate with our loved ones. We already know that we would enjoy playing games, watching movies, or listening to music. It's unclear why we would want to have a stylus, connectable keyboard, or kickstand.

Ultimately, Microsoft fails to inform the viewer why they should care.

Thoughts on 'Four Reasons Why Apple Should Buy Nokia'

Leo Sun, in a post for The Motley Fool:

At most it would cost Apple $30 billion to acquire Nokia and cover its outstanding debt. That’s a mere 22% of its cash hoard to invest in a future beyond the confines of iOS devices. Acquiring Nokia would expand Apple’s defensive moat, destroy Microsoft’s mobile business, and give it valuable leverage over its Android-based competitors.

Sun's four reasons that he thinks Apple should buy Nokia range from very good to nonsensical. The sheer amount of cash that Apple has in reserve, though, makes this an interesting thought exercise.

The best reason is also the first one cited by Sun. The patents that Nokia maintains related to the mobile industry would be quite valuable. That, of course, was the primary reason that Google purchased Motorola Mobility. The patents provide excellent protection or offensive capability in today's legal environment. A bonus is that Apple would no longer be required to pay a royalty to Nokia based on a previous patent settlement.

Sun's second reason, offering a wider variety of handsets, doesn't make as much sense. Sun notes that analysts have been clamoring for a cheaper handset to grow Apple's market share. Sun is astute in pointing out that Apple could potentially offer the cheaper phones under the Nokia brand in order to avoid devaluing the Apple brand. However, overall it doesn't make sense to bring on all the headaches of maintaining a separate brand just to produce cheap phones with low margins.

The third reason that Sun lists is downright bizarre. I'm quite sure that Microsoft would be displeased to see its largest Windows Phone manufacturer in the hands of a rival, especially if that rival was Apple. However, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to spend so much cash to knock a competitor out of the market when that competitor has struggled to gain market share despite years of heavy spending.

Sun's final reason is a very good one. Apple's switch from Google as the source of mapping data to its own solution resulted in a very public 'black eye' for Apple's reputation. Integrating an excellent data source would be a boon for Apple's maps.

What should Apple do? Should they buy Nokia? Certainly not at the $30 billion mentioned by Sun, but at a more agreeable price (let's say $20 billion) it makes a lot of sense.

Creating an App Is Not Necessarily the Path to Riches

Tim Worstall, in an article for Forbes:

Another number we can gain from this is that the average app, over its lifetime, earns around $9,000. That’s the mean though: the median would be much much lower. For we’ve very much got a power law going on here. A few apps are making tens of millions, one or two over $100 million, and most make nothing at all (obviously so for the free ones) or close to it even if they’re trying to charge.

The era of creating an app and instantly striking it rich is largely over. There will of course be exceptions, but it will be increasingly difficult to create an app that rises above the hundreds of thousands of apps available on the App Store. Likewise, the 'race to the bottom' for app prices makes it more difficult to make money.

It's not all gloom and doom, however. The proliferation of better tools, a plethora of open source components, and plenty of backend service providers means that it is easier and quicker than ever to create an app. The key, of course, is to come up with that next great idea and execute on it.

'Mobile as the Driver of Desktop Software Design'

Andrew Binstock, for Dr. Dobb's:

Desktop apps, just like Web apps, are also showing the effects of mobile. This is clearly visible in the new designs of icons and dialog boxes. The latter, which were often complex, multi-paneled widgets that required lots of interaction, have now been greatly simplified with far fewer options in a single pane. In addition, the use of widgets that can substitute for typing data values is becoming more widespread. For example, sliders are now much more common as a way to enter values and they will continue to gain popularity. Likewise, spinner controls.

I've seen a similar trend in the past few years.  I wouldn't necessarily describe it as 'simplified' since that doesn't quite capture the entire flavor or nuance of what is occurring.  A better way, I think, is to describe it as 'focused'.  In contrast to yesteryear's 'everything-including-the-kitchen-sink' applications, today's apps are finding success by focusing on the core features and user experience.

Japan's Attempt to Get Children to Read Newspapers

Ida Torres, writing for The Japan Daily Press about a new app being created by the Japanese newspaper The Tokyo Shimbun:

A new iPhone app has been developed in Japan to “translate” normal newspaper articles to kid-friendly versions. Through augmented reality, children can hold a smartphone (via the camera) over a newspaper to see a child-friendly version of the text.

The video embedded in the article gives you a good feel for how this would work. The basic idea is to provide content that is engaging and appropriate for the intended audience (in this case, children). Although newspapers (like most print media) are in decline, the fact that this technology should work just as well on screens as it would on print means that this might actually have a solid foundation for the future.

The same technology could be expanded to provide other alternative types of views for audiences besides children. Articles could be translated into other languages, for example. Likewise, it might do well in providing context that is appropriate to the audience by translating technical jargon or explaining cultural colloquialisms.

The Perils of Technical Debt in Software

Joe McKendrick, writing for ZDNet:

As Jones put it: "If you skimp on quality before you deliver software, you end up paying heavy interest downstream after the software is released for things you could have gotten rid of earlier, had you been more careful." Cunningham adds that applications themselves have a way of taking on a life of their own -- turning into "its own little bureaucracy where you can’t actually on a daily basis create value." The result is technical debt that "has piled up and you’re paying that interest."

In my career, I've seen first-hand how technical debt can impact software projects. I've seen it cause a project to be woefully over budget, behind schedule, and ultimately disappointing to users. I've also seen it completely destroy a project (at the expense of many jobs).

However, that isn't to say that technical debt must be avoided at all costs.  It isn't necessarily always possible or practical to get things correct the first time. Sometimes software needs to 'bake' a bit more, especially when blazing new trails. As well, it is naive to think that shipping is unimportant (real artists ship, right?).

In short, technical debt should be minimized where possible but understood as a reality of software projects.

The Next Xbox Will Not Disable Used Games

The staff at Edge wrote this particularly juicy tidbit:

Sources with first-hand experience of Microsoft’s next generation console have told us that although the next Xbox will be absolutely committed to online functionality, games will still be made available to purchase in physical form. Next Xbox games will be manufactured on 50GB-capacity Blu-ray discs, Microsoft having conceded defeat to Sony following its ill-fated backing of the HD-DVD format. It is believed that games purchased on disc will ship with activation codes, and will have no value beyond the initial user.

This same tired rumor keeps coming back year after year, console generation after console generation. This particular iteration caused a lot of concern around the web (such as the post by John Biggs for TechCrunch). The story even prompted electronics retailer GameStop to make an official comment after the retailer's stock price was rocked by this supposed 'news':

“We know the desire to purchase a next-generation console would be significantly diminished if new consoles were to prohibit playing pre-owned games, limit portability or not play new physical games,” Hodges said in an e-mail.

GameStop, of course, makes quite a nice profit on its used video game sales so the stock market's investors reacted negatively to what they believed to be a significant threat to the company's business strategy. The problem is that this story doesn't pass the 'sniff test' once a person takes a moment to really think about the likelihood of its claims coming to pass.

First, we have to consider what Microsoft would gain by eliminating the used game market. Hypothetically, Microsoft could bring in more revenue by removing a source of game content that doesn't directly send money their way. Although that sounds fine on paper, in practice it is absurd to think that gamers will simply decide to funnel their cash into buying new games. It's not as if someone who would have purchased one to two used games at $20 apiece is going to purchase those games at $60 apiece; that person is just going to purchase fewer games or find alternative means of acquiring games (i.e. piracy).

Second, we have to consider what Microsoft's competitors would do in reaction to this move. The only possible way that Microsoft could escape unscathed is if Sony and Nintendo both decided to follow suit. However, this is highly unlikely to occur. What is more likely to happen is that Sony and Nintendo would take the opportunity to rake Microsoft over the coals for making such a move. The PR would be terrible for Microsoft while simultaneously being great for its competitors. This would likely drive gamers into the waiting arms of Sony and Nintendo, thereby decreasing Microsoft's revenue.

Folks, don't buy into this nonsense. This sort of story is published for the sole purpose of generating page views.

On Dell Going Private

Nathan Ingraham, writing for The Verge:

Dell has struggled in recent years to maintain its position in the PC industry, losing more than a third of its value in 2012. By going private, however, the company won't have to deal with quarter-to-quarter scrutiny from shareholders as it attempts to turn things around.

At first, I thought it sounded odd that Dell was going private. It's not the sort of thing you see everyday. On further inspection, it actually makes a lot of sense.

In today's 'quarter-to-quarter' obsessed market, investors can make loopy decisions with how they rate a stock (for the best example of this, see Apple's recent stock-related drama). For many companies, the pressure from investors to hit certain quarterly numbers can lead to ruin in the long term by placing short term gains over the best interests of the company. By going private, Dell can focus on creating a solid foundation for the company's future instead of catering to the whims of investors that are looking to make a quick buck.

'Amazon's Cute Little Robots Change the Game for All'

The folks at Bloomberg have an excellent short video (see the source link) about the Kiva Systems warehouse robots used by Amazon. The Kiva robots are intended to operate much more efficiently than humans performing the same job of retrieving items from the warehouse. In addition, repetitive motion stress is reduced since there isn't as much need for people to bend over or carry heavy items.

One of the most interesting statements in the video relates to the fact that we shouldn't be so obsessed with the idea of creating robots that look like humans. As years of effort have shown, it's actually fairly difficult to achieve something that approaches human dexterity.  With that said, it is far easier by comparison to create single-task robots that do things that humans can't do well or shouldn't do much of from an ergonomics perspective.

Go ahead and check out the video (which is only about a minute and a half long). I bet you can't look at the Kiva robots without thinking of them as the 'bigger brother' to iRobot's famous Roomba robots.

"Google and the World Brain"

Casey Newton wrote an article for CNET describing "Google and the World Brain," a documentary by filmmaker Ben Lewis.  Lewis' film covers the topic of Google's efforts to digitize books from libraries spanning the globe.  As far as I can tell from the article, the film seems to be heavily slanted:

The trouble, as writer William Gibson is quoted as saying in the film: "Google is not ours." Sure, the company may make millions of books searchable today, critics say. But what would stop Google from later deciding to restrict that information in a severe way, or to charge for access?

I'm not sure why this is considered to be such a problem. It isn't as if Google is destroying the books after they scan them; the original copies of the books remain intact. If Google decided to restrict the information in any way, it would still be possible for the information to be obtained via alternate means.  Charging for access, likewise, should not be an issue since Google is providing an archival and curation service.

Not every venture is evil, folks.