Attacking Gruber because he says Apple's approach is better than Microsoft's isn't addressing the arguments he raises so let's address them:
"Microsoft’s demo video shows Excel — the full version of Excel for Windows — running alongside new touch-based apps. They can make buttons more “touch friendly” all they want, but they’ll never make Excel for Windows feel right on a touchscreen UI."
No one said Excel for Win 8 would be just a touch friendly version. Gruber's argument assumes that Microsoft won't attempt to think through the use-case of touch on Office products. Given that Office is one of their top pilars of profitability, you can bet that they'll at least attempt to create Office 2012 (or whatever) to fit in naturally with how people will want to and need to use it.
"The iPad succeeds because it has eliminated complexity, not because it has covered up the complexity of the Mac with a touch-based “shell”. "
You definitely have a point with that but a particular quote comes to mind "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein. You can't do real work on the iPad version of iWorks. Making Excel simpler just for simplicities sake would be a mistake for Microsoft. Exposing the right amount of simplicity for the various tasks is what they should be aiming for.
"Apple’s radical notion is that touchscreen personal computers should make severely different tradeoffs than traditional computers — that you can’t design one system that does it all."
You can't until you can. iOS is built on the same technology of OSX. IF they wanted, they could make iOS able to run OSX apps and be able to do many of the things that OSX can do. They've simply elected not to.
Most of the tradeoffs that Apple has made has less to do with what is possible and more to do with training their developers. If I remember correctly, Apple elected not to allow a 2 button mouse for a long time earlier in their history because they wanted to force developers to build apps that worked just fine with 1 button... to force them to create a different type of experience for users.
Microsoft's goals are actually the opposite. They don't want to create a completely different experience. Their corporate clients will buy the next version of Windows because it is an evolution, not a revolution. Creating a revolutionary product may actually be counter to their interests.
> If I remember correctly, Apple elected not to allow a 2 button mouse for a long time earlier in their history because they wanted to force developers to build apps that worked just fine with 1 button.
I think you might be thinking of the reason the 128K Mac didn't have a terminal. In that case, they wanted to force developers to make new, graphical programs instead of just porting their terminal programs to the Mac. The mouse had one button [to cater to users][1]:
> The powers at Apple concluded that because the mouse was a whole new way for users to interact with their computers, it should be as uncomplicated as possible. Hence, one button.
The original Mac did not have arrow keys on its keyboard. This was to encourage programmers to write programs that use the mouse. I'm pretty sure I read this originally on http://www.folklore.org, but I can't find that particular story right now.
I think the biggest thing that Apple got right that Microsoft is in danger of not getting right is that people should have different expectations for a tablet. A tablet shouldn't have to do everything that a PC can, because it will end up doing most of them poorly.
You can't do real work on the iPad version of iWorks.
Again, this is okay with most people due to the different expectations one has with a tablet over a PC. If all you need to do is update one small item on the iPad, it's doable.
Making Excel simpler just for simplicities sake would be a mistake for Microsoft. Exposing the right amount of simplicity for the various tasks is what they should be aiming for.
I certainly wouldn't want to use a version of Excel that was designed for a PC on a tablet. It would be a horrible user experience. The only way to make it workable is to write something from scratch. Sure, it could read and write .xlsx files, but under the hood, it would need to be very different.
they could make iOS able to run OSX apps
I think that Apple has shown that they are actually going the opposite way. More and more of OSX looks like it was ported over from iOS.
One of Microsoft's problems with Tablet PCs in the early 2000s was that they were PCs. Because of this, they needed to have all of the horsepower to run Windows and still be portable enough to use as a tablet. This meant that they were always expensive. iPads on the other hand don't need to run a full copy of OSX, so they can be much lighter, smaller, and cheaper (than a Mac).
The best line in the Gruber piece is this:
You can’t make something conceptually lightweight if it’s carrying 25 years of Windows baggage
This is why Microsoft is going to have issues using the same code base for a tablet and the full Windows 8. It has too much extra stuff. A tablet doesn't need all of that stuff. This is one of those categories where having raw power isn't as important as being lightweight and using what you have as efficiently as possible.
Microsoft may be primarily selling to corporate clients and OEMs, but they will still be competing with iOS and Android tablets in terms of mindshare and expectations.
> A tablet shouldn't have to do everything that a PC can, because it will end up doing most of them poorly.
Yes, but that's ok. It might be a less than stellar experience to pull up a complex work spreadsheet that was emailed to me on my tablet while I'm on vacation but at least it's possible. I can get my work done and get back to sipping mai tais.
It's amazing how many people are down on the idea of having access to their apps simply because the experience is slightly degraded.
I agree, there is certainly a market for the tablet that keeps things possible. The iPad type device is great for consuming content, it excels here, its probably not going to be beaten (at least not any time soon). But there is a huge market waiting to be tapped outside of just consuming content, and microsoft is rightly looking at that.
Not only is a useful tablet what I'm waiting for in a consumer device (for my definitions of useful), but business will love the thing. At work we have tons of netbooks and win xp tablet-ish devices littered around the labs and I love those little fuckers. There is never going to be an iScience or iEngieneer app to do even the bog-standard things that we need the netbooks around the lab for, and if there was it would be a re-invention of the wheel that is watered down with a toy interface slapped on it.
Look at android, many of us use it because we're willing to take a hit on the UI of our phone if it means we can do more. It will happen with tablets where we can get a step less polish and a huge jump of possibility.
At this point I'm convinced the Android UI is way better than the iOS UI. Forget how pretty it looks -- the presence of the back button alone elevates the UI in my opinion.
I think the biggest thing that Apple got right that Microsoft is in danger of not getting right is that people should have different expectations for a tablet.
I agree. Managing the expectations of what people should be doing on the different form factors is going to be important.
If all you need to do is update one small item on the iPad, it's doable. I certainly wouldn't want to use a version of Excel that was designed for a PC on a tablet. It would be a horrible user experience. The only way to make it workable is to write something from scratch. Sure, it could read and write .xlsx files, but under the hood, it would need to be very different.
Again, you're making the assumption that it was designed for a PC. I think they'll think through both use cases and expose the right functionality at the right times. (Yes, this is an assumption that gives MS the benefit of the doubt but given how important Office is to their profitability, I'm comfortable with this assumption.) Also, it wouldn't need to be very different under the hood. It would just need to be different UI. Yes, bigger buttons isn't going to cut it but UI is so much more than just 'bigger buttons'.
One of Microsoft's problems with Tablet PCs in the early 2000s was that they were PCs. Because of this, they needed to have all of the horsepower to run Windows and still be portable enough to use as a tablet. This meant that they were always expensive. iPads on the other hand don't need to run a full copy of OSX, so they can be much lighter, smaller, and cheaper (than a Mac).
You've definitely got a point there. They'll need to address this head-on.
The best line in the Gruber piece is this: You can’t make something conceptually lightweight if it’s carrying 25 years of Windows baggage
Agreed, though not completely. Making selective cuts would allow them to maintain the same code base for tablets and desktops. It might actually result in a better desktop experience.
Microsoft may be primarily selling to corporate clients and OEMs, but they will still be competing with iOS and Android tablets in terms of mindshare and expectations.
Agreed, which is why I'm excited to see the new UI. Not sure how far they are going to be willing to push things in order to compete on the excitement factor and winning consumers over.
I'm sure the next version of Office will be optimized for the new Win8 UI style or at least have a companion version that's optimized for new Win8 style, but it'll be awkward for Microsoft if that next version isn't out until ~8 months after Win8 itself, which is very possible given that Office 2010 came 8 months after Windows 7 and they usually have similar release cycles.
(Were it up to me, I'd make damn sure Office 2012 is ready day-and-date with Win8, and accelerate the release by cutting absolutely anything, other than support for the new touch UI, necessary to make that happen.)
It's too early to say anything about Office on Windows 8. What Microsoft showed today was Windows 8, not Office. I'm sure Microsoft will has something for Office on Windows 8 with touch interface in mind. So far, I haven't seen any good office productivity applications on touch interface. I hope Microsoft impresses me.
PowerPoint and other presentation apps are naturals for touch. A lot of the stuff our engineers present in SolidWorks would be much easier done with a touchscreen.
The actual document/drawing creation lends itself to a tradional keyboard/mouse UI, but presentation is more intuitive when you can touch the screen and drag or rotate/enlarge an object with your fingers.
"Microsoft’s demo video shows Excel — the full version of Excel for Windows — running alongside new touch-based apps. They can make buttons more “touch friendly” all they want, but they’ll never make Excel for Windows feel right on a touchscreen UI."
No one said Excel for Win 8 would be just a touch friendly version. Gruber's argument assumes that Microsoft won't attempt to think through the use-case of touch on Office products. Given that Office is one of their top pilars of profitability, you can bet that they'll at least attempt to create Office 2012 (or whatever) to fit in naturally with how people will want to and need to use it.
"The iPad succeeds because it has eliminated complexity, not because it has covered up the complexity of the Mac with a touch-based “shell”. "
You definitely have a point with that but a particular quote comes to mind "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein. You can't do real work on the iPad version of iWorks. Making Excel simpler just for simplicities sake would be a mistake for Microsoft. Exposing the right amount of simplicity for the various tasks is what they should be aiming for.
"Apple’s radical notion is that touchscreen personal computers should make severely different tradeoffs than traditional computers — that you can’t design one system that does it all."
You can't until you can. iOS is built on the same technology of OSX. IF they wanted, they could make iOS able to run OSX apps and be able to do many of the things that OSX can do. They've simply elected not to.
Most of the tradeoffs that Apple has made has less to do with what is possible and more to do with training their developers. If I remember correctly, Apple elected not to allow a 2 button mouse for a long time earlier in their history because they wanted to force developers to build apps that worked just fine with 1 button... to force them to create a different type of experience for users.
Microsoft's goals are actually the opposite. They don't want to create a completely different experience. Their corporate clients will buy the next version of Windows because it is an evolution, not a revolution. Creating a revolutionary product may actually be counter to their interests.