Don't get me wrong, this is NOT the fault of the monitor. Problem is, determining exactly WHO's fault it is is very, very difficult, and that is what lead's me to my Rant, and more broadly, to why Microsoft has to become more vertically integrated (like what they are currently doing with Zune) in order to beat Apple at its own game.
First the Monitor Rant.
When you leave a Mac computer unused for a while, the computer goes to sleep (standby mode) in a very friendly way. It just works. The machine goes into a low-power mode, and the display quitely fades to black. When you want to go back to work, you simply touch a key or move the mouse, and the display INSTANTLY resumes, with a nice, friendly fade-in to full brightness.
Simplicity. That's what Apple has perfected in their products.
So why can't a Windows machine do that? Well, the answer, although perfectly legitimate, is not so simple to explain. Here goes:
Microsoft's entire system strategy depends upon partners adhering to specs laid down by Microsoft (and certain standards organizations) so that the various interdependent interfaces in the system work together. The case of system standby operation is an excellent example of how this approach tends to lead to what I call "least common denominator" user experience.
When a computer goes into standby (sleep) mode, here is what has to happen. The OS needs to decide it's time to sleep (by a user setting). Then it needs to tell all the devices attached to the computer to go into sleep mode. This mode is defined by some sort of standard. One such standard, typically used for computer monitors, is called ACPI, for Advanced Configuration and Power Interface. After all the devices have gone to sleep, the OS can tell the motherboard to enter a low-power state, and then the system goes to sleep. Waking up is done by a user touching a key or moving a mouse. That requires the motherboard BIOS (basic input output system) to recognize this action and in turn wake up the OS, who then wakes up the devices, and you are back in business.
Problem is, on a Microsoft system many of these devices are not designed by Microsoft. And if any ONE of these devices does not fully comply with the interface spec, you will get unwanted results. This may include the screen not coming back on after standby, or the system not going into standby at all. Sometimes you'll notice this, sometimes not. Thus, the system operation is at the mercy of the "least common denominator" component.
Why doesn't Apple have this problem? Simple. Apple controls all the interfaces and devices attached to the Mac much more closely than Microsoft does. In many cases, Apple engineers design all the hardware . This way they can make sure the system performs as desired, not simply as the spec allows. The figure below illustrates what I'm talking about for the case of system standby turning off the monitor:
Because of this tight integration, Apple systems simply work better. Thus, my nice Samsung monitor may look great when on, but for some reason, the system will not resume from standby. Therefore I need to disable standby in the display settings, and simply use a screen saver. I don't like this because it uses a lot more power leaving the computer on 24-7. It also does not make use of the monitor's Energy Star power saving capabilities. It's also Just Plain Wrong.
Unfortunately, the only way Microsoft will ever get past this issue is to copy what Apple has done. They need to field "whole product solutions" so they can control more tightly the entire system's user experience.
Now the part that relates to Zune.
Windows compatible music players have been around for years. They have had much less success than the iPod. Why? While I firmly believe a lot of the credit goes to the fantastic marketing prowess of Apple (who could probably sell icecubes to eskimos), that is not the only reason. Fact is, the iPod would not sell if it sucked. The reason Windows compatible music players have not succeeded is that they simply don't work as well on Windows as the iPod works on Macs. The Zune player may hope to overcome this limitation by controlling more tightly the interfaces and therefore the user experience.
Microsoft must do this because you simply cannot leave system integration to standards organizations, and hope that a set of specs, designed by committee, will "enable" the desired emergent behavior. In short, you cannot spec a killer product by remote control. It must be a close, hands-on, collaboration between design, manufacturing, engineering, and marketing. Nothing else will work. Period.
Will Zune succeed? Only time will tell...but my guess is that it will...not. Microsoft is moving in the right direction with this product, but it appears to be targeted at a mature market which is already in the possession of a competent, agressive, clear leader in the space. Unless Microsoft somehow disrupts the product space with a completely new approach and functionality, they really are too late to this party.
But I think they should keep on plugging. One thing about Microsoft. They are tenacious.
No comments:
Post a Comment