Are Third Parties Ruining Microsoft’s Image?

Our industry is divided. Whatever you might think, people are aligned to one of the big technology players, whether that be Apple, Google, Microsoft or someone else, and we all come up with a whole host of reasons why our allegiance is better than someone else’s. One reason that’s commonly played for Apple is their user experience, based in a tied-up, seamless ecosystem that’s known to “just work”.

Ultimately, however, when dealing with Apple vs Google or Apple vs Microsoft, this argument is just not valid. Google and Microsoft both have fantastic user experiences built into their product, and some, quite frankly, fantastic user interface design. However, the difference between them and Apple is the customization options give to third parties who use the companies’ software on their own devices. It’s my opinion that these options ultimately taint the reputation of companies who do some superb work; let me explain.

Computers

Honestly, I’d take a Mac over a PC any day. That’s mainly down to the hardware; Apple just makes products with a much higher build quality and overall better feel. The stuff they produce isn’t some thick plastic box emblazoned with stickers and markings. Instantly, just at face value, Apple’s products already seem to reign supreme with generally cleaner, more stylish designs. The thing is, Microsoft doesn’t make computers, it’s all third party work. However, those third parties control the first impressions a user will get with Windows.

Just sayin'.

Moving into the software itself, where Microsoft probably has most control, we still see PC makers preloading computers with a load of useless bloatware that does nothing but take up valuable storage space (and, in some cases, processing power as quite a few of these like to run in the background). This really doesn’t help the case for Windows when compared to Mac OS X, which never comes loaded with anything but the stock apps. Quite frankly, everything on my Mac is useful to me, yet the ASUS laptop I once used as my daily driver still has a load of useless rubbish installed that I never wanted.

Apple’s vision gets to make its way to the consumer, whereas Microsoft’s is limited to a virtual presence.

Apple lives up to its reputation. When you unbox a Mac, you get a beautiful, clean computer that’s loaded with only stuff of real use. It just works. They get to offer this experience due to their control of the entire process of building said computer, manufacturing both the hardware and software in unison. Apple’s vision gets to make its way to the consumer, whereas Microsoft’s is limited to a virtual presence.

Unfortunately, Microsoft’s place in this marketplace comes via the proxy of third parties who have their own agendas and are willing to reduce the experience of pure Windows if it means they can push a few of their own products.

Xbox

Microsoft does have one excellent product that they’ve created in a similar fashion to how Apple works on its own products. Microsoft’s contribution to the Xbox isn’t merely software that’s given to third parties to put on proprietary hardware. In fact, it’s quite the opposite; the Xbox is Microsoft’s software in Microsoft’s ecosystem on Microsoft’s hardware and it lives as the best games console out there.

Microsoft offers a fantastic, all-in-one product with the Xbox 360.

The Xbox is a fantastic example of great product coming out of Microsoft. The uncontaminated experience is top notch because it’s just pure Microsoft. Similar examples can be drawn from Microsoft’s line of peripherals, where their hardware products are highly praised.

Android

Google’s suffered from similar circumstances themselves. Pure stock Android in its current iteration looks fantastic, being arguably the best mobile OS interface currently available on any phone. Seriously, Ice Cream Sandwich looks fantastic and Google’s flagship phone, the Galaxy Nexus, is a critically acclaimed product.

Yet, third parties who use Android to power their devices tarnish the stellar OS by adding skins and horrible bloatware that few users actually benefit from. Unfortunately, we don’t see Android in its pure most of the time; normally it’s the horrible offspring of Google and the very different agendas of smartphone makers.

Metro

Microsoft’s shift to Metro not only signifies a pretty radical change in design language, but also is coming hand-in-hand with better user experiences.

The philosophy of Metro.

The Metro-style Xbox dashboard is one of my favourite UI designs of all time; it just looks fantastic. And while Microsoft still relies on third parties to produce hardware for Windows Phone 7, the requirements they launched the OS with for hardware manufacturers guaranteed a high quality, premium class of product was produced. While not yet at Apple’s level of control, Microsoft are clearly trying to push hardware makers in the right direction.

In a nutshell, Apple, Google and Microsoft create some amazing products. Microsoft have the best games console on the market, and Google have the best phone (of course, these are only my educated opinions), but by offering their platform openly to third parties, the visions of these companies get warped into something that can’t compare to the products of other companies who didn’t make that mistake.


  • http://andrewdavid.net/ Andrew-David

    After Metro UI, Microsoft has no image left to ruin.

    • Connor Turnbull

      Did you read my article? Metro’s the thing that’s giving them a better one.

      • http://andrewdavid.net/ Andrew-David

        Oh, yes, I did.
        But I think you’re wrong. Just because you like it, doesn’t mean it is, in fact, great and that I have the same opinion as you. I think Metro UI is the worst thing that’s come out of Microsoft and the design world as a whole and it basically turned an operating system that was OK at best into something I never, ever want to use again.

        Unbelievable inconsistency, random type sizes that make no sense, pretty much no proper alignment whatsoever, and the majority is made up of random ugly squares that a 5-year old can do in MSPaint. In fact, MSPaint is probably the tool Microsoft used to design Metro UI.

        I could write an entire book about all the things that are wrong with it, but I don’t really think it’s worth my time.

        Enjoy your crappy UI experience and have a nice day :)

        • http://www.ssiddharth.com/ Siddharth

          Whoa…

        • Connor Turnbull

          Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it is, in fact, bad.

          Metro’s offering Microsoft, for once, a universal design language that offers their product line more unity while creating a user experience that I find much simpler, and easier for the average user.

          • Art Blackey

            Connor, please do not feed the troll.

  • Pingback: The Mac in 2012: What It Means for Windows | Windows.AppStorm()

  • Pingback: The Mac in 2012: What It Means for Windows | My Using App()

  • Pingback: Surface: Microsoft’s Windows 8 Hardware | Windows.AppStorm()

  • Pingback: Surface: Microsoft’s Windows 8 Hardware | My Using App()

  • http://diablo3gold.swtorshops.com onlinegame blog

    Thanks for revealing your ideas. I might also like to express that video games have been ever before evolving. Modern tools and innovative developments have aided create practical and interactive games. Most of these entertainment games were not really sensible when the real concept was first of all being used. Just like other areas of technological innovation, video games as well have had to progress through many years. This itself is testimony on the fast continuing development of video games.