To take as much control away from the customer as possible?
This is directly copying Apple’s approach to software, though. Exclude any user-driven UX decisions, and force them to use The Apple Way. And it’s worked for them; it’s not an unreasonable conclusion to draw if you’re trying to compete with Apple: Apple users hate configuration. Or, as my brother-in-law often says when he’s frustrated with technology: “I don’t want to know how it works, I just want it to fucking work.” Lots of people consider computers to be just tools, like a hammer.
Those of us who hate this approach turn to other OSes, like Linux. It’s obvious the Apple software architecture is not just to avoid any work to provide configurability, but to actually put effort into making configurability hard. This is what makes Macs maddening for many of us. It’s the deep irony behind the 1984 Apple “Big Brother” ad campaign: Apple’s objective is to make all its computers look and behave the same. If you redid the ad, but put all the audience in colorful clothes, it’d be appropriate.
You bring up a very valid point: MS seems to be picking this one attribute of Apple interfaces and concluding that it’s what’s going to let them steal Apple customers. Maybe it will, a few, but I agree with you that it’s more likely going to drive even more MS users into the arms of Linux. Or, maybe Apple; I mean, if you have to be an ultra-conformist, why not pick Apple? At least the design aesthetic you’re forced to adopt is attractive and easy-to-use.
Or, as my brother-in-law often says when he’s frustrated with technology: “I don’t want to know how it works, I just want it to fucking work.” Lots of people consider computers to be just tools, like a hammer.
That kind of mindset needs to be a thing of the past. Not having the patience to figure out how things work is how every war in my lifetime got started.
This is directly copying Apple’s approach to software, though. Exclude any user-driven UX decisions, and force them to use The Apple Way. And it’s worked for them; it’s not an unreasonable conclusion to draw if you’re trying to compete with Apple: Apple users hate configuration. Or, as my brother-in-law often says when he’s frustrated with technology: “I don’t want to know how it works, I just want it to fucking work.” Lots of people consider computers to be just tools, like a hammer.
Those of us who hate this approach turn to other OSes, like Linux. It’s obvious the Apple software architecture is not just to avoid any work to provide configurability, but to actually put effort into making configurability hard. This is what makes Macs maddening for many of us. It’s the deep irony behind the 1984 Apple “Big Brother” ad campaign: Apple’s objective is to make all its computers look and behave the same. If you redid the ad, but put all the audience in colorful clothes, it’d be appropriate.
You bring up a very valid point: MS seems to be picking this one attribute of Apple interfaces and concluding that it’s what’s going to let them steal Apple customers. Maybe it will, a few, but I agree with you that it’s more likely going to drive even more MS users into the arms of Linux. Or, maybe Apple; I mean, if you have to be an ultra-conformist, why not pick Apple? At least the design aesthetic you’re forced to adopt is attractive and easy-to-use.
That kind of mindset needs to be a thing of the past. Not having the patience to figure out how things work is how every war in my lifetime got started.