shahine.com/omar/

homepage | Send mail to the author(s) contact

yet another Microsoft blogger

# Thursday, February 03, 2005

Technology Camps, iPod, and the End to End Experience

In life there are always at least two camps. When I was a kid it was Nike vs Reebok. For some people it's Audi vs BMW, for others it's iPod vs everything else. I feel that I am in many camps, but when it comes to Apple vs Microsoft, MCE vs TiVo, iPod vs Everything else I feel that I have as an objective point of view as is possible. How? Well I have owned or own both, and love each for what they bring to the table. I worked on Mac software at Microsoft, loved the Mac OS and the products I work on, but I also love the products my company makes.

I've seen a lot of activity over the last few days both in the blogsphere and inside Microsoft in reaction to this Wired Article. First and foremost, this article was silly. There was no story here, and it was sensational at best. For heavens sake I carried a PowerBook around at Microsoft for 4 years and no one ever said jack to me. The notion that people at Microsoft are offended or care that I might use a competitors product is ludicrous. The notion that you can build a better product than your competition without using and loving that product is silly. You cannot build a better product than your competition unless you are intimately familiar with the competition. The only way to do that without fooling yourself is to use it, day in and day out. I wish everyone in the Media Group at Microsoft had an iPod.

What some people fail to understand is that there is a fundamental difference between Apple and Microsoft. Apple creates the hardware for their end users. They start with an end to end scenario. That is, they come up with a compelling idea, and they design the solution. From the Apple Store to the experience at home opening the item, taking it out of its packaging, and installing the software then using the device is a well orchestrated series of events. Apple has spent months if not years thinking about how to perfect this experience. No other company does this in the consumer space, and it's not possible unless you own everything in the scenario. In this case Apple owns the store, the hardware, the music store, the software to connect to the device, the software to download from the store, and the relationship with all the record labels who provide the media. This is incredibly powerful when you are trying to solve specific scenarios, and when it comes to things people have always been incredibly passionate about (music) it matters.

Now contrast this to Microsoft. For the past few years the focus has been on building a world class platform. From the codec's, to the encoding technology, to the protocol for moving bits from the computer to the device, to the encryption technology, policy enforcement of digital rights, and servers to manage those rights it's all been spec'ed and delivered in a manner that any software developer can utilize. You can create your own Music Store and sell content to anyone with a compatible device. You can build a device that can play rich video and audio. You can build software that can manipulate that music, and organize it for users, or even a new shell that can present that media to the user who is sitting on their couch and interacts via a remote control. You can even buy a cell phone that can consume these media files! Talk about a rich eco system. But that's what it is; a platform for anyone with a desire to build on. Microsoft participates in this eco system via the MSN Music Store, and other various properties, but we do not dictate how much you will pay, and what device you will use. We give you choice, and history has shown time and time again, that choice is always more powerful. Choice and flexibility always wins. Consumers want choice.

However, that choice comes at a huge price in this case. The cost of doing this is that until Microsoft starts to make audio devices, or an OEM can produce a product that delivers on a totally solid end to end experience, we'll always be in an us vs them state of affairs. A music device these days is a form of personal expression. Like a phone, or a watch, it's part of your identity and something which brings you joy. I think this is why people are so interested and opinionated in this debate. They feel like they are being attacked personally, and well, most folks don't like that. However, I respect both the iPod and the platform Microsoft provides for their own qualities. I absolutely love the out of box experience you get with the iPod. Everything about it has been designed to work. If you buy a Creative Zen Micro you have to install firmware before you can even take advantage of the technology platform we have built to provide a seamless synchronization experience with Windows Media Player. Where is the value proposition there? When you purchase a Rio Carbon you need to use a sledge hammer to get the packaging opened before you can use your device! Not so with the iPod, as you are greeted by a friendly and happy white box that opens like a well engineered package should. It says "Designed in California" and has a beautiful stainless steel and acrylic build that you don't want to tarnish. My Rio Carbon has a cheap coat of paint on it that is pealing of. How can you compare? How can you convince OEMs to care as much as Apple and spend as much time and money caring?

Well I don't know the answers to all these questions but I do know this. I love the iPod; it's fantastic. However, I don't purchase any music from iTunes because I love my Windows Media Center and I want my music to work everywhere that my ears can listen. That means my from my living room couch where I can control my Media Center, from my portable device on the train where I spend 2 hours a day, from the speakers of my car when I spend time on the weekend, from my office computer and from my laptop. I want full fidelity at home, which means lossless audio, and I want as many songs as will fit on 5 GB w/o a significant loss in audio quality (128 K WMA VBR). I also want to manage all this music from a single music library, and I want to be able to move all my purchased audio around to all these device. This is my end to end scenario, and for me Windows provides the platform to do all this. The iPod is still a better end to end experience for a portable device, I will not deny that. However, the OEMs are getting better at delivering hardware. That takes lot of work and evangelism on our part. We don't make the hardware, that's not what Microsoft is about today (I'm not arguing that we should or shouldn't). However, we are awesome at making a killer end to end technology platform and placing choice in the hands of the consumer. That choice comes at a cost of using our file format, but that file format is public, available, and licensable. FairPlay is not. iTunes is not open, and there are no other choices but the iPod on the Mac. Once upon a time there were third party music players, but Apple has taken away the incentive to stick around. As we continue to improve the platform and work with the OEMs the end to end portable device scenario will get better. If you need examples just look at where the Mobile Devices division has come from and where the Pocket PC and Smartphone are today. Look at the Portable Media Center; there is nothing in it's class that is as good. It will get smaller and the OEMs will create more unique form factors to address user needs. And for something where we aren't following, but leading, look at the Tablet PC. You may not need or want one, but it's an incredible testament to what is possible with time and investment in our part. The rest of the story continues with investment in helping the OEMs build a variety of products, with great experiences that give people more choice in what they can buy. People like choice.

 

Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:16:06 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Second attempt:

"You can build a device that can play rich video and audio"
You are talking about Microsoft software?? At work I have no choice and use a Wintel. The audio media player is not windows compatible. Tell me how great it is and I will tell you it's not acceptable. Its icon in the whatever you call the dock can't be used like every other application's. It's window is also not compatible; I don't recall how. If that's great software to you, then.... And I will stop listening to Internet Radio Hawaii if he continues to require that lousy app.
Ron
Friday, February 04, 2005 3:02:16 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Omar,
I really enjoy reading your insights. I have a dilemma. I consider myself a MS user. I love the options and the WMA codec.

Until now I have REFUSED to buy an iPod. Mostly because I do not want to get into the format predicaments you describe. However, I REALLY want to get my tunes into my car and I would like to it be as seamless as possible. Griffin tech had announced the SmartDeck for the iPod. This lets the user control the iPod using you steering wheel mounted controls. I guess my point is that I am STILL waiting on some of the innovative 3rd party accessories for WMA MP3 players ( Dell, Creative, Rio, Virgin Elect hello??). It may be a chicken or the egg situation for me. 3rd party manufactures will gravitate towards making products for market leaders but because of the lack of these products, Dell, Zen whoever does not gain as much attention from me because of the lack of accessories.

So, after all that rambling. Here is my question. What would you suggest for me to do to utilize an iPod ( in my MS and WMA world) but still be able to use Janus music sites. 80 % of my music is WMA. I guess I could convert all 7 gigs to MP3 and then when I purchase music, rip it to Audio CD then back to MP3 to load on the iPod (Will that work with DRM ). Maintaining two libraries seems like a real pain. I imagine I will have an MCE PC in the future also.

Ok, enough from me, sorry for the ramblings and thanks for any input.
ukncdc
Friday, February 04, 2005 6:27:31 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
This is a great post.

I did a write-up on the Portable Media Center that discusses the end-to-end experience...

http://www.cerkit.com/cerkitBlog/PermaLink,guid,66e9a04e-efe9-4e84-aa5a-198e7914a998.aspx

I also ask why we have to have "brand haters"...

http://www.cerkit.com/cerkitBlog/PermaLink,guid,97af9e49-a855-4ba9-a82e-267ecebf2026.aspx

Friday, February 04, 2005 11:39:26 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Except for some pennies I totally agree and I will link this article in any ipod vs. xy discussion I read ;-)
Friday, February 04, 2005 1:27:57 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I hate it when people talk about Windows Media as being the holy grail of openness and choice and Apple as being a completely locked-in system that you will never be able to escape. Apple is the only company to truly deliver an equal experience on two platforms (iTunes on Windows and the Mac). If I want to switch from my Mac to Windows and take my music with me I can. If someone wants to switch from Windows to the Mac and take their music with them they can. If I was to select Windows Media as my format of choice on a PC I would not be able to switch platforms. Yes I get a choice of hundreds of second-rate players, but I am stuck using a Windows Machine for life :)

And please don't try to tell me that there is a Mac version of Windows Media Player. The player doesn't play many of the modern Codecs used today (and any of the Music Store DRM'd files). The player skips, has poor quality video, and is a huge embarrassment for Microsoft's talented development teams.
Benjamin
Friday, February 04, 2005 2:46:34 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Ben, you are missing my point. I don't think anything is the holy grail yet.
Omar Shahine
Monday, February 07, 2005 10:07:23 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Sorry, Omar, you have long been wrong on MANY of your rants, and you may be the furthest wrong on this one more than anything. Let's get one thing straight here:

MICROSOFT WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER IS NOT AN OPEN FORMAT.

Why don't I repeat that here for your readers to hear:

MICROSOFT WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER IS NOT AN OPEN FORMAT.

This is ONE PROPRIETARY FORMAT VS. ANOTHER PROPRIETARY FORMAT.

One format is no more open than the other.

You've always been disdainful of Apple, even when you were on the Mac Business Team. Let's see how quickly you delete this post from your blog.
Monday, February 07, 2005 6:09:35 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Depends on how you define open. If I can consume the DRM for my own use, and use that technology to protect any digital content I author or consume, then I look at it relatively. And in this case, it's more open than Apple's. It's also far more flexible in the ways that I consume media.
Omar Shahine
Thursday, February 10, 2005 12:35:49 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Omar: "However, I don't purchase any music from iTunes because I love my Windows Media Center and I want my music to work everywhere that my ears can listen. "

Me, too. That's why I buy lots of tracks in iTunes.

It depends on what choice you are looking at - it works vertically and horizontally. When an MS person tells me that iTunes is closed, I have to laugh. The statement "everywhere that my ears can listen" includes the Mac for me - and as long as MS makes it mandatory to use Windows for all their WMA DRM stuff - which is only going to get worse with Palladium (or whatever it's called this week).

Look: a computer is much more expensive than a portable player, and I will not base my decision for the "right" portable audio player on an Operating System platform - that would be the silliest thing I could do.

I am a Mac user - where is my Music Store choice - where is all that openness you are talking about? Nothing is keeping you from offering a Windows Media Player for the Mac platform that is better than the current piece of crap.

Openness is in the eye of the beholder. iTunes for Windows works just fine and it's a free download - I cannot say the same about DRM'ed WMA. What a sham.
Ralph Scheuer
Comments are closed.