In which folder would I save a photo of my wife, during a vacation to Hawaii, that I use as a computer background? I have a folder called family, another one called vacations, and another one called backgrounds. You see people don’t see or think in linear ways or folder systems do. Folders are not built to handle one-to-many relationships where a digital file could qualify for two or more folders.

File management needs to embrace one-to-many relationships, sometimes called tags or labels. Virtual folders where all content is stored in a single area but can be slice any number of ways. This is very effective not just with photos, but with documents as well. Music software already does this incredibly well. Every song has multiple tags including the artist, album, song, length, genre and type. Users can view this single instance of data any number of ways.

Why this works with music is because these tags are pre-populated and for it to works for photos and documents the same needs to be true. A user should not have to tell the file system that an excel sheet is a “document” or that a jpeg is a “photo”. These tags should be automatic. The file system should also look into the file to identify weighted words like ‘agenda’ ‘family’ ‘July 15th’ ‘comcast’ and create tags for these as well. Files and folders should be self-aware, creating suggestions for the user to confirm if needed – rather than create from scratch.

It is the difference between managed files and manual files. Like a good netflix movie recommendation, or a Zune music recommendation, or a digg news story recommendation – file names and folders should also be recommended verse making a users do everything from scratch.

As many people are spending more time on their computers for work time and personal life – there becomes a relationship of expectations.

Here are a few principles I can come to expect from the many touch points of my digital life:

Interruption: There is too much noise going on while using a computer. Interruptive messages are many times indicative of bad software. Confirmation messages happen when the software doesn’t understand their own user and needs to verify an action. Smart software should more fully understand the user, their actions, and most importantly, their destination. Message prompts should understand the most common scenarios and not treat everything equally. Deleting a recently saved excel document might deserve a confirmation where deleting a desktop shortcut might not. Interruptive messages should be contextually aware.

An example of this would be deleting a shortcut. Since a shortcut is by nature, a redundant copy of something – getting rid of it is never permanent as you will always have a backup. Confirming the deletion of a shortcut at the point of deletion and then again while emptying the trash is not necessary.

Locking Up: Notifications should not be hostile. The window I am using should not lock up nor should any application. Messages should be conveyed in a similar manner that I converse with people. Specifically, nothing should be held hostage until I confirm or cancel a message. Only the feature that needs confirm to use should be held back. Nothing more, software should not overstep and interrupt my entire experience. Software messages, errors, and prompts should always be considerate and not lock up anything more than completely necessary.

An example of this would be while in Internet Explorer, if I want to save a webpage to one of my favorite folders – it will lock up the whole window. Why is the application preventing a users from viewing other tabs, menus, or clicking links when saving a webpage? A user should not have an application lock up entirely during the simple act of saving a favorite.

Premeditation: Great solutions should never require premeditation. In this day and age, I should not have to remember to print out driving directions, sync a latest podcast, or copy a document to a thumb drive, before leaving my house. People cannot be expected to adjust their lives and behavior when software can do it instead. Anywhere access to relevant information and media is inevitable. Software makers are either on that bus or they are getting pass by it.

An example of this would be podcasts on my phone or mp3 player. There are many times I want to download and listen to the latest podcast without having the option to plug it into my computer. I might be in a car, away from my desk, or just out and about. Yet the current workflow requires me to sync back into my computer in order get the content I want while out and about. People should not go through the moment of frustration “I forgot to…”. We should allow access to solutions when the users want them rather than only during a specific window of time.

Single Instances: With the file size of our digital content going from megabits to gigabits to terabits and my personal devices going from a desktop to desktop plus laptop to desktop plus laptop plus netbook – people cannot keep track of all the stuff. Software needs to help minimize the clutter of our digital lives by having only a single instance of every file. That is right, just one. Everything else should be in sync to a single file instance. Changes made to one are applied to all the versions syncing to that one.

An example of this would be with photos. I have dozens of gigabits of photos. Every time they get copied over to another one of my computers, a relationship should form that keeps them in sync. If I backup my hard drive and copy it back to my primary computer – all duplicate files should be understood as duplicates and removed. Regardless if they mirror the same folder tree. The best bet is to reside one copy of everything in the cloud and have everything sync back to that single instance.

This is FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) at its best. Look on any Apple-centric website today and all the buzz is about a few quotes from various Apple ranks. Seems they are waving the right hand to distract while they take something with their left hand – only it is not magic.

Much of the quotes have been centered around Microsoft’s clean-install only option for XP users going to Windows 7. Though this is not ideal for many customers, it is typical when users leap a release cycle. Note that Windows Vista to Seven does not have these extra steps. Who the extra steps apply to our primarily XP users, which operating system was sold between 2001-2006 to consumers.

You might ask what is the comparable upgrade cycle for Mac users who bought their computers during this same time frame??

Zero. Nothing. A big fat dead-end. You CANNOT upgrade to Snow Leopard if you bought a Mac before the Intel switch in 2006. Apple is cutting them out of upgrade options completely. A roommate of mine from college bought a high-end iMac computer in October 2005, right after Apple did a product line refresh. He cannot upgrade to Snow Leopard – as he missed the cut off by 3 months.

Writing articles that say skipping an release of Windows will make the upgrade process have extra steps – is not news.
Apple cutting off millions of Mac customers from upgrading their systems unless they buy brand new computer – is actually news worthy.

Aaron

Additional coverage about Apple poor marketing strategy:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/15/windows_7_to_be_met_with_apples_mac_marketing_blitz.html

Lately I have been seeing a lot more Microsoft banner ads on tech sites. And I have to say the results keep making me laugh. They are highly enjoyable to play:

Aaron

Microsoft has put out the second ad to its controversial Laptop Hunters series. Many articles do not know how to address these ads that include specific call outs to the apple value proposition. They have either focused on the bottom line price of the pc or the hardware specs of the apple – in defending one side or the other. Let me throw my hat into the ring.

The point of these ads are about choice. A consumer can say I have x amount of money and I want these 3 features, what laptop best fits my needs. As Lauren pointed out, for her there were no apple options available from which to choose from. This approach is a real world approach. I remember buying my first computer for college in 2002 and I had a $2000 budget and a set of minimum features as a baseline that I had written down on a piece of paper. I ended up buying a dell dimension, which I really enjoyed for the next 5 years.

Where I feel some people are getting confused is starting the conversation with an apple laptop and then asking people to find a pc equivalent. This makes for a good discuss but is not how people buy computers. It is not fair (or helpful) to start with a macbook laptop and twist around asking for a pc that matches this specific laptop. When one cannot find an apples to apples comparison (pun) – an apple user might declare victory.

The real value of these commercials are that they work through the buying process the way most other people do, with a set of relevant criteria and an open view to all laptops. The person’s specific budget and feature needs will begin to narrow down the selection to just a few laptops to choose from. The conversation should not be skewed by authors and bloggers that if only he/she had a bigger budget they would have picked an apple or if only this person wanted x feature rather than y feature they would get an apple.

The purpose is choice that allows you to buy a product that meets all of your individual needs. If someone has a specific budget of $1000 then don’t show me a $2500 laptop and say it is better. Of course a higher priced laptop will have better components. But I may not need all those components. That is like buying a jaguar to commute 10 minutes to work – it would be nice – but I don’t need it (iLife). In the end I want to choose and define my features rather than having someone else do that for me.

Aaron

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/beta/videos.aspx?vindex=14

This is a really interesting video. In past benchmark tests I always felt disconnected on how they measured my internet experience. They go through tons of websites with and without java-script rending at a blurring speed – finalizing the results with a bar graph. The question I seem to ask inside is – are these results reflective of the sites I visit regularly and in the manner that I visit them? In the end does one browser lead in performance over the others so significantly that I can tell a different, myself?

This embedded video says ‘no’. The difference between browsers for the top internet sites is negligible – some leaning favorable to IE8, some to Chrome, and some to Safari. There is no clear outlier within the data set for all even most of them. This brings me back to the primary issue, like so many other products, that we are dealing with issues of perception not reality. Even if a browser is 30 milliseconds faster than a competing browser, like the video points out, that is the same time it takes to blink your eye. Who cares?

So the IE8 team needs to continue to reach out through organic and developed marketing campaigns to stay involved in the speed conversation. Perception will determine reality in minds of users. I have heard many people say “x-browser “feels” faster”. Now we know that is perception not reality – but in the end they are both equally important.

I would also like to see more focus and data around 3 additional benchmarks – ones that impact the overall browser experience:
Time to launch the program.
Time to open a new tab.
How fast it recovers from crashes.

And there is one more area that will be more important with time but not yet a fundamental benchmark. How many clicks or steps does it take me to get things done on the internet. From searching to finding to viewing to buying might take 10+ clicks. Can my browser help make that only 5 clicks or 4 clicks? The less the better. The Accelerators in IE8 are aimed at addressing this exact situation but it is early on and the product still young.

There was a program released last May in alpha (tech preview) that has become a must-have application for me – Live Mesh. This application in its current form is already pretty amazing and yet the potential of this application will continue to make it one of the most important and valuable products on the internet.

The concept is simple: as the number of devices we use increases across desktops, laptops, netbooks, cell phones, and media centers – users need a way to sync the content of their personal lives to just 1 profile rather than to multiple individual devices. The result should be that each user sees just 1 folder of their photos, docs, and video no matter with device they are using.

Live Mesh can do all that right now, instantly and in the background. But the future can and will go beyond just files to include programs and settings – using a simple and secure online profile. It can also begin to replicate the many advantages we get from Exchange Server on our cell phones.

Recently I bought a new Motorola Q and while still in the store I opened up the box and entered my Exchange alias, domain, and password. Literally, by the time I walked back to my car in the store parking lot my contacts, calendar, and emails were already synchronized to my newly purchased cell phone. Now imagine buying a new laptop, entering your Live Mesh username and password, and instantly seeing your your files, applications, and settings from your old laptop download to your new one. No cables, no manual coping, and no external hard drives.

Simple and amazing. If you have not already started to use Live Mesh take a good look at this application. It is free to the public and runs across PCs, Macs, and many Cell Phones.

How many clicks does it take to add a tabbed session to your IE8 favorites? 5 + Plus a folder name.

If I am doing this several times a day with news stories, product research, or general web browsing than five clicks (plus a folder name) is too much. There is a quick add to favorites button but that doesn’t work for tabs and it also suppressing your frequently visited favorites shown above the tabs. People use favorites for two reasons: to quickly save a session to view later or to save a frequently visited site for quicker access later. IE8 mixes these up so quick saves suppress frequently visited sites lowering either’s unique value.

How many clicks does it take to add a friend into my windows live network? 3.

Why isn’t the default just 1-click? Amazon figured out a way to do this with online purchasing so why can’t social networks be as successful with reducing redundancy. If the extra steps of reading/confirming each prompt and refreshing the screen before adding someone to your network takes an extra 5-10 seconds each time that costs users about 1 1/2 hours during each 1000 new adds. Imagine repeatedly clicking a mouse for 3 full episodes of Seinfeld to understand how wasteful this is to users.

For technology products and websites to win my loyalty as a user my ask is simple: get out of my way. Be conscience of my time and the amount of clicks required. If you can remove a click or two from the process…do it. If you can pre-populate a form or successfully suggestion something to expedite the process…do it. The fastest will become the most successful because users can accomplish more and convert quicker.

Today a friend and I were talking about previous job we have had. I began to noticed that I have enjoyed a rather large variety and quantity of jobs over the years since I started working at age 14. Here are the ones I can remember:

Soccer Referee
Green House
Round Table Pizza
Golden Skate
Hyatt Waiter
Taco Bell
Hyatt Valet
North Star Alarms
Chef’s Table
Macy’s Grocery
College Math Tutor
TGI Friday’s
Innovative Mortgage
Winger’s Restaurant
Subway
Del Monte
Microsoft

Aaron

MICROSOFT
1. Microsoft Sells 125+ Million Copies of Windows 7
2. Live Search Finally Reaches a 15% Market Share
3. Yahoo Swaps Their Search Engine For MSN + Cash
4. Microsoft Zune Will Reach 10% Market Share and Be Released On Windows Mobile Devices
5. Xbox Partners With Hulu and YouTube For Video and PS3 Still Remains Unprofitable

APPLE
1. Steve Jobs Steps Down As CEO While In Turn Being Promoted to Chairman of the Board
2. iPhone Monthly Sales Top All Other Cell Phones Including RIM
3. Apple Announces a Windows Home Server Competitor
4. Release Netbook Product Running Snow Leopard
5. MobileMe Seamlessly Integrates With iWork

GOOGLE
1. Loses 5% Market Share In Search From Dec 2008 Numbers
2. Android Ships 10 Million Devices Worldwide
3. A Free Version of Android Is Released to PC Manufacturers
4. Chrome Reaches 10% Market share, at the Primary Expense of Firefox
5. Release Cloud-Based Media Player (Think: Picasa or YouTube For Music)

+1
1. Netflix Finally Suggests A Movie That I Am Interested In Watching

Reports have pegged Facebook at a $15B valuation because of Microsoft deal made in 2007. They draw this conclusion because Microsoft recieved a 1.6% stake in Facebook and the deal cost $240 million dollars ie: $240M/1.6% = $15B.

The problem with this approach is that the deal also included an exclusive global advertising partnership between Microsoft and Facebook. Considering Microsoft's vunerable search business and the significant reach of Facebook's users this advertising deal could arguably be worth more to Microsoft than a 1.6% stake in Facebook.

Aaron

Both of Apple's newly launched computer Ads (as of Oct 2008) are very ironic.

1st AD
Mocks Microsoft for not saying ‘Vista’ in their newly launched ads… while never actually saying Leopard (or anything else Apple) in their own ads. Neither of these 2 new ads, nor any ads from 2008, seem to mention Apple’s own operating system. They just spend time mocking Windows. Like political ads, spending all you time telling my why the other guy is bad doesn’t make you any more qualified.

2nd AD
Mocks Microsoft for spending a large amount of money ($300M) on their newly launched ‘Windows – Life Without Walls’ campaign. The irony is that Apple is spending gang-busters on its TV spots and Internet Ads for its ‘Switcher – I’m a Mac, I’m a PC’ ads. Considering Microsoft outsells Apple 30-to-1 and does not spend 30x Apple’s marketing budget, Apple is outspending Microsoft in terms of advertising/sales. To fairly compare ad spend between the two companies the numbers need to be normalized based off of revenue, units, volume, or margin – any of which will show Apple outspends Microsoft in operating system ads.