Rian van der Merwe:
Apple would look at that data and say, “let’s cut the bottom 200 commands.” Microsoft looked at it and said, “We’re going to need a bigger ribbon.”
Rian makes some good points in his article, but the highlighted portion above sums up my thoughts on Microsoft.
Similarly, “We need to compete better in mobile computing => Let’s add a new layer and a new development model on top of Windows.”
Steve Jobs resumed it aptly :”Microsoft has no taste”.
Having no taste means that they cannot differentiate between what is important and what is not, and to avoid upsetting people avoid to remove stuff and features.
Apple sometimes go too far, but at least make choices.
I like simplicity as much as the next guy, but if your business relies on certain functionality, simplicity becomes secondary.
There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of “no compromise.” No compromise means you pick your priorities and to hell with the rest. If you want to make a tasty meal, no compromise means you don’t consider cost, food allergies, difficulty in preparation, or scarceness of ingredients. Once you make allowances for those other things you are making compromises.
Apple’s approach to tablets is much more “no compromise” than Microsoft’s. Optimize for weight, simplicity, and battery life. To hell with compatibility with legacy platforms or versatility as a one-size-fits-all solution.
Functionality and a sensible interface aren’t mutually exclusive. Only mediocre companies claim they are.
That’s correct but Apple did just that with their iWork suit. The lack of Applescript support in the newest iWork version probably put some businesses into trouble that relied on them. That is something MS would never do. The article seems to focus on non-professional users when talking about the so called “compromises”.
Apple probably simplified iWork to align with its online component. I’d be surprised if most of the features they removed aren’t eventually restored in a future version.