Should skinning/customization be part of the OS?

"But then it's 'native' right?"

http://blogs.msdn.com/kamvedbrat/
from WinCustomize Forums

If you don't know Kam VedBrat, you should. To a large extent, he is the one who helping make sure that Windows Vista is going to be customizable by users in a real way.  At Microsoft, Kam is responsible for a lot of the UI work on Windows Vista.  And he is constantly under pressure from well-meaning users who argue that Microsoft should "build in" advanced "customization" features. 

The problem that those users don't realize is that if Microsoft were to put in too many customization features it would essentially kill off third-party customization and Microsoft is never going to put in the kind of customization that third parties would dedicate themselves to as long as there's a market. Put too much in the OS and the amount of work third parties have to put in to reach the threshold in which a user would pay for it would become too high and those developers would find something else to do.

But let's explore it though for a moment. Let's put aside the branding issues (the more Microsoft supports customization as part of the OS, the weaker the Windows brand becomes) and let's put aside all the support issues that would rise as users downloaded third party "skins" that weren't compatible with this or that app and called up Microsoft.  Ignoring those two issues (which in themselves are show stoppers), the problem is that the really cool customization apps we've seen over the past few years would never have come out if something even half as good were part of the OS.

The vast - VAST majority of users are happy with Windows as is.  95% of users of Windows XP are using the plain blue "Luna" UI and most of them are probably using whatever wallpaper came with the computer.  Of that remaining 5% all but a small percent are content with changing to the silver or green (okay silver) Luna.  That leaves about 1% of the user base who wants more.  How much should the other 99% be charged so that the 1% can be made happy with customization when there's a proven market of third party developers who are able and willing to devote resources to create something far more advanced than what Microsoft could ever justify? 

Whether you use a feature of the OS or not, you're paying for it.  And if only 1% of the userbase would use a feature, why should the other 99% be charged for it?  Sure, in absolute numbers, 1% is huge. But in terms of percentages it's trivial.

But let's say Microsoft bowed in and put in say skinning and custom shells and super-duper icon tweaking and countless other things. What would happen? The third party developers would go off and do something else. Anyone who thinks that developers would roll up their sleaves and come up with something super fancy still is kidding themselves. Anything really sophisticated takes a lot of time and that eventually means the developer needs to be compensated. If the "low hanging" fruit features are all part of the OS, then those developers will find some other niche (some other type of utility, another OS - the MacOS market is getting interesting after all <g>), etc.  The net result is that you just wouldn't have the kinds of customization options. You'd end up with fewer choices rather than more.

There'd be no market left other than maybe some freeware developers tweaking on the outer edges. And would the vocal minority who demanded these features in the first place be satisfied? Probably not. Because they would then be joined by the much larger group of people who didn't see a big deal paying 10 or 20 bucks for a utility that did a bunch of really cool things that aren't being updated or made anymore.  Microsoft would be stuck with the "responsibility" of supporting and placating those users. And for what? What's the business case? Would those vocal users not have bought Windows? Not have upgraded? Of course they would. 

From Microsoft's perspective, going around adding tons of tweaking features or skinning features to the OS is a lose-lose proposition. They weaken their brand. Increase their support costs. Kill off the ISV market where a lot of innovation on Windows comes from. And they don't sell a single copy more than they would have anyway.

So all users who like customizing the way Windows looks and feels in interesting ways should be glad that Kam VedBrat is the Lead Program Manager for the Windows Client Platform Team.

13,479 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I don'tthink they need to support or include customization so much as allow unlocking of many locked features.

It sounds like the same thing, but they can put unlock at your own risk notes in pop ups and absolve themselves.

Create a forced system restore point and then let the user blow up their desktop!

Screw 'em if they kill it beyond repair... they were warned.

Microsoft often takes that attitude with customer support anyhow, so it is nothing new.

Just my "outsider" and "obnoxious new guy" point of view.

Peace.
Reply #2 from WinCustomize Forums Top
do you know Kam VedBrat personley?
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Those are very good points, particularly the watering down of brand recognition. I know I've been guilty of wishing Microsoft would include more customization "native" to the OS.

The thing is, with Vista, the new technology practically demands some native customization capability. I mean, what is the point of making everything so much easier, for designers in particular, with things like XAML and the Expression software suite, if you don't want to encourage innovation and customization?

It is hard to believe, for example, that Microsoft would create this awesome system for creating controls, etc., and then discourage developers from using it. Or to create a Sidebar app, but cripple it from using the most powerful aspects of the OS. I guess they're not doing exactly that, but it is a fine line. Kind of like, "Well we played with it, had our fun. Now you third parties can take it and run with it."

Keep posting these articles, please, Brad. It is great to hear your thoughts on a subject of interest to many of us.
Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top
So long as MS make their OS's customiseable with 3rd party software then that suits me, and as the topic starter has said there is no advantage in MS even bothering with it as the market share is tiny and that 99% of peeps who have windows would'nt even know it is possable to even change the appearance to classic view in xp, and unless there is a large demand for MS to apply better skins then it's status quo and all of wincustomise workers will still have jobs "runs"
Reply #5 from WinCustomize Forums Top
EDIT to above post:>

The edit button appears to be playing up in the above post
Reply #6 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I would like to see them put something along the lines of the two color gradient option that Win 2000 had, but enable colorization of the Taskbar, Start Menu, Titlebar, and any Taskpane (or whatever they are calling the horizontal panes in explorer) with up to say a 5 color gradient.

This would be a vast improvement over the limited "Luna" three colors only option.

Reply #7 from WinCustomize Forums Top
They shouldn't really add much customization support, fact is even if they did some third party would come out with an alternative or something to tweak it. Look at all the programs out their now to replace built in features as it. And honestly... most basic computer users don't even have a graspe of changing their wallpaper.
Reply #9 from WinCustomize Forums Top
As an MCSE I think having customization inherent in the OS is a bad idea, however I do support the use of Plus! options that can be purchased separately. If customization was included as part of the OS then all the third party programmers would have no choice but to go elsewhere for a living, thus halting creative ideas for users to enjoy. I have always disliked the standard Microsoft look. In a business environment though sometimes if the third party customizations aren't quality programmed then the Administrator will have a problem on their hands. So I think things are great the way they are. Microsoft needs to devote 99% of their efforts to making sure the OS is as stable and secure as possible.
Reply #10 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Microsoft should make Vista as open and easy as possible for third party developers to create quality and original skinning software. I'm not a programmer so I don't know what this would entail, but allowing outside software development would benefit Microsoft and the third party developers.
Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Brad, good arguments, but I don't agree with you when you say that Microsoft isn't adding advanced customization features because that would kill the market of 3rd parties. Microsoft, like Stardock, is a business. As with any business, its goal is to dominate.

This is obviously reflected in the number of bodies left to rot in Microsoft's path (Stacker, Netscape, just to name a couple of the most well known, and soon all the major Anti-Virus vendors now that Microsoft is comming up with Windows Defender). There are many others un-sung companies whose businesses have been destroyed by Microsoft.

On one hand the user wins because some of those features DO BELONG in the OS (a web browser, and, especially, anything to do with security like AVs, Firewalls, and Anti-Spyware), on the other hand inovation on these areas becomes a casuality once competition dies off or goes off in search of greener pastures.

Mostly what holds Microsoft back these days, given it's track record, is that it must thread its ground very carefully unless they get hit by another DOJ anti-trust suit. Since Microsoft already has a bad reputation for this kind of things, they must also be very careful on how people perceive the company (you know, the Microsoft is Evil, Micro$oft, etc, notions that became quite popular at some point).

Stardock has a similar problem, in that, being the dominant company in the customization world, it too must also be careful not to be perceived as evil - i.e. that it's killing off all competition (even if it is). This is accomplished by careful PR and a good balancing act.

This doesn't mean that Microsoft or ANY other businesses are evil because they try to dominate their markets, after all that *is* what a business is supposed to do. As the saying goes, it's not personal, it's business. Because of this, any company that lives in the shadow of another, bigger fish, is, in fact, sleeping with the enemy. Dangerous, no doubt, but sometimes there is no other choice.

Microsoft is well aware that 'eye candy' sells. It knew that when it came out with the Plus Pack for Win95, and the point has been driven deeply home by OSX. That's the main reason why Vista features all that eye-candy. I don't think Microsoft got to the point yet (if it ever will) where it perceives that it can also make a lot of money from Windows customization. As you say, at this point any money they could make from it would probably be 'peaunuts' to them, and they would likely lose more than they gained. Then again, we never know what the future holds.
Reply #12 from WinCustomize Forums Top
 

Brad, good arguments, but I don't agree with you when you say that Microsoft isn't adding advanced customization features because that would kill the market of 3rd parties. Microsoft, like Stardock, is a business. As with any business, its goal is to dominate.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't argue that Microsoft wasn't putting advanced customization features into Windows primarily because of the affect it would have on third parties.

History has shown that Microsoft will add any feature into the OS that it thinks will increase sales. Period.

The reason MS hasn't added these kinds of features into the OS is because of the reasons stated in the article:

  1. It weakens their brand
  2. It increases support
  3. It won't sell any more units of the OS

Killing off ISVs is only a negative to them in the sense that it's bad PR and gains them nothing in return.
Reply #13 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Dude, 3rd party companies OCASSIONALLY make a good app but most are trash and run terribly.

Then the author says its the end user's pc or limitation in microsoft's os that is the problem and not their software...

You say if MS built in too much cust. it would weaken the brand...but how does a 3rd party software company make it stronger?

I hate to say this but your article is deafening...it's like the proverbial king kong beating his own chest to show his strength.

Don't forget that deep down you KNOW MS's programmers can and will out do ANY 3rd party developer/publisher if given the order...they have the $ and clout to obtain the best and still do on a regular basis. Also, don't forget that without THEIR OS YOUR software is useless!

Finally, when writing an article in attempts to explore an issue without a true bias that makes an aim at winning support for its cause...try using less of your positive argumentitive points and more of the opposing point-of-view's negative arg. points.
Otherwise you sound biased, poor at the art of arguing, and just plain out arrogant putting your cart before their horse.
Reply #14 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Wow... hey settle down MS fanboy... If MS "can and will out do ANY 3rd party" then how come they've never been able to establish an image editing program in the market despite countless attempts? And why is it that their messenger program is barely used by well... anyone. Oh, and why is it that so few bussinesses actually use the Windows built in networking and servers.

Let's not act like MS is all powerful, or even very good at what they do, fact is Windows is merely the most popular OS. And that alone doesn't make them the best, look at Brittany Spears...

A third party that specializes in one field will create a better product than the company which is not field specific. MS is more likely to buy a niche company than try to compete with them... Look at Bungie...

"Also, don't forget that without THEIR OS YOUR software is useless!"... wow an exclaimation point, you mean business. Hey, don't forget without their OS MS has nothing, their other products have had quite meager success. And hey, without THEIR OS!!!!!! everyone would most likely be using another OS where Stardocks software would be useful, obviously the software wouldn't be exactly the same, but the idea would be.

Quick side note... I've know a few people that have programmed for MS, not on Windows, but Office... they were fresh out of college, unexperienced, and underpaid. But, yeah, most businesses would rather hire 3 novices, instead of one veteran, same costs and more man power. And admittedly, the programmers for Windows might be a bit more qualified than those for office, but yeah I doubt it... I mean really, have you used Windows right?
Reply #15 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Don't forget that deep down you KNOW MS's programmers can and will out do ANY 3rd party developer/publisher if given the order...they have the $ and clout to obtain the best and still do on a regular basis. Also, don't forget that without THEIR OS YOUR software is useless!

Maybe you should talk to the IE team about that.

I wouldn't want any major customization software built into the OS simply because it would hardly be updated.

Reply #16 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't argue that Microsoft wasn't putting advanced customization features into Windows primarily because of the affect it would have on third parties.


Sorry, my fault for not being specific. I should have said 'I don't agree with one of the reasons you've stated for...'.

History has shown that Microsoft will add any feature into the OS that it thinks will increase sales. Period. Killing off ISVs is only a negative to them in the sense that it's bad PR and gains them nothing in return..


Agreed and agreed.

However, (and I know you are not going to like this, sorry) if Microsoft thinks the way you described (and Kam certainly seems to think that way) they're using, in my opinion, flawed arguments:

1 - It weakens their brand.

No, it doesn't. That's a mistake. No matter what it looks like, it's still Windows running under the eye candy. In the end, eye candy sells, but it's functionality that really matters.

2 - It increases support

Not really. One thing is to change the way the OS looks, quite another is to change the way it behaves (something I agree MS should NOT do). Support calls didn't increase when MS changed the gray Start Button into a green blob in XP. The Start Button will always be the Start Button, regardless of it looking like a green blob, a yellow alien, a transparent button, or some round glassy thingy with the Windows logo.

3 - It won't sell any more units of the OS

Oh yes it would, if MS played its cards right. OSX has proved that eye candy sells, and this was a big shock to Microsoft. Suddenly everybody is excited about OSX, and that includes Windows users. Why? Because it's drop dead gorgeous. The hardware is stylish and the software looks great - and, as you and I know only too well, everybody loves a beautiful thing.

Microsoft responded with the Aero UI, but, in my opinion, Aero falls very short of what it should be. If you really look into it, what do you have? Windows with translucent, blured, borders, live task snapshots, a single Flip3D effect and... tinted windows. Wow. Things a user will get tired of after playing with them for a week. And MS is selling this to people that are able to make, today and with WindowBlinds, UI's that are in some cases much better looking than Aero.

Instead of giving in to the momentum and taking the lead, MS has chosen instead to hold back. Had Microsoft choosen to open up to Windows customization a bit more, it could, for instance, release a new, professionaly made, UI every 6 months or so. It could then make some money by selling it while keeping Windows always 'fresh' in the process.
Reply #17 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Your arguments are weak mindlesspuppet. You start off by mildly trying to flame me which shows the counterpoints will be weak at best and you continue to reiterate the main points of the original article.

The facts are the facts...and if you don't know it MSN is MS and they have one of the MOST USED EVER IMs: MSN Messenger aka Windows Messenger Live. But good try to discredit that program and then quickly move to another terribly constructed point.

Look I'll tell you what...I have used Windows since 3.11 and have a beta of Vista running on a spare machine...and yes I even have an ibook with OSX. At the end of the day 90% of all software ever coded is poorly coded and does nothing special. Just the same old - same old. I do use 2 Stardock apps and they are coded well. But that's not my point in my original post.

You cannot presuppose things that have never happened and base an entire article on "what may happen based on an opinion." It's just not a sound practice, especially when the article is designed to have people shaking their heads yes. Albeit, most people are sheep and read every sentence out of context (see a few edu. psych texts books and research psych data to prove this).

The end of this article is about EYE CANDY improvements to the OS...80% of which is pure eye candy and does nothing to make the OS run better or look better (its a matter of opinion). And once, stardock was building an app called: NEVERLET or something which was cancelled from development because MS built a similar technology into their browser. Please stop arguing old and antiquated points about MS and Windows lack of this or that. Nothing is perfect, (not even OSX or various Linux builds) and lately, MS has been answering the call and hearing its consumers. But customization is to me something of an evolution: you use windows straight out of the box for awhile, learn a customizing trick or two, get addicted and trick out your OS, then wake up one day and go...I'm here for fun and business, I need this OS and computer to RUN and RUN FAST...what it looks like is superficial. Then again, I'm not making my bread and butter on coding things for aesthetics only. So perhaps that's where the blinding passion enters on behalf of the author of this article we are speaking of...who btw is a talented person.

My original and only 2 issues were: poorly constructed arguments with an antiquated "windows sucks" chant and the fact that it was written from someone who was biased towards an MS employee and customization.

HOw's that for a fanboy?
Reply #18 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Before using WinCustomize products, I used to think any OS's should include as much stuff as they could so I could get the "most" for my money. However, over the years, I have realized just how shoddy some of the "added value" stuff really are. Microsoft should leave the finer details to third party players so they can focus just on making sure that the new Windows will be a stable and solid product. Vista should be about providing a solid platform with a great graphical engine so that folks like WinCustomize can optimize their products. That would really give people like us the 1% real choices about how we want our desktop to look. This will also cut down on Microsoft's development time and save themselves some money.
Reply #19 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I don't want any fancy smancy new customizable stuff built into the new OS'. I'd rather get it from a 3rd Party, namely Stardock. Otherwise, I would just have the same thing everyone else has. I like to show off my computer with it's Blinds, BootSkins, Docks, Icons, and what not. It's so cool to have someone see your computer for the first time and say, "MAN, that's awesome! What'd you pay for that computer!" Now, I don't have to put a sticker on my computer that says, " My other computer's an Alienware", it just shows off itself! These guys are the Dr. 90210's of the computer industry, and I love it just like that.
Reply #20 from WinCustomize Forums Top
"HOw's that for a fanboy?" Not too shabby. Though MSN messenger is not nearly as popular as AIM, or even ICQ back in its peak. No counter to the image editing software I see... And as someone else mentioned, look at IE, how many people would actually use or even have IE if it wasn't included in the windows OS.

And I wasn't trying to flame, you made yourself out as one of those who blindly follow MS simply because it's the most mainstream, and in doing so you dismissed all 3rd parties. Let's keep in mind if it weren't for those third parties MS would have never gotten itself a step above Apple. Fact is to this day the primary reason people run windows is for the third party software, so dimissing them isn't wise.

Though, you're right nothing is perfect, especially in the realm of software: however, as I mentioned 3rd parties make sure to iron out the kinks a lot more than those working on the broader spectrum. As towards your comments on 'NEVERLET' I really don't think Stardock saw that as a big money maker, more of just those little side things which would be a nice little goodie for Object Desktop subscribers, like treeview.

And hey, most people are sheep, but well... if they weren't not so many people would be running windows to begin with.

And my deepest sympathies are with you for running Vista... I tried it for a week or so and that was about all I could stand.
Reply #21 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Guys...argue the stance not the arguer...

Jorge ....the 'dilution of brand/image' as mentioned is a reality.  Just install an alternate 'shell' such as Litestep or Hoverdesk or Nextstart, etc....ones that 'can be' quite dissimilar to the Explorer shell as recognised by all and sundry...[desktop icons, taskbar, et al] and the first response you get is "WTF is that?......Linux maybe?"

MS is probably MORE than happy to see and expect to see the default windows environment, particularly when it comes to Users' assistance/queries, etc.

The [MS] would definitely NOT want to add to their existing dramas countering questions like "can I run Iconpackager under Litestep OTS2 with just the beta3 build of 24.7?"

For them, product recognition is [various colours of] Fisher Price toys, aka Luna.

However....

Having an established entity such as Stardock [and others] to rely on to enhance people's opportunities to add 'bling' as well as alternate methodology of GUI functionality is all to their benefit with none of the negatives [for MS] associated with D.I.Y.

Sense would dictate they continue to facilitate such GUI customizing as it certainly doesn't 'hurt'...

Reply #22 from WinCustomize Forums Top

And hey, most people are sheep, but well... if they weren't not so many people would be running windows to begin with

Ah...you see, there's not enough Propeller Hats in the world to enable everyone to be running Linux...and Apple is so anal-retentive about hardware it stifles creativity.

All that really leaves is Windows...hence its popularity...

Reply #23 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Hey Jafo!

the 'dilution of brand/image' as mentioned is a reality. Just install an alternate 'shell' such as Litestep or Hoverdesk or Nextstart, etc....ones that 'can be' quite dissimilar to the Explorer shell as recognised by all and sundry...[desktop icons, taskbar, et al] and the first response you get is "WTF is that?......Linux maybe?"


Yes, but why is that? Because Microsoft has never allowed Windows to be changed! People who don't know that Windows customization is a possibility will react like that because they don't know otherwise, they think the current flavor of the Windows UI cannot be modified. Now show the same desktop to someone who already knows about Windows customization and his reaction will be COMPLETELY different, because he is already aware of what can be done.

Think about it for a moment: people didn't stop recognizing Windows as being Windows when the UI changed from Windows 3.x to Win95. Nor when the UI changed again with XP. Nor will they when it changes yet again with Vista.

I'm not advocating a RADICAL departure from standard Windows in the sense that you should be able to turn the way the UI *works* upside down - that, IMO, would be a bad mistake. But there is nothing wrong in allowing the user to change the LOOK of Windows. All the things that make Windows instantly recognizable as Windows would still be there: the Start button, the taskbar, etc..., they would just *look* different.

Hope I'm explaining myself clearly...
Reply #24 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Think about it for a moment: people didn't stop recognizing Windows as being Windows when the UI changed from Windows 3.x to Win95.

No....they didn't....and the reason for that would be that the marketing/promotion of Win95 was the biggest single advertizing 'thing' ever on the planet. No-one alive was spared the eddykayshun...

IF [and it's a big 'if'] the skinning world had the same effort and money thrown into its marketing to all and sundry it's an absolute certainty the world would recognize 'ObjectDesktop, Hoverdesk, Litestep, Nextstart, etc' as intrinsically Windows, TOO.

Now....who's got a lazy squillion burning a hole in his pocket....to donate.....?....

Reply #25 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Don't know. But if I find someone, I'll split the $ with you.