When tech innovations bite users in the butt

Editor's note: This article, "When tech innovations bite users in the butt," was originally published by InfoWorld.com.

Everyone loves the rapid pace of technological change -- until disruption rears it head and bites them.

In recent weeks, we've seen Google drop support for IE8, a move that leaves millions of Windows XP users out in the cold. We've watched as Apple confounded users and accessory makers by radically redesigning its dock connector, then offering a bulky, not fully compatible adapter for a fairly hefty price. Mozilla stuck it to business users last year by putting its Firefox browser on a rapid release schedule that made it next to impossible to qualify for the enterprise; the open source group eventually backed off after a firestorm of criticism.

Then there's Microsoft. Like the other outfits, it had reason to make radical changes. But in dumping the Start button and other critical Windows UI elements in Windows 8, it's tossing out the huge investment in time and training that businesses and users alike have made to become proficient with the operating system and related applications.

"Changes happens in every era. You could have written about this five years ago," says IDC analyst Bob O'Donnell. "When people don't see the benefit of a major change, they get upset."

O'Donnell is correct. Change in technology is hardly new, and yes, some people were upset when they could no longer run their beloved DOS versions of WordPerfect. But whether change has been disruptive, as it has with Apple's dock connector, or generationally, as it has with Windows, the need to consider the people who foot the bill -- the users -- is more important than ever.

Microsoft's split approach: Long-lasting apps, but major OS disruptions

For all its deserved popularity and design genius, Apple has never gone out of its way to smooth the bumps when it revs its technology. How many users wondered what to do with their data when the Mac no longer had a floppy drive? Or what about people who can't run the latest flavor of OS X because their MacBook is a couple generations behind?

It's ironic that Microsoft, with its notoriously user-unfriendly software, cared so much for its installed base that you could keep your old PC for years -- even decades -- and run key applications. OK, you might have to add memory, and after a while that 500MHz Pentium didn't have the horsepower to push Windows, but businesses could take their time to adjust.

But Microsoft's assurance of very long periods of application compatibility hasn't translated to Windows. Case in point: Windows XP. When Microsoft moved to sunset the OS four years ago, InfoWorld's petition to save it was signed by more than 210,000 users from around the globe. Indeed, the 11-year-old Windows XP is still the most popular flavor of the world's dominant operating system. According to data from Web analytics firm Net Applications, Windows XP captured a 42.7 percent share of the market, compared to Windows 7's 42.2 percent. By the way, those numbers were compiled just two months ago.

The switch to Vista was such a moment of mass upset. Users did not see the benefit of moving to Vista -- so they didn't. Two generations later, Microsoft is pushing another disruptive change in operating systems, and unless Windows 8 proves it's not Windows Frankenstein, it will be many years until businesses adopt it.

I give Microsoft some credit, though. It has repeatedly pushed back the date on which it will end support for XP, which now won't happen until 2014. Mozilla too reached an accommodation with business by essentially forking Firefox, creating a business version that changes very slowly and is supported for much longer than the consumer edition.

Apple's greedy connector ploy

Apple, on the other hand, is doing nothing of the sort. Changing the connector on an iPhoneis obviously not even close to the magnitude of forcing a change in an operating system, but it's still quite disruptive. Apple probably made the change to make room inside the slimmer iPhone 5, but it has never fully explained the benefits of the new design.

The drawbacks, though, are very obvious, and I don't think Apple could have handled the issue much worse. In fact, Apple's treatment was so poor, I'm thinking of lowering the B+ grade I gave to CEO Tim Cook last month.

The new Lightning dock will force the millions of iPhone users who plug the device into everything from automobile dashboards to home stereo equipment to buy an adapter. Apple could have sold such an adapter cheaply, but instead it's forcing users to spend $29 to $39 on top of $199 for the 16GB iPhone 5 -- an additional 15 percent. IDC's O'Donnell figures the adapter probably doesn't cost Apple more than $5 or so, which means it's making a very nice profit at the users' expense.

Actually, many users (including me) will spend more than $29 because they'll need multiple devices. I plug my iPhone into my Bose SoundDock and my car radio, so I'll need one for each. I'm lucky -- some new car owners won't be able to use the adapter because it's simply too big to fit the dashboard connection. Hello? Are they supposed to get a new car?

If Apple felt the need to change the connector, why not do what many phone manufacturers have done and switch to the MiniUSB connector that the European Union essentially got everyone but Apple to adopt as a standard? Maybe there's a good reason not go that route, but Apple hasn't said. (It didn't reply to my emails asking for an explanation.)

To me, that's just plain arrogance.

I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here (Add a comment) so that all our readers can share them, or reach me at bill@billsnyder.biz. Follow me on Twitter at BSnyderSF.

Read more of Bill Snyder's Tech's Bottom Line blog and follow the latest technology business developments at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.

Subscribe to the Best of TechHive Newsletter

Comments