Anybody notice that microsoft refers to apple's device by name, but not it's own?
The microsoft dude says it all "This device is created to go head to head with the iPod Touch".
1. It is made to imitate the Touch. Microsoft didn't dream up a Zune of their dreams, they went, uh, what's that one that's doing really well? Yeah, we wanna make one of those - maybe it will do really well!" I don't doubt that they'll make a nice device, but they miss that what makes the Touch sell is not that it follows a magic formula of features and style, but that it put together it's excellent set, with an overall vision behind it, for the first time - it defined the category. Imitation cannot take over definition.
2. They think of it as "a device". "Devices," like "products" are what managers looking for markets they can make money on see. They are generic, things for others to buy while we make a profit kinds of objects, to be compared with other such generic objects. Maybe distinct styling, or brand identity, or something like that, is an important part of selling it - but that's for the marketing people to create, to make it a successful product. If he called it by name, I might believe people at microsoft were really interested in it, in what they could do, in how people would use it. But calling it a device shows that it was a means to an end, at microsoft.
3. Apple creates the reference "device" by thinking about it as something, getting engaged, and microsoft does not. Microsoft may have good inventions, may make tons of money, but.... something is lacking. Anybody notice that he referred to apple's device by name, but not his own?
