As I mentioned in my previous post, Microsoft have launched a preview version of their upcoming music store that is expected to launch in October 2004. So, I thought I’d take a look and see what it’s like. What I found caused me some surprise. It’s quite frankly a disaster. But my comments aren’t directed towards the music, pricing or compatibility. What surprises me is the design:

The site is dominated by text. All text, except reviews, is the same blue colour and its font size is quite small. There is no distinction between linked and non-linked text. You cannot tell whether some text is linked unless you rollover it. This error is taken further in that there is no visual distinction between a link to an album, or a link to an artist. Most notably, the ‘Similar Albums’ and ‘Listeners also Liked’ links which alternate between album and artist, without distinction. In constrast, the iTunes Music Store uses a combination of bold text (for album or track titles), normal text (for artist) and clear labelling of sections.

Aside from the text, the graphic design is amateur. It doesn’t encourage people to browse, in fact you want to spend as little time as possible at the site. Grab what you want, then get out. Ugh. Look at the size of the album covers: tiny little things.

So let’s pretend that I want an album. I click on its link and I get directed to the album. But what’s this? I can’t always buy the album. iTunes gets around problems of missing tracks by allowing the purchase of a partial album. The Microsoft store sometimes allows this. Otherwise you have to buy the CD.

Which brings me onto the ‘Shop for CD’ link. This is actually a lazy search link to Amazon rather than a specific ASIN link. Very beta huh? So there’s no guarantee the link will find the album you are viewing. Why are Microsoft linking to Amazon, are they desperate for scraps of dollars? Furthermore, it actually takes people away from the Microsoft site! Look at the ‘Sponsored Sites’ area: an arbitrary selection of links – of which Microsoft has no control over. So you might find links to other music download sites. Hilarious. This is intentional though. Microsoft really want to make money from advertising on their store. It’s a big driver for them.

What about searching? Well, there’s that search link at the top of the page. It would be nice to be able to just enter some text, then press Return. Ah, but that doesn’t work on some browsers. So you have to go clicking on the button instead. Again this is lazy. On to the search results: I get a selection of matches which are categorised, which is useful, but then I have to click on a link to look at full details. These details are then paginated. Pagination is a good thing for HTML sites and it can cut down on server load. However, compared to the simple scrollable, sortable list of iTunes it’s a bit clunky.

Browsing. Mmmm.. Sorry. There’s no simple way of just getting at the tracks on the site, and popping up and down a Genre / Artist / Album hierarchy. You have to go poking around or searching. We’ve already seen how searching works. Go to any physical CD store and you have a Genre / Artist / Album hierarchy. So why not have it on this store? What kind of requirements analysis have Microsoft done? Go to HMV for Dance music. Sure you’ll probably find a selection of ‘happening’ music, but somewhere there will be a complete selection of what they have for sale in that genre. All nicely sorted for you.

The concept of Essential Songs is interesting, but it’s the first port of call rather than Top Albums. It seems the emphasis that Microsoft is placing is on individual songs rather than albums. A subtle difference from iTunes.

Overall this is a pitiful attempt at a music store, online or offline! There’s no sense of community. No style. In fact it feels like a second rate programming exercise. It might be alright for a university project. But this is the new frontier of e-Commerce and should be treated as such. It’s really important to get it right. This is just plain wrong.

Yesterday, Microsoft launched a preview of their on-line music store. I’ll not write anymore about this at the moment. However, what is clear is that many are concerned that Microsoft could gain dominance over this fledgling business, perhaps with a lower quality product. Microsoft however seem to have indicated that they are not trying to steal customers from the iTunes Music Store – instead they’re trying to bring new customers to the party.

Funny thing is: Microsoft cannot steal customers. I’d like to know what the percentage of people who use iTunes actually listen to their purchased on their iPod. I’d bet it’s quite a high figure. If you don’t want the immediacy of buying – downloading – going out and listening to stuff – you can buy a CD. But, there’s quite a rush to know that minutes ago you hadn’t got this tune, then wham it’s in your pocket. Literally.

Microsoft can’t steal iTunes’ customers because since the iTunes Music Store only plays with iPods, people would need to be able to use their iPods with the Microsoft store. But, it can’t be done. iPods don’t play WMA format, and if you have an iPod unless you rip to CD and convert (on a PC), anything bought on the Microsoft store stays on your PC. Funnily enough Microsoft include a dig at Apple’s proprietary format (FairPlay tagged AAC) on their own site, almost to plead with iTunes’ customers to demand iPods that play WMA. But, the WMA format is more proprietary (if there can be such a term).

There are ultimately two choices for consumers. One is related to the store of choice, the other the choice of portable digital music player. At the moment Apple offers the best experience for buying music on-line bar none. Furthermore, the iPod still beats other music players. Even my three year old 1st generation iPod does this. I am however concerned that in the long run, inferior products and inferior usability will prevail. But I’m more concerned that it actually happens. That is, why do people buy things that are just okay?

The British government has announced new plans to make the fines for speeding on the road more fair. Rather than have a standard fine and points endorsement regardless of how much over the limit one drives, they’ve decided to provide a rated system. So, the closer to the speed limit, the less your fine and points endorsement. First time offenders who speed in the lowest rating can take a speed awareness course (at their own expense) to forgo the lowest two point endorsement.

Does it matter how fast someone is over the speed limit? Not to me it doesn’t. Driving a vehicle is one huge responsibility and a huge risk. I believe that the fines proposed (from £40 to £100) are still woefully lower if one considers the overall cost of running a vehicle. Even disqualifications tend to be for a specified period rather than for life, then all is okay and off you go again.

We have ‘Twenty’s Plenty’ schemes near where I live. This shows that even the minimum speed limit is well in excess of what is sometimes appropriate. I don’t believe that are fines for travelling at 30 miles per hour. Which is a pity.

Because:

• if hit by a car travelling at 40 mph, almost 90% pedestrians are killed;
• at 30 mph, almost half of pedestrians are killed and many are seriously injured;
• at 20 mph, only 1 in 20 pedestrians are killed and most injuries are slight.