Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Internet Tools, Books and Blogs
Where Blogger Fails (or, My Gripe with Internet Companies)
Have you heard the really cool news? There's a new Blogger for Word toolbar that lets you post directly to your Blogger-brand blog via the world's most prevalent word processor: Microsoft Word. However, it's not Mac compatible.I'm used to things not being Mac compatible, but this really irks me. Why? Because the Internet isn't a Windows world. It's not a Mac world. It's not a Unix or Linux world. The Internet is the great melting pot of Operating Systems. All computers want to work with the Internet and everyone on the Internet (interested in reaching the largest audience possible) wants to work with all computers.
Why then, do Internet companies, like Google, continue to release software and functionality that is tailor made for only one computing platform? If you are a huge Internet-based company who would seem to one day want to become the Internet OS (tm), then it *might* be in your best interest to ensure that everything that you release to interface with the Internet will work on the widest variety possible of computers. I'm tired of Google releasing Mac-compatability as an afterthought. I'm tired of there still not being a Picasa for Mac, and I'm very ticked off that this new cutting edge technology, this Blogger for Word, only works with old Word on old 2000 / XP. There's a much newer OS out here. Not Vista. Tiger. //rant off
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Zach said 9:52PM on 8-16-2005
Honestly, CK, I feel ya. I really think Google has dropped the ball on nearly everything lately. Blogger sucks anyway, calling the masses: switch to wordpress!
Anyway, I used to be pro google everything, but lately I, and many of my techie friends, have been slowly leaving the world of google. They provide a couple of great tools, but they are horrible in the customization department, and customization (and Mac support!) is something I value dearly. I want to customize how I get my content (ahem RSS, finally!) and I want to customize where I get my content (ahem Mac). If google can get back with the program, maybe I'll go back.
Reply
Ryan said 9:59PM on 8-16-2005
It's very reasonable to support one platform, when it's what's used by 90% of internet users. I love my mac, but while it might bother me, I can't fault anyone for not developing software equally for me, too.
Reply
Tom said 10:43PM on 8-16-2005
How many times do we have to hear this same broken record? Sadly, I believe more people use Linux than Macs, so this <<>> is a bit unwarranted. You can't always get what you want, and as a public company, google is justifiably worrying about their bottom line. If you want to get mad at someone, rant at Apple for not increasing its market share fast enough to attract the undying and immediate attention of companies like google.
Reply
Tony said 10:23PM on 8-16-2005
Why blame Google/Blogger when it's Microsoft's plug-in format that isn't cross-platform?
Reply
Gene said 10:26PM on 8-16-2005
I don't think it's reasonable to only support one OS when you're talking about Internet apps. These apps should be running on the company's server, not the client's computer. Anything accessible through a browser should adhere to standards that any computer can access... at least, that's the best-case scenario.
Sometimes I don't understand the minds of people who design for only one operating system, be it Mac or Windows or anything else. For example, MSNBC's video only works on Windows. What is the strategy here? Do they think that people will dump their Mac and rush out to buy a new computer... just to watch MSN video? All they're doing is alienating people, not creating new customers. Imagine how many more pageviews (and ad views) they'd have by opening up their video streams to an open standard?
Reply
Bloggator said 10:29PM on 8-16-2005
I don't know. I just can't seem to get myself worked up about the fact that I can't use bloatware like Microsoft Word to compose a post to a blog tool that doesn't give me half the flexibility of Wordpress.
It's like being upset that the ugly girl at school won't pay more attention to you.
Reply
Zach said 11:04PM on 8-16-2005
The crazy thing, at least in the case of the MSNBC video, is that is really pretty easy to make it work cross-platform - I mean it's video for goodness' sake! The Word plugin thing is different, but still. I blame both MS for not having a common plugin platform across operating systems (MS makes a good amount of money off of Office for Mac considering there isn't really a good alternative) and blogger/google for not putting in the extra time to develop a version for mac.
i guess we shouldn't expect much attention and love from these ginormous corporations....
Reply
John Connuck said 10:34PM on 8-16-2005
I don't care that much about this perticular plugin, but in general I agree. Its so easy now to make things for multiple platforms, why can't huge companies like googe make things for mac? I hava easy access to pc's, but I don't want to have to get up from my mac, especially to do things like use a plugin.
Reply
S? Nils Kuklau said 11:04PM on 8-16-2005
What does Blogger for Word do that MarsEdit (Mac-only) and ecto (Mac first, Windows second) can't? Their interfaces are tailored specifically for blogging.
Reply
LD said 11:12PM on 8-16-2005
I think this rant was made on emotion and not much logic. As pointed out, it's reasonable for a company to tailor their engineering efforts to 90% of the market rather than work just as hard to hit the other 10%. Doesn't make business sense.
Also, as pointed out, M$ is at fault for not making their software cross-platform compatible. I can use Firefox and its plugins on Linux, Mac, or XP. Even then, not all plugins are always cross-platform capable for one reason or another.
In an ideal world, all companies would make their software for all platforms. Actually, in an ideal world that doesn't even make business sense.
Reply
Twist said 12:18AM on 8-17-2005
Why the heck would you want to post to Blogger from slow, buggy Word anyway when you have options like Ecto? I know this is really about us Mac users being treated as third or maybe even fourth class citizens but you picked a pretty weak case to latch this unto.
Reply
paul said 12:27AM on 8-17-2005
I agree Google is a piece of crap when it comes to Mac compatibility, but it's not like this is anything new. Blogger works horribly with Macs, but the software is pretty much a joke anyway. Come on, Blogger doesn't even have arrows at the bottom of the pages to allow people to browse a blog easily.
Reply
ongnoi said 12:50AM on 8-17-2005
I may be offtrack here, but this is how I see it
--> iPod for mp3 player as to Windows for OS
Now I'm not saying that Windows is as good as iPod, only in term of market share as both of them are the dominated players in their own field. So yeah, if we don't complain about how many accessories out there for our iPods (I do have a mini), why bother with one more app available for Windows ?!
Reply
Chad Garrett said 10:50AM on 8-17-2005
Realistically, how hard it is to program any of google's apps. I think they could all be don e by some kid in their basement. The google gmail notifier is a good example. How many widgets are there for this?
Reply
Sean DL said 1:46AM on 8-18-2005
I think you should think of it this way:
Remember when Microsoft was going to make Microsoft websites IE only? What if one day Google/Blogger is Windows only? That is what this is about. Google is/should be nutural to OS, so why is a application that they make only for one OS?
It's just annoying. Like Tivo2go annoying. I can see it getting more annoying if Google's wi-fi network is Windows 2000/XP compatiable.
Reply
Chris K said 11:02AM on 8-17-2005
Have you used Picasa, Chad? Or Google Earth? Both are not simple apps.
CK, I think you're looking at the issue incorrectly. People don't write software for OSes. They write software for other people. And most people use Windows. ESPECIALLY the class of people who use Google apps (ie: not specifically nerds, but Everyman).
IT is very expensive. Google is trying to get the biggest bang from their IT buck, like every other company. Porting their software to OSX gives them a 10% larger customer base for a much higher amount of effort. Instead spending that effort on writing more Windows software might increase their customer base more than writing an OSX version of an existing app.
Google isn't stupid. Their project planners have determined the most beneficial software for THEM to write, and they're writing it. It's nothing personal against the Mac or Linux; if the money was there they'd surely jump on it. They just want to rule the world like every other software company, and with their IT budget, that doesn't include the Mac at this point.
That said, I'd love to have Picasa for the Mac. But I highly doubt Google is going to write an app that basically duplicates iPhoto in a market where the company that writes iPhoto has an almost fanatical following. Even if Picasa is a better app, it's not better ENOUGH.
Reply
Wheels said 12:42PM on 8-17-2005
I don't know, CK, I see your point, but, somehow, I just can't seem to get excited over it. If this was three years ago, or even last year, than yeah, I would've been all over this like a rabid dog. But now, I'm seeing a bigger picture emerging.
Up until recently, my biggest pet peeve about Mac was the lack of high-quality, low-cost applications - if I wanted professional-like photo editing software, the only way to go was to fork out the big bucks for Adobe, and it was that way for DTP software... Now, it seems to me as if the Macintosh world is awash with great applications that work great and won't cost you your first born.
The world is starting to wake up to the fact that writing apps for the Mac is rewarding and worth it, and if Google doesn't care to find this out for themselves, then that's their choice. Plus, it's M$ word. I've sworn off Office nine months ago, and haven't regretted it since. As has already been pointed out, there are better alternatives for blogging and for M$ Word.
Reply
rhys said 5:47PM on 8-17-2005
Why would you want to blog from Word anyway?
Reply
E-Rock said 1:52PM on 8-18-2005
I hate this sweet lemons attitude from my Mac community. 'Why would you use so-and-so when such-and-such exists?' Well, maybe just maybe I'd like the option! The Mac world is really a world of few options. I don't want to have to use ITunes to buy music! As a Yahoo fan, I love Yahoo's products, and maybe I'd like to use YME on my Mac! Maybe I'd like to watch music videos at one of the many websites that don't support mac! Have you been beaten into submission that you just accept whatever scraps are tossed your way? Mac users have to pay for Mars-edit or Ecto while PC users have better tools for free! Thank god I'm a multiple OS home.
Reply
Brona said 10:15AM on 8-20-2005
Well I'm not that into blogging so I can't say I care much about this. Heck I don't even own Office. But point taken from E-Rock. The Mac world often isn't a world of glorious choice but rather a world of quality and good design. What good is choice if you never use it? If choice matters more to you then quality then you are the archetype of a windows user. Google estimated how many Mac users that would use this feature if they gave it to them. They probably came up with the answer; not that many. I think they made the right decision. I hope they put there Mac developers on something more better. Something that more Mac users might actually use.
Reply