Last night I was ready to go to
bed when I decided to quickly send someone an email from my Yahoo account,
which I use for business. I needed to give them someone else’s email address so
I went to my personal Hotmail account to look the address up. That took me four
times longer and many more clicks than usual. Why? Because the Hotmail account
that I’ve used since 1996 was dead and gone. It had been commandeered and replaced
by Outlook.
For a few months every time I
logged in, a popup would ask if I’d like to try Outlook. I skipped over it. No,
I wouldn’t like to try it. I’ve already tried it at work and I find it
cumbersome and frustrating. It is not intuitive. It is more trouble than it’s
worth.
But, Microsoft wasn’t really
asking if I wanted to change to Outlook. It was telling me that I was getting
Outlook whether I wanted it or not. My answer didn’t matter. “No” doesn’t mean
“no” to Microsoft.
The day after the invasion, I Googled
“Outlook Hotmail switchover,” to research the situation. The results fell into
three categories: business writers gushing praise for Outlook, coverage of the massive
March Outlook outage, and disgruntled Hotmail users who want their old accounts
back.
The business writers focused on
how Outlook will be competitive with Gmail and Yahoo. They are giddy about
Outlook’s capabilities to connect more easily to I-phones, send massive amounts
of photos, etc. But their job is to talk up anything new, and to convince
readers that new is automatically
better. They are not unbiased
journalists. They are like movie reviewers, who rarely give any new technology
less than four stars. I got the impression they had lifted the promotional copy
directly from Microsoft press releases and pasted it into their articles.
Pay close attention to the doublespeak
in this article: “Microsoft, it is worth noting, always gave Hotmail users the
option to move to the new Outlook.com, but it will now actively prompt users to
do so and also email them to remind them that they can switch.” Now Microsoft
is “actively prompting users” sort of like how fascist dictators “actively
prompt” citizens to get onboard with the new regime.
The second group of Google hits
are articles about the Outlook outage in mid-March that was a result of overheated
servers. The outage left Outlook.com and Hotmail users without access to their
email for almost 16 hours. Whenever there are massive technology switchovers,
there are glitches. The coverage of the outage was a little vague about
overheated servers, and included the fact that Microsoft apologized.
The last group of Outlook/Hotmail
hits is the one that I fall into—unhappy former Hotmail users. The discussion
centers on why they hate Outlook. I’ve had to use Outlook for one of my jobs.
It is not user friendly. It is not as intuitive as Hotmail was. I waste a lot
of time trying to navigate around it.
Setting aside the whole debate
over whether Outlook is better than Hotmail, or Gmail, or Yahoo, what I find
disturbing is the way Microsoft handled the coercion, oops, the “conversion.”
Outlook.com’s senior director, Dharmesh Mehta said, "We are trying to push
people who have gotten lazy and comfortable with an email service that may not
be all that great and help show them what email can really do for them."
So, because your customer is
happy with your product, that customer is lazy and comfortable? When did
insulting the customer become a good way to get them to try your new product?
Maybe Mehta is not arrogant or patronizing. Despite the fact that I’ve never
met Mehta, maybe he’s right and I am lazy. I don’t have the time or inclination
to take tutorials to learn a whole new system that has features I won’t
use—like the ability to send 100s of photos more easily. I don’t want to work
hard at my email. I have other things to work hard at.
I have four email accounts: two Hotmail
accounts on msn.com, one on Yahoo, and one on Gmail. By far, Hotmail was the
one that I used the most. At 11:00 the other night when I discovered that Outlook
had taken over my screen, did I jump at the chance to take the tutorial to
learn the new system? Nope. Did I appreciate the new streamlined screen? Nope.
I was angry that my toolbar was gone and I couldn’t find my contact list.
Was I impressed with the ads?
No. I was frustrated that if I miscalculated slightly in sliding the bar down
through my inbox, I was suddenly in the middle of an advertisement for a
product I wasn’t interested in. When I went to the ad settings, there isn’t an
option to block ads, only the self-assured option that assumes I want to add
more preferences to what kinds of ads I like to see.
Here are some examples from the
“Welcome” email from the Outlook team showing how counter-intuitive Outlook is
to me. “To compose a new email, click "New". To add a recipient,
click "To", or click the box just below it.” Why does “New” mean compose a new email
message? Couldn’t it mean you’ve just received a new email message? Or add a
new contact? Why doesn’t it just say “compose?” Why does “To” mean add a new
recipient? Wouldn’t “add contact” make more sense? Oh, they mean who I’m
sending the email message “to.”
“To Print an email On the main menu bar, click the
"..." symbol.” An ellipsis, or a series of dots usually
indicates an intentional omission of a word, sentence or whole section from the
original text being quoted. Why do three dots mean “print” on Outlook? And why
is that a better icon than a picture of a printer or the word “Print?” Why
didn’t Microsoft stick to the icons they used in Hotmail, or in Word?
Maybe eventually I’d get used to
Outlook, but is it worth the trouble? It’s easier for me to use my Yahoo and
Gmail accounts which I already know how to use than to spend time out looking for my messages and contacts
on Outlook. The fact that there are 37,900,000 links to sites with instructions
on how to use the new Outlook email confirms that it is not intuitive, and tells
me that a lot of people who already have Yahoo or Gmail accounts, like me, will
probably just abandon Hotmail/Outlook.
Microsoft has spent $30 million and
may go up to $90 million advertising Outlook. That’s throwing a whole lot of
money to get people to try a FREE service, especially considering 350 million current
users are being forced onto Outlook anyway. One of the articles about the
switch said, “Microsoft is so confident it has the Internet’s best email
service that it is about to spend at least $30 million to send its message
across the U.S.” That doesn’t seem confident to me. Just because Outlook spends
a lot of money to keep saying it is better, doesn’t mean it IS better.
Why didn’t they spend $30
million asking hotmail users what they liked about hotmail? Why didn’t they
take some of that money and research which features Gmail and Yahoo users like
and add those to Hotmail? They could have left the original Hotmail intact and
named the new email site LavaMail or something clever to show people how much
better it was. What does “Outlook” have to do with communicating or sending and
receiving information?
Clicking the help button in my Outlook
account I found this answer to “Why can’t I switch back to Hotmail?”
Thanks for being a loyal Hotmail customer. As part of the transition from Hotmail to Outlook.com—the next generation of free email from Microsoft—there is no longer an option to switch
back.
Your Hotmail address and password, saved emails, contacts, calendars, and rules
were automatically moved to your new Outlook.com inbox. You have the option to keep your @Hotmail address and/or get an @Outlook.com address.
We think Outlook.com builds on the great tools in Hotmail, and we hope you’ll agree. You get all the features you loved in Hotmail, like Sweep and one-click Unsubcribe, along with new features like
archiving and a refreshed design. Outlook.com helps you see and do more from your inbox
quickly. The streamlined interface shows more messages at a glance, and the new
toolbar helps you complete everyday email tasks with fewer clicks.
Mulling over why I was so angry
at Microsoft’s attitude, I re-read the message from the Outlook team, and I keyed
in on the words “customer” and “free.” Did I really have any right to be angry
about a product that I wasn’t paying for? Probably not. We “loyal Hotmail customers”
don’t have the leverage of threatening to take our money and spend it on
someone else’s email service. And that explains why Microsoft can do whatever
it pleases.
The “customer” that they have to please is any company buying
advertising on Outlook. So, even though email is such an integral part of
people’s daily lives, the users are only indirectly figured into this equation.
The more users Outlook has, the more they can charge for advertising space.
So
Outlook is similar to the three original TV networks: ABC, NBC, and CBS. Those
three lost their clout because cable diluted the market, and since they were complacent
due to the limited competition they were used to, they didn’t change quickly
enough to keep their audiences. Outlook isn’t guilty of that mistake.
While
I understand Microsoft’s motivation, I still don’t like the way the change was
handled. But this seems to be the new way that business in America handles
transitions. Facebook regularly changes things, like adding Timeline, by going
through a period of begging you to try something new, and then just forcing it
on you whether you want it or not.
It’s
not just for-profit businesses using this new tactic. I attended many local
school district meetings that proclaimed they wanted the public’s input into
situations, but they had already made the decision about what we were discussing.
The city I live in held a meeting for our neighborhood residents over
installing traffic calming devices. Even though there were some people opposed
to it, and even though they said there would be a vote on it, the next morning
spray painted lines appeared on the road where the speed humps were being
installed.
What
offends me is when businesses and government agencies act like they value your
opinion, and are offering you a choice, when that’s not true at all. Why don’t
they just be up front and announce that they’re upgrading, or trying something
new, or downsizing, explain why, and tell us when it will happen? Why the song and dance? Why act like they care about our opinion
when we’re really just numbers?
Microsoft
says that over one-third of Outlook.com’s 60 million active users have switched
from Gmail. 306 million users have already chosen Gmail, and 293 million chose
Yahoo, voluntarily. I couldn’t find any data on how much overlap there is to
account for people like me with multiple email services. Time will tell how
many will “migrate” to Outlook.
My Magic 8-Ball predicts: Outlook Not So Good.