Nat Friedman Quotes

We all love Linux, but it's also a fact that some people might not be able to migrate.

Taken as a whole, consumer technologies have made startling advances, but they still are not as easy to use as they should be.

Products have to be designed in a way that they are comprehensible.

There's a fundamental problem with how the software business does things. We're asking people who are masters of hard-edged technology to design the soft, human side of software as well. As a result, they make products that are really cool - if you happen to be a software engineer.

Good design to me is both appearance and functionality together. It's the experience that makes it good design.

Things that are ultimately complex must have a simple end user experience if they are to be successful.

Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run.

We want the average person to use it and think that it makes the experience of using Pinterest better.

I'm not a tech guy. I'm looking at the technology with the eyes of my customers, normal people's eyes.

Computers have become more friendly, understandable, and lots of years and thought have been put into developing software to convince people that they want and need a computer.

We've tried to simplify the site because some people found it too difficult to use and were intimidated by it.

People appreciate a good product, a stable system. They want to communicate easily and use a product that just works.

What matters is 'Have you done a better job of making our experiences feel like home on Windows?' That's our real goal, and that's what we're going to stay focused on.

A world-changing vision often necessitates a profound simplicity in the user experience.

Consumers have zero time for products that are not simple, intuitive, and attractive to use. This is especially true with Internet products, where clean and useful design is a prerequisite to keeping anyone on your site for more than 30 seconds.

What makes something simple or complex? It's not the number of dials or controls or how many features it has: It is whether the person using the device has a good conceptual model of how it operates.

Windows 95 is what Rube Goldberg would have designed if he'd studied cartooning at M.I.T.

The problem is not software 'friendliness'. It is conceptual clarity. A globe does not say, 'good morning'. It is simple and clear, not 'friendly'.

There are lots of Linux users who don't care how the kernel works but only want to use it is not only a tribute to how good Linux is, but it also brings up issues that I would never have thought of otherwise.

A user interface should be so simple that a beginner in an emergency can understand it within ten seconds.

I started Linux because I wanted to see it on the desktop... I do hope that the desktop people would try to work together ... and work more on the technology than trying to make the login screen look really nice.

I feel that it's lovely when, as a user, you're not aware of the complexity.

Microsoft loves Linux.

We try to develop products that seem somehow inevitable, that leave you with the sense that that's the only possible solution that makes sense.

Microsoft's new OS, Windows 7, may finally be a worthy successor to XP, eliminating the clutter of Vista and letting users get to what they want to use without the fuss. All this, while remaining compatible with their IT departments' demands for scalability and custom implementations.