Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Teneb]

No, I don't think Windows phone is invulnerable. (Although you just said Windows, so I don't know if maybe you misread?)

Don't windows phones use a lightweight version of Windows 8?

[Sensei]

Some more news:

-Tim Sweeney (Epic Games Co-Founder, of Gears of War fame) says "Microsoft wants to monopolize games, we must fight it"
Given that Gears of War Ultimate is one of the big pulls of the Windows Store right now, it's surprising to see Tim Sweeney utterly turn on Microsoft regarding the platform. His chief complaint is that UWP apps, which Microsoft is pushing for games to be made in, aren't as easy to install outside of the Microsoft store because of the way Windows is designed, giving an unfair advantage. Installing apps that weren't downloaded on the store is called "side-loading" (like on a phone) and has to be enabled by digging into the UI and enabling apps to be sideloaded, which is not enabled by default. I don't know if it gives an android style "This is unsafe!" kind of message, but it sounds like that would mean that other stores couldn't conveniently sell UWP apps, because users would have to manually enable it first. He's also concerned that Microsoft will try to phase out the Win32 API by only enabled cutting-edge Windows features for UWP.

Microsoft has certainly followed this lead in technically exposing, but practically burying, options that let users escape from its force-bundled services. If you’ve tried to change your Windows 10 search engine, web browser, or movie player, or to turn off their invasive new lock-screen ads, Windows search bar Bing spam, and invasive “analytics”, you know what I’m talking about. It’s a deliberately anti-customer experience: the options are there, but good luck finding them.

The ultimate danger here is that Microsoft continually improves UWP while neglecting and even degrading win32, over time making it harder for developers and publishers to escape from Microsoft’s new UWP commerce monopoly. Ultimately, the open win32 Windows experience could be relegated to Enterprise and Developer editions of Windows.

Microsoft  responded:

The Universal Windows Platform is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, that can be supported by any store. We continue to make improvements for developers; for example, in the Windows 10 November Update, we enabled people to easily side-load apps by default, with no UX required.

So, it sounds like Microsoft already has allowed UWP apps to be loaded manually by default. Can someone with Win10 verify if this is in fact easily done or not? I'm not sure whether or not to take Sweeney seriously here. It seems like his chief complaint is just misinformed, but he is also an insider to Microsoft's business and might know specific details or about the attitude there in general. For now I'm not adding it to the OP since it doesn't really reveal any new facts about UWP if it's true that it's as easy to install as a win32 executable, but I couldn't pass this story up since it's so high-profile.

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

-Phil Spencer says playing games on PC is WAY TOO EXPENSIVE
Phil Spencer said (Video):

“The argument that people give me that ‘Hey I’m just gonna sell my Xbox One and play all these games on my PC,’ I get the emotion in that argument,” Spencer replies. “Frankly, from a financial perspective, the most cost effective way to go play these games is to own an Xbox One. The graphics card alone is probably 2x what the Xbox [costs] to run at a similar resolution.”

Here's a good article on how that's objectively wrong, but you probably knew that. In short though, a card that costs twice as much as the XB1 can run games with the graphics cranked up at 4K, and a computer that costs as much as one of the XB1's with a 1TB hard drive can outperform an XB1. Phil Spencer did apologize on twitter (which is in the article) but surely he must have known that this was wrong when he said it, if he knows anything about the PC market he's been promising to win back. Of course the IGN guy interviewing didn't question it. So, he was (maybe deliberately?) spreading misinformation about how PC gaming is more expensive; in other words, Microsoft will tell you lies to get you to buy an Xbox so they can get the 30% share of game sales they don't get if you buy a game through Steam. Or as Forbes put it:

It’s misinformation spread by the head of Xbox, propagated by an outlet that chose not to question him, and likely believed by the majority of people hearing it who aren’t properly educated about PC gaming or the costs involved.
...
It’s incredibly difficult now for me to believe Spencer’s message of unifying PC and Xbox gamers, or trying to cater to the needs of PC gamers when he’s so adamantly trying to keep people on Xbox One.
...
My issue is spreading misinformation to millions of people, and then apologizing or backpedaling in a tweet that a fraction of that audience will see.

[Ludorum Rex]

Note for non-developers: "UWP" is the Universal Windows Platforms - the programming interface used to create applications compatible with Windows Store, Win10 and with a Metro/Modern. Previously Win32 and .NET (which was basically just a wrapper around Win32) were the available interfaces.

The main issue I have with UWP and the Windows Store is that they seem to focus more on creating business through a semi-monopoly rather than through simply having a superior product. The crazy focus on wanting a store sort of made sense when they were trying to keep Windows Phone alive and reduce the app shortage that was one reason they simply could not get a decent market share. But now that they've given up on grabbing a piece of the phone market - Microsoft seems hellbent on creating a revenue stream on their desktop OS that is similar to the mobile app stores.

That is simply not going to work. It is not that a store is useless or unwanted product - Steam, GoG, EA Origin, UPlay, etc. are evidence to the contrary. But the store has to compete on being a good product in itself. The Windows Store is not a very good product, and there doesn't seem to be much focus on improving the usability, pricing model, developer support, etc. UWP is Microsoft using the API itself as a vehicle to create store activity.

As long as win32 exists, this will not work. The UWP API is a poorly documented mess with some very opinionated design decisions - specifically the usage of a XAML-based paradigm. A good OS API should be much lower level, and the MVVM, MVC, MVP, or whatever UI programming paradigm is in vogue, should implemented by libraries on top of this API. UWP is also squarely aimed at "light-weight" apps - I mean something as simple as having multiple windows is borderline impossible with UWP. Restricting access to the file system is a problem for a lot of applications, even if it has some security benefits, as the chosen model is clunky and inflexible.

Microsoft used to be about giving developers incredibly good development tools - everything from the low-level win32 API to the rapid-application development VB and .NET environments was about empowering developers. A hack with very basic programming knowledge could create very usable line of business applications with VB, and the flexibility of win32 allowed pretty much anything to built with sufficient skill, even if the C-based API was clunky and old school.

UWP is too restrictive and opinionated for the low-level bitwizard, while also being too complicated and with poor visual tooling for the RAD hacks. It is really great for a the subset of programmers who either love MVVM/XAML or who have the programming skill and chutzpah to bend those technologies to their will. In my 20 year experience of programming, that's a very small group. The really poor documentation doesn't help. Browsing the UWP docs is weird experience - it reads like marketing material, more than knowledge base for developers. It is disorganized, messy, full of dead links and dated information. Most curious programmers are going to give up within 10 minutes and go back to .NET, win32 C++, JavaScript, etc.

If MS wants to make money from a Store, they need to build a great store. Better than Steam. A lot better, since Steam has an advantage in the huge games libraries gamers already have on Steam. They should have learned from the mobile market failure, that playing catch-up is hard.

At the same time, and completely unrelated, they need to keep their OS relevant to users by making sure developers have a good API and users a good experience. Otherwise Chromebooks, Macs, desktop Linux, the inevitable desktop Android and even SteamOS (both technically Linux I know), will start making a big dent in their business. And if they lose their dominant position on the desktop, that will probably mean the end of Microsoft as we know it.

It is downright puzzling why they are not spending more resources on making the Store a great product. I sadly suspect the organization is completely broken and horribly mismanaged. I do not think we will see anything great from Microsoft again unless they go through an existential crisis and massive reorganization.

[itisnotlogical]

I don't think the long-fabled retail Linux PC (as in an actual mainstream Linux distro, not Linux-derived as Android is) is going to be coming any time soon. Among people who even know it exists, it has a reputation of being for advanced users and techno-wizards only—and rightfully so. When I was a new Linux user installing Ubuntu for the first time on my netbook, I had no idea that Broadcom network stuff wouldn't play nicely, because I'm used to things actually working on the first try on established operating systems. Nothing endeared me more to Linux than asking for help and getting replies like "Why do you use Broadcom you freedom-hating piece of shit?" and "go back to your babby OS". And that's just one of many hardware, software and community issues I had during my brief time as a Linux user.

[BigD145]

Some more news:

-Tim Sweeney (Epic Games Co-Founder, of Gears of War fame) says "Microsoft wants to monopolize games, we must fight it"

More platforms = more sales = Tim Sweeney

Less platforms = more Microsoft sales = Microsoft

[Aklyon]

UWP is also squarely aimed at "light-weight" apps - I mean something as simple as having multiple windows is borderline impossible with UWP.

This is not a goddamn phone microsoft, no matter how much you insist on trying to act like one.

[Shadowlord]

Browsing the UWP docs is weird experience - it reads like marketing material, more than knowledge base for developers. It is disorganized, messy, full of dead links and dated information. Most curious programmers are going to give up within 10 minutes and go back to .NET, win32 C++, JavaScript, etc.

That's what I did. Well, now I'm learning Go, but w/e. :V

So, it sounds like Microsoft already has allowed UWP apps to be loaded manually by default. Can someone with Win10 verify if this is in fact easily done or not? I'm not sure whether or not to take Sweeney seriously here. It seems like his chief complaint is just misinformed, but he is also an insider to Microsoft's business and might know specific details or about the attitude there in general. For now I'm not adding it to the OP since it doesn't really reveal any new facts about UWP if it's true that it's as easy to install as a win32 executable, but I couldn't pass this story up since it's so high-profile.

Yes, you can. This explains it (and how to do development stuff): https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/get-started/enable-your-device-for-development

You obviously need that capability for developing UWP apps in the first place.

Spoiler: The setting (click to show/hide)

[Sensei]

A developer license is no longer required for each device that you want to use to develop, install or test your app. You just enable a device once for these tasks from the settings for the device. That's it. No more renewing your developer licenses every 30 or 90 days!

Okay, it sounds like Microsoft is saying the fact that everyone is allowed to do this at all is some kind of big gift, compared to having to pay for it. You still need to go dig around in the settings and see a message that says "These settings are intended for development use only." It seems like this would make it extremely difficult for Steam of GOG (for example) to sell UWP apps. Furthermore, it means the Microsoft quote saying you can side-load apps with no UX seems to be plainly false, since you do have to go into the settings (I assume UX means the same as UI, and not one of their downloadable UX upgrade packs or whatever). Again, if other retailers have to ask customers to go dig in the settings and enable developer options to install UWP apps from them, that gives the Windows Store a massive advantage, baked into windows. That might be easy for you or me but it's a big roadblock to reaching hundreds of thousands of general consumers. It looks to me like Tim Sweeney's accusations that part of the purpose of UWP is to force customers onto the Windows Store are well-founded. Microsoft's intentions must be judged by Microsoft's actions, not Microsoft's words.

[Zangi]

Don't think anyone should be taking a Corporate Marketing team's words at face value anyways...

[Shadowlord]

A developer license is no longer required for each device that you want to use to develop, install or test your app. You just enable a device once for these tasks from the settings for the device. That's it. No more renewing your developer licenses every 30 or 90 days!

Okay, it sounds like Microsoft is saying the fact that everyone is allowed to do this at all is some kind of big gift, compared to having to pay for it.

Not sure if serious or actually trolling...

I have an app that I compiled myself and put on my phone. I had to use some program (iirc it came with either visual studio or the Windows phone 8.1 development SDK) to register it to my Microsoft account or something like that. Every so often the license that generated expires, and I have to run the thing with my phone contracted and unlocked again.

I've never had to pay Microsoft anything. I have not seen any setting on my phone to just unlock this for good, either, but will assume that's because I'm still running wp8.1.

[Sensei]

Yeah, Microsoft said that they removed the need for a development license in November for Windows 10. I assume that means they've not done so for Windows 8.

[Beggars` Sect]

Couple of things:

- to start with, it really is way too early to paint an Armageddon-ish picture as it is in the OP. Do you really believe MS is gonna go to war with just about everybody by forbidding mods, breaking GSYNC and other boys toys and so on? They usually move with a grace and speed of an elephant in a china shop so I`d really wait a bit before declaring the end of the world.

- the funniest bit; sure, MS is trying to lock shizz down - finally. That`s because everybody else already did. Accusing them of being corporate is like accusing Pope of being papal - no M$hit, Sherlock. In fact I`m surprised it took them so long.

MS was always the whipping boy of the IT world, because people like to see the world in black and white and need heroes and villains in their narratives. Funnily enough, they were never really that bad - up till W10, all the OSs were pretty cool (disregarding the tech issues) meaning that I could use them as base shells filled with 3rd party software. No phoning home, no forced BS.

Meanwhile, when Apple, Valve, Google and such were building their disgusting little (oh, I wish) fiefdoms nobody uttered a word because these are cool brands. People complaining about PC gaming becoming a "walled garden" crack me up, seriously. Go on and try to play an AAA game (sans Witcher) without having to log on to some poxy service, see how you fare. In fact, consoles in this regard are (were? dunno bout this gen) much more open - I could go to a shop, buy a game and play it, without asking anybody`s permission.

[Aklyon]

Apple's thing has always been 'no, use ours, its better' though. OSX is only for macs and they make their own macs (with higher prices), Theres only one iphone (since they're the only ones who make it), and same with the ipad. You can't even compile things for osx without a mac apparently.

Besides Steamworks-heavy games, there is a large number of games that you could easily run without steam that are on sale on it, and the steambox still seems like more of a joke than anything particularly good the last I'd heard of it.

MS isn't allowed to lock things up because they haven't been locked up, pretty much. Its why they try to drag the world towards newer, arguably good OSes by making new directx versions.

[Ludorum Rex]

Meanwhile, when Apple, Valve, Google and such were building their disgusting little (oh, I wish) fiefdoms nobody uttered a word because these are cool brands. People complaining about PC gaming becoming a "walled garden" crack me up, seriously. Go on and try to play an AAA game (sans Witcher) without having to log on to some poxy service, see how you fare. In fact, consoles in this regard are (were? dunno bout this gen) much more open - I could go to a shop, buy a game and play it, without asking anybody`s permission.

I don't think it is a fair comparison. Apple and Google did their thing on mobile devices - I am not a fan of the application ecosystem on either of those platforms, but it is still a completely different situation compared to a desktop OS. Indeed, Apple has gotten lots of flak for their iTunes stuff and attempts to wall in their desktop OS - specifically in regards to media formats.

Valve is a 3rd party who had a major stake in reviving a dying PC gaming market. They have been decently benign in their business approach, offline availability, ability to use codes from store-bought games, ability to use codes purchased directly from the developers, very decent developer income splits (small studios got a far smaller piece of the pie in the physical distribution days - as in more than ten times less). I haven't seen Valve do anything to secure exclusives. Of course they are not angels - and they have made dubious decisions, but the fact that they don't control the OS makes a world of difference.

We have never had a desktop OS where the OS vendor controls application sales, and I cannot believe they actually expect this to happen. They "just" want a bigger piece of the market, but the current store, and the UWP technology in general, is just not good enough. To add insult to injury, instead of fixing the store and the UWP API, they keep making these weird campaigns to get more developers on board. With the MS history of ditching APIs, I can understand the reluctance when there are perfectly viable alternatives with a proven track record. Developers have not forgotten MFC, Silverlight, Windows Phone, and all the other technologies left to rot, as MS moved on to their latest attempt to leverage their desktop dominance to get a bigger web/mobile market presence.

[Chiefwaffles]

"We have never had a desktop OS where the OS vendor controls application sales"