Jump to content

Microsoft's UWP and the future of open PC gaming


HarryBizzle
 Share

Recommended Posts

@SozzlyJoe, did an at mention as I replied in a different thread.

 

8 minutes ago, SozzlyJoe said:

I think the idea is that MS are like a over-active toddler, getting obsessed with one thing but then suddenly getting distracted by the new shiny thing and dropping the old one at a moments notice.

The new thing is "we want to be like Apple with a big app store!"

And they are looking at what leverage to get people onto their app store, and it's all their big franchises like Gears and Forza, and poor old Fable Legends doesn't get a look in.

 

Anyway, this isn't the thread for this, is it? This is about the unfortunate events at Lionhead. This should be in the UWP thread or something.

 

What? Their core market, PCs, is being decimated by portable devices. Google are quite happy to wrap their ecosystem up within Android and Chrome, and we needn't even discuss Apple stuff on Windows. So developing their own ecosystem, which benefits users in some ways, is hardly a flash in the pan, is it?

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again - people want Windows to be exactly what it is, without being exactly what it is because it's too insecure/blah blah malware, and it must also slowly ride itself out into oblivion, like this forum.

 

What they're doing is aligning to a new CEO's strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody else posted some interesting links from somebody who did the detective work, his conclusion being you should set it to basic if you value your privacy.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-telemetry-secrets/

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/is-windows-10-telemetry-a-threat-to-your-personal-privacy

 

 

I suppose it is all about the boiled frog/slippery slope. WinNT didn't use to have telemetry, and every single version since Vista (I assume) has started doing it more and more. I certainly never noticed any in XP, which is still my favourite variant of WinNT. It had the superior reliability of Win2K/NT 4.0 but it played games, best of both worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree with Stu. Windows has never been the super open platform - that's Linux - Windows was as open as it needed to be to ensure a third-party ecosystem of software. But closed platforms are capable of a lot of the same stuff that open platforms are - consoles are increasingly getting mods and user made content, but can also offer a more consistent experience.

 

Ultimately this doesn't really have anything to do with the company "behaving well" or "behaving badly" and all comes down to whether you prefer open or closed or somewhere in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, MS are using the leverage of their games (the type of games that appeal to the hardcore PC crowd, i.e. not Fable Legends) to accelerate the adoption of the app store on PC, which is moving focus from some of the XBox stuff.

Nothing wrong with that from a business perspective. But I don't see any big advantages for the PC end user yet. The increased security of the sandbox, I guess.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mushashi said:

Somebody else posted some interesting links from somebody who did the detective work, his conclusion being you should set it to basic if you value your privacy.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-telemetry-secrets/

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/is-windows-10-telemetry-a-threat-to-your-personal-privacy

 

 

I suppose it is all about the boiled frog/slippery slope. WinNT didn't use to have telemetry, and every single version since Vista (I assume) has started doing it more and more. I certainly never noticed any in XP, which is still my favourite variant of WinNT. It had the superior reliability of Win2K/NT 4.0 but it played games, best of both worlds.

 

NT4 and 2k had lousy driver support for your gaming needs, at least that was my experience. We digress.

 

My reaction to this stuff, which I've commented on at length in OT, is that we should have kicked up a fuss about it years ago, but we acquiesced to it on various other services and platforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

Yeah, I agree with Stu. Windows has never been the super open platform - that's Linux - Windows was as open as it needed to be to ensure a third-party ecosystem of software.

 

The primary difference with Linux is that the OS was closed source, eveything else about the legacy of Microsoft's OSes on the PC was as open as Linux is. Anybody can develop whatever software they choose to on Windows and deliver and support it however they want to, with the current UWP implementation, that is decidely not the case. Microsoft controls it to the same extent as Google or Apple control their software platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SozzlyJoe said:

So, MS are using the leverage of their games (the type of games that appeal to the hardcore PC crowd, i.e. not Fable Legends) to accelerate the adoption of the app store on PC, which is moving focus from some of the XBox stuff.

Nothing wrong with that from a business perspective. But I don't see any big advantages for the PC end user yet. The increased security of the sandbox, I guess.

 

 

There's an Ars article over the page, but that last point needs emphasis. Bot nets probably exist to the degree they do because of the control Average Joe has over his PC. Windows has never been about the principal of least privilege, which for most people it should be. When Microsoft try to do something about it (e.g., UAC), people flap about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the business sector (banks/health/government) viewpoint on UWP? Surely a closed enviroment isn't something they are welcoming of, and would want a platform to be open enough to allow them to write and control their own securities? Is this not a lucrative market for Microsoft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mushashi said:

 

The primary difference with Linux is that the OS was closed source, eveything else about the legacy of Microsoft's OSes on the PC was as open as Linux is. Anybody can develop whatever software they choose to on Windows, with the current UWP implementation, that is decidely not the case. Microsoft controls it to the same extent as Google or Apple control their software platforms.

 

And who do Apple and Google deny? Are there hoards of developers with untold potential applications to unleash? Or is Google Play chock full of crap?

 

The actual question you should ask is not whom, but what. Google just nixed ad blockers (IIRC), Apple have their own foibles. The Windows store seems to be equally full of crap, so who they're filtering right now is anyone's guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple have denied some game releases on iOS because they did not like the content. It is perfectly possible to make porn games on Windows, unlike on a closed platform. Is Microsoft happy to continue letting the Japanese eroge industry continue to exist if their name gets associated with it?, be interesting to see I suppose.

 

21 minutes ago, MW_Jimmy said:

What is the business sector (banks/health/government) viewpoint on UWP? Surely a closed enviroment isn't something they are welcoming of, and would want a platform to be open enough to allow them to write and control their own securities? Is this not a lucrative market for Microsoft?

 

Sweeney commented on that, he thinks UWP is just a problem for consumers, businesses with the clout can already completely kill the Win10 phone home stuff if they want to, unlike home users. They won't dare railroad businesses into the same situation because they are too valuable and contribute too much to profits and won't put up with this. You can even get access to the Windows source code if you have that level of reach and contribute that much to the bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That tacitly implies they'll maintain functional parity for Win32 for enterprise users. Or, they'll require enterprise users write to UWP, but allow internal or external deployment, which means a systematic way of publishing outside of the Windows store, per Spencer's tweet.

 

Which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TehStu said:

although he reiterates that you can't publish UWP outside of the Windows Store, thus rendering Steam and GOG defunct... we've been told this is not true.

 

 

He says you can't purchase any outside of the store at present, which is true. More importantly, you can't develop it or get it signed without going through Microsoft.

 


I've looked at a couple of guides on how to debotnet windows 10 and it's absolutely insane. At one point (I think when you switch off Windows Defender) you have 5 minutes to do everything else or it repairs itself, T-1000 style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current short term concerns are there. If I want to buy Quantum Break - I can only get it from the Windows Store when it comes out I believe. That is fine from an exclusivity perspective - if MS don't want to share their sale cut with other stores, their decision. What I don't like about that, unlike Rise of the Tomb Raider - I can't buy another PC version of QB that will allow me to get around all of the restrictions that are currently there in the W10 version of ROTR. To people who don't primarily PC game that is something really easy to scoff at, but I like to be able to turn off vsync in some games (few, but some - basically multiplayer - I do it in R6 on the PC) to help with input lag and frame consistency, I inject sweetfx or other forms of lighting into the game (did this in Fallout 4 because the default lighting was so washed out as well as other games to improve the aesthetic), toggle exclusive fullscreen mode (helps with external triple buffering etc) oh and speaking of triple buffering - external nvidia inspector stuff - this is all x 2 worse if you own a multi gpu set up or a freesync monitor etc and its lucky that the announced exclusives so far don't look like moddable games anyway. Hope they get all that stuff patched in as available to at least provide parity of what is expected from a half decent PC version of a game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've got decades of track record of iterating APIs, which could address all those things. QB aside, it's not a concern at the moment.

 

I suspect the best thing people can do to send a message is simply not buy QB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

 

He says you can't purchase any outside of the store at present, which is true. More importantly, you can't develop it or get it signed without going through Microsoft.

 


I've looked at a couple of guides on how to debotnet windows 10 and it's absolutely insane. At one point (I think when you switch off Windows Defender) you have 5 minutes to do everything else or it repairs itself, T-1000 style.

 

 

It wasn't a good point to make. Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't impact GOG now, does it? He's saying GOG goes away in the grim future where, somehow, win32 becomes obsolete.

 

Have you seen what shit is on the windows store? I've reported paid apps that redirect to free web content. The all seeing, dreaded "will they let me code" overseers will let you code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about the now, it's about the direction things are heading on Windows if Microsoft had their way with it. If Windows was the desktop equivalent of iOS from the very beginning, and people still chose to make it the dominant OS for desktop PCs, then fine, we voted with our wallets to allow it to happen over the last 30 years.

 

This is the exact opposite situation. DOS/Windows was always a benign neglected dictatorship, Microsoft made the OS, but other people were free to do whatever the fuck they wanted to on the platform, this is now starting to be eroded by Microsoft and if you don't complain about it now, you can see how it could end up. Google's Android is technically a free for all platform too, but Google's own play store dominates software distribution on the platform and I wasn't even aware of some of the niche competing stores that exist for it that distribute content not welcomed by Google, which you can't even do on the Apple controlled iOS platform where they control who can develop for it with an iron fist.

 

If Microsoft promise to open up UWP, the concerns go away. They can have their own store, what they can't do is use their position as the provider of the underlying OS to give preference to their own store, like they were forced to stop doing with browsers the last time they tried to take advantage of their privileged position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TehStu said:

 

 

It wasn't a good point to make. Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't impact GOG now, does it? He's saying GOG goes away in the grim future where, somehow, win32 becomes obsolete.

 

Have you seen what shit is on the windows store? I've reported paid apps that redirect to free web content. The all seeing, dreaded "will they let me code" overseers will let you code.

 

He wasn't making a point. He just detailed the current state of UWA/UWP. He didn't say it affects GOG in any way at the moment. I only brought it up because you said his statement was incorrect.

 

And "they'll let you code now" is spectacularly missing the point. Win32 is currently completely open. UWA is not. That is a significant change, especially when Microsoft is a company that internally has strategies called "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mushashi said:

It's not about the now, it's about the direction things are heading on Windows if Microsoft had their way with it. If Windows was the desktop equivalent of iOS from the very beginning, and people still chose to make it the dominant OS for desktop PCs, then fine, we voted with our wallets to allow it to happen over the last 30 years.

 

This is the exact opposite situation. DOS/Windows was always a benign neglected dictatorship, Microsoft made the OS, but other people were free to do whatever the fuck they wanted to on the platform, this is now starting to be eroded by Microsoft and if you don't complain about it now, you can see how it could end up. Google's Android is technically a free for all platform too, but Google's own play store dominates software distribution on the platform and I wasn't even aware of some of the niche competing stores that exist for it that distribute content not welcomed by Google, which you can't even do on the Apple controlled iOS platform where they control who can develop for it with an iron fist.

 

If Microsoft promise to open up UWP, the concerns go away. They can have their own store, what they can't do is use their position as the provider of the underlying OS to give preference to their own store, like they were forced to stop doing with browsers the last time they tried to take advantage of their privileged position.

 

Whether Android should be open or not is a separate discussion, but it STARTED "closed", so why are we even entertaining it here? I wouldn't want a non-Google signed app on my phone, Amazon App Store notwithstanding. Both Android and iOS were blatantly never designed to follow the PC model.

 

I think this privileged position stuff is horseshit, the market is completely different to the mid 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

 

He wasn't making a point. He just detailed the current state of UWA/UWP. He didn't say it affects GOG in any way at the moment. I only brought it up because you said his statement was incorrect.

I misread it, having gone back again. 

 

2 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

 

And "they'll let you code now" is spectacularly missing the point. Win32 is currently completely open. UWA is not. That is a significant change, especially when Microsoft is a company that internally has strategies called "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish." 

Yes, it's literally different, but the impact is what I was talking about. If you think that's the current Microsoft operating paradigm, so be it. What you think Microsoft may do will fuck the PC, and if you think it's in Microsoft's best interests to do so, I just can't empathize with your position at all. I'm just going to bow out, a circular discussion here does no one any good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TehStu said:

 

I think this privileged position stuff is horseshit, the market is completely different to the mid 90s.

I disagree. What has fundamentally changed in the consumer computer market since the mid-90s? Apple has switched to x86 (meaning Microsoft has no monopoly on x86 machines, which was always a laughably specific claim by the DoJ in the first place) and gained a bit of market share on the high-end and OSes have become more vertically integrated in a way that makes antitrust over bundling Internet Explorer and Media Player look even more inane and has made it even harder for a 3rd party OS to break through.

 

Consoles, phones and tablets have evolved completely, but the computer market has remained relatively stagnant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Halo said:

I disagree. What has fundamentally changed in the consumer computer market since the mid-90s? Apple has switched to x86 (meaning Microsoft has no monopoly on x86 machines, which was always a laughably specific claim by the DoJ in the first place) and gained a bit of market share on the high-end and OSes have become more vertically integrated in a way that makes antitrust over bundling Internet Explorer and Media Player look even more inane and has made it even harder for a 3rd party OS to break through.

 

Consoles, phones and tablets have evolved completely, but the computer market has remained relatively stagnant!

 

I wrote a whole reply before I re-read your last line, which rendered it pointless. The computer market is in decline, literally because of "consoles, phones, and tablets", which haven't evolved so much as taken over. That is why if you search for "PC decline" images, you'll encounter stories of Microsoft's desktop domination in decline. It's surely why they've gone with their current strategy, and put Office on iPads et al.

 

The OS vertically integrated bit is interesting. Arguably iOS, and definitely Android, were thus out of the gate. Should Chromebooks be made to work with other app stores because of their apparent dominance in the education sector?

 

If I'm going to be held to "consumer computer market" explicitly, in the mid 90s, I compiled early Redhat kernels to properly work on a Pentium. These days, the Ubuntu installer is arguably more straightforward the Windows'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Microsoft wants to create a version of Windows that is limited to using its app store and is bundled with all sorts of tracking and ad-ware then they should be allowed to do so, but they shouldn't be allowed to use their quasi-monopolistic OS to force these features on their desktop users. My proposal for the name: Windows RT. Actually, nevermind, on second thoughts, that's name is ridiculous.

 

Windows' role in computing is an a special, privileged position and it's important to be acknowledged and that it needs to be treated differently. There's long been an implicit agreement that Microsoft has offered a stable standardised open platform in exchange for a significant royalty. Regulators repeatedly screwed this up by ignoring that bigger picture, instead focusing on the short-term concerns of the ever-expanding list of what an OS should or shouldn't contain rather than the far more important matter of what it can or can't do.

 

And saying "Use Linux/BSD" is inane when they don't have the centralisation or resources to really compete with modern consumer operating systems. I think it's telling that the last desktop OS to be written wholly from scratch was BeOS in 1995. I mean, Apple couldn't even create an OS themselves in 1997, instead having to buy one, and even NeXTSTEP was based on BSD.

 

Red Hat worked out of the box on my old 486sx in the 90s, something which I believe Windows 95 refused to do! And no Wi-Fi driver concerns back then either. People tend to forget that Linux was originally designed as a desktop operating system for x86.

 

And, yes, I personally do believe iOS/Android/Chromebooks (if they have native software) should be regulated to provide an open platform to encourage innovation and competition, but I accept that will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Windows' role in computing is an a special, privileged position and it's important to be acknowledged and that it needs to be treated differently. There's long been an implicit agreement that Microsoft has offered a stable standardised open platform in exchange for a significant royalty.

 

And, yes, I personally do believe iOS/Android/Chromebooks (if they have native software) should be regulated to provide an open platform to encourage innovation and competition, but I accept that will never happen.

 

I don't think any of this is true, or a widespread opinion nowadays. It's not the 90s, consumers don't need or even request open platforms, it's the developers who demand that and they're not the main audience for computing anymore.

 

16 minutes ago, Halo said:

And saying "Use Linux/BSD" is inane when they don't have the centralisation or resources to really compete with modern consumer operating systems. I think it's telling that the last desktop OS to be written wholly from scratch was BeOS in 1995. I mean, Apple couldn't even create an OS themselves in 1997, instead having to buy one, and even NeXTSTEP was based on BSD.

 

 

This is entirely Linux's problem, not Microsofts or Apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Halo said:

If Microsoft wants to create a version of Windows that is limited to using its app store and is bundled with all sorts of tracking and ad-ware then they should be allowed to do so, but they shouldn't be allowed to use their quasi-monopolistic OS to force these features on their desktop users. My proposal for the name: Windows RT. Actually, nevermind, on second thoughts, that's name is ridiculous.

 

Windows' role in computing is an a special, privileged position and it's important to be acknowledged and that it needs to be treated differently. There's long been an implicit agreement that Microsoft has offered a stable standardised open platform in exchange for a significant royalty. Regulators repeatedly screwed this up by ignoring that bigger picture, instead focusing on the short-term concerns of the ever-expanding list of what an OS should or shouldn't contain rather than the far more important matter of what it can or can't do.

Wholeheartedly disagree, I'm afraid.

 

19 minutes ago, Halo said:

 

And saying "Use Linux/BSD" is inane when they don't have the centralisation or resources to really compete with modern consumer operating systems. I think it's telling that the last desktop OS to be written wholly from scratch was BeOS in 1995. I mean, Apple couldn't even create an OS themselves in 1997, instead having to buy one, and even NeXTSTEP was based on BSD.

 

Red Hat worked out of the box on my old 486sx in the 90s, something which I believe Windows 95 refused to do! And no Wi-Fi driver concerns back then either. People tend to forget that Linux was originally designed as a desktop operating system for x86.

Yes, I'm aware Redhat worked out of the box, but there were optimizations. I didn't compile kernels for a laugh. And yeah, we've all got anecdotes, none of which refute my point that installation of OSes other than Windows used to/could be ball ache, but are now completely seamless. I thought Linux was doing quite well in markets outside of typical tech markets, perhaps you have numbers to the contrary. It's hard to tell if those markets aren't online, with use tracked by site analytics, and I can't find a reliable "shipped" indicator.

 

19 minutes ago, Halo said:

And, yes, I personally do believe iOS/Android/Chromebooks (if they have native software) should be regulated to provide an open platform to encourage innovation and competition, but I accept that will never happen.

That seems absurd to me. Does this happen in other industries? You're not forced to buy a phone/tablet, unlike the monopoly the old GPO was afforded with landlines. Should BlackBerry have been required to open up their platform, prior to their self-inflicted demise?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows powers most important normal business functions still and controls 90%+ of the desktop market, of which Microsoft claims is way over 1 Billion PCs, that level of market dominance in such an important market means they get treated differently. I'm sure the people willing to sleepwalk into a closed future Windows can't see the problem for whatever reason, but how is this better than the current status quo on Windows? The PC might be in decline, but it's still a 250+ Million new machines per year market, dominated utterly by Windows.

 

Look at how the major players in PC gaming distribute their own software. Are they forced to give 30% to Valve/CDProjectRED or Microsoft or even EA or Ubisoft? nope, they all do direct customer relations due to the open level playing field nature of the current Windows PC. Who in their right mind would want that situation to change?

 

This is the list of the top grossing PC games of last year, only one of those companies chooses to allow somebody else to take a significant slice of their digital business in exchange for distribution. The big hitters all go direct, thanks to the open nature of the Windows PC platform.

 

#1 League of Legends Riot Games $1,628
#2 CrossFire SmileGate $1,110
#3 Dungeon Fighter Online Neople $1052
#4 World of Warcraft Activision Blizzard $814
#5 World of Tanks Wargaming $446
#6 Lineage 1 NCSoft $339
#7 MapleStory Nexon $253
#8 Dota 2 Valve $238
#9 Counter Strike Global Offensive Valve $221
#10 Grand Theft Auto V Take-Two Interactive $205
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, mushashi said:

Who in their right mind would want that situation to change?

 

They won't need to if Spencer isn't lying.

 

55 minutes ago, mushashi said:

Windows powers most important normal business functions still and controls 90%+ of the desktop market, of which Microsoft claims is way over 1 Billion PCs, that level of market dominance in such an important market means they get treated differently.

 

So:

 

On 3/8/2016 at 11:46 AM, TehStu said:

That tacitly implies they'll maintain functional parity for Win32 for enterprise users. Or, they'll require enterprise users write to UWP, but allow internal or external deployment, which means a systematic way of publishing outside of the Windows store, per Spencer's tweet.

 

Which is it?

 

Win32 will be maintained (one of Sweeney's fears allayed), but only for enterprise users. The billions generated from those games you listed will just have to stump up 30%.

 

Understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not

22 hours ago, TehStu said:

Win32 will be maintained (one of Sweeney's fears allayed), but only for enterprise users. The billions generated from those games you listed will just have to stump up 30%.

 

Understood.

 

Not if the rest of the PC industry tells Microsoft where to shove it and actively make UWP fail as WinRT did.

 

 

Tim Sweeney wrote another letter, this time at Venturebeat, where he nails down the practical steps he wants implemented to make UWP an open platform:


 

Quote


  1. Support installing UWP apps from any source, including the Web, with as simple and unobtrusive a flow as exists today with win32. Download, double-click, and acknowledge a security prompt no more scary than this:

Run this

  1. Support installing UWP applications that are digitally signed by their developers using the same, open Certificate Authority services that are used for win32 and the Web, without requiring developers to register with Microsoft, nor programs to be submitted to Microsoft for approval or  signing/DRM as current Windows 10 defaults require.
  1. Allow third-party store applications to install (with the user’s acknowledgment) UWP applications, and update and uninstall UWP applications they’ve installed.
  1. Not impose any restrictions on Internet connectivity of third-party applications or the ability for developers and users to engage in commerce directly outside of Microsoft’s store architecture.
  1. Use win32 “install” terminology to put all software sources on a level playing field. As long as non-Microsoft Store installation is referred to as “side-loading,” it’s hard to trust that Microsoft doesn’t view third-party software sources as second-class citizens, and their future role in the operating system as renegotiable.

This approach would give UWP all of the benefits of win32 as an open ecosystem and preserve the attributes that make PC the world’s most widely used open platform.

 

 

http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/10/epics-tim-sweeney-heres-how-to-keep-windows-an-open-platform/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can say all he wants, but it doesn't get past the fact that he is still making massive assumptions over what UWP is (now) and is going to be. The fears are that it will replace win32, this is a huge assumption with very little basis in reality. Think of the implications, especially with Microsoft's biggest cash cow, enterprise. Are customers going to be expected to change all of their applications/drivers/etc at the drop of the hat? The fact that some big corporations (banks) are still using IE6/7 for compatibility purposes, and getting new applications built which target these platforms, is statement enough that any switch will be done at a glacial pace.

 

If UWP is to replace win32 completely it will need to have a massive swing in development, I'd wager a guess that 80+% of ALL applications would need to be built in UWP before Microsoft could ever think about deprecating win32, and by that stage the majority of developers would be supporting the platform so it would make sense. Until that moment creeps towards the horizon, there is zero point in worrying about this perceived threat that UWP provides to developers/advanced users. Whether that moment ever comes is debateable but it won't be in the next 10 years anyway.

 

Even if we do have a UWP only future ahead, it is certainly not going to be in the current guise. Decisions will be modified based on numerous factors and we will end up with a solution that works. End of the day, no developer HAS to develop for UWP, no developer HAS to put a UWP up on the Windows Store, if the developer wants to use specific UWP functions they can (what these are has never been really spelled out but if it amounts to Xbox Live functionality or similar then I don't see why that is an issue in being locked behind UWP walls). Win32 will only go away if it is no longer in use, so it is down to developers to ensure that never happens. I honestly can't see a way where this will ever be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UWP is a consumer thing mainly, which unsurprisingly enough affects a prominent developer of consumer software who has decided to bring this problem to the attention of the public. There is now a business version of it, but why would Adobe, et al want to give up their direct customer relationship in exchange for no commercial gain to them?

 

Why does UWP even exist really? because Microsoft couldn't win in a fair fight against the encumbent duopoly of Apple and Google on mobile (sounds a familar problem to anybody trying to unseat the encumbent monopolist on the desktop, even if some people might not choose the term fair fight for how that battle has been fought in the past) so for Microsoft to remain relevant to consumers into the far future, they need some way to get developer support on mobile which they've utterly failed to do directly so they've decided to use their army of existing desktop developers to laterally attack the problem.

 

Why this has to mean significant changes to the PC desktop would be the question, they already attempted to mobilify the desktop once, with poor results, now they want to retroactively adopt an iOS-like software model which primarily benefits them, rather than the existing companies operating on the PC desktop. Only people who value the future of that corporation over their own interests would want this. I don't see the benefit to myself of closing down the desktop, anybody care to mount the defense of why it's good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.