Future Microsoft Devices Will Take Cues From the Surface Tablet 119
An anonymous reader writes: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says the company is committed to bringing Windows to as many computer form factors as possible — even if they have to do it themselves. He says their plan is to build out new devices with the same mindset that created the Surface line. The Surface Pro tablets (and the regular Surface tablets, now that Windows RT has been retired) have been a rare bright spot among Microsoft's mobile stumbles. Nadella seems to want Windows to become almost hardware agnostic, and he thinks the universal apps plan for Windows 10 is the way to do it.
He says, "Universal Windows apps are going to be written because you want to have those apps used on the desktop. The reason why anybody would want to write universal apps is not because of our three percent share in phones. It's because a billion consumers are going to have a Start Menu, which is going to have your app. You start the journey there and take them to multiple places. Their app can go to the phone. They can go to HoloLens. They can go to Xbox. ... And by the way, when we hook them on that, we have a phone app. This strategy is path dependent, which is a term I use that means where you start is not where you end up. And therein lies a lot of the nuance. The fundamental truth for developers is they will build if there are users. And in our case the truth is we have users on desktop."
He says, "Universal Windows apps are going to be written because you want to have those apps used on the desktop. The reason why anybody would want to write universal apps is not because of our three percent share in phones. It's because a billion consumers are going to have a Start Menu, which is going to have your app. You start the journey there and take them to multiple places. Their app can go to the phone. They can go to HoloLens. They can go to Xbox. ... And by the way, when we hook them on that, we have a phone app. This strategy is path dependent, which is a term I use that means where you start is not where you end up. And therein lies a lot of the nuance. The fundamental truth for developers is they will build if there are users. And in our case the truth is we have users on desktop."
Nadella is misrepresenting the economics (Score:1)
I have a Windows Phone. I love it, and really wish that it had taken off. But my feelings don't change the economic reality, which is that I can get to those desktop users just fine with either a Win32 application or a web app. The only reason to write a WinRT/Modern/Store/whatever-they're-calling-it-today app it to reach that additional 1% of the uses with a Windows Phone.
Re:Nadella is misrepresenting the economics (Score:4)
That additional 0.0001% of users, you mean.
Re: (Score:1)
...assuming you have also optimized the UI of your app to work will on a 4" touchscreen, as it is unlikely a UI designed for a 24" screen with a keyboard and mouse scales down to that phone automagically in a good way.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point of writing a Windows App (formerly Universal App, formerly Windows Store App, formerly Modern App, formerly Metro App... let's just shorten it to "WAFUAFWSAFMAFMA" from now on... err... maybe not).
I'd recommend calling them "Windows Runtime apps" after the one part of this environment that hasn't changed since announcement: Windows Runtime (WinRT), the API that these apps use.
Re: (Score:2)
The official name today is Universal Windows Platform apps, or UWP.
It wouldn't be Microsoft if they didn't retire a good name the moment they found one that was worse.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason to write a WinRT/Modern/Store/whatever-they're-calling-it-today app it to reach that additional 1% of the uses with a Windows Phone.
Or if you want to get a game onto Xbox and your company isn't yet affiliated with an established publisher.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Windows Phone. I love it, and really wish that it had taken off. But my feelings don't change the economic reality, which is that I can get to those desktop users just fine with either a Win32 application or a web app. The only reason to write a WinRT/Modern/Store/whatever-they're-calling-it-today app it to reach that additional 1% of the uses with a Windows Phone.
You should read http://communities-dominate.bl... [blogs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And after that he should read why Tomi, the self-proclaimed guy-who-knows isn't all that [wordpress.com] He's a self-opinionated a*hole who twists or invents facts to suit his bias.
Blackberry fell due to flaws in the network design; they were so centralized that all their customer traffic had to go through their network. So when their network broke, their customers sought other solutions when the risk was finally revealed - one I would say was not predictable before that incident (at least from an outsiders POV; may be someone administering the a local box in an enterprise network who knew more about it might have predicted it). Needless to say, comparing Blackberry's fall and Nokia's
Windows Phone. (Score:5, Interesting)
I used a Windows Phone for a while and it is actually a good product. It was fast and stable and did what I wanted it to do. The UI was actually pretty nice. The one thing that made me go back to Android was the lack of apps and the quality of some of them. I really missed the Google apps that I was used to using. Google is no more of a villain for doing that than Microsoft is for not producing Office or Exchange for Linux, or Apple not producing iTunes for WindowsPhone or Android but Windows Phone with gmail, youtube, and google maps would have been really nice.
BTW yes I know about bing maps and using imap for gmail and the third party youtube apps but I liked google better.
In the end I really wish that WP did better than it looks like it will do. Now what Microsoft is doing to Nokia is shameful.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. With no gmail, if I wanted a smartphone I would really consider a Windows phone, despite running linux on desktop.
I don't know how long the support lasts but they're in the business of selling desktop OSes with 11 year long support, so I guess that for long/mid term support for a phone you have MS and Apple (not Google)
The one thing I wouldn't like is needing to create a Microsoft account so still I would look for Firefox OS 2.x, which is said to allow adding app stuff without the need for an o
What would "own" your purchases with no account? (Score:2)
The one thing I wouldn't like is needing to create a Microsoft account so still I would look for Firefox OS 2.x, which is said to allow adding app stuff without the need for an online account.
Without any sort of "online account", with which primary key would the store associate your purchases so that they can be restored onto a different device, such as a replacement or upgraded device?
Per-device encryption of paid apps (Score:2)
Since Android 4.1, paid apps have been encrypted [blogspot.com] with a key per device. The intent, as I understand it, is that if you restore an encrypted paid app from one device to another device, you can't use it. Or what am I missing?
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually kind of interesting that a lot of apps don't have an official version for Windows Phone. Even the Facebook app isn't made by FaceBook. It's made by Microsoft. There's no app for Strava (very people among cyclists, used to track your rides), but there are a couple third party apps that work great. I think it's just the fact that larger companies don't seem to be able to do anything without getting 50 people involved, so they don't see it as worth their time to develop an app for a small platfo
Re: (Score:2)
But really it doesn't take that much time to make an app
please link to the successful apps that you've authored that rival something like gmail or facebook in their complexity. writing a good, stable, easy to use, beautiful app is hard.
Re: (Score:1)
are they real "apps" or just an app with a webview to facebook.com or whereever?
It's my understanding Microsoft surprised a bunch of companies by making 'wrapper' webview apps of their websites, putting them on the MS store, and then 'surprise', people would contact the company directly about issues with these apps that they know nothing about.
no automobiles, please (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
You beat me to it.
No automobiles, no dangerous medical equipment... actually, no industrial equipment at all.
And not just because it's M$, but because it's closed-source. I cannot trust it if was not evaluated regarding security.
While open doesn't mean it was checked about it, closed is sure to mean it was not verified; and no, enabling selected someones to view the code won't be enough.
Re: (Score:1)
When all you have is a hammer... (Score:4, Interesting)
"They can go to HoloLens. They can go to Xbox" (Score:1)
They can go to Linux.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is also the problem, independent of Microsoft's particular business strategy or platform management/mismanagement, that 'universal' applications just don't really work.
At a basic level they can be done; assuming that you stick to the aspects of .net that stay fully in the CLR and don't drag in some useful-but-legacy entanglements, you should indeed be able to take the same binary and run it without errors on anything from a fairly punchy microcontroller running .net Micro on up through phones, console
Re: bullshit translator go: (Score:1)
THANK YOU! I am really glad someone else sees the problem with this strategy! You cant just take a desktop program and slap it on a phone...whether it runs or not isnt the only issue.
The bigger issue, and the 500 lb gorilla in the room is that to publish "Universal apps", devs have to go through MS! MS gets to be the gatekeeper, deciding if your app even gets to be published. MS also gets 30% of the gross revenue. "Universal apps" are ONLY available through Microsoft Windows Marketplace. I don't think
Re: (Score:2)
You cant just take a desktop program and slap it on a phone
No, it's taking a universal app and slapping it both on the desktop and phone, as well as Xbox, HoloLens, etc.
The app can easily conform to the size available, similar to responsive websites. (This is nice even on the desktop, because sometimes I'd like my app to work well if I make its window small... so it adjusts accordingly.) Universal apps can easily support various input methods including keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, Xbox controller, and so on.
The bigger issue, and the 500 lb gorilla in the room is that to publish "Universal apps", devs have to go through MS! MS gets to be the gatekeeper, deciding if your app even gets to be published. MS also gets 30% of the gross revenue. "Universal apps" are ONLY available through Microsoft Windows Marketplace.
Completely wrong. Users can sideload universal apps in
Re: (Score:2)
The app can easily conform to the size available, similar to responsive websites. (This is nice even on the desktop, because sometimes I'd like my app to work well if I make its window small... so it adjusts accordingly.) Universal apps can easily support various input methods including keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, Xbox controller, and so on.
Who even cares? With miniscule market share, nobody is willing to expend the resources.
The web has expanded its functionality to the point where you don't even need an app for most things. All you need is to surf there in your web browser, phone or desktop.
If you are writing an enterprise app and you think you need a custom client application, you are probably doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The web has expanded its functionality to the point where you don't even need an app for most things. All you need is to surf there in your web browser, phone or desktop.
That statement applies just as much to any program. Web apps are useful for many things, but they haven't quite replaced all native applications yet for several reasons. Native apps run faster, have more access to device capabilities, and do not inherently require Internet access or use up your data plan.
If you are writing an enterprise app and you think you need a custom client application, you are probably not doing it wrong.
That statement is blatantly absurd. You must not have experience in the enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how Apple's model is relevant to what I wrote. Apple policies do not allow sideloading apps onto iOS (other than a company distributing apps to its employees).
Microsoft allows sideloading in Windows 10. That's the difference. You keep all the money, but you have to provide distribution (such as a website to download the app).
Regardless of all of that... 30% is well worth it to put your app in the store and make it more visible.
Re:bullshit translator go: (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble is that different situations require different sorts of application designs. Mouse/keyboard and touchscreen are not even remotely equivalent; different things work better or worse on each. Small screens require very different tradeoffs from larger screens or multiple screens. 'Best experience' on a heavily battery constrained device likely involves a variety of very careful restrictions on any resource usage that isn't strictly necessary.
Exactly this.
People don't really want a 'universal app',
While this is true, they unfortunately THINK they do, or at least Management thinks that people want a universal app.
As a developer, I am often asked to make my desktop application work on Mobile. There are many things that just suck on Mobile. You can't display vast amounts of data on a 3 inch screen like you can on a 24 inch monitor. You can't type in data very efficiently on a mobile. Honestly, there is nothing on a mobile that works better than it does on a desktop. A mobile is what you are forced to use if you don't have a desktop handy. But everybody wants your wizbang application that looks and works great on a desktop to be available on a Mobile.
I even play mobile games on my desktop using BlueStacks App Player. I hate the UI on the phone, but it plays great and looks awesome on the desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
they unfortunately THINK they do
i'm not sure you know what "universal app" means. it means a single binary that runs across multiple platforms. it doesn't mean the exact same UI, or the same UI stretched or shrunk to different screen sizes. the binary can inspect the device on which it's running and render different UIs and experiences.
Re: (Score:2)
If you design your app to look decent and work well on anything from a Surface on up, you've covered almost all the market. Why go to any extra effort to have a decent phone version?
Re: (Score:2)
It is often a misrepresentation of what managers want. Managers may say they want "x to run on a mobile" but that's just their management speak. The reality is they want their software to be usable on all platforms in a variety of ways. Think a classic database:
Server > Database server
Workstation > Mass edit database
Desktop > Database data entry / complex queries
Tablet > Database data entry / simple or predefined queries
Phone > Simple single line queries
Half the problem is getting the manager
Re: (Score:2)
If you think there's nothing you can do on a mobile that can't be done better on a desktop then you are massively compounding the problem and I suggest you try lugging your multi-monitor desktop machine into starbucks so you can run a quick query or look up a quick fact while you drink your coffee.
Well, I don't go to Starbucks, so maybe that is why I don't bother looking up quick facts on my mobile, when I could just look them up on my laptop or desktop when I get back to the office and not only will it take me 1/10th as long to enter the information I want to search for, but the search will come back quicker and the facts will be presented in a more readable fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you always think in narrow ways? You were implying that you were at lunch at Starbucks and that what you were looking for could wait. What if you were actually out and on the clock? A little information presented in the correct way can go a long way above and beyond what anyone could achieve with a desktop / laptop if they were required to actually travel to their desktop / laptop.
I actually envy you if you have that kind of structured work style that everything can wait and there's zero efficiency gains
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is that different situations require different sorts of application designs. Mouse/keyboard and touchscreen are not even remotely equivalent; different things work better or worse on each. Small screens require very different tradeoffs from larger screens or multiple screens.
The universal platform is built with all of that in mind. As the developer, you can respond to all the various input methods that you want to support. Apps are responsive, like web apps, so that the developer controls how each app conforms to the screen size and capabilities of the device.
The more consistent you make your UI between your target device families, the easier it will be for users to approach your application.
Re: (Score:3)
The more consistent you make your UI between your target device families, the easier it will be for users to approach your application.
totally backwards mentality. TOTAL FAIL.
In fact it is the opposite. It's a pretty fundamental user interface concept. Unfamiliar users do much better when the user interface matches the device being used. If you have a mouse in your hand, you look for the start button or the apple menu. You expect deep menus with lots of functionality, that take dexterity to choose the right item. Much power is at your fingertips. Years and years of drill have pounded this into us.
When you are pointing with a finger
Re: (Score:2)
The fewer changes there are from the app on your phone to the desktop to the Xbox and so on, the easier it will be for users to discover how to use your app when moving from one device to the next.
Unfamiliar users do much better when the user interface matches the device being used. If you have a mouse in your hand, you look for the start button or the apple menu. You expect deep menus with lots of functionality, that take dexterity to choose the right item. Much power is at your fingertips. Years and years of drill have pounded this into us.
When you are pointing with a finger, it's different. You don't have the dexterity to choose a single item from a deep complex menu. I could go on and on...
Microsoft already thought about that. For example, context menus can adapt their size to the input method being used. If using a mouse or stylus, the menu uses shorter items, and when using a touch screen (tap-and-hold), the menu uses larger items. In fact I just tested that on the latest build of Windows 10, n
Re: (Score:2)
The fewer changes there are from the app on your phone to the desktop to the Xbox and so on, the easier it will be for users to discover how to use your app when moving from one device to the next.
that doesn't make any sense at all, the "right" user interface for the job depends on the job, not the overall application. If I am editing text on a phone, I'm not going to be interested in all of the many thousands of options that are available from the deep menu structure of a desktop word processor.
why are people "app" centric? it doesn't make any sense. there is no problem with using different applications on different types of platforms. The elevator does not need to have a steering wheel and pe
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why anybody would want to write universal apps is not because of our three percent share in phones. It's because a billion consumers are going to have a Start Menu, which is going to have your app.
that was the whole point of the 3% phone marketshare and this is the circular logic thats been plaguing "thought leaders" at redmond for a decade. To have that button, you need a platform, and you didnt win phones or tablets so what pray tell is the start button going to show up on? transit cards?
You start the journey there and take them to multiple places. Their app can go to the phone. They can go to HoloLens. They can go to Xbox. ... And by the way, when we hook them on that, we have a phone app.
Stop. stop with the fever-dream of a phone. you lost seven billion dollars on the phone thing. real people lost jobs because of your half-assed insistance on dominating all markets forever. as of 2009, Steam h
Re: (Score:2)
Stop. stop with the fever-dream of a phone. you lost seven billion dollars on the phone thing. real people lost jobs because of your half-assed insistance on dominating all markets forever.
Not only that but Microsoft held a funeral for the iPhone [businessinsider.com] when they launched the Windows Phone. Hubris?
Re: (Score:2)
Universal Windows is a contradiction. Especially coming from a company with an on-again off-again relationship with allowing backward compatibility on X-Box. Your customers quit caring about your apps for their devices when google came out with docs. Web is the universal app.
windows beats all in backwards compatibility, sorry. and the fact that MSFT announced a new feature that is XB360 game support on XB1 doesn't qualify as "on again off again". maybe you don't know what that means.
Stop (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is called MBA Breath. It is putrid, you want to get away, but the memory lingers with you like a malevolent spirit.
Good luck with that ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The last few years it seems like decades of "because we say so" is catching up with Microsoft.
Their "innovation" seems to be at an all time low, and most of the new and shiny stuff they're putting out seems to fall flat, and the stuff they're putting out which copies what other people have done aren't very popular.
I wonder if Microsoft hasn't lost the plot entirely, and now they're a big lumbering entity flailing around to try to stay relevant, while mostly failing to write stuff people care about.
Office has mostly plateaued, yes, people will keep using it, but there's not a lot of new functionality anybody needs.
Quite honestly, their strategy to make everything look like mobile is complete garbage for a desktop computer. You have to turn off most of their "innovations" to end up with a usable desktop.
If they are pinning their hopes on all of us becoming completely involved in all of their ecosystem, they will probably discover not enough of us care, or are willing to go that route.
It just feels like Microsoft no longer has any real clue about how to remain relevant in a lot of segments. I can pretty much say I don't foresee their vision of the future being something I give a damn about.
And when I see shit like "we're going to share your wifi password" I think "wow, you have no clue about security and think you own the systems" -- basically nobody with a Microsoft product will ever get any access to any wifi I control.
Sorry Microsoft, but you've become a dinosaur selling us spreadsheets and Power Point. Meanwhile the rest of the world is actually trying to make new and interesting stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple is selling real products which have been disruptive to existing stuff, and for which people are paying money.
Microsoft seems to be perennially playing catch up, releasing unpopular products, and sticking to the bad stereotype of "I'm a PC/I'm a Mac" in which we're all writing spreadsheets and Power Point slides but otherwise utterly failing to "innovate" a damned thing -- other than copycat products nobody is buying.
Apple at least got to be the richest company by selling stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, MS have the idea that an ecosystem means windows in some form or another. Apple succeeded because they were able to look at parts of the economy in isolation first. If it had a tie in to something they were currently doing, that was even better, but they do not seem demand it from the outset. MS seems to have given their troops marching orders of "Show us a new way to integrate something into Winders". The result is that no market segment they attempt to enter is ever covered adequately
Enterprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Dominate the enterprise and the consumer market will follow. Gates knew this. Balmer seemed more interested in chasing the heels of the current trend as most sales guys do. And now I'm not sure what to think about this new guy... But he seems to be still missing the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, every company is assuming they have to copy what Apple is doing, because they were successful. It's a narrow, uninformed,
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the Enterprise market is moving to the web. Most enterprise applications are database-centric, so a network connection is a must. At that point, the obvious advantages of server-based logic overcome any limitations of the browser-based frontend. If your application logic is going to be on the server - and be massive (as is the case in many enterprise apps), it makes no sense to build that logic on any specific desktop - or device - platform. A web browser provides you with a smart te
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was speaking more from an IT infrastructure point of view. A windows phone with active directory integration and group policy extensions for example. Why this hasn't been attempted yet is a complete mystery. Everyone from small to large business would be all over it.
because your local sys admins have plenty of time on their hands, it's no problem to triple the number of systems they need to administer
Re: (Score:2)
Something like Windows 10 Mobile's support for Azure Active Directory, or are you talking about something else?
https://redmondmag.com/articles/2015/05/29/active-directory-for-windows-10-mobile.aspx [redmondmag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Azure Active Directory isn't really the typical everything in the cloud bullshit, but it is used for authenticating SaaS systems to a local domain account.
If you ever worked with Single Sign On (SSO), you probably have heard of SAML and OAUTH. That's basically what Azure AD is, a way for a web app to authenticate to a user's local domain. But without the need to setup communication between the app and the local domain.
Think of being able to log into a website with your Google or Facebook account. With Azu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Office 365 runs off it already, if you have 365 tied into your AD then you have Azure AD already setup.
This allows applications you access from a mobile phone to authenticate you even if you aren't in the office. Joining your phone to the domain adds it to a mobile device manager that can be centrally administered.
I really don't see how having a persistent VPN connection would improve on what they are doing. If you really wanted to, you could setup a VPN on your phone. Then build a custom app that would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's still missing a big opportunity: the enterprise. Why everyone is clamoring for the crumbs of the consumer pie, I don't understand. Enterprise functionality is being ignored forcing us to adopt strange concepts like BYOD which is a logistical nightmare and security concern. Dominate the enterprise and the consumer market will follow. Gates knew this. Balmer seemed more interested in chasing the heels of the current trend as most sales guys do. And now I'm not sure what to think about this new guy... But he seems to be still missing the point.
Problem is, when it comes to mobile it's consumer first; so Enterprise is following the consumer. They're adapting to strategies that make it easier to manage unmanaged devices to enable BYOD. Why? Because mobile has a very short lifespan (2 years) and Enterprises don't want to dump so much money into it. They'd rather their employees BYOD and sink money into mobile while they reap the benefits. The costs of integrating iPhone and Android is a pitance compared to the cost of buying and managing a fleet of m
Re: (Score:2)
That at it becomes cheaper for corporate IT to support BYOD than building out infrastructure in-house. It also allows idiot MBAs to have their favorite stuff without requiring much support from IT. And when all the real app work can be done in a local cloud which IT can control, all that is required is a UI. Mobile works for much of the UI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Universal Windows apps are going to be written because you want to have those apps used on the desktop."
Wait, who wants universal Windows apps?
Certainly it is not the desktop users. Because they must cater to the "lowest-common-denominator" of hardware, universal apps tend to be underpowered and have interfaces poorly optimized for mouse/keyboard.
The developers have little care for Universal apps. There is no demand for the things, and requires an investment in learning new development methods. It is an added expense and complication that brings little reward for the extra effort.
I suppose there might be some demand from Windows Winphone users - all six of them - but even they might prefer a more functional app tailored to their desktops capabilities rather than a cut-rate smartphone app. I don't hear an overwhelming clamor crying out, "oh if only the mail app on my desktop worked just like it did on my winphone!"
No, there is only one party that is really interested in Universal apps, and that's Microsoft themselves because universal apps are sold through the Microsoft app store and they get a cut of the proceeds. It also gives them great control over what sort of programs users have access to (what are the odds they would allow a stand-alone Linux installer to be added to their store?).
So, other than some great desire to increase Microsoft's profits, what reason is there to develop or use Universal apps?
Re: (Score:2)
Nadella acknowledges that their strength is in the 90% market share they have on desktops. That's an strangely honest remark for a CEO. But precisely because of that universal apps should ideally have, IMHO, a UI designed specifically for desktops (mouse and keyboard) and another for touch devices, because the current UIs of universal apps are less than ideal for kb+mouse, sure, they technically work, but you have huge target (buttons and touchable elements)
Re: (Score:2)
"desktop users who want complex and powerful programs to do things?" There aren't enough users who want or need complex and powerful programs to do things. Almost by definition, this will be a small subset of most organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
Desktop apps (Score:1)
The reason why anybody would want to write universal apps is not because of our three percent share in phones. It's because a billion consumers are going to have a Start Menu, which is going to have your app.
A billion consumers already have an Explorer desktop. You can already distribute a program to those customers right now; why would I, as a customer or as a developer (other than MS), want to introduce a new walled garden to the desktop PC market? Sure you get to distribute to multiple devices, but the most useable programs take advantage of the platform they're on. You can't make Photoshop meaningfully functional on a phone, and I don't see FlappyBird being a hit on the PC. The only reason my programs can't
Can't go to Xbox (Score:2)
my programs [...] can't go to the XBox because MS won't let me.
What was the reply when you applied to become an Xbox app developer?
Re: (Score:2)
Windows can obtain and renew a Universal Windows Platform developer license without charge [microsoft.com]. Open an elevated PowerShell, type Show-WindowsDeveloperLicenseRegistration, and press Enter.
So...The future is a bunch of crap java apps? (Score:1)
Kill me now...
Re: (Score:2)
The future of Microsoft is a bunch of crap java apps.
Pure Bullshit (Score:2)
Universal apps will for the most part be crap. It's hard enough to make a really great application for the iPhone and iPad (it's what I'm familiar developing for). Heck, even with all of the different screen sizes and retina and non-retina screens just the iPhone is trouble enough.
And now Microsoft wants developers to deploy a single app to phones, tablets, huge wall mounted tablets, desktops, laptops, game machines, and their HoloLens?!?! I hope that you are able to exclude the platforms you don't want
Translation from CEO speak (Score:2)
And by the way, when we hook them on that, we have a phone app. This strategy is path dependent, which is a term I use that means where you start is not where you end up. And therein lies a lot of the nuance. The fundamental truth for developers is they will build if there are users. And in our case the truth is we have users on desktop.
Translation: We have a monopoly in desktop computers that we need to leverage to get into other markets where we have been getting our ass handed to us.
Tigers cannot change their stripes. Hail to the new boss - same as the old boss.
Why 'take cues' Surface? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
the best tablet for doodling and audio editing out there.
Gosh I gotta go out and buy one now, so I can doodle better!
...At All Cost! (Score:2)
Nadella says the company is committed to bringing Windows to as many computer form factors as possible
No matter how much we have to destroy the classic, functional "WIMP" experience for desktop users by forcing the "Fingerpaint Interface", no matter how much we have to dumb it down, no matter how much stuff we have to hide, but WE WILL put windows on every Form Factor (the cheapest, simplest crap being the Common Denominator, of course).
Screw the PC infrastructure (Score:2)
even if they have to do it themselves
Translation: We don't want to work with our hardware partners any more.
Why should Dell, Acer, HP, etc. continue to do business with Microsoft when Microsoft openly says that they are going to compete with them?
How can these companies compete with Microsoft in the Windows market? They can't. They will realize this...
What's the point? (Score:3)
What's the point of developing for a niche platform?
If you are an enterprise and you want to provide a service to your customers, you can do just about everything from the web. You don't need to write an app, you don't need to distribute it and keep it updated. You can write a web app and have everything in one place. You don't have to force your users to upgrade. You don't have to worry about fake versions of your app. You can use web standards and just ignore Microsoft and Apple and everyone else.
Sounds like a strategy for failure (Score:1)
Surface is a prime example of a product that does not satisfy any actual need. Most consumers seem to believe that it is better to have a proper tablet, with a proper table oriented software stack, and a proper laptop with proper desktop/laptop oriented software stack. Surface is a horribly confused mash-up of technologies that don't belong together, and it shows. If Microsoft wants to pursue a strategy based on this, it really shows a total lack of understanding of their users' needs.
The other problem is t
Surface? Uh! (Score:2)
I got my hand on a MS Surface today and.. I did not like it! Can't glide two fingers on an object to zoom or shrink an object or glide to scroll in an object like the file browser but have to fiddle with a tiny vertical scrollbar to move the inner content.Seems they have some magnifying mode which I experienced as horrible, anxious to get out of it as quickly as possible. Seems not to be on todays state of art level with their interface.
Re: (Score:3)