DeepEnigma
Gold Member
There were some arguing early on in here, that it was okay for MSFT to do that, even worse, lock it behind their store because they developed it.
Yeah, I know.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tim Sweeney:MS wants to monopolise games development on PCand we must fight it
- Thread starter ekim
- Start date
There were some arguing early on in here, that it was okay for MSFT to do that, even worse, lock it behind their store because they developed it.
Yeah, I know.
LukasTaves
Member
Anti competitive tactics and closing ventures that turned being waste of time and money isn't even remotely the same as locking down the entire OS to eliminate competition. I'm sure they would love to, but they literaly can't, not when the thing that drives the sales of said platform is this very openness.
For your scenario to even begin to make sense the entire world almost literaly would just to accept they have no other option other than install the latest Ms OS where the freedom is lost and never look for an alternative which is unimaginable. There's multi billion dollar companies using this OS, relying on the fact it's open, governments even. The reach of the OS is so much bigger than just being used for games. They earn billions per year on those clients that purchase their OS and you are assuming they are just throw everything away to control the only way to sell applications? Because if they did that surely there would be no user left to buy said applications.
Can/will they leverage to he fact that they develop the OS to gain an unfair advantage against the competition? Absolutely likely. Can/will they use of anti competitive tactics to try break the competition? Probably. Will they lock the OS so they are the only ones who can sell anything on it? That would be suicide, whether their store is successful or not.
I think we need to make it clear that they control both UWP and Win32. They do intend for UWP to replace Win32 going forward. So going forward, I think it's safe to assume that they won't be supporting Win32 forever.
The problem is not that they want to replace the standard. The problems are that 1) the new standard could be inferior to the old in terms of flexibility and functionality and 2) they could force developers to used UWP apps exclusively in the Win10 store.
LukasTaves
Member
1) Win32 didn't get this flexibility and functionality in a year. They are improving the app platform, the progress coming from winrt to uwp was already tremendous.
2) They could, but they are going in the opposite direction today, and doesn't even make sense for them to change back. Ms wants everyone using their tools to develop for everything, because for them having people using their services, and developers using their tools and cloud services is the ultimate goal. Locking devs to only their store and blocking the competition goes directly against that goal. Even if wasn't their goal it would be just suicide to the windows platform to attempt it.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
This is pretty much the same FUD as back when Valve started touting SteamOS, just a slightly different tune.
I think in the end, this will continue to play out how it's always played out, nothing more than FUD.
I really hate the slippery slope game, as it can be used just about anywhere to justify just about anything.
I think in the end, this will continue to play out how it's always played out, nothing more than FUD.
I really hate the slippery slope game, as it can be used just about anywhere to justify just about anything.
This is the same way I see it. But it could go either way. Can't be too sure.
They have been getting better, but It's really annoying that MS hasn't been more forthcoming. Communication has been and continues to be terrible. I had the exact same problem with the Xbox one roll out. And am currently having the same problem with Halo. I mean they know how little trust they have, they should be heading off the skeptism before it arises.
They should put out a 10 commandment of api stewardship or something. Lol
You realize it's possible that nothing has come of it precisely because of that FUD? Think about the original version the XBONE was and how the current version is. Microsoft changed how the XBONE worked because of the anger over what they intended to do. Wasn't that information leaked to us by someone (serious question, I can't remember how we got the information about the always online stuff, but I don't think it was Microsoft that told us so correct me if I'm wrong). What makes talking about the what Microsoft was planning to do with the XBONE any different than what they might be planning to do with Windows?
It's better to have that FUD now and never risk them closing the platform than saying nothing and waiting until it's too late.
Weltall Zero
Member
Unknown Soldier
Member
It was rumoured and then Adam Orth started to defend it.
This was about 3 years ago now, perhaps this starting up now is to test the water prior to E3
I don't.
Although I do remember everyone hating Windows XP when it came out
And Windows 7
Funny how things change
Parapraxis
Member
I'm seeing people saying FUD is a good thing. This is amazing.
Night Angel
Member
Quote it.
The people saying it is good that we're having this conversation don't believe this is FUD, as it isn't dubious or misinformation. It has been presented as speculation from the outset (I seriously can't believe people think he claimed anything as absolute fact).
Try not to misrepresent what's happening here.
Sounds like whe they fuck up everyone voices their concern. Seems to be tha case now. So they need to either reconside or risk wisespread switch to something else. Like how they fucked up their attempts at the webserver market and LAMP stacks are the standard and iis based solutions are used only when there is no other choice.
Parapraxis
Member
I disagree.
The windows store is consumer focused.
So leveraging desktop os monopoly to give other parts of the business an unfair advantage is OK, or am I reading too much into your comment?
Fear: helps you be aware of your surroundings and makes you careful.
Uncertainty: helps you recognize the random nature of the universe. It is why we buy insurance.
Doubt: do I really need to defend skepticism?
It is only bad when untrue and done cynically by those with power.
Parapraxis
Member
Not to me, but you may want to look up what it is.
Proper skepticism relies on evidence.
I do, but it just shows how everyone hates everything MS does.
Until they like it and claim the next thing they hate is worse than the last one they used to hate , but now love.
Gemüsepizza
Member
One side never had any credibility, because they were just speculating without having any facts.
?
It is an attitude, a way of thinking, a process. Where did you get your definition from? A magazine?
What a time to be alive. lol.
When did humans live without fear, uncertainty, and doubt?
With Microsoft a healthy dose of skepticism is always good. See how the outcry regarding their used games policy and always online bullshit ended up. They changed it. Voicing our concerns early on is good and saying "It's early stages, they're still trying to make it good, they promised!" is ridiculous.
It's more important to raise concerns now that it is in its early stages, because that makes shit easier to change.
It's more important to raise concerns now that it is in its early stages, because that makes shit easier to change.
The 24 hour online thing was true the whole time though, it wasn't like: "oh we think this is going to happen." by one person, there were several MS news reporters that said this was happening, and then MS also announced it. It wasn't like all these people admitted to saying "we fear this may happen and have no evidence to say that we know it is going to"...it was more along the lines of "these are what my sources are telling me and it is going to happen and we should be fearful" That's a major difference between Sweeneys article and the 24hr check.
MS or any company for that matter should always be alerted of concerns that users have, but people who do say that in certain positions shouldn't say things that they don't know are facts, they should be concerns and presented as such (Sweeney's article isn't the way you present it...his interviews afterwards were more along the lines of how you should present it).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QaaQer said:
I hope that you aren't defending the spread of FUD. If you are, I hope you know there's a reason why people tell their children the story about the boy who cried wolf.
just had a popup on my pc saying "windows is scheduled to upgrade on march the 10th". Why is it scheduled for upgrading, I never approved such a thing.
It's so incredibly scummy how ms is trying to fool people into upgrading. This whole debacle with the annoying win 10 popups and now this uwp stuff has caused me to lose what little confidence and trust in ms I had left.
FUD is a marketing strategy, it's not applicable in this context.
If we would have it your way(nobody saying anything until we have the evidence in hand) we'd all be discussing the pointlessness of hindsight instead.
By definition, the people who are spreading the FUD would have to gain something for it to be considered FUD.
Nobody is set to gain anything from these speculations, on the contrary its purpose is to prevent us from losing stuff.
It's so incredibly scummy how ms is trying to fool people into upgrading. This whole debacle with the annoying win 10 popups and now this uwp stuff has caused me to lose what little confidence and trust in ms I had left.
FUD is a marketing strategy, it's not applicable in this context.
If we would have it your way(nobody saying anything until we have the evidence in hand) we'd all be discussing the pointlessness of hindsight instead.
By definition, the people who are spreading the FUD would have to gain something for it to be considered FUD.
Nobody is set to gain anything from these speculations, on the contrary its purpose is to prevent us from losing stuff.
roadrunn3r
Member
People (included me) answered to you questioning why we can't trust MS but you conveniently ignored those posts and prefer instead posting shocking one liners.
You are clearly not here for a discussion and it shows.
Night Angel
Member
Oh but what a world we live in el oh el haha you guys are silly *condescending smiley*
Not in the disinformation sense, no. It is just a shame that the individual words are tarred with the same brush as the acronym.
Fear of monopolies? Check. Uncertainty over Microsoft's ultimate goals? Check. Doubt over PR? Check. And for some reason saying that is now bad because of the strategic disinformation companies like MS and IBM spread in the past.
Night Angel
Member
And they ignore the actual meaning of FUD to do so, twisting the intent of the phrase to fit this scenario. Seeing some of the people doing so, though (you know, the ones who always have MS's back when these kinds of conversations come up), it's no surprise. Some people want to shut down the conversation or discredit its source however they can.
Writers don't write headlines, editors do.
The point is that the actions are the evidence. As Durante pointed out you are never going to get a confession of something like this so what would be suitable evidence if not the concerns already pointed out with the way UWP works?
I see a lot of people mentioning the fact that businesses rely on win32 and therefore it will never be phased out. My question to you is why does UWP exist in the first place if Microsoft does not want all future apps to be made with it. Why does it have these restrictions if Microsoft doesn't want to control it? What makes people think Win32 will remain forever?
Businesses is all I keep hearing. Why is it so far fetched that MS could potentially offer no support for win32 in their "Home edition" of their OS? I actually don't think they are going to but Windows RT existed didn't it?
Did you know that older windows OSes are being fazed out too? In other words you cannot use a new processor with an older OS. Nothing other than windows 10. "Oh but businesses still rely on windows 7 or 8.1" I hear you cry. 18 month grace period. Windows 10 is Microsofts "final OS" so they say. It's so obvious that they are going towrds an Android like model for the consumer. They would simply have all the restrictions they have now and have a Dev mode as they already do now. The evidence that's required is how this would change in the future for the better not how what is currently in place will affect the future. The latter is clearly speculation but speculation of the future based on evidence that is present now. Nothing to do with intentions because the intention is as clear as you are probably going to get with these actions.
For the record sideloading "metro... universal... windows apps" in windows 8.1 was even worse. It could only be done with a dev license MS granted. These fears are not based on nothing they are based on the only evidence we can possibly hope to have at this point outside of MS saying "yeah you're right we're here to monopolize app development on PC".
UWP IS replacing Win32. That's not the problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with updating standards.
The problem lies in the possibility that the new standard will be less flexible than win32, and distributing apps outside of the Win10 store will be impossible or prohibitively difficult.
Now, you can point to the current "actions" and predict that the issues present now, will still be issues when UWP does become the standard API. But the fact is, we don't know what changes will be made to the API before that day comes.
The current situation now, provides a reason to be suspicious. But it doesn't provide you with evidence of a future transgression.
I remember when Apple introduced the Mac App Store and people heralded it as the downfall of third party software on OS X. There were pundits who swore that Adobe products would cease to exist or massively lose functionality to fit inside the app store model.
It turns out, none of those things happened. The Mac App Store is almost a wasteland, and people still sell software for the platform outside of the store.
A fun counterpoint is iOS, though I would argue that since it has been a closed ecosystem since day one, it's a completely different animal.
Final thought: Giving away Windows 10 and future updates for free has a cost. Microsoft doesn't make nearly enough from Epic Games or Steam or any other software provider to compensate for all of the license sales it makes, and enterprise software isn't growing fast enough to sustain their investors' expectations. And furthermore, Epic just made their OWN games client (which will lead to their own "store"), so really this is a corporation asking for regular customers to go to bat for them against a bigger corporation. I don't know about most of you, but I can't really get that emotionally invested in their business squabbles.
It turns out, none of those things happened. The Mac App Store is almost a wasteland, and people still sell software for the platform outside of the store.
A fun counterpoint is iOS, though I would argue that since it has been a closed ecosystem since day one, it's a completely different animal.
Final thought: Giving away Windows 10 and future updates for free has a cost. Microsoft doesn't make nearly enough from Epic Games or Steam or any other software provider to compensate for all of the license sales it makes, and enterprise software isn't growing fast enough to sustain their investors' expectations. And furthermore, Epic just made their OWN games client (which will lead to their own "store"), so really this is a corporation asking for regular customers to go to bat for them against a bigger corporation. I don't know about most of you, but I can't really get that emotionally invested in their business squabbles.
The point is that the new standard is already less flexible. There is a transgression right now. What you need evidence for is how this will change for the better in the future. What we have now is this
We know they hope to make UWP the standard.
We know that the UWP standard is restrictive.
What you are suggesting is akin to saying well I know there is this new bill that they are working on in government. That bill will come into affect some time in the future after it is passed but what if it changes by then therefore I don't know the intentions of that bill to begin with and therefore shouldn't criticise its intentions.
The concerns being raised are why is it restrictive now and where is the evidence that it will change. The evidence that win32 will remain isn't around. The fact that UWP exists is evidence that it is being replaced. The evidence that UWP will be less restrictive in the future isn't around. The fact that it is the way it is for a while (since 8) is evidence that it is intentionally restrictive.
mitchman
Gold Member
One other big difference is that when updating Win10 to a new major version, such as TH1, the default browser setting is intentionally reset if it is set to something else than Edge. With no browser set as default, Edge becomes the default.
It's a clever way of hi-jacking the default browser setting and it will have consequences, I'm sure. MS are now apparently backpadling and calling it a bug, but it's isn't really, it has been reported by Insiders many time since immediately after the release of Win10.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Well said.
As for recent thread events...
I can't believe the supporters actually tried to latch onto the FUD is a bad thing, and us humans all of a sudden don't have it inately rhetoric from a 30+ page late one liner poster.
Man that is some desperate reaching, lol.
Bug my ass, lol. Amazing there is no more little pop up box asking to make default browser like in, oh you know, Win 7 when they were still under the federal probation.
The 'new standard' isn't yet a standard. And it is a work in progress.
We win32 IS being replaced. It's a matter or when, not IF. The question, that still remains unanswered is what will UWP look like when it finally replaces Win32.
No one knows. All we have is speculation.
Your analogy doesn't describe the situation at all. A Better one would be that we know congress is writing a bill to change a law. We know the political history of some of the politicians working on the bill and we are wary of the prospects.
But we don't know exactly how the final version of the bill will actually look when it goes to vote.
We don't have any more evidence that UWP will stay the same than we do that I'll will change. We have no evidence either way. All we have is speculation that it won't and an insistence from MS that UWP will be open.
I'm increasingly glad Sweeney went in on Microsoft over this, he might not have won over a lot of the people in this thread who seem to strangely give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt at every turn but the articles started a discussion in almost every dev circle I'm a part of and the response is universally the same, people agreeing with Sweeney and viewing these new efforts with a lot more skepticism.
Microsoft is now under immense pressure to deliver at //Build and convince developers of their plans.
Microsoft is now under immense pressure to deliver at //Build and convince developers of their plans.
This really should be in the OP
Crayon
Member
If your story is typical of what other developers are experiencing then I would not be surprised.
The question is at the end of the day, do we lay the burden of proof on microsoft. Considering that everyone but them is in a position to get screwed by them, I think the answer is obvious . Come out and explain how great and open uwa is going to be if you have nothing to hide.
potatohead
Member
Phil Spencer touched on that (being open) and that's why he talked about //build/. It's a conference for developers who pay thousands of dollars on to get inside information on what MS is making and get to personally talk to MS devs and management to get an idea of where the platform is heading. They do this every year (used to be PDC). If they flat out and listed everything then it wouldn't make sense to have build (and they probably wouldn't be able to answer questions that are usually brought up during those Q&A sessions). So with Phil saying, yes, we're open, wait till build to hear details, I think that's a reasonable thing to ask of...especially when it's less than a month away (UWP isn't replacing Win32 in less than a month).
Ricerocket
Member
This reads like a repeat of X1 launch where no one could get answers. They're told to wait. How is that any good? The result is a partner of MS going public of this issue... and here we are.
Sweeney has been in talks with Microsoft for 18 months, and you don't have to wait for a private Q&A session at a conference before sharing information on your plans to make a truly open platform out of something you've already commercially launched.
Sure everything could end up fine, but people are right to put pressure on Microsoft and their response that it will all be revealed at Build means there's even more pressure on them at that now.
I thought Sweeney was a lot more plugged in than I gave him credit for. "...the extreme difficulty but possibility, technically, of changing your default browser or video player and other things."
Settings - System - default apps. That's difficult? You can also set it directly from the browser itself lol
Similar threads
- Poll