Microsoft: A year in review
I'm having a hard time with this. Really I am. I want to call people Sheeple. I want to punch them in their faces. I want them to use their own brains as opposed to the collective brains of a society concerned with things other than rational thought. And, I'm not winning that war any time soon.
2013 was a bad year for Microsoft. And for all the wrong reasons. Windows 8.1 was a step back in many ways for me, and failed to take a step forward in the ways that mattered. I loathe that silly start button. Many people on the other hand praise the moves Microsoft made to make Windows 8.1 more like Windows 7. And yet, I'll wager most of those people bought Mac Books long before. Like the many who complained about the changes in Windows 8 complaining about how it differed from Windows 7 and then bought a Mac Book in answer to that. A system even LESS like Windows 7 than Windows 8. Tell me the sanity in that? There is none. It is a completely different OS. It looks and acts differently, and even to this day, it still supports MUCH less hardware and software than Windows does.
I don't think Windows 8 is perfect. I think it is terribly flawed. But I still think it is better than the alternatives. I'll admit, I'm in a rare group. I'm not afraid to open up my tower and replace anything in there. I built most of my last 5 or so PC's from scratch. I buy random hardware and I don't want to rely on hope that it will work when I get it home. These are things you cannot get with a Mac (the latter not being Apple's fault, but the former being solely their fault).
When my PC breaks, I don't need to bring it into an authorized dealer. I don't need to buy authorized components. If my hard drive breaks down outside of warranty, I can buy a bigger and better one if I want, or buy a smaller, cheaper used one if I'm down on my luck financially. I can repair it myself, or find any of a number reputable or disreputable shops to do the repairs.
I can buy a new PC in wide array of price points, from a wide array of vendors.
On the hardware side, I'm sorry, the competition is sorely lacking. But, hardware is moving away from desktops and laptops in general, and I'll come back to that point in a bit. Where Microsoft went really wrong was abandoning what made Windows popular. Their view on software. As a Win32 developer I can develop and publish for free. Microsoft even produces free versions of Visual Studio which is definitely among the best IDE's overall, and quite likely the absolute best for Win32 development. In Microsoft's new UI that changes. I can still develop for free via express versions. But I cannot publish for free. I need to pay for a license (however cheap it may be) and I must publish through their store and meet their standards.
Curated app stores are great. But they are also limiting. And, amusingly, I think consumers would get the most benefit from having such an app store for desktop apps. Desktop apps aren't sandboxed like Modern apps, so there is a lot more damage they can wreak a lot more easily. That isn't to say that I don't think Microsoft should have a curated app store for Modern apps. I do. I simply believe that they should also either allow 3rd party app stores and/or allow manual installation.
I understand the concerns around piracy, but seriously, Microsoft could recompile your apps delivered via their store to use a separate and proprietary version of the runtime, rendering the apps downloaded via the store un-runnable via the same runtime that runs manually installed apps. There are other variations on that approach as well that could likely be made to work. In other words, I feel as though there are ways to enable a curated app store that protects those who choose to use it while still allowing people to freely distribute their applications.
Apple goes too far one way, but they created the market and can afford to do so. And Google went too far the other way, but it makes consumers happy at the cost of revenue for developers who don't implement their own protection/DRM. Honestly, Microsoft either needs to find a workable middle ground, or go the Google route (which incidentally is the Win32 route). Going the Google/Win32 route simply means the onus is on developers to protect their IP which, lets face it, is still the industry standard everywhere except in mobile apps. So, it isn't all that much of an onus to put on devs.
The second is cross platform capabilities. Windows Phone has a MUCH larger catalogue than Windows 8 modern apps. They need to enable the titles from this store to run on Windows and, where applicable, vice versa. Same goes for the Xbox. Yes, I know, the form factors are drastically different. But, isn't this why those annoying manifest files for Windows Phone and Windows 8 dev make you select everything from the capabilities you support to the orientation and screen sizes? Could that information not be fleshed out a little further to enable to help filter which titles are available on which devices? If it isn't, the answer to both should be a resounding 'YES'. Once that is in place, all that is needed is a truly unified framework underneath it all.
Such a sudden influx of apps wouldn't save the ecosystem alone. But it would go a long way towards it. And by eliminating the need to compile a separate app for each system, you would get a lot more developer buy-in. I honestly wouldn't mind loading up my Windows Phone apps in a snapped view. I wouldn't even mind using a mouse as opposed to touch. I do mind re-purchasing the app or having an app which exists on my phone and not my tablet.
Slowly back to the hardware part of the story now. Microsoft made the right move shifting towards a more mobile friendly OS. I tend to feel like they didn't make the OS extensible enough however. Its almost as though they think touch interfaces are the last major breakthrough for a good long time. Smart watches WILL pickup in popularity. So too will smart eye-wear. And very likely one or more other form factors or means of input the public hasn't seen yet. And probably within the next 2-5 years. Windows 8 offers no clear means of adapting to these things.
And then there are tablets and phones. The other problem Microsoft is having is that phones are MUCH more pervasive with the newer generations. And, when they grow beyond phones they want tablets. And they generally prefer tablets with the same OS as their phone. It makes it easier to load contacts, music, and apps they already purchased. With Microsoft using a different OS on their phones vs. their tablets along with a different app store, it looks like they are fighting against the currents generated by purchasing trends. Not to imply they have a huge following on either platform comparatively speaking. But this move has certainly hindered them more than it has helped them. People aren't buying tablets based on their desktop OS, otherwise Android and iOS tablets wouldn't be ruling the market (Windows still owns the VAST majority of the laptop/desktop market).
And the ultimate reason behind all of this is, as I have long said, desktops/laptops do far more than the average person needs them too. Tablets do MOST of what MOST people need them to do. In many cases they even do EVERYTHING that they need them too. This is why that market segment is growing so well. Apple likely chose to use their phone OS on the tablet as a means of ensuring that everything that ran on the phone would run just as well on the tablet. And they waited until they had an app store which could service most of those needs before doing so.
Windows Phone is much further along in that respect than the Windows 8 app store is. And yet Microsoft put their desktop OS on their tablets hoping the slate of unneeded desktop apps would drive sales. And they wanted a premium price for it when they knew that they would be starting out with a fresh and inferior app store.
As with Windows Phone... if they can hold in long enough they will likely see adoption increase. But it will be, in my opinion, for the wrong reasons. Microsoft should seriously consider the changes mentioned above and deliver an ecosystem which is both consumer and developer friendly.
2013 was a bad year for Microsoft. And for all the wrong reasons. Windows 8.1 was a step back in many ways for me, and failed to take a step forward in the ways that mattered. I loathe that silly start button. Many people on the other hand praise the moves Microsoft made to make Windows 8.1 more like Windows 7. And yet, I'll wager most of those people bought Mac Books long before. Like the many who complained about the changes in Windows 8 complaining about how it differed from Windows 7 and then bought a Mac Book in answer to that. A system even LESS like Windows 7 than Windows 8. Tell me the sanity in that? There is none. It is a completely different OS. It looks and acts differently, and even to this day, it still supports MUCH less hardware and software than Windows does.
I don't think Windows 8 is perfect. I think it is terribly flawed. But I still think it is better than the alternatives. I'll admit, I'm in a rare group. I'm not afraid to open up my tower and replace anything in there. I built most of my last 5 or so PC's from scratch. I buy random hardware and I don't want to rely on hope that it will work when I get it home. These are things you cannot get with a Mac (the latter not being Apple's fault, but the former being solely their fault).
When my PC breaks, I don't need to bring it into an authorized dealer. I don't need to buy authorized components. If my hard drive breaks down outside of warranty, I can buy a bigger and better one if I want, or buy a smaller, cheaper used one if I'm down on my luck financially. I can repair it myself, or find any of a number reputable or disreputable shops to do the repairs.
I can buy a new PC in wide array of price points, from a wide array of vendors.
On the hardware side, I'm sorry, the competition is sorely lacking. But, hardware is moving away from desktops and laptops in general, and I'll come back to that point in a bit. Where Microsoft went really wrong was abandoning what made Windows popular. Their view on software. As a Win32 developer I can develop and publish for free. Microsoft even produces free versions of Visual Studio which is definitely among the best IDE's overall, and quite likely the absolute best for Win32 development. In Microsoft's new UI that changes. I can still develop for free via express versions. But I cannot publish for free. I need to pay for a license (however cheap it may be) and I must publish through their store and meet their standards.
Curated app stores are great. But they are also limiting. And, amusingly, I think consumers would get the most benefit from having such an app store for desktop apps. Desktop apps aren't sandboxed like Modern apps, so there is a lot more damage they can wreak a lot more easily. That isn't to say that I don't think Microsoft should have a curated app store for Modern apps. I do. I simply believe that they should also either allow 3rd party app stores and/or allow manual installation.
I understand the concerns around piracy, but seriously, Microsoft could recompile your apps delivered via their store to use a separate and proprietary version of the runtime, rendering the apps downloaded via the store un-runnable via the same runtime that runs manually installed apps. There are other variations on that approach as well that could likely be made to work. In other words, I feel as though there are ways to enable a curated app store that protects those who choose to use it while still allowing people to freely distribute their applications.
Apple goes too far one way, but they created the market and can afford to do so. And Google went too far the other way, but it makes consumers happy at the cost of revenue for developers who don't implement their own protection/DRM. Honestly, Microsoft either needs to find a workable middle ground, or go the Google route (which incidentally is the Win32 route). Going the Google/Win32 route simply means the onus is on developers to protect their IP which, lets face it, is still the industry standard everywhere except in mobile apps. So, it isn't all that much of an onus to put on devs.
The second is cross platform capabilities. Windows Phone has a MUCH larger catalogue than Windows 8 modern apps. They need to enable the titles from this store to run on Windows and, where applicable, vice versa. Same goes for the Xbox. Yes, I know, the form factors are drastically different. But, isn't this why those annoying manifest files for Windows Phone and Windows 8 dev make you select everything from the capabilities you support to the orientation and screen sizes? Could that information not be fleshed out a little further to enable to help filter which titles are available on which devices? If it isn't, the answer to both should be a resounding 'YES'. Once that is in place, all that is needed is a truly unified framework underneath it all.
Such a sudden influx of apps wouldn't save the ecosystem alone. But it would go a long way towards it. And by eliminating the need to compile a separate app for each system, you would get a lot more developer buy-in. I honestly wouldn't mind loading up my Windows Phone apps in a snapped view. I wouldn't even mind using a mouse as opposed to touch. I do mind re-purchasing the app or having an app which exists on my phone and not my tablet.
Slowly back to the hardware part of the story now. Microsoft made the right move shifting towards a more mobile friendly OS. I tend to feel like they didn't make the OS extensible enough however. Its almost as though they think touch interfaces are the last major breakthrough for a good long time. Smart watches WILL pickup in popularity. So too will smart eye-wear. And very likely one or more other form factors or means of input the public hasn't seen yet. And probably within the next 2-5 years. Windows 8 offers no clear means of adapting to these things.
And then there are tablets and phones. The other problem Microsoft is having is that phones are MUCH more pervasive with the newer generations. And, when they grow beyond phones they want tablets. And they generally prefer tablets with the same OS as their phone. It makes it easier to load contacts, music, and apps they already purchased. With Microsoft using a different OS on their phones vs. their tablets along with a different app store, it looks like they are fighting against the currents generated by purchasing trends. Not to imply they have a huge following on either platform comparatively speaking. But this move has certainly hindered them more than it has helped them. People aren't buying tablets based on their desktop OS, otherwise Android and iOS tablets wouldn't be ruling the market (Windows still owns the VAST majority of the laptop/desktop market).
And the ultimate reason behind all of this is, as I have long said, desktops/laptops do far more than the average person needs them too. Tablets do MOST of what MOST people need them to do. In many cases they even do EVERYTHING that they need them too. This is why that market segment is growing so well. Apple likely chose to use their phone OS on the tablet as a means of ensuring that everything that ran on the phone would run just as well on the tablet. And they waited until they had an app store which could service most of those needs before doing so.
Windows Phone is much further along in that respect than the Windows 8 app store is. And yet Microsoft put their desktop OS on their tablets hoping the slate of unneeded desktop apps would drive sales. And they wanted a premium price for it when they knew that they would be starting out with a fresh and inferior app store.
As with Windows Phone... if they can hold in long enough they will likely see adoption increase. But it will be, in my opinion, for the wrong reasons. Microsoft should seriously consider the changes mentioned above and deliver an ecosystem which is both consumer and developer friendly.
Comments
Post a Comment