Project Centennial: Microsoft's coolest and biggest gamble
For those not in the know, Project Centennial is Microsoft's "bridge" for Win32 applications developers. But, of all of the bridges, I think this is actually both the coolest and should be the most controversial.
Many argued that allowing Android and iOS developers to easily bring their non-native code to the Windows Store would re-inforce decisions not to go native UWP. And I think that there, the benefit outweighs the threat. The Windows Store needs those quality iOS apps more than it needs those developers to go native UWP.
And I don't really think people will decide that "hey, there is a path from iOS to UWP so let's not do .Net". The languages and environments are already so different that I think that the majority of such developers were already firmly in one camp or another.
Centennial on the other hand allows non-UWP .Net devs to stay out of UWP. And that is a potentially huge problem. Sure, they won't be able to target Xbox or Windows Phone or any new form factors that aren't based on desktop Windows 10... but if we're being honest here... that is the lion's share. So I see this as an excuse for candidates which were more likely to switch to UWP (based on already knowing .Net languages and using tools like VS, etc...) to now stay on Win32 or at least to stay there longer.
Now, if it were a guaranteed platform killer it wouldn't be a gamble, it would just be a bad idea. So, there must be an upside, right? Yep. And that is that it can make the Windows Store infinitely more valuable to both end users and developers. And, getting people into and using the Windows Store and spending money there is important for motivating developers to go the UWP route and wrangling in new developers.
From a developer perspective, you get a nice centralized store to showcase your app in. You also get most benefits of Win32 and you can now access UWP features as well. In addition to that, you can have someone else manage licensing (Microsoft). And, Microsoft's licensing in the Windows Store is actually quite good. They support trials, bundling, discounts, max number of devices, group activations, private stores, etc... and they are adding more functionality as well. As a small developer, or even as a larger one, not having to implement that stuff yourself can be huge.
As a user, especially as one who never really cared for UWP apps, you now have a reason to consider using the Windows Store.
But, I see a potential problem with the mechanism. I'm interested to see how Microsoft enforces Centennial submissions to the Store. All the converter requires is an installer. I don't see what is there to stop me from grabbing someone else's IP, throwing it through the converter, putting it up on the Store and then charging for it. Sure, I could probably be sued if I did that. But if it is a highly popular title, by the time it is pulled down, it may have already been downloaded by a large number of people and the damage done. If things aren't enforced in some fashion then I could see this solution being pulled VERY shortly.
I know MSI's, for example, contain metadata about publisher, app title, etc... so I suppose one way to enforce it is, if that information can be gathered reliably, to only allow users with confirmed and matching identities to submit apps.
Time will tell. This is a cool thing for sure, and I'm actually considering looking into getting it working for my wife's app.
Many argued that allowing Android and iOS developers to easily bring their non-native code to the Windows Store would re-inforce decisions not to go native UWP. And I think that there, the benefit outweighs the threat. The Windows Store needs those quality iOS apps more than it needs those developers to go native UWP.
And I don't really think people will decide that "hey, there is a path from iOS to UWP so let's not do .Net". The languages and environments are already so different that I think that the majority of such developers were already firmly in one camp or another.
Centennial on the other hand allows non-UWP .Net devs to stay out of UWP. And that is a potentially huge problem. Sure, they won't be able to target Xbox or Windows Phone or any new form factors that aren't based on desktop Windows 10... but if we're being honest here... that is the lion's share. So I see this as an excuse for candidates which were more likely to switch to UWP (based on already knowing .Net languages and using tools like VS, etc...) to now stay on Win32 or at least to stay there longer.
Now, if it were a guaranteed platform killer it wouldn't be a gamble, it would just be a bad idea. So, there must be an upside, right? Yep. And that is that it can make the Windows Store infinitely more valuable to both end users and developers. And, getting people into and using the Windows Store and spending money there is important for motivating developers to go the UWP route and wrangling in new developers.
From a developer perspective, you get a nice centralized store to showcase your app in. You also get most benefits of Win32 and you can now access UWP features as well. In addition to that, you can have someone else manage licensing (Microsoft). And, Microsoft's licensing in the Windows Store is actually quite good. They support trials, bundling, discounts, max number of devices, group activations, private stores, etc... and they are adding more functionality as well. As a small developer, or even as a larger one, not having to implement that stuff yourself can be huge.
As a user, especially as one who never really cared for UWP apps, you now have a reason to consider using the Windows Store.
But, I see a potential problem with the mechanism. I'm interested to see how Microsoft enforces Centennial submissions to the Store. All the converter requires is an installer. I don't see what is there to stop me from grabbing someone else's IP, throwing it through the converter, putting it up on the Store and then charging for it. Sure, I could probably be sued if I did that. But if it is a highly popular title, by the time it is pulled down, it may have already been downloaded by a large number of people and the damage done. If things aren't enforced in some fashion then I could see this solution being pulled VERY shortly.
I know MSI's, for example, contain metadata about publisher, app title, etc... so I suppose one way to enforce it is, if that information can be gathered reliably, to only allow users with confirmed and matching identities to submit apps.
Time will tell. This is a cool thing for sure, and I'm actually considering looking into getting it working for my wife's app.
Comments
Post a Comment