I want to be, but I'm not convinced - Universal Apps

[EBUK]

So apps really means ONE app, which does little more than tweak photos, which I can do in a plethora of other apps on my Windows Phone, or using Picasa on the desktop.

they are not as full functional. But that doesn't mean they never will be. Again, this stuff doesn't happen over night.

One app is not 'they'. You mean it. And it doesn't mean it ever will be, either. What evidence do you have to the contrary other than your own personal app development intentions?

So far we only have 'soft', anecdotal evidence from you, which at times is bordering on sophistry. I want hard evidence. Until I see it, Microsoft's dreams of universal apps remains nothing but a dream.

 

[Jas00555]

I think you are being to US focused. I can't MOVE for Windows devices. Every where I look someone has a Windows phone, tablet or PC. These are getting very popular in UK, EU. I hear India is the same, as are other places. With what seems to be rabid keenness developing around Win10 round here (heck I've even had random people approaching me at work to pass on their excitement, and I work in maritime sector...) Windows apps are going to be the #1 platform to create for. Certainly there will be more devices running Windows apps than any other.

OK so the US may be different as I am told you all hate MS and love the Apple. Fine, but that being true it is not sensible to base your thinking on the US experience. Take a look at the THEM experience instead, where MS is groovy.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Windows devices aren't selling, but whether those laptops and 2in1s are using the Store apps. I think 2in1s are doing pretty well (176 million a year IIRC), but I don't know how many people use the Store apps nor do I know how tablets are doing.

I agree with Mike's general idea (although not his beliefs about WP) in that there aren't enough of us to make developers care about Universal apps.

The Windows Store's future resides on the sales of "big Windows". If enough 2in1s and tablets sell, then that would make developers increase the quality of Windows Store apps, which could then bring desktop and traditional laptop users into the Store too, which would then *maybe* bring traditional programs into the store (supposedly, you're able to sell Win32 apps through the Windows 10 Store).

I don't think its a "dream" but it won't be easy. I do think Microsoft is taking the correct steps though.

 

[Wevenhuis]

I'm not worried. For me windows has shown me the experience that universal apps do have a value. Windows 8 already has universal apps and my experience is that many do complement each other to point for me that it's easier to use an app to check my balance and pay bills. I only use the website because for some payments, my bank set a limit of 1000 euros transactions is allowed through the apps as a security precaution. Everything over 1000 euros requires extra security codes and the obligation of using the banks website, wheras the apps suffice through a double pin round to confirm the action. Most of my daily payments and bills are much smaller that. It complements and suits my daily life well. At home I usually use the app on my surface pro. When I'm out the door I usually use my smartphone. Frankly I would even wish that music, store and video would even allow payments through linking with my banking apps. Microsoft limits that because then want us to use creditcards. But I think the banking app if safe and useful enough to do the job. Right now I have to do a workaround through paypal. It works fine, but I don't want more middlemen and I frankly don't prefer the convenience and cheaper administration costs of banking than a creditcard. Ik know the America's use creditcards a lot, but in Europe there is a good, safe and cheaper system of ATMs with banking cards. For Europeans paying with creditcard is relatively expensive.

 

[spaulagain]

So apps really means ONE app, which does little more than tweak photos, which I can do in a plethora of other apps on my Windows Phone, or using Picasa on the desktop.


One app is not 'they'. You mean it. And it doesn't mean it ever will be, either. What evidence do you have to the contrary other than your own personal app development intentions?

So far we only have 'soft', anecdotal evidence from you, which at times is bordering on sophistry. I want hard evidence. Until I see it, Microsoft's dreams of universal apps remains nothing but a dream.

And Adobe Reader. And I already mentioned Live Interior Pro 3D which was an OSX desktop application. Oh, and not to mention MIcrosoft rewriting all their applications in the WinRT environment.

Bordering on sophistry? Really? Apparently I'm not allowed to use my personal experience to support my view, but you guys are able to use yours? If it doesn't exist now, then it must not be possible? Talking about pessimism. Good thing you aren't the CEO of any company, or it would be buried by the competition that does DREAM.

I've said this a million times already, judging the potential impact of Universal Apps based on the current set up is not a good measurement for what will happen in the future. But you guys are sooooo focused on what it is like right now, that you have convinced yourself it's impossible for any future development. You seem convinced that somehow this legacy environment which has plagued Windows stability and is being overtaken by apps on iOS and Android, will last forever because developers refuse to move onto new technology. You are convinced that despite Microsoft making it incredibly easy to write once, deploy everywhere, that no developers will budge from their fragmented system of writing for each platform. Or that there current applications will always be there as they are now, that they will never rewrite them, or take a fresh look.

I honestly am in shock at the negative attitude you guys are presenting here. I don't even understand what you are here for if you all think this is DOA. You seem to think MS can survive on their current legacy app environment despite all the evidence against it. I don't get it.

I'll keep my dream, and you can keep your nightmare.

 

[spaulagain]

I don't think its a "dream" but it won't be easy. I do think Microsoft is taking the correct steps though.

This is exactly my point, Microsoft is building towards this. It certainly won't happen overnight, but it isn't some pipe dream that's impossible to achieve. MS is doing everything in their power to make it happen. And the competition isn't there yet, and doesn't have the massive portfolio to make it either.

If Microsoft fails to make people want this (which I think they already do want anyways). Then Microsoft should just close up shop. Kill Windows, be done with it all. Make people like Mike happy because he can prove he was right.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Okay, I slept through the night and missed a bunch here. However, I'd like to jump in and point something out about the Game Apps. Laura, you were asking would high end gamers be able to get high-end games (like XBox does) as in-store apps.

Yes, they will. And the new DirectX 12 will give them more power to do more with their games. It is definitely possible. The "Requirements" list for some apps may just have to include processing power. Perhaps "minimal graphics hardware should be" and so on.

Yes, overclocking will still allow you to run store apps, as long as the overclock is stable. I've done a fair amount of overclocking on a liquid cooled system I had until recently. It was on Windows 8.1, and I used store apps with it, though none required the processing power I had.

Yes, I had a system liquid cooled and overclocked up to 5.8GHz with no stability issues whatsoever, with 3 high-end graphics cards.

If you can convince people that are hardcore gamers and overclockers that are always tinkering and upgrading hardware to use apps instead of the desktop stuff, then you've accomplished a lot. If Microsoft will make Xbox One games as Windows 10 Universal Apps to where they will run on supported hardware and run on either PC or Xbox, then they will get that following for sure. Of course, those apps would not be truly "Universal" as they would require x86 architecture to run and won't run on ARM or low end processors or graphics. Well, they might run on low end x86, but not be playable.

I think MS needs to push that particular envelope a bit. Make Minecraft a Universal App as soon as is possible. Think about playing Minecraft on the desktop, then continuing the game on your phone. That game is a no brainer to do as universal app. That one app alone will get a lot of people to start noticing store apps.

When I referred to PC games, I really hadn't thought of Minecraft. Yes, I know Minecraft is popular, but it really isn't graphics-intensive. I have no idea why Minecraft is so popular with kids, since its graphics actually remind me of the graphics in games when I was a kid back in the 80s. Perhaps that's the secret. Maybe the retro look is what appeals.

I was thinking more in terms of games like Crysis 3 or Assassin's Creed Unity. Would it be possible for those games to be store apps that people with high-end hardware would be able to run at maximum resolution?

 

[Laura Knotek]

Store apps are optimized for touch, for tablets, that implies less features, lower information density, apps that don't work well with keyboard and mouse, web sites are better. Additionally, Windows 8 apps have the worst user experience ever created, with hidden menus, configuration and search, without any indication of how to find those elements. Too much white space that is excessive even for touch.

I think Universal apps has an opportunity to succeed in Windows 10 because the duality of Metro and Desktop environments is removed, the apps integrate beautifully in your familiar Desktop user experience. Most of the flaws of metro are being corrected, and apps will be better designed for mouse and keyboard interaction, maybe some companies could even fork part of the UI to target each form factor.

I agree with you.

I had to post in the WCentral support forum for the WCentral app for Windows 8, since I couldn't figure out how to change the font/color settings in the app. Open charms, go to settings? No, it's not there. It requires swiping up from the bottom. However, other apps have font/color settings controlled by charms>settings.

If the apps are fixed in a way that is intuitive and settings are changed in a similar way, no matter which app one is using, then more people will use Store apps. The clunkiness and difficulty to determine how to change settings in apps isn't helpful.

 

[UptownWebhead]

I for one am looking forward to what Microsoft has in store for us this year. The Universal App model is very promising and very exciting for me as a Windows 7/Windows+WP 8 user. To be able to use certain apps on my desktop that wouldn't necessarily warrant a desktop app might sound ridiculous but there are many ideas that developers are implementing into mobile apps that would be highly intuitive and extremely useful even in a desktop environment. Look at what Apple is doing with OSX and iOS. While they're keeping their systems separate, a lot of OSX apps are starting to look like iPad apps on the desktop, which is not entirely different from what Microsoft is doing in terms of design. Idk maybe I'm just talking gibberish but I'm convinced Windows 10 will be the OS to change peoples minds about Windows as well as getting developers interested in developing for it.

Posted via the Windows Central App for Android

 

[EBUK]

Apparently I'm not allowed to use my personal experience to support my view,

Confirmation bias. No, you can't use your experience and extrapolate to every other developer. You stated Adobe APPS, but could only come up with one, and one that doesn't have the features of full Photoshop. And No, I didn't use my experience and state it as fact.

It seems that that you are stating your opinion as fact. I am asking you to produce hard evidence, and you have failed. Just because you dream something, doesn't mean it WILL happen. Dreams don't mean a thing.

I desperately want MS to succeed with Windows 10 and universal apps. More than you can imagine. If I didn't, I wouldn't be spending my hard earned money buying more Windows phones and devices. So they're going to give away W10 away for free to users of Win 7 and 8 in the HOPE of stimulating universal app development. It's a gamble, a very big one. Microsoft's future as a software company is at stake here.

There is no guarantee that developers will develop universal apps. There is no guarantee that they will port their iOS and Android apps over to Windows. It doesn't matter how many billions of users of Windows there are. Remember Windows has just 14% of market share across all devices. That number isn't going to change when W10 is released. It will still be 14%.

14%. Put another way 86% of devices don't run Windows. How attractive is that to developers?

 

[spaulagain]

Confirmation bias. No, you can't use your experience and extrapolate to every other developer. You stated Adobe APPS, but could only come up with one, and one that doesn't have the features of full Photoshop. And No, I didn't use my experience and state it as fact.

It seems that that you are stating your opinion as fact. I am asking you to produce hard evidence, and you have failed. Just because you dream something, doesn't mean it WILL happen. Dreams don't mean a thing.

I desperately want MS to succeed with Windows 10 and universal apps. More than you can imagine. If I didn't, I wouldn't be spending my hard earned money buying more Windows phones and devices. So they're going to give away W10 away for free to users of Win 7 and 8 in the HOPE of stimulating universal app development. It's a gamble, a very big one. Microsoft's future as a software company is at stake here.

There is no guarantee that developers will develop universal apps. There is no guarantee that they will port their iOS and Android apps over to Windows. It doesn't matter how many billions of users of Windows there are. Remember Windows has just 14% of market share across all devices. That number isn't going to change when W10 is released. It will still be 14%.

14%. Put another way 86% of devices don't run Windows. How attractive is that to developers?

There is no guarantee of anything, I never said that Microsoft has a guaranteed win. In fact, I even state that above. The only thing that is evident is the old desktop model is dwindling. Something you point out yourself by mentioning the overall device share Microsoft has, even with their massive share in Desktop devices. That's a massive share of devices that all these legacy apps have no window into (no pun intended).

What I'm getting at is developers who are clinging onto these Win32 apps, are holding onto a loose thread. They are ignoring the direction the entire industry is heading and as a result will be irrelevant in the coming years. Microsoft has built a foundation for those companies/developers to maintain relevancy but still be in a familiar environment (.NET) via WinRT. In addition, Microsoft has given them the opportunity to go even beyond Microsoft's platform and export their apps to the 86% of devices you mention that are not Windows. Again, write once, deploy everywhere and maintain relevancy.

So again I say, Universal apps are the answer. If they aren't, then the whole platform is dead. So people like Mike better get with the game or jump ship. Because refusing to do so will only ensure their demise. And with that in mind, I have no doubt that in the long run all of these Win32 apps are going to have to be replaced with a WinRT version. Something that Mike refuses to do, and something you claim no one will do just because it hasn't been done yet. You also state that my belief in this direction is some pipe dream fantasy that's betting the farm on some magical pixie dust. It's not, it's just logical.

In the end, there is no guarantee this will happen, but it's the only logical path to survive. Resistance is futile

 

[Laura Knotek]

Confirmation bias. No, you can't use your experience and extrapolate to every other developer. You stated Adobe APPS, but could only come up with one, and one that doesn't have the features of full Photoshop. And No, I didn't use my experience and state it as fact.

It seems that that you are stating your opinion as fact. I am asking you to produce hard evidence, and you have failed. Just because you dream something, doesn't mean it WILL happen. Dreams don't mean a thing.

I desperately want MS to succeed with Windows 10 and universal apps. More than you can imagine. If I didn't, I wouldn't be spending my hard earned money buying more Windows phones and devices. So they're going to give away W10 away for free to users of Win 7 and 8 in the HOPE of stimulating universal app development. It's a gamble, a very big one. Microsoft's future as a software company is at stake here.

There is no guarantee that developers will develop universal apps. There is no guarantee that they will port their iOS and Android apps over to Windows. It doesn't matter how many billions of users of Windows there are. Remember Windows has just 14% of market share across all devices. That number isn't going to change when W10 is released. It will still be 14%.

14%. Put another way 86% of devices don't run Windows. How attractive is that to developers?

I believe that 14% is attractive to developers because those desktop programs tend to be expensive and many are used by enterprise users. For example, PhotoShop is definitely in demand and used by desktop PC users, not just Mac users. Adobe could not ignore desktop PC users if it wants to stay in business.

 

[spaulagain]

I agree with you.

I had to post in the WCentral support forum for the WCentral app for Windows 8, since I couldn't figure out how to change the font/color settings in the app. Open charms, go to settings? No, it's not there. It requires swiping up from the bottom. However, other apps have font/color settings controlled by charms>settings.

If the apps are fixed in a way that is intuitive and settings are changed in a similar way, no matter which app one is using, then more people will use Store apps. The clunkiness and difficulty to determine how to change settings in apps isn't helpful.

This is just lack of maturity in the platform. You don't have to build an app in WinRT that goes by these hidden methods, etc. In fact, Microsoft has already shown that going forward their own apps will be outside this minimal paradigm Windows 8 was launched on.

The basic UI and feature limit is not inherent of WinRT as a developing environment. It's simply immaturity and lack of effort by the developers. iOS/Android apps weren't exactly brilliant UIs when they started either. In fact, until Material design, I'd say Android apps were an absolute cluster fvck. There UI's were fragmented, ugly, and unclear. All of this can change, just needs guidance and effort. It doesn't make the platform itself bad or dead on arrival. Afterall, Win32 apps had pretty confusing UIs at one point too.

 

[typhon62_1]

There is no guarantee of anything, I never said that Microsoft has a guaranteed win. In fact, I even state that above. The only thing that is evident is the old desktop model is dwindling. Something you point out yourself by mentioning the overall device share Microsoft has, even with their massive share in Desktop devices. That's a massive share of devices that all these legacy apps have no window into (no pun intended).

What I'm getting at is developers who are clinging onto these Win32 apps, are holding onto a loose thread. They are ignoring the direction the entire industry is heading and as a result will be irrelevant in the coming years. Microsoft has built a foundation for those companies/developers to maintain relevancy but still be in a familiar environment (.NET) via WinRT. In addition, Microsoft has given them the opportunity to go even beyond Microsoft's platform and export their apps to the 86% of devices you mention that are not Windows. Again, write once, deploy everywhere and maintain relevancy.

So again I say, Universal apps are the answer. If they aren't, then the whole platform is dead. So people like Mike better get with the game or jump ship. Because refusing to do so will only ensure their demise. And with that in mind, I have no doubt that in the long run all of these Win32 apps are going to have to be replaced with a WinRT version. Something that Mike refuses to do, and something you claim no one will do just because it hasn't been done yet. You also state that my belief in this direction is some pipe dream fantasy that's betting the farm on some magical pixie dust. It's not, it's just logical.

In the end, there is no guarantee this will happen, but it's the only logical path to survive. Resistance is futile

I hope you are wrong. The electrical engineering tools I use will NEVER be ported to a MS Universal App. They'll leave Windows and go to Linux 1st.

 

[spaulagain]

I believe that 14% is attractive to developers because those desktop programs tend to be expensive and many are used by enterprise users. For example, PhotoShop is definitely in demand and used by desktop PC users, not just Mac users. Adobe could not ignore desktop PC users if it wants to stay in business.

And as desktop devices are replaced with multi-purpose devices that dock into a desktop occasionally, they can't ignore those devices as well.

Do you think these desktop bricks are going to exist forever? I sure don't and hope not. They are clunky and inflexible. I bet that within the next 5 years, the 2 in 1s that are dockable but portable via flip screen, etc. will be what most people use or will be replacing their desktops with. One device that adapts to their various use cases throughout the day.

And just because people use PhotoShop or Illustrator most when docked into a desktop, doesn't mean they don't want the flexibility to use it on the go in a simpler touch form. It's called adaptation or responsive. It's exactly what the web world has been doing for the past 3-5 years. And it's exactly where native apps are heading.

 

[spaulagain]

I hope you are wrong. The electrical engineering tools I use will NEVER be ported to a MS Universal App. They'll leave Windows and go to Linux 1st.

Why? What about going over to a completely new and separate environment like Linux which has 0% market-share effectively is more attractive then updating and migrating to the WinRT environment?

What about the Universal App thing is so damn bad that you would want a Linux app instead?

 

[manicottiK]

There is no guarantee that developers will develop universal apps. There is no guarantee that they will port their iOS and Android apps over to Windows. It doesn't matter how many billions of users of Windows there are. Remember Windows has just 14% of market share across all devices. That number isn't going to change when W10 is released. It will still be 14%. How attractive is that to developers?

I'd argue that there's not even a probability that developers will create universal apps.

However, if MS is playing some cards close to the vest such that Universal Apps v10 uses some Xamarin technology combined with what some of latest internal developer tools, maybe the new Universal Apps technology can build for Windows 10 (desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones), Android, and iOS from one code base.

If that were to happen, the economics of app development would be turned upside down. Suddenly, developing on Windows covers all of the bases, drawing developer interest and activity. Of course, the last time that we heard of such a grand development vision was with client-side Java and the claims to "write once, run anywhere," which Microsoft accurately mocked as "write once, debug everywhere."

Still, a boy can dream, right?...

 

[Mike Gibson]

However, if MS is playing some cards close to the vest such that Universal Apps v10 uses some Xamarin technology combined with what some of latest internal developer tools, maybe the new Universal Apps technology can build for Windows 10 (desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones), Android, and iOS from one code base.

That's a massive game changer. However, I don't know the legal ramifications (re: AAPL) of MSFT trying to do it. There might be clauses in iOS and Android SDKs about using "non-approved" tools to create programs ... and you can bet that they won't want MSFT effectively defining what their platform can do (if ISVs started using VS2015 for iOS and Android development then MSFT basically gets to decide what those platforms can do).

 

[Jas00555]

I hope you are wrong. The electrical engineering tools I use will NEVER be ported to a MS Universal App. They'll leave Windows and go to Linux 1st.

I'm also curious as to the logic that would go into a decision like that. That seems very nonsensical.

 

[Jas00555]

That's a massive game changer. However, I don't know the legal ramifications (re: AAPL) of MSFT trying to do it. There might be clauses in iOS and Android SDKs about using "non-approved" tools to create programs ... and you can bet that they won't want MSFT effectively defining what their platform can do (if ISVs started using VS2015 for iOS and Android development then MSFT basically gets to decide what those platforms can do).

Isn't Xamarin already doing that kind of thing though?

 

[Mike Gibson]

Isn't Xamarin already doing that kind of thing though?

It's limited and Xamarin is a tiny company. That would change if a big dog like MSFT started doing it. Remember the platform wars back in the 1990s (Netscape was going to turn Windows into "just a bunch of buggy device drivers)? That led to the big antitrust trial.