This is scary for w10m consumers

[techiez]

I understand the strategy to ignore consumer and go for the enterprise, but most enterprise clients that provide phones are already using iOS or Android and there is a lot of momentum there that will be hard to stop. Imagine the cost of switching out thousands of phones, apps, support, etc., and there will be massive resistance from management that knows and understands what they are already using. Plus, the CEO and everyone at the top doesn't like the idea of using anything but their own personal favorite phone ecosystem--they don't want to have to carry two phones, and they want their own personal apps to run on the company phone.

I dont think MS is targetting to sell a phone to enterprises, it will be a computing device that replaces their workstation, so by end of the day users will lock these in their desks pick up their android or iphones and travel back to their homes playing pokemon go on their way home.

 

[Maurizio Troso]

My 2 cents.

I used a symbian Nokia N78 as daily device till battery death in 2012 (and no working replaces found).
I got all apps I needed, official or 3rd parts entusuasht developed (hundreds, there was the famous Clear Type emulator which used same TFT Windows fonts, with text smootness like same generation lcd pc monitors), 3.2 Mpx real Carl Zeiss camera was one of the gems in its class, especially in dark light on manual mode.
I got push emails. Whatsapp, Opera, Garmin, an app which showed Nokia as a disk device in wifi lan and moving file btwn.
So I think same thing will happen on Win10M .

Not all developers pursue money.

 

[techiez]

My 2 cents.

I used a symbian Nokia N78 as daily device till battery death in 2012 (and no working replaces found).
I got all apps I needed, official or 3rd parts entusuasht developed (hundreds, there was the famous Clear Type emulator which used same TFT Windows fonts, with text smootness like same generation lcd pc monitors), 3.2 Mpx real Carl Zeiss camera was one of the gems in its class, especially in dark light on manual mode.
I got push emails. Whatsapp, Opera, Garmin, an app which showed Nokia as a disk device in wifi lan and moving file btwn.
So I think same thing will happen on Win10M .

Not all developers pursue money.

I remember symbian apps, I also used a N79. Unlike symbian apps which were free to deploy, its not the same case with the current "App" stores. and if it hasnt happened till now it will not happen anymore.
WP/W10m have their share of enthusiast developers who have bridged the gaps where first party refused to step in, but if you are expecting their numbers to increase significantly in future, I dont see it happening (though would love to see that happening).

 

[Aamir Mustafa]

these are normal things which are being discussed for few years

 

[Krystianpants]

Well I very well know what it takes to develop an app.

And I know it has been a year only for windows 10 and I'm not forgetting WP7, 7.5, WP8/windows 8, 8.1 and RT etc. Nor will developers forget this.

simple point is whats in it for developers to adopt UWP? if windows flourished on different devices then it makes sense to adopt to UWP else it doesnt make sense to develop an app just for Windows 10. why? well if you could cater to PC users via a website or your native app, why would you bother with the developer registration etc needed to publish your app to W store and also share 30% of your sales with MS?
MS has made its point clear that its future mobile strategy is not for consumers so forget abt targetting mobile users, all that is left is xbox, if that catches up then UWP will have some hope else it will die.

When you see facebook etc bringing their apps, it is because MS is paying the big names to develop UWP apps, is it going to pay every single developer? No. I dont think the big and famous apps were made UWP because they believed in the billion devices story of MS.

Let me correct you first. You do not need to put UWP through the store or pay any fees. You can publish them on the internet using websites just like any other app. It's just a package that does 1-click install through the App installer app you will see in your storage area. You do nothing except double click it. It shows you all the permission the app needs and lets you install it.. This is how it is by default starting with Windows Anniversary update.

UWP is not about the store, MS wants it to be but is not forcing it. UWP is still your program code but it uses different APIs to accomplish tasks in a different way. The difference is that all hardware out there running windows 10 will do tasks in the same manner and so you don't have to worry about how you will do this thing on each system you publish it on. So if you're only after the Desktop crowd you can maintain your app in w32. You can also make a UWP app to get a touch friendly interface into your app and add any new features. Here you avoid the store... but you may not want to. You may want to also publish it in the store. A lot of people prefer simplicity like with their mobile products. If they can get what they need from one safe source, they will choose that route, especially with all the viruses/hacks they hear about in the media. Most new hardware buyers with windows 10 will likely take that route. The average person will. Techies may find better alternatives, some may choose one based on the UI and if it does make touch easier. Then there will always be feedback to constantly tweak things to make the user experience better. With the increasing demand for laptops/2-in-1's/flip laptops more average people will be going into the store. I think that this is the best audience for the store. It's new and fresh people want to test things out and play with their new toy. The toy is designed to make the new stuff work best. Younger new buyers as well. The extremely old crowd may do better with having their techie pin what they need and leave it at that. Maybe they can learn the store.

Windows 7 was just shown to have lost shares and windows 10 has reached 25% mark already. This includes enterprise of course so MS is taking care of that slowly by helping companies move over. MS doesn't just wait for their biggest customers to move over. They do the move with them and their engineering/IT departments. It's part of Microsoft's job to make sure they are running the most secure software. Now is even more important as company's are getting hacked .. Is it more secure? Sure it is because it's designed to be. Is it impenetrable? No.. And that's why it has to be kept up to date. So windows 10 will surpass windows 7 in time. Again this is a long term thing for them if you don't recall. They don't need UWP to be a huge success year 1. In fact, maybe they know it wont be since they haven't finished windows 10 and it's not exactly free of all issues yet.

They may have made some bad decisions here and there, but everything they have done all these years has lead to their vision coming to fruition. That vision is windows 10. It's sort of funny but it's also designed so that they don't have to do reboots constantly and worry about massive changes, they really took their lessons over the years when building this. It's created to be extremely modular. I think any dev that is interested in this stuff will know this. So windows 10 is here to stay in one form or another. It could be the next platform for VR if MS/Intel have anything to say about it. Remember windows 10 isn't about keeping Desktop customers. It's about keeping every customer in any form it can. As PC's change, windows 10 changes with it. W32 will not survive a hardware change.

 

[FXi2]

one commenter on thurrot makes a good point

they asked if microsoft employees use wp internally, short answer is no, and yet THEY ARE an enterprise that uses windows, they fit their own target audience perfectly, and yet they dont use w10m phones, how does that look?

Regarding inside employees not using Windows phone I think the community has often accused Windows mobile of not matching "much used" features or apps on other platforms, of not being in touch with what people use every day. I think this is more of a taste test. Why? Because despite that internal commentary the builds for Windows 10 mobile are still coming fast and furious. Features keep getting added and not all that shockingly quite a few of those are features that are commonly used on other platforms. If you are in the IT support area you know full well that you "use" multiple platforms making sure you are at least comfortable enough in supporting various user approaches and hardware. Why would they be different. They want to be the best "by choice" and perhaps this means internally they have to do the same thing, win over users to the Windows Mobile way of doing things. But also they want high end people to use competitor devices. You have to know where the needle is and in mobile it moves fast. Remember also that they have a lower selection of high end devices on Verizon and some of this may well be carrier driven too, since MS likely offers both carriers to employees based on employee need. So I think this is one of those "but I asked an employee and he said something shocking!" moments that really doesn't carry context or even reasonably speculate on the possible reasons it can happen. You think they don't use iPads? Or Samsung tablets? You must always keep an eye on what the others are doing right and that is often best by feeding your own people with the devices and seeing what they like and don't.

 

[Joe920]

the community has often accused Windows mobile of not matching "much used" features or apps on other platforms

If I may promote my own thread here, at least in terms of OS features (outside apps) there really doesn't seem to be much of a divide, if any: http://forums.windowscentral.com/ge...-against-ios-android-os-so-apart-app-gap.html
Obviously that alone is not enough to keep customers around though.

 

[Ten Four]

they asked if microsoft employees use wp internally, short answer is no,

I know for a fact that some MS employees were provided with the latest W10 phones and asked to use them as daily drivers, along with special software recording use, glitches, etc. These were MS employees not directly involved with the mobile division too. However, like any big company there are a ton of employees at MS who are not supplied with phones because they don't need a mobile phone for anything they do normally at work. And, yes they do develop apps for iOS and Android so it makes sense to have employees using those systems too. Bottom line is management seems to be making a bet that in the short term enterprise may provide some market for mobile, and in the longer term they apparently believe that mobile as we know it will be gone and they are working on the next great thing, whatever that may be. I am skeptical however that we will be getting far away from the current mobile form factor due to some basic physical requirements: how big can something be before it becomes a pain to carry, how people still need a "phone," an email address, and the ability to text to accomplish many basic life needs. These things mitigate against going too small, such as a watch, unless you believe that we will all be using voice-to-text to send messages. Try doing that in a crowded office full of cubicles or on a train platform in a super noisy train station and you will be very, very frustrated. Plus, do you want to be talking about your problems out loud while the bus listens in? In any case, my point is that there are many physical and practical limitations that have kept many things in our world from dramatically changing for many, many years. The builders of the Model T Ford would be able to quickly understand and utilize a modern Ford, since the basic form factor has not changed at all: four wheels, a steering wheel, foot pedals, etc. I'm afraid it is the same with the smartphone, the qwerty keyboard, and the office chair.

 

[Chintan Gohel]

Why did starbucks release a starbucks app for windows mobile even though the shares were dwindling and Starbucks knows about Microsoft's retrenchment strategy? There's no pointing to UWP because there's no Desktop version. It's simply that Starbucks knows MS's plans for the enterprise and this will need to be available to business customers. The consumers who choose to use these devices are simply benefiting from it.



Again MS never had consumers in mind. The 950/950 XL had no consumers in mind, the fans demanded something so MS decided to test some tech out in the wild. They didn't even attempt to get them on Verizon. It gave MS a great chance to bring continuum to the real world for testing/feedback/telemetry from insiders. My guess is that without the insider program these phones would have never been released.

This is a new train of thought, I hadn't thought of it that way. The 950 as a device to test out continuum.

 

[Chintan Gohel]

I know that's the official line. I just don't see it. A potential customer implies that there exists a demand that people are willing to spend money on to meet. Just having a computer sitting infront of 400 million faces that MS can push software too doesn't constitute demand.

Like tgp mentioned on the previous page, there needs to be a reason why a desktop user would spend money on an app. For the simple use-cases internet applications just work too well. Apps aren't required. For the really heavy duty software the UWP might work, but there isn't much of a reason to spend the millions required to port such software from Win32 to UWP. It already works just fine too. Where everything works the way people need it to, there is no demand.

UWP was designed to allow the same piece of software to run across W10 desktops and W10M mobile devices. If nobody is using W10M devices that demand doesn't exist... hence no potential customers.

That's my take on it. I'll be happy if I'm completely wrong and you're 100% correct though. ;-)

I can think of cases where there is no website available as an alternative to an app and yet the app can work on both pc and mobile. There's also the case for xbox though I have no idea how you use apps there

Take an example of a simple photo filter app. Can it be done via a website? Maybe. Will users like to keep starting their browser, go to the site, upload photos to apply filters and then download them? Or would they prefer an app with inbuilt filters that they can open at anytime without the hassle of using a browser and using data?

 

[a5cent]

I can think of cases where there is no website available as an alternative to an app and yet the app can work on both pc and mobile. There's also the case for xbox though I have no idea how you use apps there

Take an example of a simple photo filter app. Can it be done via a website? Maybe. Will users like to keep starting their browser, go to the site, upload photos to apply filters and then download them? Or would they prefer an app with inbuilt filters that they can open at anytime without the hassle of using a browser and using data?

Your example fully supports my point rather than the one you're trying to make.

Let's assume nobody will ever build or want to use a web based photo editing solution. That's off the table. Then we must consider that there are already a gazillion Win32 based software packages for photo editing. If someone is a bit more professional about photo editing, they are likely using Photoshop or something similar on their desktops/laptops. If they aren't they'll do it on their iOS or Android smartphones. I can't see a lot of people wanting to do photo editing on their Xbox (worst usability ever).

So, given this situation, what is it that would convince developers it's worth porting an existing software package to the UWP?

Nothing...

That costs a lot of money and if the developer is also targeting OSX and/or Linux, it's likely to make things a lot more complicated than they already are. If a developer is going to make an investment into the UWP, there needs to be a return on it. Explain to me how UWP provides that return? Only if you can do that do you have a point. Otherwise developers won't care.

The best argument you could make is that someone might be developing a brand new app, in which case you can flip the question on its head and ask "why not"? You're going to be investing a lot of money anyway so why not make it an UWP app? If the developer is planning to only ever target Windows I guess that's a ligitimate argument. That's just almost never the case. Most developers want to also target OSX. In such situations other UI technologies are employed to make it easier to target multiple systems (like Qt). At that point, at least from a consumer's point of view, the UWP just reverts back to being the same old solution to a problem too few people care about... bringing desktop software to W10M.

If you can make a compelling case by explaining what consumer related problem the UWP solves that developers actually care about, I'll gladly change my mind. I just don't see how you could.

 

[Chintan Gohel]

Your example fully supports my point rather than the one you're trying to make.

Let's assume nobody will ever build or want to use a web based photo editing solution. That's off the table. Then we must consider that there are already a gazillion Win32 based software packages for photo editing. If someone is a bit more professional about photo editing, they are likely using Photoshop or something similar (that is a bit cheaper/simpler) on their desktops/laptops. If they aren't they'll do it on their iOS or Android smartphones. I can't see a lot of people wanting to do photo editing on their Xbox (worst usability ever).

So, given this situation, what is it that would convince developers it's worth porting an existing software package to the UWP?

Nothing...

That costs a lot of money and if the developer is also targeting OSX and/or Linux, it's likely to make things a lot more complicated than they already are. If a developer is going to make an investment into the UWP, there needs to be a return on it. Explain to me how UWP provides that return? Only if you can do that do you have a point. Otherwise developers won't care.

The best argument you could make is that someone might be developing a brand new app, in which case you can flip the question on its head and ask "why not"? You're going to be investing a lot of money anyway so why not make it an UWP app? If the developer is planning to only ever target Windows I guess that's a ligitimate argument. That's just almost never the case. Most developers want to also target OSX. In such situations other UI technologies are employed to make it easier to target multiple systems (like Qt). At that point UWP just reverts back to being the same old solution to a problem too few people care about... bringing desktop software to W10M.

If you can make a compelling case by explaining what problem the UWP solves that developers actually care about, I'll gladly change my mind. I just don't see how you could.

the problem with those win32 programs is that they either cost a lot of money or when they are free don't do what I need them to do. I used 10 times as many photo editing apps on my phone than I did on the pc just because they weren't available in the programs I had at the time (2014)

Now that we have UWP, I can either choose to edit via a phone or via pc. Apply a pencil sketch filter or an old look filter, colour pop, brush strokes, drawing, etc

My brother uses drawing apps all the time, not programs, but apps. Ever since sketch paint became UWP he has had it on both the phone and surface. He switches back and forth.

And I though xamarin allowed you to port without high costs? Or was that the other way around?

 

[Laura Knotek]

the problem with those win32 programs is that they either cost a lot of money or when they are free don't do what I need them to do. I used 10 times as many photo editing apps on my phone than I did on the pc just because they weren't available in the programs I had at the time (2014)

Now that we have UWP, I can either choose to edit via a phone or via pc. Apply a pencil sketch filter or an old look filter, colour pop, brush strokes, drawing, etc

My brother uses drawing apps all the time, not programs, but apps. Ever since sketch paint became UWP he has had it on both the phone and surface. He switches back and forth.

And I though xamarin allowed you to port without high costs? Or was that the other way around?

Have you tried GIMP? It is free and extremely powerful. GIMP is far better than any mobile apps on any platform.

 

[Krystianpants]

Your example fully supports my point rather than the one you're trying to make.

Let's assume nobody will ever build or want to use a web based photo editing solution. That's off the table. Then we must consider that there are already a gazillion Win32 based software packages for photo editing. If someone is a bit more professional about photo editing, they are likely using Photoshop or something similar on their desktops/laptops. If they aren't they'll do it on their iOS or Android smartphones. I can't see a lot of people wanting to do photo editing on their Xbox (worst usability ever).

So, given this situation, what is it that would convince developers it's worth porting an existing software package to the UWP?

Nothing...

That costs a lot of money and if the developer is also targeting OSX and/or Linux, it's likely to make things a lot more complicated than they already are. If a developer is going to make an investment into the UWP, there needs to be a return on it. Explain to me how UWP provides that return? Only if you can do that do you have a point. Otherwise developers won't care.

The best argument you could make is that someone might be developing a brand new app, in which case you can flip the question on its head and ask "why not"? You're going to be investing a lot of money anyway so why not make it an UWP app? If the developer is planning to only ever target Windows I guess that's a ligitimate argument. That's just almost never the case. Most developers want to also target OSX. In such situations other UI technologies are employed to make it easier to target multiple systems (like Qt). At that point, at least from a consumer's point of view, the UWP just reverts back to being the same old solution to a problem too few people care about... bringing desktop software to W10M.

If you can make a compelling case by explaining what consumer related problem the UWP solves that developers actually care about, I'll gladly change my mind. I just don't see how you could.

So let me explain my view on this. Short term, there really is no reason to create UWP except for get a head start and be one of the first on the platform. As it stands there is also absolutely no need for you to support a mobile app in the process especially if there's extra work that needs to be done with changing UI or whatever. Some apps work well in all cases. Take the Disqus app which is the same ui that simply scales, even in continuum dev said no changes were made. In that case you have nothing to lose unless you start incurring large support costs which may require pulling the app if the platform specifically is generating more headache than good.

The only thing that pays off short term right now is gaming. Not everyone is a hardcore steam gamer and it seems companies like Gameloft and Game Troopers have been making money and have even stated in interviews that Desktop UWP has really helped them a lot. They must already have tools that allow it to work on both architectures when developing their games as they continue to put stuff on mobile. Of course millions of users are still using windows 10 mobile, and they have pretty much no competition in big name gaming that allows cross platform play. So maybe they still make money even on mobile.

There has been a lot of rumors about intel/Microsoft working on the next wave of computing devices for the home. What are they working on? Well I'm sure everyone knows it is their VR/AR/MR hardware platform running windows 10 RT. All the major PC manufacturers will be getting in on it. They will be releasing these units to consumers in various flavours just like PC. They will have cpus/storage and everything, no need to tether. They will have different resolutions, different processing power, all similar to today's pcs. This will have price variations to accommodate everyone's budget. These will run UWP apps and games. All these different technologies Intel and MS have are being mixed into reference designs for the oems. These will allow a consistent experience. This won't replace PC's right away. Nor will it remove the requirement to use PC's/laptops/hybrids for different scenarios I'm sure productivity will always be best with pc's/laptops/hybrids but technology could change that. If some of the most powerful companies push this tech, you better believe UWP will eventually become popular. So again your argument is that in the short term there's no reason to invest in UWP and I agree for the most part. Long term, these massive influential companies have the power to push this tech on people. The TV industry does things in a similar manner. They release 4k and they start flooding the market with it. You can't go to a store without 4k TV's. Apple and Google are also investing in VR. VR is going to be big and the race is on.

 

[Chippy757]

one commenter on thurrot makes a good point

they asked if microsoft employees use wp internally, short answer is no, and yet THEY ARE an enterprise that uses windows, they fit their own target audience perfectly, and yet they dont use w10m phones, how does that look?

Well there you have it: the exact reason why not a single feature comes out without an issue...

 

[a5cent]

And I though Xamarin allowed you to port without high costs? Or was that the other way around?

Xamarin has nothing to do with porting W10 Win32 desktop software. Xamarin is for iOS, Android, and lately also the UWP. And no, even then it doesn't automatically make porting easier/cheaper. Only if the developer built their app from the outset using Xamarin does it help. Not many have. Of course that also results in a performance hit, which some develops don't find acceptable.

the problem with those win32 programs is that they either cost a lot of money or when they are free don't do what I need them to do.?

I have trouble believing that. What is it you're doing that something like Gimp doesn't cut it? If you want to do vector graphics, then there is Inkscape. Both of those packages are infinitely more capable than anything available on the UWP... and they're free and cross platform. There's also a gazillion other options.

Now that we have UWP, I can either choose to edit via a phone or via pc.

This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the UWP nor is it a prerequisite. Just save the image on OneDrive and you can edit the same image with any number of apps from any device that connects to OneDrive.

My brother uses drawing apps all the time, not programs, but apps. Ever since sketch paint became UWP he has had it on both the phone and surface. He switches back and forth.

Yup. This is the only argument for the UWP. Using the same program on W10 and W10M. However, as we've already established, how much your brother, you, and all of us here like this idea, it just doesn't matter. What matters is what the UWP offers to developers (not W10M users). Like I said. Until you can explain that you unfortunately just don't have a point.

Most develops will yell you that you absolutely can use their apps on the desktop and on smartphones. Just not on UWP. You can even hook up a monitor, a keyboard and a mouse or stylus and run both Gimp and Inkscape on Android, which is essentially Continuum for Android (at least from a users perspective).

 

[11B1P]

Windows 10 according to Satya himself isn't finished. It's a 2 year project. Anniversary update is year 1.

Compare that to the first year of iphone and it wasn't as huge as you think.

You can't compare W10m's first year to iphone's first year. An accurate comparison is today's W10m to today's iOS or today's Android. W10 has to do TODAY what the other guys are doing TODAY. If W10 isn't up to speed or even ahead, with the same or better features as the other players, it is set to repeat the same fate as webOS, or BlackBerry.

 

[a5cent]

So again your argument is that in the short term there's no reason to invest in UWP and I agree for the most part. Long term, these massive influential companies have the power to push this tech on people.

I agree. I made a similar gaming related pitch back on page one. Still, MS is one of those massive companies you're talking about, and MS just spent a decade trying to push WP/W10M on people and failed.
Just as WP, the UWP also has a lot of potential. MS just needs to be far more agressive pushing it, or it will fail just like W10M did.
Right now I don't see any big UWP related push from MS, gaming related or otherwise. MS should have came out swinging right after they improved DirectX and vsync support in the UWP. So far not much has happened... it all feels far too much like a repeat of MS lethargic approach to WP/W10M.
So in summary, yes, MS could eventually make the UWP and even W10M relevant to developers. So far they have not...

 

[techiez]

I agree. I made a similar gaming related pitch back on page one. Still, MS is one of those massive companies you're talking about, and MS just spent a decade trying to push WP/W10M on people and failed.
Just as WP, the UWP also has a lot of potential. MS just needs to be far more agressive pushing it, or it will fail just like W10M did.
Right now I don't see any big UWP related push from MS, gaming related or otherwise. MS should have came out swinging right after they improved DirectX and vsync support in the UWP. So far not much has happened... it all feels far too much like a repeat of MS lethargic approach to WP/W10M.
So in summary, yes, MS could eventually make the UWP and even W10M relevant to developers. So far they have not...

MS approach towards towards courting devs is very short sighted, they pay a few big ones to develop apps and make a statement that we have the top 10-top20 apps already and then fanboys start to rejoice that these 10-20 apps are all what we need. The devs then abandon the app, they neither put links to WP app on their website, nor ever bother to update, treat it as a second class citizen, while we debate on how pinning an edge tile solves all our app problems.

MS should start pushing UWP aggressively as you said, and at the same time, advertise the app usage on pcs and laptops, let the ios and android users demand the devs to see the same apps on their pcs, that they have on their phones.

 

[techiez]

You can't compare W10m's first year to iphone's first year. An accurate comparison is today's W10m to today's iOS or today's Android. W10 has to do TODAY what the other guys are doing TODAY. If W10 isn't up to speed or even ahead, with the same or better features as the other players, it is set to repeat the same fate as webOS, or BlackBerry.

It seems MS has been given a very long rope by some of its fans but that will only lead to its demise. When they started this retrenchment talk, WC ran a series of articles supporting it and many ppl here expressed support expecting MS to come up with something big(surface phone) very soon, and today we are here where MS has clearly given signals of abandoning the consumer space in mobile.