Wow W10 mobile went downhill

[beman39]

what I don't understand is with all the malware and pirated apps/games that people sideload on android and such loss of revenue and windows is locked down and not able to sideload stuff and no loss of revenue you'd think all devs would love developing for windows!!

 

[tgp]

what I don't understand is with all the malware and pirated apps/games that people sideload on android and such loss of revenue and windows is locked down and not able to sideload stuff and no loss of revenue you'd think all devs would love developing for windows!!

Android's market share is so massive that the amount of users that actually pirate and are affected by malware is a very small amount relatively speaking. It was just reported that Android's market share by sales in Q3 2016 was 87.5%, with 328.6 million devices sold. I'm sure it is worth the risk for developers.

 

[xandros9]

what I don't understand is with all the malware and pirated apps/games that people sideload on android and such loss of revenue and windows is locked down and not able to sideload stuff and no loss of revenue you'd think all devs would love developing for windows!!

tgp is right.

Also the market for Windows is not large enough and I heard Microsoft tended to alienate mobile devs but I forgot what it was specifically. I know they alienated customers.

 

[a5cent]

I agree 100% all that money and power and they can't get devs on board!! really?!!! like I been saying, give devs a small % of profits from the store ontop of thier money they generate from apps/games and you'll see how fast they get on board

This is another widespread fallacy. MS could shovel all the profits from their store over to developers and it still wouldn't make a difference. You wouldn't get anybody to hop on board with this approach.

The problem is something economists call "opportunity costs". As a business owner, if you have $ 50'000 you could theoretically spend on the development of a WP app, you must also ask what opportunity you're sacrificing for making that decision. For example, if it comes down to a choice between spending $50'000 to port an existing game to WP, or investing that same money into developing a new game for iOS and Android, the later is the better choice. If it comes down to a choice between spending $50'000 to port an app to WP, or investing that same money into improving the iOS or Android versions of said app, then the later is almost always the better choice. This is obviously oversimplifying things, but it's the gist of it.

Unfortunately, whether your app even exists on WP is pretty much irrelevant in terms of how successful your app becomes overall. For most types of apps (with some exceptions for larger global companies in WP's better days) it has always been that way. Achieving success requires that developers out-compete their rivals on the battlefields that really matter. Due to market share dynamics those battlefields are the iOS and Android ecosystems. If you achieve dominance there, some 3rd party developer will provide something for WP, and if not... who cares. Spending any money at all on WP apps just detracts from the far more important projects. That's the real problem.

The only way to solve that is to massively expand the user base and to do so despite the app gap, preferably in countries where people have disposable income to spend on apps. That is the only way to a sustainable solution for the developer support problem.

 

[beman39]

This is another widespread fallacy. MS could shovel all the profits from their store over to developers and it still wouldn't make a difference. You wouldn't get anybody to hop on board with this approach.

The problem is something economists call "opportunity costs". As a business owner, if you have $ 50'000 you could theoretically spend on the development of a WP app, you must also ask what opportunity you're sacrificing for making that decision. For example, if it comes down to a choice between spending $50'000 to port an existing game to WP, or investing that same money into developing a new game for iOS and Android, the later is the better choice. If it comes down to a choice between spending $50'000 to port an app to WP, or investing that same money into improving the iOS or Android versions of said app, then the later is almost always the better choice. This is obviously oversimplifying things, but it's the gist of it.

Unfortunately, whether your app even exists on WP is pretty much irrelevant in terms of how successful your app becomes overall. For most types of apps (with some exceptions for larger global companies in WP's better days) it has always been that way. Achieving success requires that developers out-compete their rivals on the battlefields that really matter. Due to market share dynamics those battlefields are the iOS and Android ecosystems. If you achieve dominance there, some 3rd party developer will provide something for WP, and if not... who cares. Spending any money at all on WP apps just detracts from the far more important projects. That's the real problem.

The only way to solve that is to massively expand the user base and to do so despite the app gap, preferably in countries where people have disposable income to spend on apps. That is the only way to a sustainable solution for the developer support problem.

listen I get what you're saying, basically it comes down to money... well what I'm proposing is if MS throws in money by giving them a % of the profits, then it should offset the amount of money that they would've made form an android counterpart... sorta like balancing the scales. know what I mean? am I getting my idea across? maybe I'm not wording it right... so the amount of profits they would've generate from android sales, would balance out with windows sales (which won't be as high as android) with % of profits from the MS store = balancing out... almost. but atleast they will still make money

 

[a5cent]

listen I get what you're saying, basically it comes down to money... well what I'm proposing is if MS throws in money by giving them a % of the profits, then it should offset the amount of money that they would've made form an android counterpart... sorta like balancing the scales. know what I mean? am I getting my idea across? maybe I'm not wording it right... so the amount of profits they would've generate from android sales, would balance out with windows sales (which won't be as high as android) with % of profits from the MS store = balancing out... almost. but atleast they will still make money

MS already gives app developers 70% of the profits made in the store. As I alluded to earlier, MS could give away 100% of the profits made in the store and that would still be nowhere close to making a difference. This approach also completely ignores the huge amount of apps that are free, as it would do absolutely nothing to bring those types of apps to the store, which is probably the biggest problem right now.

I'm all for finding ways to stimulate the app store and WP ecosystem, but this isn't one that will work.

 

[fatclue_98]

I'm not a developer nor do I fully understand the way apps and app stores function, but aren't apps developed by the companies involved such as Facebook, banks, credit cards, etc.? If individual developers made the apps for Windows, or whoever, wouldn't users bi*ch and moan that there aren't any 1st party apps as I've been reading here for so many years? I've been reading about how great Rudy Huyn's apps are for many years and how they're even better than the official apps. If his apps are so good and users complain about the lack of 1st party apps, how would more developers help the situation? It seems to me that enticing developers is not the solution even if Microsoft offers them 200% of the store profits.

 

[a5cent]

If individual developers made the apps for Windows, or whoever, wouldn't users bi*ch and moan that there aren't any 1st party apps as I've been reading here for so many years? I've been reading about how great Rudy Huyn's apps are for many years and how they're even better than the official apps. If his apps are so good and users complain about the lack of 1st party apps, how would more developers help the situation? It seems to me that enticing developers is not the solution even if Microsoft offers them 200% of the store profits.

I can't speak for others, but for me the term "developers" refers to any entity that develops software. Be that multinational corporations, startups, banks, or teenagers working in their parents garages. IMHO they are all developers. Figuring out how to entice developers applies to all of those groups IMHO. It seems to me that your definition of the term "developers" is more limited, although I'm not clear in exactly what way. It sounds as if you're saying that term applies only to individuals or small groups that aren't creating 1st party apps. If we have different definitions of what that term means, then we'll have difficulty explaining our points of view to each other. ;-)

I think you're saying that increasing the profits per app sale does nothing for those companies who don't earn any money at all with their apps. Like banks. I'd agree with that.

 

[fatclue_98]

It sounds as if you're saying that term applies only to individuals or small groups that aren't creating 1st party apps. If we have different definitions of what that term means, then we'll have difficulty explaining our points of view to each other. ;-)

Yes and no. Developers who work for those so-called corporations, banks, etc. are employees who have little to no say in what transpires. You're correct in that assumption, I don't consider them as approachable since there are layers of bureaucracy involved. They are developers in the sense that that's what they do, but for someone else.

 

[a5cent]

^Okay. I see what you mean. I don't use the term that way but it doesn't matter, as long as I know what you're talking about

 

[badMojo69]

The government does it for Farmers and Insurance company do it for everything else. Hell most things would not exist if someone didn't front the money to take some of the risk off the table. Microsoft would just as easily work out some type of licensing deal to make their money back if the apps do well. So I have to disagree with you.

At some point the app store will become self sustaining and there will no longer be a need for developers to use the "Microsoft Insurance".

The idea unfortunately isn't as good as it sounds. MS can pay one developer to release an app, but MS will get exactly what they payed for and not a single feature more. If the developer couldn't be bothered to develop the app on their own, independently of MS, then they're unlikely to maintain the app, meaning the app is well on its way to becoming abandon-ware as soon as MS' check is cashed.

Worst of all, by paying developers to make apps for WP, MS signals to every developer under the sun that it's better to not release a WP app, even if the developer may have originally considering doing so. It's far better to hold back, potentially forcing MS to throw money your way. This idea becomes more tempting the more important the app is, i.e. the more leverage the developer thinks they have, and the more WP users want that app. All this really achieves is to start a vicious cycle where no app gets built at all until MS pays up. In reality it achieves the exact opposite of what you'd want it to.

Paying developers to build apps has always been one of the worst ideas thrown around in these forums. Its a good replication of a small-scale centrally controlled economy. A system where a governing body picks winners and losers by deciding who gets paid to build apps for the WP eco/system/nomy, rather than letting the free market decide. You could label this small-scale communism. It has never and will never work. On any scale.

 

[badMojo69]

See this is the reason we're still burning fossil fuels to power our cars and planes. At some point someone has to be Musk and just do what needs to be done to move the needle forward. Microsoft needs to move the needle forward to save the OS.

This is another widespread fallacy. MS could shovel all the profits from their store over to developers and it still wouldn't make a difference. You wouldn't get anybody to hop on board with this approach.

The problem is something economists call "opportunity costs". As a business owner, if you have $ 50'000 you could theoretically spend on the development of a WP app, you must also ask what opportunity you're sacrificing for making that decision. For example, if it comes down to a choice between spending $50'000 to port an existing game to WP, or investing that same money into developing a new game for iOS and Android, the later is the better choice. If it comes down to a choice between spending $50'000 to port an app to WP, or investing that same money into improving the iOS or Android versions of said app, then the later is almost always the better choice. This is obviously oversimplifying things, but it's the gist of it.

Unfortunately, whether your app even exists on WP is pretty much irrelevant in terms of how successful your app becomes overall. For most types of apps (with some exceptions for larger global companies in WP's better days) it has always been that way. Achieving success requires that developers out-compete their rivals on the battlefields that really matter. Due to market share dynamics those battlefields are the iOS and Android ecosystems. If you achieve dominance there, some 3rd party developer will provide something for WP, and if not... who cares. Spending any money at all on WP apps just detracts from the far more important projects. That's the real problem.

The only way to solve that is to massively expand the user base and to do so despite the app gap, preferably in countries where people have disposable income to spend on apps. That is the only way to a sustainable solution for the developer support problem.

 

[kristalsoldier]

MS actually understands its fruitless (pun intended) to keep fighting against Apple and Google's dominance in the consumer smartphone market. They are moving forward with the Surface line, etc. and blazing a trail (or at least planning to) for the future of mobile. I think this is the correct strategy and time will tell.

Well, ok. But the problem with this construct is encapsulated by that one phrase you used: "the future of mobile". While this includes technology revisions and innovations no doubt, it equally calls for a rethinking of UI/UX and more importantly of form factor. Notice that there is a very intimate relationship between the notion of mobility and form-factor.

So, you will agree, that one of the key questions regarding the future of mobile is this: What is the most likely form factor that will be at play in the short to medium term.

Will it be a device that looks like our current phones but with very different capabilities? Does the future of mobile presume ubiquitous connectivity - where Continuum-like capabilities can flourish? And, if yes, then what about those segments of the market where connectivity is not ubiquitous and more to the point expensive? Would the future of mobile be like a pot-luck of major and minor OSs? Will mobile units be considered to be constituents of what is today being called "the internet of things"?

Now lets look at what MS is at least saying and in some instances demonstrating.

First, Continuum. Existent form factor allows for the expansion of the desktop experience through dumb terminals. Working assumption: Proliferation of dumb terminals AND connectivity.

Second, Hololens: This effort to augment reality in various ways has immense potential in business and industry. Why? Because anything that aids in the visualization of a problem etc. is very helpful for problem-solving purposes. But where mobility is concerned, the units demoed thus far by MS (and its competitors current and potential) while mobile are not "easily mobile". Refinement of technolgy will no doubt happen, but its consumer-level proliferation is a bit doubtful because I am not sure humans can operate seamlessly between Reality and Reality that is augmented in some way or the other.

Third, One Core: This is an extreme and in many ways welcome rationalization of Windows. If one believes in the theory of convergence, then One Core seems to follow that operative logic. Interestingly, MS insists that this notion of convergence is not hardware-determined. Rather, it is capability-determined and in that sense has got to also be platform-agnostic. This logic also seems to underwrite their UWP/UWA strategy and of their exerting efforts to port apps across platforms.

All these will play some role in "the future of mobile". But it still leaves the key question unanswered: By means of what form factors?

To define a paradigm one requires a defining concept-technology pairing. In the case of Microsoft, the Surface represents that. And the results are there to be seen. Not saying that the Surface has completely overturned the desktop paradigm, but it has shakened it considerably and profitably.

What have we seen thus far in what MS has said or demonstrated where the question of form of the future of mobile has been either discussed or highlighted. Just to keep repeating "cloud first, mobile first" really isnt very illuminating!

 

[a5cent]

See this is the reason we're still burning fossil fuels to power our cars and planes. At some point someone has to be Musk and just do what needs to be done to move the needle forward. Microsoft needs to move the needle forward to save the OS.

Absolutely, someone must be Musk for WP. Unfortunately, it's not getting through to you that what you are proposing won't achieve what you are hoping for. It's actually already been tried and it failed. For the reasons I mentioned. I already pointed out the two main problems and risk is not one of them, so I don't see how your insurance analogies apply. I'm not sure what to explain differently.

 

[glossywhite]

So i was away from windows mobile for few months got me a deal on a 640 xl so figured why not .
I have to say it used to work apps and all but now i find app support gone nothing is working as it did ,basically went to the dogs ....pile of **** , like what happen with mobile support.

It was never UPhill, so going downhill from the bottom of the hill ain't possible. LOL.

 

[MrWhiteman]

See this is the reason we're still burning fossil fuels to power our cars and planes. At some point someone has to be Musk and just do what needs to be done to move the needle forward. Microsoft needs to move the needle forward to save the OS.

The reason no one is a Musk is because electric cars are DOA unless a new technology of battery is invented. Hydrogen will the way to go.