03-12-2015 05:35 PM
189 ... 45678
tools
  1. spaulagain's Avatar
    Thank you for supporting my assertion that standards need to be ratified. It W3C didn't ratify HTML5, it wouldn't be a standard. It may be the norm, but not a standard.
    W3C ratifies HTML5 for the web. Just like Microsoft ratifies WinRT for Windows.

    BTW, W3C doesn't technically have authority to ratify HTML5 per se. The Web is an open platform and each browser can decide how it wants to interpret things and what mark up is required (hence IE6, and even modern browsers do this until W3C makes up their minds, even then...). However, in efforts to improve development efficiencies, the W3C guidelines have been recognized as the industry de facto standard. And thus W3C's declared guidelines for HTML are considered standard in the industry.

    "The W3C develops open specifications (de facto standards) to enhance the interoperability of web-related products."

    Definition of de facto...
    "A de facto standard is a custom, convention, product, or system that has achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market forces (such as early entrance to the market)."

    In fact, one could actually argue that Microsoft's declared standards in WinRT hold more weight than W3C because Microsoft actually owns that platform and is the one that developed it. And Microsoft is even a member of the W3C. Where as W3C doesn't own the web or web languages. They've simply become a trusted de facto organization for providing publicly accepted "standards."
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    01-29-2015 01:53 AM
  2. spaulagain's Avatar
    50% larger than Windows. Much more attractive.
    Wow, splitting hairs much? By that perspective, Android crushes iPhone with 200%+ larger market share. Much much much much more attractive. That must mean developers completely ignore iPhone right? Oh wait...

    Also, I like how you cherry picked that stat but then ignored the other market share points I made. Talking about confirmation bias...
    01-29-2015 01:59 AM
  3. UptownWebhead's Avatar
    This thread escalated quickly.

    Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
    01-29-2015 03:07 AM
  4. misterff1's Avatar
    @spaulagain, maybe it's best to ignore this guy. Apparently he doesn't understand stuff he should for these discussions and it only causes discussions that are pointless.
    spaulagain likes this.
    01-29-2015 04:12 AM
  5. tiziano27's Avatar
    Now 69% of Facebook's revenue comes from Mobile. It seems, people is not using the PC anymore for content consumption. That's a strong case against universal apps, and in favor of supporting Android apps on Windows.
    01-29-2015 08:35 AM
  6. wpfan86's Avatar
    Now 69% of Facebook's revenue comes from Mobile. It seems, people is not using the PC anymore for content consumption. That's a strong case against universal apps, and in favor of supporting Android apps on Windows.
    "Mobile" also likely encompasses tablets, so if companies like Facebook want any piece of the Windows tablet pie, they'll need to develop an app.
    TheCudder, spaulagain and rhapdog like this.
    01-29-2015 08:51 AM
  7. rhapdog's Avatar
    "Mobile" also likely encompasses tablets, so if companies like Facebook want any piece of the Windows tablet pie, they'll need to develop an app.
    Mobile encompasses every "app" that access Facebook. If you go to Facebook from your phone's browser, it won't show up as "mobile" to Facebook. The way the get that number is by App access.

    That means the Windows 8/8.1 Facebook app, which I use on my touch screen laptop, is also counted as Mobile as far as Facebook is concerned. It still needs to be developed for Universal, because it's already being counted with those numbers.

    Also consider that mobile devices make up a much larger percentage of ownership than PCs. Much more than the 60% usage, when means when it comes to browsing Facebook, there are a lot of people putting their phones down in favor of a PC.

    This is more complicated than you realize.

    No, universal apps will allow companies to target both the mobile and the desktop environment at the same time. The only reason some people don't want to use the WinRT apps instead of a desktop app is because all the WinRT apps are "full screen" only, and they lose the task bar and can't have another program on the screen at the same time. Desktop users like to multitask and see multiple windows. I'm that way as well. Now I'm using my WinRT apps in the Win10 TP right along side my desktop apps, and it no longer makes a difference to me. As a matter of fact, because of their ease of use, I've converted a lot of apps on my system to WinRT, because when I do a Windows reset, wipe out everything, and start fresh, my apps I had installed will come back when I sign into my Microsoft account. That means I no longer have to hunt down my install discs, or where I saved the setup file on the computer. No more trying to get individual programs set up the way I had them before, which would take days, because how I have them set up is backed up to the cloud with WinRT apps and my Microsoft account. It's a lot easier, and I like that appeal as a hard-core user that usually wipes the OS clean and starts over at least once a year. Windows 10 will just make it easier for me.

    I've got a few programs that I use that I would love to see made touch friendly and ported to WinRT. Like a really good, high end text editor and IDE. I would love to see a touch friendly Visual Studio built for WinRT. Perhaps that would make developers more serious about writing for it when they see what can be accomplished with the very product they use to create it.
    Laura Knotek and spaulagain like this.
    01-29-2015 09:27 AM
  8. spaulagain's Avatar
    Now 69% of Facebook's revenue comes from Mobile. It seems, people is not using the PC anymore for content consumption. That's a strong case against universal apps, and in favor of supporting Android apps on Windows.
    Huh? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, it's a strong case FOR Universal apps as they would be mobile friendly.
    rhapdog and Laura Knotek like this.
    01-29-2015 10:35 AM
  9. rhapdog's Avatar
    Huh? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, it's a strong case FOR Universal apps as they would be mobile friendly.
    Exactly, since a large portion of that "mobile" is tablets. Write it for those tablets, and voila, it is for the phone, too! Easy for developers. They just have to account for screen scaling.
    Laura Knotek and spaulagain like this.
    01-29-2015 10:44 AM
  10. anon(5383410)'s Avatar
    Not releasing the wp8 sdk before releasing the OS was one of their biggest mistakes. I hope they don't make that mistake again.
    01-29-2015 11:43 AM
  11. paulxxwall's Avatar
    Exactly, since a large portion of that "mobile" is tablets. Write it for those tablets, and voila, it is for the phone, too! Easy for developers. They just have to account for screen scaling.
    so its not as easy as just making the app and the os will adjust to devise huh? The devs have to adjust to the devices and so its most likely it will inconvenience the devs to write for different devices.....just like it is now for WP....an inconvenience!
    EBUK likes this.
    01-29-2015 11:51 AM
  12. EBUK's Avatar
    A very important point. Devs, how do you feel about this?
    01-29-2015 12:35 PM
  13. spaulagain's Avatar
    so its not as easy as just making the app and the os will adjust to devise huh? The devs have to adjust to the devices and so its most likely it will inconvenience the devs to write for different devices.....just like it is now for WP....an inconvenience!
    No, and no one here has said that. And you are completely wrong comparing to how it is now with WP. Until recently, Universal apps didn't even exist. Developers literally had to build separate apps. Also, even now with Universal apps, the APIs are different between Windows and Windows Phone. This will not be the case with Windows 10 as they will be the same at that point. So it doesn't compare to the current situation.

    As for the effort in adapting the UI...

    Even with desktop and laptops, screens sizes and resolution vary greatly. Devs already have to accommodate this via fluid layouts and adjustable menus/tools. Especially advanced tools like Adobe products and AutoCAD. All those tools are already built into various modules that the user can drag and dock anywhere they want. For example, my Illustrator setup includes the viewport on one screen, with the editing tools on another screen to the left. Then the layers and attribute tools are on another screen to the right. All of these tools/menus are collapsible into one icon for each group. In addition, Adobe has already started working on a touch friendly UI for even their x86 applications. On my touch screen laptop, they prompt me if I'd like to use touch mode.

    And for more minimal applications that don't exist yet. Microsoft, Telerik, and other parties already have UI toolkits that adapt. In some cases, much of this is already taken care of.

    Second of all, in the web world at least, about 95% of the work is writing the backend database system, logic, etc. And some of that laying the base for the UI layout. Making it go from desktop to phone is actually not a whole lot more effort.


    I'm not saying this is some flip of the switch easy, but it's not that much more effort and will really become a requirement as screens/devices get more diverse over time just as it has with websites/web apps.
    Laura Knotek and EBUK like this.
    01-29-2015 01:03 PM
  14. luke_f's Avatar
    Universal Apps makes it a lot easier to target both Windows and WP (and Xbox at some point), allowing you to easily share most of your source code. It is a great technology and a great help no doubt. Still, the dev needs to create a completely different UI for a WP version compared to Desktop version. The tiny screen will require a completely different approach to screen pages, layout and navigation. Same for a dev that wants to bring an app to PC. No one would use a WP version that is just upscaled. You need to make use of the screen real estate, you need to optimize it for keyboard navigation (tab, directional). An app on Xbox must work well with the controller, no touch input or mouse available there. Music playback works radically different on WP compared to PC due to resource constraints. Limited resources on the phone are one more aspect that needs to be taken care of and adapted for. So there is a lot of stuff that needs to be done differently in each version of an app.

    There is no such thing as one Universal App that runs on all device types, despite MS marketing it as such. Universal Apps is a development technology that allows you to create different apps for different device types more easily, sharing huge amounts of code base. Plus, it allows you to "link" those apps from a user/store perspective, so any purchases you do can be used in all supported device types, and settings can roam between form factors.
    a5cent and Laura Knotek like this.
    01-29-2015 01:17 PM
  15. paulxxwall's Avatar
    Universal Apps makes it a lot easier to target both Windows and WP (and Xbox at some point), allowing you to easily share most of your source code. It is a great technology and a great help no doubt. Still, the dev needs to create a completely different UI for a WP version compared to Desktop version. The tiny screen will require a completely different approach to screen pages, layout and navigation. Same for a dev that wants to bring an app to PC. No one would use a WP version that is just upscaled. You need to make use of the screen real estate, you need to optimize it for keyboard navigation (tab, directional). An app on Xbox must work well with the controller, no touch input or mouse available there. Music playback works radically different on WP compared to PC due to resource constraints. Limited resources on the phone are one more aspect that needs to be taken care of and adapted for. So there is a lot of stuff that needs to be done differently in each version of an app.

    There is no such thing as one Universal App that runs on all device types, despite MS marketing it as such. Universal Apps is a development technology that allows you to create different apps for different device types more easily, sharing huge amounts of code base. Plus, it allows you to "link" those apps from a user/store perspective, so any purchases you do can be used in all supported device types, and settings can roam between form factors.
    Makes more sense than just make the app and it will adjust on the fly according to devices. Sorry but just like the Kinect debacle devs wont make the universal its a hassle just like it is now or WP would have 1.5 million apps too! Devs aren't implementing Kinect into games because its a hassle no matter Microsoft's vision ! I'm sorry but im just being real with myself
    01-29-2015 04:35 PM
  16. TheCudder's Avatar
    I think what Microsoft really needs to do is persuade dev's to eventually abandon their current Win32 applications. Something I've noticed is the new universal apps designed by Microsoft are a lot more "desktop friendly" than the Windows 8 era WinRT apps. The upside, is they can offer the elimination of piracy. But the down side is Microsoft's take a cut of the profits now.

    Just imagine an application such as Adobe Photoshop Lightroom being strictly a universal WinRT app. A photographer can do basic processing and filtering of photos on their phone, laptop & desktop --- all while sync'ing the changes in a real time "OneNote" type fashion.
    spaulagain likes this.
    01-29-2015 04:54 PM
  17. rhapdog's Avatar
    I'm a geezer, too, but there's an almost perfect counterexample in OS/2. It was "the future" of PC development and IBM+MSFT poured hundreds of millions of $$$ into its development and marketing. It failed miserably because it couldn't supplant the existing Win16 API. OS/2 had a zero userbase and zero developer base, wasn't accepted in the PC community, and required rewriting significant chunks of code to convert to it. And that was at a time when MSFT was coming on strong. It's even worse today because MSFT has far more powerful, entrenched competitors (if things continue the way they are, AAPL will be able to do a cash buyout of MSFT in five years).
    Not trying to drag up an argument, since we've already moved on from this, however, I'd like to make a clarification since I obtained some good information on this. I was talking to my Dad earlier today (the one that worked for IBM.) He said the reason that Microsoft and IBM parted ways over OS/2 and the reason Microsoft decided not to port their programs to OS/2 was because IBM was insisting on requiring all 3rd parties to pay a licensing fee or royalty or something like that for each and every program sold on OS/2. IBM wanted their cut even from Microsoft, so Microsoft called it quits. No one wanted to pay IBM in order to write programs for IBM, so the OS died. This according to my Dad who was "in the know" on the situation.

    This, I suppose, could be compared to Microsoft charging a 30% fee for store apps each and every time one is sold? Perhaps Microsoft needs to bring the fee down.
    a5cent and Laura Knotek like this.
    01-29-2015 05:34 PM
  18. a5cent's Avatar
    This, I suppose, could be compared to Microsoft charging a 30% fee for store apps each and every time one is sold? Perhaps Microsoft needs to bring the fee down.
    I believe that at least for games, MS should already have reduced their cut to essentially zero, or at least have defined a very low cut off point, say 10% per sale, but never more than $5'000 per title, independent of sales volume (just an example). Whatever the deal is, it needs to be a small enough number, so as to sway large publishers to use the Windows Store rather than their own custom built distribution channels (like EA's Origin), and convince everyone publishing on Steam to consider the Windows Store instead. That might turn out to be very worthwhile, if for no other reason than to just get people to browse the store at all.

    If the gaming community and publishers eventually decide they no longer need Windows, which is what Android, iOS and Steam are all striving towards, then I think that spells the end of MS in the consumer market. At this time MS can still do something about it.

    As for everything else, I'm not sure if MS reducing their cut would make a difference. That Apple, Google and MS all take the same cut makes the situation rather unlike the one between OS/2 and Windows. However, even if MS were to lower their cut, without Apple and Google following along, the biggest problem still remains, which is simply a lack of demand. If it's not worthwhile, in most cases, MS reducing their cut likely won't change that.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    01-29-2015 06:22 PM
  19. spaulagain's Avatar
    Makes more sense than just make the app and it will adjust on the fly according to devices. Sorry but just like the Kinect debacle devs wont make the universal its a hassle just like it is now or WP would have 1.5 million apps too! Devs aren't implementing Kinect into games because its a hassle no matter Microsoft's vision ! I'm sorry but im just being real with myself
    You do realize devs are already building Universal apps right? And did you not read a thing I said above? This is not the same development situation as Windows Phone is now. In fact, it's damn near the opposite. No one said these apps would just magically work on all devices with the press of the button. I have no idea where you got that idea. But this platform will actually be easier to develop for a more broad variety of devices than either Apple or Google have made. Developers can also use one of, if not the most powerful backend language available (C#). On top of that Microsoft has made web languages a first class citizen opening up the developer base to the large pool of web developers. Something Apple and Android limit quite a bit.

    In reality, you're not being real with yourself, you are simply blowing off what is actually a very compelling development platform. Even more so when they add iOS and Android a part of it. Comparing this to Kinect and saying this is all just a hassle to developers is about the most ridiculous thing I've heard. But go ahead, keep being "real with yourself."
    01-29-2015 08:29 PM
  20. anon(5383410)'s Avatar
    Now 69% of Facebook's revenue comes from Mobile. It seems, people is not using the PC anymore for content consumption. That's a strong case against universal apps, and in favor of supporting Android apps on Windows.
    That would be assuming that Facebook represents the bulk of content. I suppose it does for some but I try not to hangout with those people.
    01-29-2015 08:31 PM
  21. spaulagain's Avatar
    I think what Microsoft really needs to do is persuade dev's to eventually abandon their current Win32 applications. Something I've noticed is the new universal apps designed by Microsoft are a lot more "desktop friendly" than the Windows 8 era WinRT apps. The upside, is they can offer the elimination of piracy. But the down side is Microsoft's take a cut of the profits now.

    Just imagine an application such as Adobe Photoshop Lightroom being strictly a universal WinRT app. A photographer can do basic processing and filtering of photos on their phone, laptop & desktop --- all while sync'ing the changes in a real time "OneNote" type fashion.
    EXACTLY. I'm so glad someone gets it. I can't believe how hard it is for some people in this thread to see the potential here, and ultimately where things are heading. Microsoft is already beginning to do this with their own suite of apps, it's only a matter of time where the big desktop software companies out there begin to follow suit. There are a lot of advantages to this environment, especially going forward. It started out rough, but I think we are already seeing some clear wins down the road.

    Adobe has shown themselves to be closely working with Microsoft in regards to the Surface Pro 3. If Microsoft and Adobe continue down that path with a long term partnership, that will be an extremely powerful combination. Windows might actually become the new norm for designers/photographers rather than OSX.
    01-29-2015 08:38 PM
  22. spaulagain's Avatar
    I believe that at least for games, MS should already have reduced their cut to essentially zero, or at least have defined a very low cut off point, say 10% per sale, but never more than $5'000 per title, independent of sales volume (just an example). Whatever the deal is, it needs to be a small enough number, so as to sway large publishers to use the Windows Store rather than their own custom built distribution channels (like EA's Origin), and convince everyone publishing on Steam to consider the Windows Store instead. That might turn out to be very worthwhile, if for no other reason than to just get people to browse the store at all.

    If the gaming community and publishers eventually decide they no longer need Windows, which is what Android, iOS and Steam are all striving towards, then I think that spells the end of MS in the consumer market. At this time MS can still do something about it.

    As for everything else, I'm not sure if MS reducing their cut would make a difference. That Apple, Google and MS all take the same cut makes the situation rather unlike the one between OS/2 and Windows. However, even if MS were to lower their cut, without Apple and Google following along, the biggest problem still remains, which is simply a lack of demand. If it's not worthwhile, in most cases, MS reducing their cut likely won't change that.
    It's pretty common practice in business to cut deals or prices for partners/customers that create a lot of traffic. I imagine big names like Adobe, EA, and other large volume software companies will get significant discounts. They may even not have any fees or a couple years free. I believe Microsoft even announced at the Fall Windows 10 announcement, that they were planning on letting legacy apps be purchased and managed through the Windows Store to help IT departments manage software on devices. I can't imagine they would even think that's a possibility without drastically reducing the rate.

    I work for an online payment processor, and we do exactly that. Large volume clients get significant discounts in fees/costs.
    01-29-2015 08:42 PM
  23. tiziano27's Avatar
    That would be assuming that Facebook represents the bulk of content. I suppose it does for some but I try not to hangout with those people.

    Facebook started as a website with 100% of their revenue coming from PCs. This is a big change in behavior.

    For apps from the "mobile era" it should be worst.
    01-29-2015 08:52 PM
  24. spaulagain's Avatar
    Facebook started as a website with 100% of their revenue coming from PCs. This is a big change in behavior.

    For apps from the "mobile era" it should be worst.
    NEWS FLASH: Mobile E-Commerce is Growing Rapidly!

    This is pretty common knowledge now and has been for several years. It's one of the reasons there is such a push for Responsive websites to accommodate the massive surge in mobile traffic (due to smartphones).

    It's also why your previous post above doesn't make any sense. Clearly mobile is seeing massive growth in the industry and dominating the traditional desktops. There are a bunch of reasons for this that I won't get into. But this presents an even stronger reason to build Universal apps and that Microsoft is doing the right thing by building a platform that is flexible for devices of all shapes and sizes. Universal apps are the future for Windows specifically because of the growth in mobile. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
    JamesDax likes this.
    01-29-2015 09:37 PM
  25. tiziano27's Avatar
    NEWS FLASH: Mobile E-Commerce is Growing Rapidly!

    This is pretty common knowledge now and has been for several years. It's one of the reasons there is such a push for Responsive websites to accommodate the massive surge in mobile traffic (due to smartphones).

    It's also why your previous post above doesn't make any sense. Clearly mobile is seeing massive growth in the industry and dominating the traditional desktops. There are a bunch of reasons for this that I won't get into. But this presents an even stronger reason to build Universal apps and that Microsoft is doing the right thing by building a platform that is flexible for devices of all shapes and sizes. Universal apps are the future for Windows specifically because of the growth in mobile. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
    The user base of Windows phones and tablets is so small. If the huge user base of PCs is irrelevant because people is not using the PC for content consumption, then there is no incentives to develop Universal apps.
    01-29-2015 10:13 PM
189 ... 45678

Similar Threads

  1. How to fix hamburger menu for one-handed use
    By skinnypig118 in forum Windows 10 Mobile Insider Preview
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-25-2015, 02:50 PM
  2. switch to other platform after seeing Win10
    By wasim sallam in forum Windows 10
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-25-2015, 06:56 AM
  3. Over-hype expert Peter Molyneux warns Microsoft not to do the same for HoloLens
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2015, 08:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2015, 07:32 AM
  5. Amazon Prime annual membership discounted to $72 for one day only
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2015, 06:30 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD