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

[Laura Knotek]

But you could make this same argument with iOS apps. Why use the iOS app when users can just open Netflix in the Safari/browser? Hell, why have apps at all? We should all just use Chrome OS maybe? People want apps, they just want full featured apps.

For Netflix on a Mac, a browser would be necessary. Mac users don't really use apps either. The Mac app store is very limited, and those "apps" could really be considered programs anyway.

I still think it will take convincing to move desktop users toward apps. I do think Universal Apps could be successful. However, the apps will definitely need to include all or more features than those found in programs and browsers.

 

[spaulagain]

For Netflix on a Mac, a browser would be necessary. Mac users don't really use apps either. The Mac app store is very limited, and those "apps" could really be considered programs anyway.

I still think it will take convincing to move desktop users toward apps. I do think Universal Apps could be successful. However, the apps will definitely need to include all or more features than those found in programs and browsers.

Desktop users use apps, that's why Windows has 94% of the market, because that's where the apps are.

And I was talking about iOS. OSX has almost no apps anyways. However, I'm pretty sure Apple is heading in the direction of iOS app support on OSX.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Desktop users use apps, that's why Windows has 94% of the market, because that's where the apps are.

And I was talking about iOS. OSX has almost no apps anyways. However, I'm pretty sure Apple is heading in the direction of iOS app support on OSX.

I still believe that most desktop users use programs, not apps (x86/x64 Windows programs). The majority of Windows users are not running 8/8.1, so they cannot use apps.

All desktop Windows users might consider using apps once they upgrade to Windows 10. However, it will take some serious marketing by Microsoft to show them the benefits of apps rather than x86/x64 programs.

 

[spaulagain]

I still believe that desktop users use programs, not apps (x86/x64 Windows programs). The majority of Windows users are not running 8/8.1, so they cannot use apps.

All desktop Windows users might consider using apps once they upgrade to Windows 10. However, it will take some serious marketing by Microsoft to show them the benefits of apps rather than x86/x64 programs.

But they are one in the same. I don't get why there is this mental gap between legacy apps and universal apps. They're exactly the same thing, dedicated applications for a given task/tool.



Just because one is a video app (Netflix) and another is a drafting tool (AutoCAD) doesn't mean they don't share the same value as a dedicated application. Sure AutoCAD is a more complicated application and probably not doable as a web app. But there are many applications including Office that are web accessible and people still use the app over the browser version.



At the end of the day, it's where the features are. And apps are far more capable than web apps (when developed well).

 

[Laura Knotek]

But they are one in the same. I don't get why there is this mental gap between legacy apps and universal apps. They're exactly the same thing, dedicated applications for a given task/tool.



Just because one is a video app (Netflix) and another is a drafting tool (AutoCAD) doesn't mean they don't share the same value as a dedicated application. Sure AutoCAD is a more complicated application and probably not doable as a web app. But there are many applications including Office that are web accessible and people still use the app over the browser version.



At the end of the day, it's where the features are. And apps are far more capable than web apps (when developed well).

Do you think that gaming apps could be as good as desktop PC gaming? Would apps be able to take advantage of the graphics cards in gaming rigs? Could one overclock if he/she uses an app?

 

[spaulagain]

Do you think that gaming apps could be as good as desktop PC gaming? Would apps be able to take advantage of the graphics cards in gaming rigs? Could one overclock if he/she uses an app?

I'm confused, your talking about niche applications like hardcore games. But just a minute ago you were talking about Netflix app.

Niche, high power/complicated apps will probably remain x86 apps for a while. But everything else can be a Universal app. Like I said, those more simple apps that everyone uses are still better as an app than a web app because they can integrate with the OS and other apps (app contracts).

Even as a web developer, I know there are critical limitations to applications built into the web.

I don't understand how iOS and Android can blow up with all these apps (they have browsers too). Amd yet magically Windows is supposedly incapable of doing the same.

It feels like everyone just denies Microsoft any chance of moving forward. Like they are indefinitely stuck in this legacy desktop environment. Something that's going to be dead within 10 years.

And BTW, yea, eventually all games will be served via the store. Just like Steam. It's not like Microsoft is going to keep the Universal environment some minimal limited environment forever. Once they've built APIs for everything, why give apps the opportunity to **** peoples OS up any more?

 

[Laura Knotek]

I'm confused, your talking about niche applications like hardcore games. But just a minute ago you were talking about Netflix app.

Niche, high power/complicated apps will probably remain x86 apps for a while. But everything else can be a Universal app. Like I said, those more simple apps that everyone uses are still better as an app than a web app because they can integrate with the OS and other apps (app contracts).

Even as a web developer, I know there are critical limitations to applications built into the web.

I don't understand how iOS and Android can blow up with all these apps (they have browsers too). Amd yet magically Windows is supposedly incapable of doing the same.

It feels like everyone just denies Microsoft any chance of moving forward. Like they are indefinitely stuck in this legacy desktop environment. Something that's going to be dead within 10 years.

And BTW, yea, eventually all games will be served via the store. Just like Steam. It's not like Microsoft is going to keep the Universal environment some minimal limited environment forever. Once they've built APIs for everything, why give apps the opportunity to **** peoples OS up any more?

I was not referring to niche apps per se. I was referring to consumer usage, rather than enterprise usage. I wouldn't consider gaming a niche use, since many people choose PCs for their gaming capabilities (and gaming is definitely consumer-based, not enterprise-based). Notice how Mr Cohen mentions that his son needs a PC for gaming in this article. I belong to two local Linux User Groups, and even the most hardcore Linux users in the groups have Windows for their gaming needs. I use the Steam client (and Steam Store), but games not purchased from Steam can be added to the Steam client. Many of the games I use on Steam are available elsewhere, such as Amazon.com, but I like Steam's sales. Yes, Steam has clients for OS X and Linux (and games for both in the store); however, the selection of games for Windows is vastly superior than the selection for OS X and Linux, whether one buys games from the Steam Store, Amazon.com, or directly from the game developers' sites.

Once again, I think Microsoft definitely has a chance to become successful with apps. That is not something limited to Apple or Google. I just feel that the majority of desktop Windows users need education on why they'd want apps on the desktop, and the desktop apps need to be as good or better than the legacy programs in order for desktop Windows users to bother trying them.

 

[Mike Gibson]

But they are one in the same. I don't get why there is this mental gap between legacy apps and universal apps. They're exactly the same thing, dedicated applications for a given task/tool.

No they're not! The WinRT app model is completely different from the Win32 model, especially in the installation. No possibility for downloadable add-ons, extensions, etc. The life cycle is different, with WinRT being a run-stop architecture while Win32 is always running. File access is different (and terribly slow in WinRT due to Async and the File Broker). Even MSFT itself recommends Win32 for programs of any complexity.

 

[tiziano27]

I have no doubt that Windows 10 will be hugely successful with consumers and enterprise users. I just doubt how readily folks using desktop/notebook PCs will adapt to the Store apps. I do think Store apps will be successful on touch-centric devices like Windows tablets.

As for a consumer app, I'll name Netflix. Yes, I have the Windows 8.1 Netflix app, but again, it lacks features available when watching Netflix in a desktop PC browser or even in the Windows Media Center program.

For the record, I actually like Windows 8.1, and I like Windows 10 Tech Preview so far. They just need to do more to convince me to get off the desktop and its programs and use the Store apps. So far, nothing in the Store has attracted me as much as the desktop programs.

The biggest problem for the adoption of apps in Windows 8 is not the quality of the app itself. The problem is that Windows 8 is a total mess and even if companies would develop great apps for the OS, few people would use them.
First, the duality and inconsistencies of the Metro and Desktop environments. I think most people ignore metro apps because every time they launch a metro app they're pushed into an incomprehensible parallel reality.
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.

Microsoft has to give developers some advantages over websites too. For example, for developers, discoverability through the store is important. The store provides a secure payment system so you don't have to implement your own. Store apps are secure and can be installed without worries, distributing old x86 apps has big security issues. The great benefit of having a little piece of the user's start menu to showcase your content and increase the engagement. A lower cost of development to achieve a superior result without having to test the app in every single browser and their inconsistencies that are changing all the time.. and more.

 

[Jas00555]

But you could make this same argument with iOS apps. Why use the iOS app when users can just open Netflix in the Safari/browser? .

Can you stream Netflix through an iPad browser?

Either way, people prefer apps for smaller devices because websites are usually hard to navigate on said small devices.

Personally, I do prefer to do things on my PC in a web browser and I even try to do things in the apps. They're just not as easy to get to. It's a lot easier to simply open a new tab, then to close the app, find it in the Start Menu/app list, then open it. Even though I try to use the store apps as much as possible, I usually only use it when I snap it to the side and watch a movie while I'm doing something else.

Anecdotal, but my sister uses them all the time on her Surface Pro 3, but never uses them on a desktop.

I agree with Laura that selling Windows tablets is the way to push these apps (although I would argue 2 in 1s work too).

 

[spaulagain]

^Interesting, it drives me nuts having to have all these things in a browser. I constantly have 20-30 tabs open for the work I do. And having things like Jira, Slack, etc all in browsers makes it worse. I'd much rather get those out of my Chrome tab stack and have dedicated task bar icons to click on for them. Otherwise I have to figure out which Chrome instance I have it open in, then navigate to that tab, etc.

Slack at least has a Chrome extension that allows you to do that thankfully. But all these other web apps don't.

I guess if you are a passive user and just use the computer to browse a few things at a time maybe. But as a power user, it really drags my workflow down.

 

[rhapdog]

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.

I think the appeal of store apps is much better than the appeal of desktop apps to the average consumer for another reason as well, but it will have to be marketed to let people know this. Security. How many times have people found the program they wanted, only to download a virus? It's the number one way people get infected it seems is when they are trying to install a program that they obtained from a disreputable source.

People who will never want Store Apps: Part 2
There are people you will never convince to use the store, and they will fight it no matter what, however. These are people that obtain their desktop apps from "less than reputable sources" in order to get around paying for the programs. They want the full version of Photoshop, and they want it for free, so they go to a pirate site and download it as a torrent or whatever, then they install the cracked version. You will have a difficult time convincing these people to use a legit source and actually pay for the higher end apps.

There are also a lot of people that do not want to see those high-end Xbox One games on store for PC as universal apps. If it's a store app and has to be verified as purchased to be installed, it's going to cut down on piracy of these games by quite a bit. Something I would love to see.

 

[Jas00555]

^
I guess if you are a passive user and just use the computer to browse a few things at a time maybe. .

Which is what we're trying to get across. Nobody here except Mike Gibson thinks that the Metro apps are bad per se, but for casual usage, they would have to be a lot better to get people to move from the web. Until it is, people will continue to use the web.

However, as Laura was saying, there IS a silver lining to this chicken/egg thing, and that's tablet users. Tablets (and I would argue 2in1s) are the way to get people to use these apps. If Microsoft can sell enough of those, the quality of the apps will go up and that just may get casual users to switch to these apps.

That's my take on it anyways.

 

[EBUK]

the other just takes time like iOS and Android apps did.

Time is not on Microsoft's side.

 

[spaulagain]

Time is not on Microsoft's side.

No it's not, but Microsoft isn't some magical God that can just make things happen out of thin air. There is no getting around it. These apps won't just appear out of thin air. Market share won't appear out of thin air. It takes time.

But MS has a pretty powerful platform that they just put a major boost on with Windows 10. No other platform has the ability to allow a developer to write one app and deploy it to almost all desktops in the world (free upgrade), tablets, phones, TVs (Xbox), and even iOS and Android via Xamarin.

You have to be a damn fool ***** as a developer to ignore that. And it's not like .NET/C# is a bad language, its an extremely powerful language. Not to mention that Microsoft has completely opened up the framework for HTML/CSS/JS. They treat it as a first class citizen where the other platforms limit web apps.

There is literally nothing more Microsoft can do at this point (Windows 10 launch). They've even made it free and started open sourcing the .NET framework.

 

[Mike Gibson]

No other platform has the ability to allow a developer to write one app and deploy it to almost all desktops in the world (free upgrade), tablets, phones, TVs (Xbox), and even iOS and Android via Xamarin.

No one cares about that. There's zero consumer demand for Universal Apps because Windows Phone failed in the marketplace. No Windows ISV is going to waste their time converting their Win32 programs to WinRT. It has nothing to do with being "afraid of change" or any other psycho BS, it's purely business.

 

[spaulagain]

No one cares about that. There's zero consumer demand for Universal Apps because Windows Phone failed in the marketplace. No Windows ISV is going to waste their time converting their Win32 programs to WinRT. It has nothing to do with being "afraid of change" or any other psycho BS, it's purely business.

Lol, you crack me up. Adobe is already building their apps in the WinRT environment. And the project I'm working on which is currently a Win32 application is being rewritten in the WinRT environment. Meaning your argument is already flawed/disproved.

So why are you even here? Just go develop for Apple or Android if Universal apps are so bad. Microsoft is clearly not changing directions to align with your vision. So just leave. At this point, you're just complaining to an empty room to hear your own voice echo off the walls. Your angst is so ridiculous I'm just going to add you to my ignore list and stop wasting my time even reading your rants.

 

[AndyCalling]

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.

 

[EBUK]

Adobe is already building their apps in the WinRT environment.

Which apps?
Are they as fully featured and functional as their desktop (x32/64) equivalents?

 

[spaulagain]

Which apps?
Are they as fully featured and functional as their desktop (x32/64) equivalents?

Currently just PhotoShop Express is in WinRT. So no, they are not as full functional. But that doesn't mean they never will be. Again, this stuff doesn't happen over night. We are talking long term direction here. And the direction is, stop side loading applications. It's even in Adobe's interest because that would help reduce pirated apps and give them a direct market for end user to access and maintain there applications. Rather than their insanely bad CreativeCloud.

@rhapdog summed it up pretty well. So I don't need to repeat it all.