Support NeoGAF

[roadrunn3r]

You know this thread is starting to run it's course, when a certain well known XBox fan on Gaf shows up, 30 pages late... And the first post consisted of 4-5 sentences of just Sweeney bashing, and nothing about the topic at hand that the majority of us on both sides of the argument were actually discussing pretty civily. And there were a couple more attempts to stifle the topic with more Sweeney bashing, by the same person, lol.

smh

This thread is certainly strange. (or those other threads on the same topic) We've had PC related topics before and discussions happen between PC gamers with different opinions which is perfectly normal.

Here you have people which I've never seen in any PC gaming discussions writing several posts per page constantly repeating the same things over and over. I'm not saying they don't even own a PC cause they might but it surely feels weird to read some of these comments.

 

[LordRaptor]

I think with them having Xamarin they can build actual Universal Windows Apps that are developed in VS and run on all major platforms.

Way Off Topic, but I find it insane that they are purchasing Xamarin and indicative of just how badly they have lost their way.

Mono was a third party attempt to reverse engineer and open source (for ongoing support) a platform MS created in the first place, and then abandoned because they felt they didn't need it any more.

It would be like Nintendo going and buying Rare from MS.

 

[gamz]

Way Off Topic, but I find it insane that they are purchasing Xamarin and indicative of just how badly they have lost their way.

Mono was a third party attempt to reverse engineer and open source (for ongoing support) a platform MS created in the first place, and then abandoned because they felt they didn't need it any more.

It would be like Nintendo going and buying Rare from MS.

Wasn't Mono created because of Xamarin. I thought Xamarin was very influential on the creation of it?

 

[Zedox]

Way Off Topic, but I find it insane that they are purchasing Xamarin and indicative of just how badly they have lost their way.

Mono was a third party attempt to reverse engineer and open source (for ongoing support) a platform MS created in the first place, and then abandoned because they felt they didn't need it any more.

It would be like Nintendo going and buying Rare from MS.

Yea...but at the same time it's different people in charge (not only Nadella) so yea, I hear you. MS has been doing a lot of open-source cross-platform devving recently so them purchasing Xamarin makes sense now more than ever (granted a lot of people thought they were going to buy them a long time ago). Either way we'll find out what they'll be doing with them come //build/.

 

[CrispyBoar]

What I still don't get, and never will get, is why people defend multi-billion dollar corporation's bullshit unless they or someone close to them is on their pay-roll. Seems like fanboyism truly knows no borders.

I have no clue either. If people don't call them out on what they're doing, they'll think that it's OK & will start to get away with these practices.

But if people in this thread starts calling out Microsoft for what they think that they'll do that is not pleasant towards consumers & don't say anything nice about them, then they get roasted by their fans & they get all worked up over it, which is ridiculous really, because we don't owe corporations a damn thing. There shouldn't be any loyalty towards anyone whatsoever.

Astroturfers would be more understandable, because at least they have something to gain.

Instead we have console fanboyism translated over into a PC-focused discussion, because any criticism of Microsoft is an attack on all Microsoft, so the people who love their Xbox roll up in here to defend the faith.

Exactly.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Yikes. So much wrong in these tweets.

1. Windows Store will not "take off". It will, at best, be just another store among many others for Windows. Also, there is no need and no market for a "free" Windows version which is heavily restricted. This tweet illustrates nicely how baseless his speculations are.

2. "Where are they promising to continue win32?" Really??? They don't have to. There are millions of people who DEPEND on win32. Companies, governments, millions of professionals (who don't use an "Enterprise" license) ... they will never stop support for Win32. He doesn't seem to get the bigger picture. Windows isn't just about games.

3. WindowsRT was created because of technical reasons. They wanted to support ARM and they wanted to have new devices not possible before. It wasn't created to "monopolise" the market or to fuck people over. But it didn't work out, because customers thought it was a bad deal. The same will happen if Microsoft decides to release a Windows version without win32 support. But that won't happen.

 

[LordRaptor]

Wasn't Mono created because of Xamarin. I thought Xamarin was very influential on the creation of it?

Yeah, they're very talented developers, there's no dispute there. That's not the insane part.

The insane part is... well, imagine MS get what they want, all Windows applications now have to be made in UWA, they call win32 software 'legacy', and then deprecate it in Windows 11.
But Tim Sweeney says, "no, fuck that" and makes it Epic policy that all Epic games are made as win32 binaries, and every feature added exclusively as a UWA feature is reverse engineered and added to the win32 builds.
Then in 5 years time MS buy Epic so that they can release win32 programs again, because they've decided they want to and there's nobody left at MS who knows how to do so.

 

[LukasTaves]

Good read... He's got some very legitamate concerns... Still disappointed that he resorted to FUD, and apparently thinks it's appropriate behavior, but hey, it got the job done...

He keeps saying Ms is making cumbersome to use firefox/chrome/opera in windows 10. How so?

 

[gamz]

Windows RT was their answer to the iOS. Locked down and secure, but the marketing was terrible and people rejected it because they wanted Windows, not a "gimped" windows and it died before it even got started. Plus, it didn't make sense to have WP, Windows, and RT.

They should have just used WP for the OS or something.

 

[LukasTaves]

the problem is default inertia. IE was hugely inferior to several other browsers for years but they struggled to gain market share against it simply because it came with the OS and opened web links by default.

also microsoft leveraged their OS monopoly to keep OEMs from bundling netscape, which is what lead to the antitrust lawsuit

If that's the issue then win10 makes it easier to switch, not harder. Because every time you install a new browser the next time you open a link it will ask if you want to change to the new installed one or keep the old default.

 

[Nzyme32]

Yikes. So much wrong in these tweets.

1. Windows Store will not "take off". It will, at best, be just another store among many others for Windows. Also, there is no need and no market for a "free" Windows version which is heavily restricted. This tweet illustrates nicely how baseless his speculations are.

2. "Where are they promising to continue win32?" Really??? They don't have to. There are millions of people who DEPEND on win32. Companies, governments, millions of professionals (who don't use an "Enterprise" license) ... they will never stop support for Win32. He doesn't seem to get the bigger picture. Windows isn't just about games.

3. WindowsRT was created because of technical reasons. They wanted to support ARM and they wanted to have new devices not possible before. It wasn't created to "monopolise" the market or to fuck people over. But it didn't work out, because customers thought it was a bad deal. The same will happen if Microsoft decides to release a Windows version without win32 support. But that won't happen.

How about you read the coversations they are a part of, rather than taking every single one out of their original context. Then see the difference

 

[Gemüsepizza]

I have no clue either. If people don't call them out on what they're doing, they'll think that it's OK & will start to get away with these practices.

But if people in this thread starts calling out Microsoft for what they're doing & don't say anything nice about them, then they get roasted by their fans, which is ridiculous really, because we don't owe corporations a damn thing. There shouldn't be any loyalty towards anyone whatsoever.

It is one thing to voice your worries about a possible and speculative future, which will hurt customers, in a calm way.

And it's a different thing to make a hysterical article about how Microsoft wants to monopolise game development on PC, and about how we have to start fighting against Microsoft - without providing any evidence.

Just look at you. You think people in this thread are "calling out Microsoft" because of "what they're doing". This is not true. People are calling out Microsoft because of what they think they will do. All while not having any proof and with Microsoft saying, that this is not their intention.

How about you read the coversations they are a part of, rather than taking every single one out of their original context. Then see the difference

What are you talking about? There is no other context which changes the meaning of what he wrote. Why don't you formulate arguments instead of posting one liners without much content, for example, by saying how my response was wrong?

 

[Kayant]

No the gamesbeat interview wasn't FUD. It was perfect. He expressed his concerned, his rationale and explained why he was suspicious. He took care to explain that he didn't have any actual evidence.

But the tone of the gamesbeat interview when juxtaposed with the guardian article highlights just how dubious and hyperbolic the orignial op-Ed was.
the fact that he admits all he has is speculations, extrapolations, and fear is essentially an admission that the guardian article was FUD.

It's the guardian article that I take issue with. Not his concern, and not his end goal.

Fair beans. Admittedly, I thought your reasoning for highlighting that quote was to illustrate an example of FUD.

Reading some of your previous comments and rereading the guardian piece I don't agree with the claims of it being FUD outside the title an d some of the points he makes being exaggerated.

Spoiler

Really need to stop doing that. I should read comments 3 times in a round by commenting.

On a side note this op-piece tim retweeted is great -

‘Sideloading is on by default’ – that we’re even talking about sideloading apps onto an OS we’ve been able to just download stuff for should be warning enough that this is not right. When Microsoft say “UWP is open” and “sideloading” in the same paragraph, how is it even possible to reconcile the two?

 

[Massa]

Yikes. So much wrong in these tweets.

1. Windows Store will not "take off". It will, at best, be just another store among many others for Windows. Also, there is no need and no market for a "free" Windows version which is heavily restricted. This tweet illustrates nicely how baseless his speculations are.

2. "Where are they promising to continue win32?" Really??? They don't have to. There are millions of people who DEPEND on win32. Companies, governments, millions of professionals (who don't use an "Enterprise" license) ... they will never stop support for Win32. He doesn't seem to get the bigger picture. Windows isn't just about games.

3. WindowsRT was created because of technical reasons. They wanted to support ARM and they wanted to have new devices not possible before. It wasn't created to "monopolise" the market or to fuck people over. But it didn't work out, because customers thought it was a bad deal. The same will happen if Microsoft decides to release a Windows version without win32 support. But that won't happen.

1. Yes, we can all hope the Windows Store will not take off. But we don't have a business depending on that not happening.

2. You took this one out of its context.

3. So you're arguing that Microsoft won't decide to release a Windows version without win32 support, "won't happen", in the same paragraph where you discuss the version of Windows they released without win32 support.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This thread is certainly strange. (or those other threads on the same topic) We've had PC related topics before and discussions happen between PC gamers with different opinions which is perfectly normal.

Here you have people which I've never seen in any PC gaming discussions writing several posts per page constantly repeating the same things over and over. I'm not saying they don't even own a PC cause they might but it surely feels weird to read some of these comments.

With this thread, and if these people are actually not what some suspect, and they are actually genuine, I ask myself, is this real life?

1. Yes, we can all hope the Windows Store will not take off. But we don't have a business depending on that not happening.

2. You took this one out of its context.

3. So you're arguing that Microsoft won't decide to release a Windows version without win32 support, "won't happen", in the same paragraph where you discuss the version of Windows they released without win32 support.

 

[Head.spawn]

The thing I don't get about this is how do you gauge any of this? It's like Batman v Superman.. "If there is even a 1% chance!"

Basically, how do you defend against an evil bad guy hypothetical scenario? Clearly what they are saying isn't resonating, they are not to be trusted because they have a history (and while we're at, ignore the history of openness because evil).

It seems like a no win, given the way it is positioned.

 

[Nzyme32]

What are you talking about? There is no other context which changes the meaning of what he wrote. Why don't you formulate arguments instead of posting one liners without much content, for example, by saying how my response was wrong?

As in you are missing the entire point of the conversations at hand, and why many of the stipulations are hypothetical, based on 18 months of private conversations he has had with MS on UWP, where what MS have said to him in respect to his concerns are not represented by their continuing actions over that period. You could read through this thread, but evidently you haven't. Rather than spoon feed you and suffer than same half blind selective reading process you have exhibited in previous threads, I'll just post the actual context of his argument.

First interview, prior to posting statement - https://soundcloud.com/polygon-newsworthy/4-tim-sweeney-on-microsofts-evil-plan

Gaf being Gaf - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=197583701&postcount=1039

Second interview, post MS response with further clarification - http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/05/w...ted-micrsooft-in-bid-to-keep-windows-10-open/

This is why context is important

1. Yes, we can all hope the Windows Store will not take off. But we don't have a business depending on that not happening.

2. You took this one out of its context.

3. So you're arguing that Microsoft won't decide to release a Windows version without win32 support, "won't happen", in the same paragraph where you discuss the version of Windows they released without win32 support.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

1. Yes, we can all hope the Windows Store will not take off. But we don't have a business depending on that not happening.

2. You took this one out of its context.

3. So you're arguing that Microsoft won't decide to release a Windows version without win32 support, "won't happen", in the same paragraph where you discuss the version of Windows they released without win32 support.

1. There is nothing to hope. It is common sense. The idea that the Windows Store will suddenly take off and dominate is just FUD. There are countless companies which won't suddenly start to give Microsoft 30% of their profit, for no fucking reason. There are several companies who have their own, very succesful stores on Windows. They won't just stop.

2. No I didn't. I looked at one of the statements made in this tweet, and pointed out how ridiculous it is.

3. Did you read what I wrote at all? The situation for WinRT was a completely different one, and it's existence has nothing to do with what Microsoft is being accused of now. Also, WinRT shows that Microsoft won't be able to "force" people to use an inferior product, like some here seem to think.

As in you are missing the entire point of the conversations at hand, and why many of the stipulations are hypothetical, based on 18 months of private conversations he has had with MS on UWP, where what MS have said to him in respect to his concerns are not represented by their continuing actions over that period. You could read through this thread, but evidently you haven't. Rather than spoon feed you and suffer than same half blind selective reading process you have exhibited in previous threads, I'll just post the actual context of his argument.

First interview, prior to posting statement - https://soundcloud.com/polygon-newsworthy/4-tim-sweeney-on-microsofts-evil-plan

Gaf being Gaf - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=197583701&postcount=1039

Second interview, post MS response with further clarification - http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/05/w...ted-micrsooft-in-bid-to-keep-windows-10-open/

This is why context is important

Dude, you still have not explained why my response was "out of context". Your post makes no fucking sense. If you can't be bothered to explain your statements, then why reply at all?

 

[LukasTaves]

Way Off Topic, but I find it insane that they are purchasing Xamarin and indicative of just how badly they have lost their way.

Mono was a third party attempt to reverse engineer and open source (for ongoing support) a platform MS created in the first place, and then abandoned because they felt they didn't need it any more.

It would be like Nintendo going and buying Rare from MS.

Ms didn't abandon .net they just never ported to other platforms which was one of their initial goals.

The purchase of xamarin is precisely to support .net in other platforms, not in theirs.

 

[LordRaptor]

1. There is nothing to hope. It is common sense. The idea that the Windows Store will suddenly take off and dominate is just FUD.

Are you actually positing that MS have no desire to see their own storefront succeed?

Ms didn't abandon .net they just never ported to other platforms which was one of their initial goals.

The purchase of xamarin is precisely to support .net in other platforms, not in theirs.

Monos primary use is as a replacement for the XNA framework that MS shitcanned.

 

[LukasTaves]

Yikes. So much wrong in these tweets.

1. Windows Store will not "take off". It will, at best, be just another store among many others for Windows. Also, there is no need and no market for a "free" Windows version which is heavily restricted. This tweet illustrates nicely how baseless his speculations are.

2. "Where are they promising to continue win32?" Really??? They don't have to. There are millions of people who DEPEND on win32. Companies, governments, millions of professionals (who don't use an "Enterprise" license) ... they will never stop support for Win32. He doesn't seem to get the bigger picture. Windows isn't just about games.

3. WindowsRT was created because of technical reasons. They wanted to support ARM and they wanted to have new devices not possible before. It wasn't created to "monopolise" the market or to fuck people over. But it didn't work out, because customers thought it was a bad deal. The same will happen if Microsoft decides to release a Windows version without win32 support. But that won't happen.

WinRt did support Win32. Ms didn't allow install from 3rd party win32 apps but the system came fully loaded of win32 apps, and if jailbroken it would run any win32 provided that was recompiled for arm.

In that case the lack of arm support was likely the culprit, because there are even recent leaks that Ms is planning to give desktop on arm another go, but this time with a x86->arm emulation/interpreter so arm devices can run any win32 apps as well.

 

[Durante]

You know this thread is starting to run it's course, when a certain well known XBox fan on Gaf shows up, 30 pages late... And the first post consisted of 4-5 sentences of just Sweeney bashing, and nothing about the topic at hand that the majority of us on both sides of the argument were actually discussing pretty civily. And there were a couple more attempts to stifle the topic with more Sweeney bashing, by the same person, lol.

smh

Yeah, I think at this point I'll leave it be. Everyone should at this point be well-aware of the dangers UWP poses, and if they still want to hurry headlong into it then who am I to stop them.

For now.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Are you actually positing that MS have no desire to see their own storefront succeed?

I am saying that they have no chance of making their store the dominating store for Windows.

WinRt did support Win32. Ms didn't allow install from 3rd party win32 apps but the system came fully loaded of win32 apps, and if jailbroken it would run any win32 provided that was recompiled for arm.

In that case the lack of arm support was likely the culprit, because there are even recent leaks that Ms is planning to give desktop on arm another go, but this time with a x86->arm emulation/interpreter so arm devices can run any win32 apps as well.

And with what performance?

 

[gamz]

In that case the lack of arm support was likely the culprit, because there are even recent leaks that Ms is planning to give desktop on arm another go, but this time with a x86->arm emulation/interpreter so arm devices can run any win32 apps as well.

Isn't that just mobile OS?

 

[LordRaptor]

I am saying that they have no chance of making their store the dominating store for Windows.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable to infer that MS hope that their store is successful and becomes the dominating marketplace, and therefore it is not "FUD" to describe what negative repercussions that would result in should they be successful.

 

[OtisInf]

//build/ HAS to be a homerun this year and I expect it will be. They finally have everything aligned and we should see some cool innovation now.

Gee, I haven't heard that same sentence with every build, PDC or whatever marketing show they had before it. </s>

 

[LukasTaves]

Are you actually positing that MS have no desire to see their own storefront succeed?



Monos primary use is as a replacement for the XNA framework that MS shitcanned.

No, mono is a open source implementation of the CLR .net is built upon. Mono game was an attempt of making an open source XNA.

I'm not sure whether xamarin uses mono underneath or if they just go from .net to native to each platform (I suspect the latter) but it's quite unrelated to anything Ms had done previously.

 

[Skinpop]

EDIT: Found it! Next Gen CPUs Will Only Support Windows 10

This makes it sound like the lack of support comes from the cpu. it's the other way around, ie microsoft forcing consumers to use win 10 on new hardware.

This whole win 10 business is so damn fishy and depressing. I'd gladly sit on win 7 for another half decade but if I can't even upgrade my pc.. then I have no choice but go to linux.

API itself! The API was designed for C and isn't object oriented, and tons of other shit which I won't get into.

there's nothing wrong with api's implemented in c that aren't object oriented. if anything it's preferable. The issue with win32 is that it's an outdated badly designed api.

 

[Trup1aya]

Are you actually positing that MS have no desire to see their own storefront succeed?



Monos primary use is as a replacement for the XNA framework that MS shitcanned.

Ofcourse they want there store to succeed. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

The questions are 1) whether or not they will place arbitrarily limits within the OS and the new standard API that stifle the ability of 3rd party storefronts to succeed And 2) whether or not developers will be able to distribute apps without being first funneled through MS toll gates.

Currently, it looks like MS COULD make anti-competitive decisions regarding both of these issues. But all we have at this moment is speculation that they will, and MS' instistance that they will not.

 

[Mr.Pig]

This makes it sound like the lack of support comes from the cpu. it's the other way around, ie microsoft forcing consumers to use win 10 on new hardware.

This whole win 10 business is so damn fishy and depressing. I'd gladly sit on win 7 for another half decade but if I can't even upgrade my pc.. then I have no choice but go to linux.

A lack of support doesn't mean that it won't work.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Yeah, I think at this point I'll leave it be. Everyone should at this point be well-aware of the dangers UWP poses, and if they still want to hurry headlong into it then who am I to stop them.

For now.

There is no danger with UWP. There are possible, highly speculative ways Microsoft could have chosen to restrict Windows / UWP. They came out and said that they won't do it. The end. But keep spreading FUD.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable to infer that MS hope that their store is successful and becomes the dominating marketplace, and therefore it is not "FUD" to describe what negative repercussions that would result in should they be successful.

There is nothing reasonable about thinking that companies would give up 30% of their profit to help Microsoft establish a monopoly. Do you think the people at Microsoft are dumb? They know exactly that this won't happen.

 

[LukasTaves]

I am saying that they have no chance of making their store the dominating store for Windows.



And with what performance?

Who knows, but there are performant solutions to run applications on different architectures, Ms even use that in the 360 BC on xbone.

And, am I'm mistaken or did Nvidia had also a very performant x86->arm "emulator" to use on their chipsets that intel forced them to drop?

Isn't that just mobile OS?

Phone too, IIRC the leak said that there would be x86 phones capable of running win32 apps in continuum and arm phones would get that functionality too, but there were also leak about a Win 10 (not mobile) for arm with desktop support.

 

[Durante]

They came out and said that they won't do it.

No wait, really? They said they won't do it? Wow. This changes everything!

When a for-profit company convicted in court multiple times for anti-competitive business practices (who simply abandoned a service they previously claimed to be "100% commited to" and left its users out to dry) says that they won't do unpopular but potentially profitable move X then all my concerns are just washed away.

 

[GHG]

Astroturfers would be more understandable, because at least they have something to gain.

Instead we have console fanboyism translated over into a PC-focused discussion, because any criticism of Microsoft is an attack on all Microsoft, so the people who love their Xbox roll up in here to defend the faith.

This is my biggest takeaway from all of this.

And because of this it ends up being worse because you have a bunch of people storming in to defend their overlord without knowing what they are talking about. One only has to look through the quantum break not coming to steam thread to see it all in its full glory.

 

[AncientDiety]

Really scary to see people rush to defend a large faceless corporation at ever turn. MS does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

[OtisInf]

Ms didn't abandon .net they just never ported to other platforms which was one of their initial goals.

https://github.com/dotnet/core

The purchase of xamarin is precisely to support .net in other platforms, not in theirs.

No. The purchase of Xamarin is to provide 1 set of tooling for developers who are already on their system using their tools and who want to write apps for android / iOS / mac. The actual idea is pretty simple: if they can provide the tooling, the developers will stay using MS services / platforms, as 'azure' (the real goal) is front and center. If they hadn't bought it, xamarin could keel over or someone else could have purchased them (e.g. amazon). If amazon would have bought xamarin instead, the tooling likely would support AWS instead and that would lead to MS tooling using devs leave the MS ecosystem for good. The main goal is get as much devs to use Azure. There they make money. It's their long term life boat.

On the developer front, MS is mostly focusing on keeping the current devs on MS tech. It's impossible to get the people who left back. It's to be seen whether the devs still on MS tech will stick around though. One thing MS's stack currently still has over other platforms / stacks is that users are more willing to pay for software so it's easier to sell a licensed application. It's the only reason I'm still there.

 

[LukasTaves]

I believe it is perfectly reasonable to infer that MS hope that their store is successful and becomes the dominating marketplace, and therefore it is not "FUD" to describe what negative repercussions that would result in should they be successful.

Of course they want their store to succeed. The FUD is claiming that they will resort to forcing their store down the throats using their OS to do so, or when they do succeed they will eliminate the competition by removing win32 support from the OS.

 

[gamz]

Really scary to see people rush to defend a large faceless corporation at ever turn. MS does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Why not? They've never closed Windows. It's always been open and it will always be. That's one of the reasons why it's popular on the desktop.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

No wait, really? They said they won't do it? Wow. This changes everything!

When a for-profit company convicted in court multiple times for anti-competitive business practices (who simply abandoned a service they previously claimed to be "100% commited to" and left its users out to dry) says that they won't do unpopular but potentially profitable move X then all my concerns are just washed away.

It's not just that they said they won't do it. There is also the reality that they simply can't do it. It boggles my mind that people like you think, that there is even the slightest chance that massive businesses and governments, companies like EA, Blizzard, Valve, Ubisoft and more, and millions of customers would simply stay quiet if Microsoft announces something like this. Do you think they just go like "Whelp, that's a bit unconvenient. But what can we do." I just can't comprehend it, sorry. They wouldn't be able to get away with it. No matter what they do. And they know it.

 

[AncientDiety]

Why not? They've never closed Windows. It's always been open and it will always be. That's one of the reasons why it's popular on the desktop.

Just because they have not doesn't mean they won't try, only thing stopping MS is the uproar and their own incompetence. Still has nothing to do with the same posters running the defend MS in every thread like this. I mean if it was any company doing this we all should be concerned.

 

[jelly]

Seems that Ed Fries saw it coming:

That's why the original Xbox was so good. Still my favourite.

 

[Trup1aya]

Just because they have not doesn't mean they won't try, only thing stopping MS is the uproar and their own incompetence. Still has nothing to do with the same posters running the defend MS in every thread like this. I mean if it was any company doing this we all should be concerned.

On the same token, Just because they COULD try doesn't mean they will...

I really don't see many people rushing to DEFEND MS or give them benefit of the doubt.

It's mainly people acknowledging that all we have now is speculation, not evidence.

 

[Poodlestrike]

No wait, really? They said they won't do it? Wow. This changes everything!

When a for-profit company convicted in court multiple times for anti-competitive business practices (who simply abandoned a service they previously claimed to be "100% commited to" and left its users out to dry) says that they won't do unpopular but potentially profitable move X then all my concerns are just washed away.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but with this reasoning, MS could promise to do everything you'd want them to do wrt UWP, implement all of it, and proceed to maintain the standards we'd all want and expect of an effective platform holder for all of time and you'd still be freaking out that they could potentially flip the switch and destroy the entire PC ecosystem tomorrow with logic just as strong then as it is now.

The reason a lot of us are willing to take a wait and see approach here is because it is, in most of the ways that matters, a different MS. It's a different leadership with a different approach and a different strategy.

 

[GHG]

On the same token, Just because they COULD try doesn't mean they will...

I really don't see many people rushing to DEFEND MS or give them benefit of the doubt.

It's mainly people acknowledging that all we have now is speculation, not evidence.

What do the current UWA restrictions point towards then?

What do you think this aggressive strategy of handing out "free" upgrades to Windows 10 is all for?

Based on their history, why should we assume anything other than what's being said time and time again? A leopard never changes its spots as they say.

 

[LordRaptor]

It boggles my mind that people like you think, that there is even the slightest chance that massive businesses and governments, companies like EA, Blizzard, Valve, Ubisoft and more, and millions of customers would simply stay quiet

In a topic where the owner of a company like Epic is not staying quiet.

 

[Skinpop]

The reason a lot of us are willing to take a wait and see approach here is because it is, in most of the ways that matters, a different MS. It's a different leadership with a different approach and a different strategy.

this "different" ms seems even worse than before with their sneaky deployment of win 10. I almost thought about maybe upgrading but with the telemetry stuff, ads and now this uwp debacle I don't think I'll ever "upgrade".

 

[Durante]

This thread is certainly strange. (or those other threads on the same topic) We've had PC related topics before and discussions happen between PC gamers with different opinions which is perfectly normal.

Here you have people which I've never seen in any PC gaming discussions writing several posts per page constantly repeating the same things over and over.

Yes.

I guess it's easy to not care about the future of PC gaming as an open platform if you don't care about the present of PC gaming as an open platform.

No. The purchase of Xamarin is to provide 1 set of tooling for developers who are already on their system using their tools and who want to write apps for android / iOS / mac. The actual idea is pretty simple: if they can provide the tooling, the developers will stay using MS services / platforms, as 'azure' (the real goal) is front and center. If they hadn't bought it, xamarin could keel over or someone else could have purchased them (e.g. amazon). If amazon would have bought xamarin instead, the tooling likely would support AWS instead and that would lead to MS tooling using devs leave the MS ecosystem for good.

On the developer front, MS is mostly focusing on keeping the current devs on MS tech. It's impossible to get the people who left back. It's to be seen whether the devs still on MS tech will stick around though. One thing MS's stack currently still has over other platforms / stacks is that users are more willing to pay for software so it's easier to sell a licensed application. It's the only reason I'm still there.

Well, to be fair, they also have the best C++ development environment bar none.

It's not just that they said they won't do it. There is also the reality that they simply can't do it. It boggles my mind that people like you think, that there is even the slightest chance that massive businesses and governments, companies like EA, Blizzard, Valve, Ubisoft and more, and millions of customers would simply stay quiet if Microsoft announces something like this. Do you think they just go like "Whelp, that's a bit unconvenient. But what can we do." I just can't comprehend it, sorry. They wouldn't be able to get away with it. No matter what they do. And they know it.

What boggles my mind is that you think there would ever be an announcement.

Consider this timeline:
2016: Microsoft convinces some early adopters to jump into UWA by leveraging their console exclusives. They also allow others to sell UWA packages - of course only MS-recognized third party dealers.
2017: Project Centennial (that name tells you all you need to know about the future of Win32) works out and makes it relatively simple to package sandboxed "legacy" Win32 apps in UWA.
2018: With the gradual adoption of Centennial, and more and more software offered as UWA -- and of course a healthy dose of marketing -- the format becomes increasingly popular.
2019: Microsoft introduces DirectX12.5, with some additional features. A footnote mentions that these features are not accessible from legacy (read: Win32) applications.
2020: With even wider adoption of UWA, Microsoft adds additional warnings and hassles for (home, not enterprise!) users trying to install Win32 applications.

And so on and so forth. Obviously, there will never be an announcement that they are dropping Win32. That would just be stupid.

 

[DeepEnigma]

In a topic where the owner of a company like Epic is not staying quiet.

Nor did the owner of Valve which prompted them to work on SteamOS as a back-up plan when the first signs were shown in 8.

 

[SunBroDave]

It's not just that they said they won't do it. There is also the reality that they simply can't do it. It boggles my mind that people like you think, that there is even the slightest chance that massive businesses and governments, companies like EA, Blizzard, Valve, Ubisoft and more, and millions of customers would simply stay quiet if Microsoft announces something like this. Do you think they just go like "Whelp, that's a bit unconvenient. But what can we do." I just can't comprehend it, sorry. They wouldn't be able to get away with it. No matter what they do. And they know it.

...that's exactly what is happening right now. Someone from a very respected and influential company like Sweeney is raising a concern.

 

[Durante]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but with this reasoning, MS could promise to do everything you'd want them to do wrt UWP, implement all of it, and proceed to maintain the standards we'd all want and expect of an effective platform holder for all of time and you'd still be freaking out that they could potentially flip the switch and destroy the entire PC ecosystem tomorrow with logic just as strong then as it is now.

Not at all.

I can boil my position down to 2 very simple questions:

• Can I, as the administrator of my PC, grant any application - regardless of its source - the ability to do anything it damn well pleases on the entire system - including to other applications and UWAs - without either myself or the developer of the application having to interact with Microsoft at all or overcome unnecessary hurdles?
• Can I, as an application developer, freely distribute my UWA to users by any means I deem adequate, again without going through Microsoft and without any disadvantages in terms of features or user experience compared to selling them on their Windows store?

The answer for both of these in Win32 is "yes", and the answer for both of them with UWA is a resounding "no". When Microsoft can answer -- and by "answer", I mean with full technical details and an existing implementation, not vague promises -- both of them with "yes", then we can start talking about any advantages UWP might have.