Slashdot Mirror
Future Microsoft Devices Will Take Cues From the Surface Tablet
An anonymous reader writes: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says the company is committed to bringing Windows to as many computer form factors as possible — even if they have to do it themselves. He says their plan is to build out new devices with the same mindset that created the Surface line. The Surface Pro tablets (and the regular Surface tablets, now that Windows RT has been retired) have been a rare bright spot among Microsoft's mobile stumbles. Nadella seems to want Windows to become almost hardware agnostic, and he thinks the universal apps plan for Windows 10 is the way to do it.
He says, "Universal Windows apps are going to be written because you want to have those apps used on the desktop. The reason why anybody would want to write universal apps is not because of our three percent share in phones. It's because a billion consumers are going to have a Start Menu, which is going to have your app. You start the journey there and take them to multiple places. Their app can go to the phone. They can go to HoloLens. They can go to Xbox. ... And by the way, when we hook them on that, we have a phone app. This strategy is path dependent, which is a term I use that means where you start is not where you end up. And therein lies a lot of the nuance. The fundamental truth for developers is they will build if there are users. And in our case the truth is we have users on desktop."
He says, "Universal Windows apps are going to be written because you want to have those apps used on the desktop. The reason why anybody would want to write universal apps is not because of our three percent share in phones. It's because a billion consumers are going to have a Start Menu, which is going to have your app. You start the journey there and take them to multiple places. Their app can go to the phone. They can go to HoloLens. They can go to Xbox. ... And by the way, when we hook them on that, we have a phone app. This strategy is path dependent, which is a term I use that means where you start is not where you end up. And therein lies a lot of the nuance. The fundamental truth for developers is they will build if there are users. And in our case the truth is we have users on desktop."
I used a Windows Phone for a while and it is actually a good product. It was fast and stable and did what I wanted it to do. The UI was actually pretty nice. The one thing that made me go back to Android was the lack of apps and the quality of some of them. I really missed the Google apps that I was used to using. Google is no more of a villain for doing that than Microsoft is for not producing Office or Exchange for Linux, or Apple not producing iTunes for WindowsPhone or Android but Windows Phone with gmail, youtube, and google maps would have been really nice.
BTW yes I know about bing maps and using imap for gmail and the third party youtube apps but I liked google better.
In the end I really wish that WP did better than it looks like it will do. Now what Microsoft is doing to Nokia is shameful.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
please please
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a tablet. ;)
Universal Windows apps are going to be written because you want to have those apps used on the desktop.
Universal Windows is a contradiction. Especially coming from a company with an on-again off-again relationship with allowing backward compatibility on X-Box. Your customers quit caring about your apps for their devices when google came out with docs. Web is the universal app.
The reason why anybody would want to write universal apps is not because of our three percent share in phones. It's because a billion consumers are going to have a Start Menu, which is going to have your app.
that was the whole point of the 3% phone marketshare and this is the circular logic thats been plaguing "thought leaders" at redmond for a decade. To have that button, you need a platform, and you didnt win phones or tablets so what pray tell is the start button going to show up on? transit cards?
You start the journey there and take them to multiple places. Their app can go to the phone. They can go to HoloLens. They can go to Xbox. ... And by the way, when we hook them on that, we have a phone app.
Stop. stop with the fever-dream of a phone. you lost seven billion dollars on the phone thing. real people lost jobs because of your half-assed insistance on dominating all markets forever. as of 2009, Steam had a 70% share of the digital distribution market for video games so clearly at this point both developers and customers think the X-Box crack is wack. Maybe if you treated your users like real people and not some sort of parasite theyd keep following.
This strategy is path dependent, which is a term I use that means where you start is not where you end up.
Yes. Bankruptcy court is still certainly not the lowest option you have. Take a look at how long SCO managed to fuck up the brand.
And therein lies a lot of the nuance. The fundamental truth for developers is they will build if there are users. And in our case the truth is we have users on desktop.
So...none of your circlejerking about the phone meant anything to the cusp of your argument. surprise. And the idea that developers will build if there are users is a Ballmerism; and not one i might say most people are keen on. Developers want creativity and independence. you bought Mojang last year because, arguably, you couldnt bring any of that to the table. And once you run that franchise into the dirt (and you will) there will be an open source clone, or hell, even a successor on Steam, but it most certainly wont be tethered to the haggared burro you call an OS.
Good people go to bed earlier.
That additional 0.0001% of users, you mean.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
The last few years it seems like decades of "because we say so" is catching up with Microsoft.
Their "innovation" seems to be at an all time low, and most of the new and shiny stuff they're putting out seems to fall flat, and the stuff they're putting out which copies what other people have done aren't very popular.
I wonder if Microsoft hasn't lost the plot entirely, and now they're a big lumbering entity flailing around to try to stay relevant, while mostly failing to write stuff people care about.
Office has mostly plateaued, yes, people will keep using it, but there's not a lot of new functionality anybody needs.
Quite honestly, their strategy to make everything look like mobile is complete garbage for a desktop computer. You have to turn off most of their "innovations" to end up with a usable desktop.
If they are pinning their hopes on all of us becoming completely involved in all of their ecosystem, they will probably discover not enough of us care, or are willing to go that route.
It just feels like Microsoft no longer has any real clue about how to remain relevant in a lot of segments. I can pretty much say I don't foresee their vision of the future being something I give a damn about.
And when I see shit like "we're going to share your wifi password" I think "wow, you have no clue about security and think you own the systems" -- basically nobody with a Microsoft product will ever get any access to any wifi I control.
Sorry Microsoft, but you've become a dinosaur selling us spreadsheets and Power Point. Meanwhile the rest of the world is actually trying to make new and interesting stuff.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Says the anonymous coward
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
He's still missing a big opportunity: the enterprise. Why everyone is clamoring for the crumbs of the consumer pie, I don't understand. Enterprise functionality is being ignored forcing us to adopt strange concepts like BYOD which is a logistical nightmare and security concern.
Dominate the enterprise and the consumer market will follow. Gates knew this. Balmer seemed more interested in chasing the heels of the current trend as most sales guys do. And now I'm not sure what to think about this new guy... But he seems to be still missing the point.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"Universal Windows apps are going to be written because you want to have those apps used on the desktop."
Wait, who wants universal Windows apps?
Certainly it is not the desktop users. Because they must cater to the "lowest-common-denominator" of hardware, universal apps tend to be underpowered and have interfaces poorly optimized for mouse/keyboard.
The developers have little care for Universal apps. There is no demand for the things, and requires an investment in learning new development methods. It is an added expense and complication that brings little reward for the extra effort.
I suppose there might be some demand from Windows Winphone users - all six of them - but even they might prefer a more functional app tailored to their desktops capabilities rather than a cut-rate smartphone app. I don't hear an overwhelming clamor crying out, "oh if only the mail app on my desktop worked just like it did on my winphone!"
No, there is only one party that is really interested in Universal apps, and that's Microsoft themselves because universal apps are sold through the Microsoft app store and they get a cut of the proceeds. It also gives them great control over what sort of programs users have access to (what are the odds they would allow a stand-alone Linux installer to be added to their store?).
So, other than some great desire to increase Microsoft's profits, what reason is there to develop or use Universal apps?
What's the point of developing for a niche platform?
If you are an enterprise and you want to provide a service to your customers, you can do just about everything from the web. You don't need to write an app, you don't need to distribute it and keep it updated. You can write a web app and have everything in one place. You don't have to force your users to upgrade. You don't have to worry about fake versions of your app. You can use web standards and just ignore Microsoft and Apple and everyone else.