11 ms·

I don't really understand the problem here. Windows is an open plattform. I can install Steam. I can listen to Spotify. Browse the web with Google Chrome. If y

I don't really understand the problem here. Windows is an open plattform. I can install Steam. I can listen to Spotify. Browse the web with Google Chrome. If you don't like the Universal Windows Platform, well. Don't release your games on it. I have heard Steam is a quite popular alternative...

vonmoltke 11y ago
The whole point of the reaction is that with UWP Windows will cease to be an open platform.
- madspindel 11y ago
  Why is that? It was still an open platform after Valve released their closed Steam platform. This doesn't change anything at all.
  - kristiandupont 11y ago
    It does if new API's are only available through UWP.
  - sbarre 11y ago
    This is all kind of addressed in the article, did you read it before coming here to comment?
  - fsloth 11y ago
    Because the threat is, Windows as a platform will be engineered so that unless the app is provided through Microsoft's store, it will be effectively crippled. Valve cannot cripple OS level features. Microsoft - owning both the OS and the app store - certainly can.
  - cmiles74 11y ago
    I think his concern is that UWP apps are the first step towards blocking non-UWP apps. Kind of like Apple does on MacOS X, where you have to dig into the security settings. From the article: "The specific problem here is that Microsoft's shiny new 'Universal Windows Platform' is locked down, and by default it’s impossible to download UWP apps from the websites of publishers and developers, to install them, update them, and conduct commerce in them outside of the Windows Store," said Sweeney. "It's true that if you dig far enough into Microsoft's settings-burying UI, you can find a way to install these apps by enabling 'side-loading.' But in turning this off by default, Microsoft is unfairly disadvantaging the competition."
    - scholia 11y ago
      Yeah, obviously Microsoft is planning to lock out Microsoft Office, all its business apps, and all its server apps... /s
- tdkl 11y ago
  This would be more believable if distribution of UWP software was possible without the Store, f.e. with sideloading like on Android.
  - zanny 11y ago
    You can't install iOS apps without the store, and Microsoft definitely favors being more Apple than Google.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    That's the point. To get full access to Windows features you have to go through the store.
  - jcotton42 11y ago
    You can enable sideloading quite easily in Settings
    - jblow 11y ago
      Today you can do that. This is a boiling-the-frog kind of situation. They do just enough to get people today to accept what they're doing, then the next steps come later.
      - cwyers 11y ago
        Enabling sideloading is a developer convenience feature. It's not really meant for end-users. I don't think shutting off developer features is part of their future roadmap, and your certainty about it is unsettling to witness.
        jblow 11y ago
        Did you read Microsoft's reply to Sweeney's article? They basically used sideloading as an excuse for why this isn't anti-consumer.
ramy_d 11y ago
I don't really understand the problem here. Windows is an open plattform. I can install Steam. I can listen to Spotify. Browse the web with Google Chrome. Except you don't get to do all those things through the windows store. You don't install Chrome through the windows store, only the google app with 1 tab. No firefox on the windows store either. Is steam on the windows store? How long before the windows store becomes the principle method to get apps on your desktop? Sweeny's criticism resonates here: Sweeney then compared UWP to Google's Android, which is "technically open, but practically closed" thanks to how "comically difficult" it is for general users to sideload apps. "This is not merely a technical issue: it has the market impact of Google Play Store dominating over competing stores, despite not being very good," he says.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- douche 11y ago
  > How long before the windows store becomes the principle method to get apps on your desktop? Never. The attempt to unify across devices probably sounded like a good idea, but doesn't really make a lot of sense for anything that isn't a toy. Unless Microsoft wants to cut the throats of all the vendors that made its operating system dominant, it's not going to get rid of Win32 applications running on the desktop.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > Except you don't get to do all those things through the windows store. It's almost as if there is a War On General Purpose Computation... and the locked down malware "appliances" are winning. This started with iOS; the people that should have recognized the dangers of a gatekeeper controlling who can develop or install software decided to embrace the shiny iPhone and later Apple's tables. Now, even Microsoft is getting into the "app store" market and stripping away the remnants of their platform that weren't locked down. > sideload apps Is that the new euphemism for "install software"? Once everyone is convinced installing software outside of the "official" app store is deviant or unusual, it will be easy to introduce a meme that 3rd party software is risky/harmful/immoral. > "This is not merely a technical issue ..." /sigh/ Even with Tim Sweeny's current explanation of the problem and Cory Doctorow's warnings[1][2] several years ago, I doubt many people - even HN readers in this very thread - will actually fight this trend or even change their behavior in any meaningful way. They will continue to give Microsoft money and market share. Instead, I expect down-votes and complaints from apologists that pretend this is for "security", true-believers that pretend this trend to lock everything down doesn't exist, and willfully-blind nerds that think jailbreaking devices is a long-term solution. [1] http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y
Blaaguuu 11y ago
Windows is CURRENTLY a fairly open platform. UWP as a sort of sub-platform is not particularly 'open'. The point here is that if UWP is successful, Microsoft will almost certainly continue to move more and more in that direction, and Windows as a whole which quickly become much less open than it is today. Sweeney is trying to point that out before it is too late. Currently you can buy most games on Steam, and there's really no reason to buy the UWP version if it is also available on the Windows store - but if Microsoft continues to add UWP only features to Windows, then it might not be long before we see games where the UWP version has features that makes it superior to the version available on Steam - or they aren't released on Steam at all. I agree with Sweeney that that is a worrying prospect.
- chokolad 11y ago
  BTW, Phil Spencer posted this on twitter https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/705795213709561857 https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/705795213709561857 UWP is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, and can be supported by any store. Broad range of tools http://bit.ly/1QIHTf0 http://bit.ly/1QIHTf0
  - chokolad 11y ago
    Why a downvote ?
  - Blaaguuu 11y ago
    Interesting... That tweet is the first I ever heard of UWP apps being distributable through 3rd party stores, and I don't see anything in the link that he provided that supports his claim - its all in reference to the Windows Store. It is interesting if true, but the devil is in the details, and Sweeney points out the similarities to Android, where you can technically side-load applications, but it is a pain in the ass, and I'm sure 99% of users couldn't be bothered to do so. Look at how much trouble Amazon has had getting people to use their app store on anything but 'Fire' devices.
  - coryrc 11y ago
    That's not what that says. It says you can use more ways to put things in "Windows Store", not use UWP APIs from programs not sold through "Windows Store".
gambiting 11y ago
UWP allows you to release games on X1 and PC with very few code changes. For big companies, where development time costs $$$ for every day on the project, this is HUGE. If we could port our X1 games to PC with minimum amount of work it would save us a lot of effort.
- douche 11y ago
  Yay, even more half-baked console ports on PC. Noop.
  - douche 11y ago
    Geez, I guess most people don't get as tweaked out by unplayable keyboard/mouse controls, non-remappable controls, controls that are remappable, but still use the default scheme in certain situations, and all the other console badness that leaks over into slapdash PC ports as I am.
    - gambiting 11y ago
      UWP has literally nothing to do with any of those things. UWP means we can release on both platforms without re-writing our whole rendering pipeline, memory management and network code from scratch. One code works everywhere. If companies are sloppy and don't provide good controller options then it's definitely not because of UWP.
gottam 11y ago
There's no problem just as long as things stay that way. Microsoft's PC gaming innovations of the last decade is nothing but half-assed attempts of trying to lock users into their own store front and milk them like they do on their Xbox platform. People are afraid that they'll eventually succeed, this is partially why their main competitors like Steam and GoG have made strides towards supporting Linux, as the day may come where Microsoft will more aggressively try to block out their competitors from their platform.
mfringel 11y ago
''I don't really understand the problem here.'' I agree.
jblow 11y ago
The Microsoft plan is to put all future development into the closed platform and thereby let the open platform die of old age.
zanny 11y ago
Microsoft developed, and strongly pushed, a walled garden app store in Windows 8. That app store has only gotten stronger in Windows 10, and now Microsoft is trying to strongarm all Windows users onto Windows 10 despite concerns about data collection. There are basically three tiers of OS application openness in recent years: At the top, you have old Windows, GNU/Linux, and older versions of Mac OS. You can download and run programs all you want. Down a level, the OS by default stops you from installing anything you want, but there is a settings option to disable this feature. This is done for security, because you would much rather non-tech users be restricted to only installing from your curated appstore than from random downloads off the Internet. This is the modern OSX / Android model. At the bottom, we have iOS. You can only install and run programs through the system appstore, without option. Of all these platforms, iOS makes by far the most revenue per user for developers, and since with walled garden restricted appstores you rent seek a large portion of app sales, as the platform owner you also make the most money when developers make the most revenue - 30%. So you are Microsoft's board in a nice executive suite in Redmond. You look down the coast and see those Cupertino guys making tremendous amounts of effectively free money because they don't have to lift a finger - their army of third party developers are making software they get to profit off of. This revenue made Apple the most valuable company in the world for over a year. Your company is losing market share on every front. You want that money. Apple themselves are already moving OSX towards their iOS model, because of its profitability. Microsoft naturally will want to do so the same. They will be cautious, but it is the optimization of their revenue models if they can pull it off successfully - they just have to maintain "business" editions and contracts of their OS for companies currently using their computers because large corporate entities are much less likely to put up with usurping rent seeking app stores - so you just keep giving them versions with unlocked program installation, while the consumers can all be stuck using your store for everything without recourse, all the while you rake in wonderful 30% per sale. This is not even really speculation, because legally the Microsoft board must act in the interests of their shareholders. All it is is a question of when, when you can flip that switch and take that last island of user freedom, the moment when the loss of users to open platforms (which would, even today, be extremely tiny) poses no threat to the dramatic revenue you could extract from the platform taking that sweet sweet 30% of all software sales. Because the writing is on the wall, and the evidence is hundreds of billions of dollars in your face that this model creates an infinite money machine. You just have to properly soothe the leprechaun into letting you steal the pot of gold.

vonmoltke 11y ago

The whole point of the reaction is that with UWP Windows will cease to be an open platform.

madspindel 11y ago
Why is that? It was still an open platform after Valve released their closed Steam platform. This doesn't change anything at all.
- kristiandupont 11y ago
  It does if new API's are only available through UWP.
- sbarre 11y ago
  This is all kind of addressed in the article, did you read it before coming here to comment?
- fsloth 11y ago
  Because the threat is, Windows as a platform will be engineered so that unless the app is provided through Microsoft's store, it will be effectively crippled. Valve cannot cripple OS level features. Microsoft - owning both the OS and the app store - certainly can.
- cmiles74 11y ago
  I think his concern is that UWP apps are the first step towards blocking non-UWP apps. Kind of like Apple does on MacOS X, where you have to dig into the security settings. From the article: "The specific problem here is that Microsoft's shiny new 'Universal Windows Platform' is locked down, and by default it’s impossible to download UWP apps from the websites of publishers and developers, to install them, update them, and conduct commerce in them outside of the Windows Store," said Sweeney. "It's true that if you dig far enough into Microsoft's settings-burying UI, you can find a way to install these apps by enabling 'side-loading.' But in turning this off by default, Microsoft is unfairly disadvantaging the competition."
  - scholia 11y ago
    Yeah, obviously Microsoft is planning to lock out Microsoft Office, all its business apps, and all its server apps... /s
tdkl 11y ago
This would be more believable if distribution of UWP software was possible without the Store, f.e. with sideloading like on Android.
- zanny 11y ago
  You can't install iOS apps without the store, and Microsoft definitely favors being more Apple than Google.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  That's the point. To get full access to Windows features you have to go through the store.
- jcotton42 11y ago
  You can enable sideloading quite easily in Settings
  - jblow 11y ago
    Today you can do that. This is a boiling-the-frog kind of situation. They do just enough to get people today to accept what they're doing, then the next steps come later.
    - cwyers 11y ago
      Enabling sideloading is a developer convenience feature. It's not really meant for end-users. I don't think shutting off developer features is part of their future roadmap, and your certainty about it is unsettling to witness.
      - jblow 11y ago
        Did you read Microsoft's reply to Sweeney's article? They basically used sideloading as an excuse for why this isn't anti-consumer.

ramy_d 11y ago

I don't really understand the problem here. Windows is an open plattform. I can install Steam. I can listen to Spotify. Browse the web with Google Chrome. Except you don't get to do all those things through the windows store. You don't install Chrome through the windows store, only the google app with 1 tab. No firefox on the windows store either. Is steam on the windows store? How long before the windows store becomes the principle method to get apps on your desktop? Sweeny's criticism resonates here: Sweeney then compared UWP to Google's Android, which is "technically open, but practically closed" thanks to how "comically difficult" it is for general users to sideload apps. "This is not merely a technical issue: it has the market impact of Google Play Store dominating over competing stores, despite not being very good," he says.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
douche 11y ago
> How long before the windows store becomes the principle method to get apps on your desktop? Never. The attempt to unify across devices probably sounded like a good idea, but doesn't really make a lot of sense for anything that isn't a toy. Unless Microsoft wants to cut the throats of all the vendors that made its operating system dominant, it's not going to get rid of Win32 applications running on the desktop.
pdkl95 11y ago
> Except you don't get to do all those things through the windows store. It's almost as if there is a War On General Purpose Computation... and the locked down malware "appliances" are winning. This started with iOS; the people that should have recognized the dangers of a gatekeeper controlling who can develop or install software decided to embrace the shiny iPhone and later Apple's tables. Now, even Microsoft is getting into the "app store" market and stripping away the remnants of their platform that weren't locked down. > sideload apps Is that the new euphemism for "install software"? Once everyone is convinced installing software outside of the "official" app store is deviant or unusual, it will be easy to introduce a meme that 3rd party software is risky/harmful/immoral. > "This is not merely a technical issue ..." /sigh/ Even with Tim Sweeny's current explanation of the problem and Cory Doctorow's warnings[1][2] several years ago, I doubt many people - even HN readers in this very thread - will actually fight this trend or even change their behavior in any meaningful way. They will continue to give Microsoft money and market share. Instead, I expect down-votes and complaints from apologists that pretend this is for "security", true-believers that pretend this trend to lock everything down doesn't exist, and willfully-blind nerds that think jailbreaking devices is a long-term solution. [1] http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y

Blaaguuu 11y ago

Windows is CURRENTLY a fairly open platform. UWP as a sort of sub-platform is not particularly 'open'. The point here is that if UWP is successful, Microsoft will almost certainly continue to move more and more in that direction, and Windows as a whole which quickly become much less open than it is today. Sweeney is trying to point that out before it is too late. Currently you can buy most games on Steam, and there's really no reason to buy the UWP version if it is also available on the Windows store - but if Microsoft continues to add UWP only features to Windows, then it might not be long before we see games where the UWP version has features that makes it superior to the version available on Steam - or they aren't released on Steam at all. I agree with Sweeney that that is a worrying prospect.

chokolad 11y ago
BTW, Phil Spencer posted this on twitter https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/705795213709561857 https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/705795213709561857 UWP is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, and can be supported by any store. Broad range of tools http://bit.ly/1QIHTf0 http://bit.ly/1QIHTf0
- chokolad 11y ago
  Why a downvote ?
- Blaaguuu 11y ago
  Interesting... That tweet is the first I ever heard of UWP apps being distributable through 3rd party stores, and I don't see anything in the link that he provided that supports his claim - its all in reference to the Windows Store. It is interesting if true, but the devil is in the details, and Sweeney points out the similarities to Android, where you can technically side-load applications, but it is a pain in the ass, and I'm sure 99% of users couldn't be bothered to do so. Look at how much trouble Amazon has had getting people to use their app store on anything but 'Fire' devices.
- coryrc 11y ago
  That's not what that says. It says you can use more ways to put things in "Windows Store", not use UWP APIs from programs not sold through "Windows Store".

gambiting 11y ago

UWP allows you to release games on X1 and PC with very few code changes. For big companies, where development time costs $$$ for every day on the project, this is HUGE. If we could port our X1 games to PC with minimum amount of work it would save us a lot of effort.

douche 11y ago
Yay, even more half-baked console ports on PC. Noop.
- douche 11y ago
  Geez, I guess most people don't get as tweaked out by unplayable keyboard/mouse controls, non-remappable controls, controls that are remappable, but still use the default scheme in certain situations, and all the other console badness that leaks over into slapdash PC ports as I am.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    UWP has literally nothing to do with any of those things. UWP means we can release on both platforms without re-writing our whole rendering pipeline, memory management and network code from scratch. One code works everywhere. If companies are sloppy and don't provide good controller options then it's definitely not because of UWP.

gottam 11y ago

There's no problem just as long as things stay that way. Microsoft's PC gaming innovations of the last decade is nothing but half-assed attempts of trying to lock users into their own store front and milk them like they do on their Xbox platform. People are afraid that they'll eventually succeed, this is partially why their main competitors like Steam and GoG have made strides towards supporting Linux, as the day may come where Microsoft will more aggressively try to block out their competitors from their platform.

mfringel 11y ago

''I don't really understand the problem here.'' I agree.

jblow 11y ago

The Microsoft plan is to put all future development into the closed platform and thereby let the open platform die of old age.

zanny 11y ago

Microsoft developed, and strongly pushed, a walled garden app store in Windows 8. That app store has only gotten stronger in Windows 10, and now Microsoft is trying to strongarm all Windows users onto Windows 10 despite concerns about data collection. There are basically three tiers of OS application openness in recent years: At the top, you have old Windows, GNU/Linux, and older versions of Mac OS. You can download and run programs all you want. Down a level, the OS by default stops you from installing anything you want, but there is a settings option to disable this feature. This is done for security, because you would much rather non-tech users be restricted to only installing from your curated appstore than from random downloads off the Internet. This is the modern OSX / Android model. At the bottom, we have iOS. You can only install and run programs through the system appstore, without option. Of all these platforms, iOS makes by far the most revenue per user for developers, and since with walled garden restricted appstores you rent seek a large portion of app sales, as the platform owner you also make the most money when developers make the most revenue - 30%. So you are Microsoft's board in a nice executive suite in Redmond. You look down the coast and see those Cupertino guys making tremendous amounts of effectively free money because they don't have to lift a finger - their army of third party developers are making software they get to profit off of. This revenue made Apple the most valuable company in the world for over a year. Your company is losing market share on every front. You want that money. Apple themselves are already moving OSX towards their iOS model, because of its profitability. Microsoft naturally will want to do so the same. They will be cautious, but it is the optimization of their revenue models if they can pull it off successfully - they just have to maintain "business" editions and contracts of their OS for companies currently using their computers because large corporate entities are much less likely to put up with usurping rent seeking app stores - so you just keep giving them versions with unlocked program installation, while the consumers can all be stuck using your store for everything without recourse, all the while you rake in wonderful 30% per sale. This is not even really speculation, because legally the Microsoft board must act in the interests of their shareholders. All it is is a question of when, when you can flip that switch and take that last island of user freedom, the moment when the loss of users to open platforms (which would, even today, be extremely tiny) poses no threat to the dramatic revenue you could extract from the platform taking that sweet sweet 30% of all software sales. Because the writing is on the wall, and the evidence is hundreds of billions of dollars in your face that this model creates an infinite money machine. You just have to properly soothe the leprechaun into letting you steal the pot of gold.