7 ms·

Seems like what was good for developers and hackers is good for their bottom line. So glad this "new" Microsoft is working for them as well as for us.

• shmerl 10y ago
  New is better, but not quite there yet. They supported AOM codecs initiative, but didn't support Vulkan.
  • rubber_duck 10y ago
    >but didn't support Vulkan Do they really need to ?
    • my123 10y ago
      Vulkan works fine on Windows of course, the GPU makers handled it themselves instead.
      • cwyers 10y ago
        Just like there's OpenGL support. id has shipped games that run on it!
        • pjmlp 10y ago
          And even Carmack came around on his statement about OpenGL versus DirectX. From this http://rmitz.org/carmack.on.opengl.html http://rmitz.org/carmack.on.opengl.html to this http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-better-opengl/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-direc... "It is really just inertia that keeps us on OpenGL at this point"
          • shmerl 10y ago
            Carmack didn't like OpenGL, and partially he was right about OpenGL's shortcomings. We was wrong however in his proposed solution (using DX). Using lock-in instead of making better open APIs is a really bad idea. Luckily others understood it better than him.
            • pjmlp 10y ago
              The market and major game studios will decide.
              • shmerl 10y ago
                Indeed, forward thinking studios and developers decided to fix this mess and participated in making Vulkan. Legacy thinking publishers, not so much. They aren't innovators in any sense of the word.
                • pjmlp 10y ago
                  Which is only available on Android 7 (0.2%), GNU/Linux, Windows (no major titles announced, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Vulkan_support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Vulkan_supp...) and Swift (yet to launch, developers also get NVN). Ah, and when using Unreal Engine, Crytek or Unity it doesn't matter.
                  • shmerl 10y ago
                    > Which is only available on... It's available anywhere where developers have access to the drivers. Which highlights the point exactly. Those who care to fix the lock-in mess, help. Those who want to keep the balkanized status quo, actively prevent improving the situation. Trying to justify such behavior isn't just hypocritical - it's absurd.
    • shmerl 10y ago
      Depends on how you define need. If you want to have a common open standard - absolutely. Same as with HTML instead of some ActiveX abomination. But if you want to have balkanized lock-in mess, then it's a different story. As long as MS has the notion of lock-in going on, I don't buy this whole "reformed" MS story.
      • rubber_duck 10y ago
        I don't get what you're trying to say. Vulkan needs nothing from MS it's purely a driver thing, as for MS using DX over it I guess Vulkan is far too new and DX is proven and something you control (I wouldn't bet my core platform tech on something done by a committee either, maybe once it's a defacto standard), meanwhile GL is garbage compared to it, talk a aout Balkanization, good luck writing dx11 level features that work across two GL drivers.
        • cwyers 10y ago
          shmerl mentions Vulkan on every thread he possibly can, it feels like. It's his hobbyhorse. I think an Xbox owes him money or something.
          • pjmlp 10y ago
            Without having any understanding what people on the games industry actually care about.
            • shmerl 10y ago
              And you apparently represent those who profit from lock-in. Is that why you justify it all the time? Because no one would objectively do it. I never saw an engineer who said "lock-in is good, more lock-in please!". Those who do it, are backwards thinking managers like the one from this quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_...
              • 10y ago
  • pjmlp 10y ago
    They will do it when Apple and Sony do it.
    • shmerl 10y ago
      Other lock-in freaks aren't an excuse for being one. Apple and Sony also didn't try to claim they are "new".
• samfisher83 10y ago
  They made a lot more money in 2013 and 2014. So it might be better for developers, but maybe not the bottom line.
  • adventured 10y ago
    $5.2 billion in net income for the quarter. That competes very well with 2014, in which they had $22b in annualized net income. In 2011 for example, they generated $23b in net income, their highest profit. The difference? Profits from the Windows division. It would be a context drop to ignore the change - one which they could do absolutely nothing about - when it comes to how people are buying and using computing today (PCs sales have fallen significantly from the peak). Nothing Microsoft could have done was going to stop PC sales from falling (a less disastrous Windows 8 would have slowed it some). I'd argue they're in better shape today versus 2011, when their profit was slightly higher. Today's Microsft is far less vulnerable to the erosion in the PC market. For Microsoft to not be in the midst of collapsing with the down shift in the PC market, and the loss of importance for the PC as the former center of the computing universe, is a staggering accomplishment that few have managed in tech history.