5 ms·

I disagree completely. That's essentially the way things were a few years ago. A big part of Microsoft's problems, both internal and external, come from the fie

I disagree completely. That's essentially the way things were a few years ago. A big part of Microsoft's problems, both internal and external, come from the fiefdoms that sprung up around the different divisions. They were effectively different companies with the same CEO. They rarely communicated well and this lead to a lot of unnecessary duplication of work. Microsoft is now on a path to unifying the ecosystem and this is fantastic from a developer perspective. I can write an app for Windows 8, and the vast majority of code for it can be reused directly on a Windows Phone or Xbox app. That is significant. As much as people complain about Windows 8, unifying the UX across the platforms is a Good Thing. Using a Windows Phone, Windows Tablet and Xbox all feel very similar. None of that happens with different companies.

corresation 13y ago
Using a Windows Phone, Windows Tablet and Xbox all feel very similar. None of that happens with different companies. Why should a game machine, controlled by a gamepad, operate anything like a touchscreen smartphone, or a keyboard and mouse controlled desktop? There is absolutely no value to that, and it is exactly what is being pointed out as the problem with Microsoft: Everything hinges on trying to leverage and push other parts of Microsoft's empire (Windows 8 has been a relative disaster commercially because of this misdirected unifying vision, just as it would be if Honda gave their cars motorcycle handlebars to unify the product line), and the end result is that the few products that should do well are diminished because of it. Microsoft is now on a path to unifying the ecosystem and this is fantastic from a developer perspective. Microsoft has always been unifying the ecosystem, to largely disastrous results. DNA. OLE. WinFS. And on and on. Longhorn was a total disaster for exactly this reason, someone declaring "You know what would be cool -- if one single technology foundation served every one of our products. Let's call everyone into a meeting!", where suddenly the only superficially similar needs of Exchange, Access, Windows NT, and so on all have to try to come to some consensus (hint - it never happened. It was a disaster from top to bottom). Metro is more of the same, though Microsoft became committed to pushing it through. It was a gimmick for a short while, but is there anyone who says "Boy, I should would like an Xbox One because it works like the desktop I no longer use and is like the Microsoft tablet I will never own"?
- tstrimple 13y ago
  A game machine controlled by a gamepad is almost identical to a touchscreen smartphone (Windows Phone 8) or a touchscreen tablet (Windows 8) with the exception of lack of gestures. You essentially move the pointing device (finger or selection box) over the tile you want to activate and press it. They aren't as radically different as you imply. The Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro (on touch screens and tablets) and Xbox One UI are all great and very information dense compared to what you see on competing devices. For the second part, only DNA from your list is an effort to unify the platform and it has been superseded by .NET. Are you seriously going to argue that .NET hasn't been successful in unifying development across the ecosystem? There are still a number of API differences between Windows Phone and Windows 8, but they are converging. The same with Xbox. Are you going to argue that being able to reuse all of the code behind an app's user interface across all of Microsoft's products isn't a good direction to move?
  - corresation 13y ago
    You essentially move the pointing device (finger or selection box) over the tile you want to activate So a game controller is a (rather terrible) mouse? Do you understand that Metro was made for touch because such a move the cursor interface is entirely unlike a touch interface? There is a discord here that I don't think you are understanding. The Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro (on touch screens and tablets) and Xbox One UI are all great and very information dense compared to what you see on competing devices. This information density thing comes up a lot, with absolutely nothing to demonstrate or prove it. Personally I find the Metro interface to be very information poor, and I cannot comprehend how such a claim could even be considered. That dearth of information (form far before function) has been one of the primary complaints about Metro. only DNA from your list Are you talking from a marketing perspective or something? Because no, my list is precise for its intended purpose: Those are cases where Microsoft thought that "unifying" was going to save the day, and the end result was anything but. Where divisions were essentially forced into a vision that didn't match the actual needs of their products because synergy or something. As to .NET, it was the primary reason SQL Server went five years between versions of 2000 and 2005, coming out with little changed but for added .NET integration, to find that close to no one actually uses, and a "built in .NET" management studio that had far less features than the version before it, while using dramatically more resources. All so they could talk about unifying. XNA Studio is yet another example of unifying technologies in poorly considered ways, and that alone close to killed independent game creation on the Xbox. Are you going to argue that being able to reuse all of the code behind an app's user interface across all of Microsoft's products isn't a good direction to move? If it's for dogma, or if it's trying to mash together highly dissimilar products, yes, it's a demonstrably terrible direction to move. The single and only group that cares at all about this overlap are lazy amateur Microsoft-world developers, and the result of their ill considered efforts does absolutely nothing to advance Windows Mobile, Windows Desktop, or the Xbox. I mean seriously, Windows Phone remains a death pile of largely terrible apps, and the few decent apps Microsoft had to essentially pay the developers to make. Where is this great advantage yielded? As for the Xbox, 0% of professional game developers care one iota that there is anything in common between platforms. They really don't. Hell, they care more about abstractions that make it easier to port between the Xbox One and PS4, and eventually to iOS and Android.
steven2012 13y ago
It's great for people who want to be in the Windows ecosystem. The problem is, almost no one wants a completely Windows experience anymore. Microsoft is great at strategically leveraging their monopoly and creating a forced marriage between two separate experiences, and making both of them worse, much like forcing IE into Windows, Windows Mobile into Windows 8, etc. The problem for Microsoft is that this is no longer 1997. People have legitimate choices and are spurning Microsoft like never before. Their monopoly no longer buys them any strategic advantage anymore except in enterprise software. They can keep trying to create a unifying UX experience, but no one cares. Their Metro UX in Windows 8 has been a disaster. The inertia that Microsoft counted on to make IE the #1 browser no longer works anymore. The best thing to do for the engineers and for shareholders is to break the company apart and let each division fend for themselves. Let them make the best product they can, not stymied with one hand tied behind their back because they have to maintain this terrible lineage back to Windows.
- tstrimple 13y ago
  Whether a person wants a completely Windows experience or not has no bearing on unification being beneficial overall. I personally don't believe that they are worse experiences. The Windows Phone UI is loved by pretty much everyone who uses it. It's a similar story with Windows 8. Read reviews from people who are actually using the operating system and not just reacting out of fear of change. One of Microsoft's strengths is how diverse their portfolio is. Adding to that the fact that Microsoft products are working together now better than they ever have before. Breaking the company apart is simply ridiculous.
  - steven2012 13y ago
    You are free to believe what you want. However, Windows 8 is an unmitigated disaster. Surface is an unmitigated disaster. Windows Phone is absolutely ignored. Bing is largely ignored. Internet Explorer has lost large swaths of marketshare. Microsoft is trying to unify an experience that no one cares about. They're building products that no one wants to use. And the reason no one wants to use them is because they are being stymied by this ridiculous notion that they would have a common experience, but an experience that no one wants to use because they are stymied. When Surface came out, I very much wanted to buy one for my parents, because it looked like exactly what they needed. I spent 45 mins at the Microsoft Store, and I didn't end up getting it. It was terrible. Sometimes, I didn't understand which way to swipe, I didn't understand why there was Flash but some websites wouldn't work, and then sometimes I would get the Windows task bar, and didn't know why. Compare this to the iPad which is almost a perfect experience, because it's so much easier to use. Microsoft has stymied themselves by trying to take the core Windows experience, and then hammering it into the tablet experience. And then they take this really shitty experience, and then hammer that back into the desktop experience. It's like taking a photocopy of a photocopy. If they allowed their teams to make the best product they could, they might succeed in the same way Google has succeeded. But forcing everyone to pray at the temple of Windows is what is ruining Microsoft in 2013 and beyond. They need to split up and forget this unification delusion.

corresation 13y ago

Using a Windows Phone, Windows Tablet and Xbox all feel very similar. None of that happens with different companies. Why should a game machine, controlled by a gamepad, operate anything like a touchscreen smartphone, or a keyboard and mouse controlled desktop? There is absolutely no value to that, and it is exactly what is being pointed out as the problem with Microsoft: Everything hinges on trying to leverage and push other parts of Microsoft's empire (Windows 8 has been a relative disaster commercially because of this misdirected unifying vision, just as it would be if Honda gave their cars motorcycle handlebars to unify the product line), and the end result is that the few products that should do well are diminished because of it. Microsoft is now on a path to unifying the ecosystem and this is fantastic from a developer perspective. Microsoft has always been unifying the ecosystem, to largely disastrous results. DNA. OLE. WinFS. And on and on. Longhorn was a total disaster for exactly this reason, someone declaring "You know what would be cool -- if one single technology foundation served every one of our products. Let's call everyone into a meeting!", where suddenly the only superficially similar needs of Exchange, Access, Windows NT, and so on all have to try to come to some consensus (hint - it never happened. It was a disaster from top to bottom). Metro is more of the same, though Microsoft became committed to pushing it through. It was a gimmick for a short while, but is there anyone who says "Boy, I should would like an Xbox One because it works like the desktop I no longer use and is like the Microsoft tablet I will never own"?

tstrimple 13y ago
A game machine controlled by a gamepad is almost identical to a touchscreen smartphone (Windows Phone 8) or a touchscreen tablet (Windows 8) with the exception of lack of gestures. You essentially move the pointing device (finger or selection box) over the tile you want to activate and press it. They aren't as radically different as you imply. The Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro (on touch screens and tablets) and Xbox One UI are all great and very information dense compared to what you see on competing devices. For the second part, only DNA from your list is an effort to unify the platform and it has been superseded by .NET. Are you seriously going to argue that .NET hasn't been successful in unifying development across the ecosystem? There are still a number of API differences between Windows Phone and Windows 8, but they are converging. The same with Xbox. Are you going to argue that being able to reuse all of the code behind an app's user interface across all of Microsoft's products isn't a good direction to move?
- corresation 13y ago
  You essentially move the pointing device (finger or selection box) over the tile you want to activate So a game controller is a (rather terrible) mouse? Do you understand that Metro was made for touch because such a move the cursor interface is entirely unlike a touch interface? There is a discord here that I don't think you are understanding. The Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro (on touch screens and tablets) and Xbox One UI are all great and very information dense compared to what you see on competing devices. This information density thing comes up a lot, with absolutely nothing to demonstrate or prove it. Personally I find the Metro interface to be very information poor, and I cannot comprehend how such a claim could even be considered. That dearth of information (form far before function) has been one of the primary complaints about Metro. only DNA from your list Are you talking from a marketing perspective or something? Because no, my list is precise for its intended purpose: Those are cases where Microsoft thought that "unifying" was going to save the day, and the end result was anything but. Where divisions were essentially forced into a vision that didn't match the actual needs of their products because synergy or something. As to .NET, it was the primary reason SQL Server went five years between versions of 2000 and 2005, coming out with little changed but for added .NET integration, to find that close to no one actually uses, and a "built in .NET" management studio that had far less features than the version before it, while using dramatically more resources. All so they could talk about unifying. XNA Studio is yet another example of unifying technologies in poorly considered ways, and that alone close to killed independent game creation on the Xbox. Are you going to argue that being able to reuse all of the code behind an app's user interface across all of Microsoft's products isn't a good direction to move? If it's for dogma, or if it's trying to mash together highly dissimilar products, yes, it's a demonstrably terrible direction to move. The single and only group that cares at all about this overlap are lazy amateur Microsoft-world developers, and the result of their ill considered efforts does absolutely nothing to advance Windows Mobile, Windows Desktop, or the Xbox. I mean seriously, Windows Phone remains a death pile of largely terrible apps, and the few decent apps Microsoft had to essentially pay the developers to make. Where is this great advantage yielded? As for the Xbox, 0% of professional game developers care one iota that there is anything in common between platforms. They really don't. Hell, they care more about abstractions that make it easier to port between the Xbox One and PS4, and eventually to iOS and Android.

steven2012 13y ago

It's great for people who want to be in the Windows ecosystem. The problem is, almost no one wants a completely Windows experience anymore. Microsoft is great at strategically leveraging their monopoly and creating a forced marriage between two separate experiences, and making both of them worse, much like forcing IE into Windows, Windows Mobile into Windows 8, etc. The problem for Microsoft is that this is no longer 1997. People have legitimate choices and are spurning Microsoft like never before. Their monopoly no longer buys them any strategic advantage anymore except in enterprise software. They can keep trying to create a unifying UX experience, but no one cares. Their Metro UX in Windows 8 has been a disaster. The inertia that Microsoft counted on to make IE the #1 browser no longer works anymore. The best thing to do for the engineers and for shareholders is to break the company apart and let each division fend for themselves. Let them make the best product they can, not stymied with one hand tied behind their back because they have to maintain this terrible lineage back to Windows.

tstrimple 13y ago
Whether a person wants a completely Windows experience or not has no bearing on unification being beneficial overall. I personally don't believe that they are worse experiences. The Windows Phone UI is loved by pretty much everyone who uses it. It's a similar story with Windows 8. Read reviews from people who are actually using the operating system and not just reacting out of fear of change. One of Microsoft's strengths is how diverse their portfolio is. Adding to that the fact that Microsoft products are working together now better than they ever have before. Breaking the company apart is simply ridiculous.
- steven2012 13y ago
  You are free to believe what you want. However, Windows 8 is an unmitigated disaster. Surface is an unmitigated disaster. Windows Phone is absolutely ignored. Bing is largely ignored. Internet Explorer has lost large swaths of marketshare. Microsoft is trying to unify an experience that no one cares about. They're building products that no one wants to use. And the reason no one wants to use them is because they are being stymied by this ridiculous notion that they would have a common experience, but an experience that no one wants to use because they are stymied. When Surface came out, I very much wanted to buy one for my parents, because it looked like exactly what they needed. I spent 45 mins at the Microsoft Store, and I didn't end up getting it. It was terrible. Sometimes, I didn't understand which way to swipe, I didn't understand why there was Flash but some websites wouldn't work, and then sometimes I would get the Windows task bar, and didn't know why. Compare this to the iPad which is almost a perfect experience, because it's so much easier to use. Microsoft has stymied themselves by trying to take the core Windows experience, and then hammering it into the tablet experience. And then they take this really shitty experience, and then hammer that back into the desktop experience. It's like taking a photocopy of a photocopy. If they allowed their teams to make the best product they could, they might succeed in the same way Google has succeeded. But forcing everyone to pray at the temple of Windows is what is ruining Microsoft in 2013 and beyond. They need to split up and forget this unification delusion.