3 ms·

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

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 For the second part, only DNA from your list is an effort to unify the platform and it has been superseded by .NET.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.

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.