Notch: "I'd rather have minecraft not run on win 8 at all than to play along."
kotaku.com
kotaku.com
Open platforms are good for a few classes of devs:
1) Devs at competing companies. Closed platforms make it easier for one company to shut out a competitor.
2) Malware creators.
3) HW tinkerers. This is probably the class I have the most empathy for. With that said Win8 has a complete desktop mode fully available for tinkering.
Bam. I have no idea quite how intensive the review process is (I'm no Windows programmer, so the requirements don't mean much to me) but any additional barrier is something that holds back the finnicky and decentralized indie crowd. Not only will it present another technical barrier that they will have no interest in surpassing, but there will likely be a cultural and psychological backlash of having to certify their version 0 project with Microsoft. Not to mention how certification requirements would impact beta releases and feedback.
Apple's behavior is not exceptional. It's how every monopolist behaves when they own the market. I dealt with the very same issues when I had my own business selling on eBay.
At the end of the day, when you have to move your product through someone's market, it's not your product, it's not your business, and those aren't your customers.
It's all theirs. Because if you do something they don't like, they will just turn you off ... or worse, they'll call you and tell you to change it.
> There doesn't seem to be anything that openness would have provided him.
It would have provided him the freedom of developing the product he wants, without compromise. It would have allowed him to take his vision directly to his customers. And nobody would be able to get in his way.
> With that said Win8 has a complete desktop mode fully available for tinkering.
Have you tried installing unsigned software on Windows 8? You get a huge window pretty much saying NO. Only after clicking on more info, do you get an option to override. I can only guess what will happen with Windows 9?
I still don't understand what the concern is? The model you described is the app store model and though I partially agree with you the heavy handed behavior is only possible when you have a monopoly. I don't think Microsoft can afford that at this point.
Where do you buy your groceries? Do you go to a guy who sells tomatoes and then drive to the other side of town to get apples from a different guy?
Most of us just go to a market and buy all our groceries there.
Now tell me, Mr. Customer, what is the name of the guy who grows your tomatoes? What is the name of the farm? Do you consider yourself his customer or the customer of the market? If the tomatoes taste bad, who will you complain to?
Who are you loyal to? If the market starts buying tomatoes from a different guy ... will you shrug your shoulders and buy the new tomatoes ... or will you drive across town to get the original tomatoes?
I'm sure you see my point. The very same thing is happening to the software market.
Yes, we will make more money. But there is more to life than money!
We will no longer have any customers. We will become employees of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.
Mind you, not employees with benefits, no. Independent contractors who are "hired" and "fired" at whim.
Again, yes, we can all make more money. But if money is all we wanted, we would have chosen to work for the big boys to begin with!
This movement toward centralized markets is the fundamental reason I chose to go into web development and avoided app development like the plague. Each part of my stack is easily replaceable and my customers are my customers. I don't care if I make less money. I have the freedom to see my vision come to life and to see it being put to work by people I know and who know me.
Funny enough, the same push-back is happening in the food biz. The entire local food movement is based on a fairly similar desire.
You do not have to go that far in your analogy. The music business is a great example of how more and more musicians are inclined to be "independent" of their monopolistic overlords.
It's all theirs. Because if you do something they don't like, they will just turn you off ... or worse, they'll call you and tell you to change it.
That can just as easily apply to the platform it was built on. Windows, OS X, or Android, can do this today if they were so inclined (well maybe not Windows due to anti-trust concerns -- but that has to do with market dominance, not openness).
What you're saying is that you must run on a full stack you completely build, from the foundary, CPU, on up (because Intel could break all Windows computers with firmware update if they were so inclined).
We've all built on something, giving away some degree of responsibility and ownership. Now maybe Notch's point is that this is where he draws the line. It seems like an odd place to draw it IMO, especially given how fast the game market tends to move (when was the last time someone asked you to play Words with Friends?).
But like I said before, more power to Notch wherever he goes. I'll miss not playing Minecraft as I move all my machines to Win8 (admittedly not much of a gamer though), but not for too long I'm sure.
Have you tried installing unsigned software on Windows 8? You get a huge window pretty much saying NO. Only after clicking on more info, do you get an option to override. I can only guess what will happen with Windows 9?
Really, that's a complaint of yours? I actually which there was a setting to not let these install at all.
There are developers out there that distribute their software through other channels than Google Play. E.g. one of the Humble Indie Bundle that I bought had 4 Android games in it and distribution was through download links sent by email. And when publishing on Google Play, at least for now, there is no approval process.
And no, Windows and OS X cannot do this today, as long as installation of software from third-parties is still possible and your OS is not remotely controlled by them. Microsoft can't do anything today to ban an app on Windows. But it's increasingly clear that they want this capability.
For those of us familiar with the gaming industry since the nineties, we've experienced this same fight between PCs and gaming consoles and even though the PC wasn't a common household appliance until the mid nineties at least and even though the likes of Sega, Nintendo and later Sony looked poised to take over the world, most games were built for PCs first, because that's were the innovation was and because nobody could pull the rug from under your feet. Even the arguments were exactly the same as today - for consumers it was ease of use, no viruses/mallware and a better return on investment, while for developers it was the lack of piracy, promotion and a piece of a large pie where the competition was controlled.
And it's a pretty sad fact that this is precisely what Apple and now Microsoft are trying - the consolification of the PC. Well I for one do not think that consumers will buy into it. And I predict that Windows 8 will only have moderate success, while Windows 9 will be a total failure, just like Win Me and Windows Vista before it.
Perhaps Windows 8 and 9 may fail due to a multitude of reasons, but I don't think the inclusion of the app store from where one can safely download applications will be even a small reason for it. If anything, consumers will love it for that reason.
iOS may have been a success, but that's only because it's good at what it does and because people don't need it to do much. Prior to smartphones, a phone was only good for making calls. And with tablets it's all good as long as it has a browser and some freebies.
The elephant in the room that nobody is talking about when speaking about closed platforms is ... piracy. Take away the ability of people to pirate stuff on their PC, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Indeed. I think Microsoft is retreating into an echo chamber. By making the app store the only practical way to distribute products, Microsoft is missing all the wild things that might catch on if they would only let them alone.
The browser comes to mind. Or the spreadsheet.
This has happened before with other projects and Amazon has already forked Android just because they can. Also my Galaxy S came with an alternative, albeit shitty app store - which goes to show that phone makers are aware that they need some control over the platform.
Today I noticed my chrome changed its icon from the wrench to the 3 bars, which atleast for now I find it hideous. However there is no easy way for me to fix it despite chrome being an open-source application (chromium - which I believe is not being actively developed anymore).
In addition, it's perfectly legal (and easy) to install the Google apps on Cyanogenmod or any other Android ROM yourself, so you're not missing out on anything by running it.
You should probably find some more compelling examples for your argument.
Just because a company with a market cap in the hundreds of billions can do it doesn't mean it meets an average person's definition of "doable".
That comment made me very sad :(
> Apple's behavior is not exceptional. It's how every
> monopolist behaves when they own the market.
Not true. How do I know? I was there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lutus
This is not to excuse what Apple has become, not by any means. But Apple wasn't always a cyber-octopus. I remember the idealism of a startup that briefly had a vast marketplace to itself.
Technically, Apple is a Monopsony, in that they control the app store market. If you want to sell your app, you go through Apple, and they in turn sell it to their users.
The move by all the major vendors to control the market is great for the company (who wouldn't love to take 30% of every sale simply for being the middleman,) but it flies in the face of a free market economy, stifles innovation, creates barriers to entry, and encourages scammy behavior (I am rich app, "freemium" apps, paying for reviews, etc.)
In this case, Microsoft came to Notch, so it's not like he set out to start a flame war, but I can't empathize with people who complain about operating systems being closed. The honest truth is that if you don't like it, and it's that important to you, then consider creating your own.
Of course I'm aware that this is not easy.
That's a pretty good come back that you have here.
Don't major versions of Windows follow the same pattern as Star Trek movies? According to history, Windows 9 will be an acceptable release, and then Windows 10 will be ridiculous nonsense again.
But the track that Win and OS X are taking is to try and create monopolies and control the entire software experience. This is detrimental to the users as well as the developers; try to make a utility app that launches other apps, resizes windows, alters your network connections on a system-wide basis, or includes plugin functionality and put it in the App Store.
Trying to make an argument like "oh but users can change the settings and run untrusted apps" is just a huge cop-out because the average user is not going to do that ever.
* Not being able to ship Minecraft in the Win8 store because it uses Java and Java doesn't (yet?) follow the rules required for the store. Store apps require you to use approved APIs, where as Java, being older, calls all kinds of stuff not allowed by store apps.
* Not being able to provide updates anytime you want as each update requires approval.
* Not being able to give away free copies of paid apps (need codes from MS)
* Not being able to bundle with other apps like the humble bundles as the store provides no way to bundle apps.
* Not being able to resell licenses (not sure if Minecraft supports that. If not they could decide to in the future. But not if they're in the Win8 store)
I'm sure others can list more things you can't do on the W8 store that you can do on an open platform.
you are clearly not familiar with the history of minecraft, they have a long history, especially in the begging of pushing out features very rapidly, along with the bugfixes that inevitably come with rapid development, not to mention their recent weekly development builds anyone can run.
this kind of very rapid development/response was a big factor in the "viral" nature of minecraft, users could get excited about new features that might be comming tomorrow
How much of this would have been possible, while waiting for months for apple/etc approval?
not to mention the huge modding community that has grown up around minecraft, with virtually every multiplier server and most single player clients being heavily customized and modded.
That would be completely impossible under an iOS style system.
[1] Well, it probably won't work on Windows RT because only Windows Store things work there, but then that would likely require a total rewrite of the Java&OpenGL game to C++&DirectX (or another Microsoft-approved solution) anyways, and Minecraft (as opposed to Minecraft Pocket Edition[2]) is not suitable for tablet touch control anyways.
[2] Which is developed by another firm.
Plus, while Mojang did license and partner the code with another firm for the Xbox port, they didn't create it directly themselves.
May be his beef is that Windows, up to now fairly open is now becoming a walled garden. And he is being vocal about it.
> 1.2 Your app must be fully functional when the customer gets it from the Windows Store
> 1.3 Your app’s trial functionality must reasonably resemble its full functionality
> 1.4 Each app must display only one tile after it is installed
...
Have no idea what he is complaining about. If he doesn't want to be on Metro, he can always be on the Desktop. He certainly doesn't mind it being on iPhones, iPads, and on Android devices.
FWIW, I'm actually using Windows 8 right now. I play plenty of games and don't use the market at all.
Apart from that, these points are merely necessary, but not sufficient for getting titles published. In a closed ecosystem you hand over control of your ability to publish to someone else, and that is fundamental. The terms that really matter in the MS developer agreement are:
> i. App Availability. Microsoft has no obligation to make any app available that you submit, even if that app is Certified
and
> j. Updates. Microsoft may update this agreement at any time in its sole discretion
That leaves open any kind of anticompetitive reason MS may come up with in the future to manipulate the store.
> 3.9 All app logic must originate from, and reside in, your app package
> 4.1.2 Your app must obtain opt-in or equivalent consent to share personal information
Did you even read any of those terms? They are ALL of the same nature.
> You've listed exactly 3 points from a multipage document with dozens of requirements as if they summarize the whole document. This is not true - the requirements go way beyond the points you listed.
Now you're just making things up.
> That leaves open any kind of anticompetitive reason MS may come up with in the future to manipulate the store.
Sure, whatever you say.
Unless this is all a prelude to their master plan to pull an iOS in W9, it seems like a highly prudent move. Microsoft is a company, and needs to remain competitive against Apple, and they best achieve this by simplifying the front-end. But they don't seem to be forgetting their expert-user roots.
The only question for me now is how moddable the Metro interface will be. I think it would be smart if Microsoft left it relatively open for expert users to experiment with.
Metro apps will not be available from elsewhere.
Isn't that exactly what Apple has done on OS X with the Mac App Store?
> For now it seems like Microsoft is doing what Apple has
> never considered - building a streamlined frontend
> interface with a certified app store so casual users can
> safely and easily access a wide range of software, and
> maintaining a fully tinker-able backend and not closing
> off other software distribution channels for expert users.
I got quite a jolt when I couldn't install Emacs on my new MBP with Mountain Lion at first. (I am not a Mac user. This is my first apple computer).
I had to tweak something in control panel to be able to install the downloaded dmg file.
How long before that option disappears? I don't know. But I am afraid it will, some day.
On ARM-based tablets running Windows "RT" (that is Windows 8, without the legacy, without the desktop), Windows only ships with Metro and the AppStore is the only place to get apps.
On x86-based systems, you can fool around in desktop-land as you are used to and install anything you like.
So the answer is yes and no, all depending on platform.
The issue here isn't "death to all closed systems", but rather taking one of the few open ones left and making steps towards closing it.
Its about your freedom. Freedom to run whatever computations you please on general purpose computers that you own. With SecureBoot and win8 so is not the case.
I think Notch is overreacting in this case because he's already supported Microsoft's platform monopoly with Minecraft on the Xbox 360 (which is completely closed), so this stance seems kind of contrary.
Possibly there's some sort of clause in Microsoft's contracts that says an Application on the Windows Store can't be sold outside the store or something which he's actually getting up in arms about.
I'm not particularly crazy about Windows 8 either, but Notch probably needs to be a little more specific with his protests (then again, it is just a twitter post).
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/07/25/notch-on-why-minecraft-sti...
I only think it's contrary if you require people to have simplistic opinions. He wants an open platform when it comes to PC, but isn't that concerned about consoles. I figure he thinks that as long as he has one major open platform he can develop for, he's happy. Microsoft is making moves that suggest they want to move away from an open platform for the PC, so he's understandably concerned.
Every game and app that has "Microsoft Certified Safe(TM)" is one more reason the average user will be reluctant to run apps or games that are not "Microsoft Certified Safe(TM)".
They are worried that the next batch of indie games will, instead of running, pop up a window "Microsoft has not certified this app as safe. You can be infected with viruses, or key loggers can steal your bank accounts. Do you still want to run this uncertified application?"
It's not about the big assed buttons.
In the PC gaming community, I'm in that group by the way, that sort of thing will be met with anger and derision because it's already a common thought that Microsoft does nothing but crap on the PC gaming community. Look into Games for Windows Live, or whatever that call that crap now, to see what I mean. Microsoft's presence in the PC gaming space is a joke and they have a long, hard road to go down to get past that. Labeling games that have yet to be certified, at a cost I'm sure, as unsafe and vectors for malware installations will do nothing to alleviate that attitude.
Notch is right, anything that Microsoft does relating to PC games is of concern because it appears they go out of their way to ruin the experience to get you to switch to the "superior gaming experience" of the 360. Where of course they control everything and make money off of other people's work.
While it would certainly have been more consistent to withhold the iOS port, there was no equally good open alternative on that platform, so it would have been a fairly futile gesture. On Win8, having independent games continue to thrive and ignore the Metro store will make a tangible difference to Microsoft's ability to shut down legacy apps in the future. So I can sympathise with why he would treat these situations differently.
It's funny that he has no problem going through the certification for the "Post-PC" iOS app store which is supposedly killing the PC and going to sell more than PCs in the near future. But suddenly he has a problem with Windows 8 and Windows RT. There is a disconnect here.
> If MS will open up the store put it there without certification then I suspect he's fine with it.
Sorry, but is this a joke? Every malware, spyware, virus, grayware, toolbar, Bonzi Buddy clones will end up in the store.
Look at what Steam had to do with Greenlight.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-31-valve-bans-stea...
http://www.shacknews.com/article/75603/steam-greenlight-adds...
Windows RT tablet users will be unable to run the game
simply because they're ARM machines
"I don't want thieves, please remove the door and windows of my house."
sigh
What then, is the benefit of an entirely new OS, with a new feature - Metro(the AppBar, charms, dashboard, etc), if you're going to force developers to use your own AppStore? I wouldn't mind giving a cut of my profits to MS, but I wouldn't want to be on their mercy for updates, sales, etc. And if anyone didn't notice, this is the desktop PC we're talking about. I'm not interested in Tablets or other stuff for which my application is clearly not aimed at(neither designed for).
I think Microsoft is aiming to get more applications for its Tablet devices, and in doing so it'll destroy the only remaining MS product that has a huge market share - the desktop PC.
Nokia was once at the same enviable position where MS was, and we all know how that ended.
Viva la Linux!
Just about every Windows app I've tried to install in the last couple of years has also tried to fool me into installing some bundled 3rd party crapware.
If you want an open platform , use one that is open by design in other words a Linux distribution.
and yet the latest Ubuntu comes with Amazon Shopping bundled. I think its becoming a trend to monetize on everything, both open and closed. No necessarily a bad thing but everything seem to merge that way. Think the future might redefine the words "open" and "free".
That's the whole point of Linux.
Of course there is nothing stopping people shipping crapware for Ubuntu or any Linux distro. The advantage of open source OSs is that you will always have a choice about how much "nannying" you want from the OS.
But this is a great point -- not only does a walled garden keep some flowers out, it keeps some weeds in.
A strategic move for Microsoft might be:
(1) Build an eco-system around their app store by providing benefits to users through it (some natural and others artificial).
(2) Impose an increasing level of control over what developers on their system can do.
And then once this power-relationship is established, you do this to maximize profit:
(3) Lock out non app-store members from developing.
(4) Take rightful dictatorial control over the developers in their market. What they can sell, how they promote themselves, what prices they can sell at, whether the money goes directly to them, etc.
(5) Ensure the stable dominance of the big app development studios by negotiating them preferential agreements.
Control over the means of distribution is power. This is the natural progression of people optimising for wealth.
They improve the quality of those 'shitty' homegrown apps for their huge business customers (the cheese is that if you want to be seen in Metro you have to play ball) and then over time they get a cut of sales of all of these apps.
There is an economic impetus for creating a walled garden. Businesses aren't investing money here just for intrinsic benefits. Owning the market is powerful as you can control how other people get their money.
The notion that normal desktop applications will not run on Windows 8 is incredible. I could download Minecraft right now, and it would run without a hitch. People need to use Windows 8 and realize that it is an iteration of Windows 7. It feels like Windows 7 with an interesting tablet overlay that I never use.
P.S. Every single game I own on Steam works
Metro is where major Win 8 innovations are (AppBar, Charms, App Dashboard, App Lifecycle, etc.)
Has this changed since then?
Reason I say that is if you take Metro away what are the issues.
I know anybody who knows how to use a mouse is pretty much of the WTF metro GTFO and that is understandable, but removing that aspect there is nothing realy upsetting that wasn't there before hand. Yes I know developing on microsoft API's (exspecialy anything associated with IE) has been a complete nightmare for many in the past including myself with many a fix being lamented as fixed in the next release only to find the next release entails you having to change other aspects as they are nolonger supported. Thats true with anything were you touch a API outside your control, at least potentualy in one way or another.
If anything by not officialy certifying minecraft for win8 is doing no harm at all for microsoft as it probably runs fine as is and with the processing power nowadays HTML5 becomes more and more appealing to many as apposed to going native.
Is he right to make a stand, yes, it is his right and has to be respected, especialy as he is able to. But personaly the more I look into win8 and metro aside I'm liking it for what it is, there again I'm the sick puppy who preferes vista over win7 and i'm sure no metro fan, but having explorer or an alternative desktop option is not going to be too hard.
Also worth noting that it will be hard to garner true win8 sales once its released as Microsoft have done alot of write off's last quarter (pulling some early like write off of the cost of pressing windows 8 and other gems) so the win8 release quarter can only look better however it does. This with the cheap upgrade and less messing with versions (mini, lite, almost, profesional and ultra or whatever they were). So for many it will be a fiscal no brainer, especialy all those XP installs becoming less supported (unless your a new intel chipset that support XP over Vista, bless).
Maybe Microsft will install a desktop chosser akin to the browser selection, at least that would plicate alot if they had a clear cut choice.
But anything that runs on a closed source OS in any form is gong to be limited, its if those limitations actualy matter that to what your doing is what realy counts and whilst I applaud Notch's stand I do wonder if later on he find some toys missing that needn't of fallen. Especialy when the certification process for a xbox is alot more stringant than any flavour of desktop OS.
Or to add it as a link to the developer's website like desktop apps can have in the Store?
The requirements are here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh74...
Can't see anything really bad there, if anything those rules finally herd the Windows application cats.
At what point in the timeline of Minecraft did it meet this criteria, because when I started playing, this wasn't true, and yet he was still making sales and people were still enjoying the game.
And what happens when Microsoft starts "enhancing" the rules?
Minecraft is in the App store.
When it hit v1.0?