Hacker News Reader

Comment by rlu | Hacker News Reader

I sort of got bored of the presentation 15 minutes in (and was only half paying attention, truth be told) but it seems to me that Gabe is operating under the (gigantic) assumption that Microsoft would remove the Desktop and move Windows into a 100% closed environment.

Sounds like he's jumping the gun. I don't see that future happening.

View on HN

He's being hyperbolic. The real problem is that he's feeling like Netscape circa 1997 - facing the problem that his main asset is competing against something built into the OS. Microsoft isn't going to kick 3rd-party game stores off of Windows, but they are building a 1st-party one... one they intend on growing.

Gabe is worried about his cash cow becoming a second-class citizen on the platform.

I feel like the arstechnica article was a terrible summary of his presentation. The main point is that he feels like the proprietary systems (App Stores and consoles) restrict innovation. All of the innovative stuff in gameplay over the past 10+ years have come from the PC; digital distribution, free-to-play, MMOs, etc (11min). He feels like the next extension of this is user-generated content. Since Microsoft is going in the App Store direction and the epitome of open software is Linux, that's the direction he wants to go.

He recognizes the struggles with Linux (and with gaming PCs on the TV) adoption for gaming and is working to clearly identify and fix them.

It sounds like he's moving away from Windows to address innovation and gaming PC adoption on the TV (and similar ideas). While Microsoft might not take away the Desktop, they certainly aren't making it easier to do custom things like booting to Steam or creating a controller based input/abstraction (that's simple for a non-techie gamer to setup and maintain).

Both Microsoft and Apple recently implemented similar 'Gatekeeper' software to scare people away from using or installing binaries that aren't from their blessed App Stores.

Linux distros have had the run all your software from the 'app store' concept before Mac and Windows. The only difference is that Linux distros assume that all their users are more computer literate and know what they are doing when they install third party binaries. If you are writing a general purpose, mass market consumer OS, you want to clearly indicate to your user when they are doing something risky.

What are you talking about? I run Windows 8 at home and install non-App store software all the time.

Try running Minecraft. It's an unsigned binary so Windows "helps" you by hiding the 'Run Anyway' under the more info warning.

Given enough downloads that warning disappears. Basically it displays for unsigned executables with low download counts which may imply malware. It usually goes away after a few hours for moderately popular software.

And apparently notch can't afford a code signing certificate.

I just did. No warning.

By default, Gatekeeper only requires signing with an Apple-issued developer certificate, not distribution through the App Store, and even then only affects applications downloaded from the Internet through a Web browser or other application that intentionally sets specific extended attributes on downloaded files. Which, unless it wants to trigger these warnings, Steam would never do.

Unless I'm mistaken, (non-ARM) Windows works the same way, except Microsoft relies on third-party CAs to issue code-signing certificates (and, pedantically, NTFS calls extended attributes "alternative data streams").

They've already done that with Windows RT and WP8. No, I'm not talking about not being able to run legacy apps on it. I mean not being able to install apps from other sources other than the Windows Store.

Do you really think Microsoft wouldn't prefer that in the future they make it so most people choose the Windows store over anything else, by pushing it even more into their faces, like they did with Metro?

Many people asked for the Start Menu to be back in the desktop mode, and they didn't bring it back? Why would they do that, when it doesn't interfere at all with Metro mode to just have that in the desktop mode? Why else would they do that, if they didn't want to force Metro even more on you by turning it into a shortcut to Metro mode instead?

One thing is wanting to get users to use Metro more. It's another thing entirely to force them to use it exclusively by removing any other option.

Desktop apps can do many more things than WinRT apps are allowed to do. There are thousands of business critical applications running on desktop that are likely rarely maintained. These two reasons alone should convince you that Microsoft would be stupid to remove the desktop.

The blend of Metro and desktop is not meant to kill the desktop. It's simply a bet on hybrid devices (like Surface, Yoga, etc.) becoming the norm in years to come.

If anything, I see RT as likely to accelerate the adoption of platform agnostic web apps in enterprise. It was already headed in that direction, but the lack of legacy support and the fact that MS has given IT departments no good way to centrally manage devices kind of throws the advantages they had in that market segment out the window.

If apps are going to have to be rewritten to run on mobile devices, why tie yourself down to the Metro platform when end users are wanting to run their LOB apps on their iPads anyway?

You can write Metro/Windows Store apps in HTML/JavaScript, C# and C/C++ etc, and you can use Visual Studio 2012 or the (free) Express version. This is much more open and flexible than writing iPad apps and it's something enterprises already know how to do.

Also, you can immediately deploy the same app to tablets, laptops and desktops, which isn't the case with iPad apps.

That's why the first sentence of my post was:

>I see RT as likely to accelerate the adoption of platform agnostic web apps in enterprise.

I am specifically not advocating platform-specific applications.

Microsoft has essentially thrown away the reasons for enterprise developers to tie themselves down to the Microsoft platform. If that's the case, there's relatively little reason to tie themselves down to any single platform.

C# code does require some modification to be run in a WinRT context, but I'd say the likelihood of code sharing with an existing C# application is still significant.

Sheesh. The Start screen is exactly as good at running Windows desktop apps as it is at running Metro apps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com