As I predicted, Microsoft is effectively killing UWP by ensuring that all its capabilities are available to once-legacy app development platforms.
“You’ve told us that you would like us to continue to decouple many parts of the Universal Windows Platform so that you can adopt them incrementally,” Microsoft corporate vice president Kevin Gallo writes in a blog post aimed at developers. “Allowing you to use our platform and tools to meet you where your customers are going – empowering you to deliver rich, intelligent experiences that put people at the center.”
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
To be clear, this is a positive change: Instead of blindly pushing forward with its failed strategy to make Universal Windows Apps (UWPs) the only truly-modern platform for building Windows apps, Microsoft has, over time, opened up more and more UWP functionality to non-UWP platforms. This includes legacy platforms that Microsoft once deprecated, like Win32, WPF, and WinForms. So what’s old is new again.
Naturally, the firm needs to continue the marketing narrative, however, and Gallo told Mary Jo Foley that neither UWP nor the Microsoft Store was dead. (I have stated point blank that UWP is dead and I recently questioned whether the Microsoft Store had a future given that most users install apps from elsewhere.)
“By the time we are done, everything will just be called ‘Windows apps,’” Gallo told Foley. The ultimate idea is to make “every platform feature available to every developer … [But] we’re not quite there yet.”
As the most senior public face of Microsoft’s Windows 10 developer efforts, Mr. Gallo has to say it like that. But I do appreciate that he was honest about the mistake the firm made when it tried to jam UWP down developers’ throats—“we shouldn’t have gone that way”—and that doing so created a “massive divide” between legacy Win32/.NET developers and UWP developers.
As Foley notes, Microsoft’s new strategy is to make all developers features available to all of the Windows frameworks. Left unsaid, however, is that this is a refutation of the original strategy and that Microsoft only made this change, over time, because most developers rejected UWP.
Put another way, UWP is dead. Not literally—it’s still the only way to create WinCore apps that run across Windows 10, HoloLens, Surface Hub, and IoT—but effectively. And the way we know that’s true is that Win32, WPF, and WinForms have all been “elevated to full status”—Gallo’s words—in Windows 10 all these years later.
Microsoft is doing what developers want. And what developers want is not UWP. Or the Microsoft Store, as it turns out.
“Apps … don’t need to be in the Store,” Gallo admitted.
Or, as Mary Jo put it, “the days of trying to push Windows developers to build and/or repackage their apps to be UWP/Store apps seemingly are over. It’s now Windows apps or bust.”
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426733">In reply to pachi:</a></em></blockquote><p>Totally agree… But people and bloggers like paul have spoken</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426733">In reply to pachi:</a></em></blockquote><p>No doubt the UWP installation process is simpler for developers than legacy approaches in many cases, but it's also true that the UWP installer is more limited. Given that many UWP apps are less sophisticated then legacy ones the lack of installer capability is less of an issue. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426852">In reply to warren:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well, if "equal footing" means all Win32 programs can be included in the store without modification (which is what it <em>should</em> mean), the way the store operates will have to change. Some Win32 programs can't be installed given the current restrictions on Store apps.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426852">In reply to warren:</a></em></blockquote><p>Paul has been often wrong in latest few years about MS, I don't know what's happened and why MS still keep a good relation with him. I still remember when I sai windows 10 maps app is going to integrate turn by turn navigation, he said that would never happen</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426736">In reply to rmac:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's up to the developers, they could make the ui that you want</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426738">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>people that downvoted, are you care to counter comment with some real argument??? I bet NO!</p><p><br></p><p>p.s.</p><p>just one example:</p><p><br></p><p><img src="https://officeblogswest.blob.core.windows.net/wp-content/2015/07/Office-Mobile-apps-for-Windows-10-are-here-1.png"></p><p><br></p><p>do you want more?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426910">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>The picture is too small.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426999">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>officeblogswest.blob.core.windows.net/wp-content/2015/07/Office-Mobile-apps-for-Windows-10-are-here-1.png</p><p>i1.wp.com/www.thomasmaurer.ch/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Windows-10-Office-Mobile.png</p><p>www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Office-Mobile-apps-for-Windows-10-are-here-4.png</p><p>mspoweruser.com/wp-content/uploads/msn/2015/07/Table-1.png</p>
dontbe evil
<p>As usual Paul write a clcikbait title with what he thinks/wants</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426757">In reply to irfaanwahid:</a></em></blockquote><p>UWP is. Net</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427529">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>Are you deliberately misunderstanding? .NET has many capabilities that are unavailable in UWP apps and being able to access all of those capabilities was obviously what they were taking about.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#427549">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>you are stating wrong things as usual … can you tell me exactly which capabilities are you missing? I bet you stuck in what was missing 2012 </p><p><br></p><p>p.s.</p><p>if you check just one comment down, I clearly provided that UWP can have a not vertical layout that win32 lovers like, but I got many downvotes, because people like you doesn't like to admit defeat to defend what they wrongly say</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427620">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>I didn't say anything about vertical layouts nor did I vote you down, so your comment on that aspect is irrelevant.</p><p><br></p><p>I'm not going to list all the capabilities, but here's an easy one:</p><p>The Registry Class. </p><p><br></p><p>UWP apps aren't allowed access to the global Registry while .Net can. If you think about it any "safety" restriction in the UWP eliminates a capability that Win32 supports and many of those capabilities can be accessed from .NET.</p><p> </p><p>BTW, if you think I usually state things wrong, why don't you jump in and engage me more often. It's easy to snipe from the bleachers.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#427697">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>that's not a missing feature, that's actually a feature. </p><p>modern apps that don't need/have to use the registry, is what many always demanded for a clean world, all modern OS including mac os, and linux don't use a registry</p><p><br></p><p>p.s.</p><p>I didn't say that you downvoted me, but someone did, even after I provided real facts, it means that they don't care and don't want to know, they want just to throw shit on UWP</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427713">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>You wanted evidence and I gave it to you, UWP is <em>not</em> .NET, period.</p><p><br></p><p>Software Design Pro Tip: The absence of a capability is <em>never</em> a feature, although it can be a choice.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><a href="#427737"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>I wish you to install several software that will fill your registry with lot of crap…now go study .Net before say anything else</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427894">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>Why would<em> I</em> go study .Net when you've demonstrated <em>your</em> lack of knowledge on the subject? Why not just admit you were wrong and move on. It's not that hard really. Or if you prefer just drop the subject.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#427900">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>my lack of knowledge? I told you that UWP IS .Net, you said no … you said that there are lot of several important missing features, I asked what, you came up with registry that's something that should be avoided in best practices, and you can use easily something else… you should go study</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427998">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>Actually I didn't include the word "important" because importance isn't relevant to whether UWP is .NET or not. All that is required to demonstrate that UWP is not .NET is to show that it lacks one or more capabilities that .NET includes. It has so been demonstrated.</p><p><br></p><p>Your personal opinion that the Registry should be avoided is irrelevant to the issue. The problem with best practices (if indeed avoiding the Registry is even on such a list) is that they usually fail to be contextual. Developers with narrow experience can't see the larger world of possibilities that exist outside of their primary domain.</p><p><br></p><p>Update: To be fair I should say that all developers have narrow experience within the wide-world of software including myself. </p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#428072">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>as long you'll keep saying UWP is not .NET … I can tell you only go to study, and come back when you'll learn a bit more about .Net</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426758">In reply to truerock:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think the Windows 8 GUI and UWP were intrinsically linked around the concept of common apps and behavior between the desktop and mobile. MS needed both to fulfill their goal even though it didn't turn out to be a worthwhile one.</p>
skane2600
<p>It took Microsoft only 7 years to realize what many Windows developers knew back in 2012 – that UWP served no useful purpose outside of mobile. Even now there is a kind of face saving in their statements – I don't believe there's any great desire on the part of developers to incrementally adopt parts of UWP, they just want continued development on the legacy platform going forward.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426774">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>We have no way of knowing when they realized it, although even 2016 would be very late. You might be underestimating the capacity for executives to deny reality despite the evidence. I've seen it many times. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426848">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>Maybe, but where were those 'clear-eyed and shrewd" executives when the ideas behind Windows 8 were first proposed? </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426881">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>At one time we owned 4 Windows 8/8.1 phones and the motivation to buy them had nothing to do with live tiles on the Windows 8 desktop which we hated. Live tiles on the phone weren't necessary, but kind of benign because it didn't break any existing usage patterns. The Start Screen in Windows 8 desktop was just a time-wasting distraction that didn't offer any advantage over the Start Menu that users were familiar with. The idea that the Windows 8 desktop UI inspired <em>anyone</em> to buy a Windows phone I don't find credible. If you bought one for that reason I think you're the exception.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427067">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>You said it made sense that live tiles on the desktop would be necessary to motivate people to buy Windows Phones. That's different from saying that MS <em>believed </em>that live tiles on the desktop would be necessary to motivate people to buy Windows Phones. These sorts of erroneous beliefs are the evidence that MS executives weren't "clear-eyed and shrewd".</p><p><br></p><p>Yes all of these bad decisions were based on trying to promote mobile which is not a surprise to me since I've been saying that here for years.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427237">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>It <em>was </em>one of the stupidest things MSFT ever did. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426807">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>The HTML5 and JavaScript emphasis at build 2011 was pretty much in the Kool-Aid mindset too IMO. I think MS naively believed that web developers would flock to Windows if only they had familiar tools. And again, as I unpopularly mentioned about WSL yesterday, some young MS devs may have been excited about embracing the tools that all the cool kids were using.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427072">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>The "kool-Aid" part I was talking about was MS focusing on HTML5 and JavaScript instead of the tools that Windows developers were currently using. Remember XAML and C# had been around for years, so HTML5 and JavaScript weren't necessary to build Metro/WinRT applications but MS seemed to push them over traditional approaches.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426763">In reply to ScribT:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think maintaining such a list would be more burdensome for the user than the legacy install process was. Presumably the developer would still have to pay to get their product in the store which could be a non-starter too. In order for the store to be able to handle any legacy program, it would have to allow access to the global Registry too. The Registry isn't just a database of program-specific configuration information, it's also an program integration nexus.</p>
skane2600
<p>This change of approach suggests Windows 10 S mode's days are numbered (if it hasn't been canceled already).</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426775">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>.NET like MFC before it was just another alternative for developing applications. And the applications created using them didn't have any artificial limitations like UWP did. I don't think they are comparable at all.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426850">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well, .Net evolved over time, but I don't recall there being a big transition where people that didn't like it initially suddenly did, but YMMV. It's always seems to be Microsoft's major programs that usually boycott the newest Microsoft's technology. Which was probably a good idea since rewriting a major program is usually a bad idea.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426825">In reply to doofus2:</a></em></blockquote><p>But on ios is totally fine right? </p>
Bats
<p>Microsoft is saying this because they don't really have anymore developers who are interested in developing for Windows. They rather develop for Android or iOS. </p><p><br></p><p>It's a new world order now. It's Android/iOS first, the web second, and Windows 3rd. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426869">In reply to Bats:</a></em></blockquote><p>That's a very strange conclusion to reach. Effectively you're claiming they said something like: "We wanted everyone to know nobody wants to develop for Windows anymore and we're telling you this because we think it's good for our business".</p><p><br></p><p>No company makes negative statements about itself out of the blue without any good reason. Even if your "new world order" theory were true, there wouldn't be any reason for Microsoft to point it out.</p><p><br></p><p>What you can conclude from their real statement is that their UWP initiative hasn't been successful so they want to assure Win32 developers that their chosen API will continue to be developed. </p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426869">In reply to Bats:</a></em></blockquote><p>So i wish you'll use ONLY ios and android starting fron today</p>
Stooks
<p>Not being a programmer I simply do not care about what is used to make the programs. </p><p><br></p><p>That said I do think the store is a great idea and I hope they allow all Windows apps into it. The install, update and removal process is good, very good. The fact that UWP/Store apps had to create their own registry hive was another great idea (vs jacking with the system registry and not cleaning it up when removed.)</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426887">In reply to Stooks:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well written applications do clean up the registry although the significance of having a few bytes left over after an application is uninstalled is greatly exaggerated. </p><p><br></p><p>As I mentioned before, the standard Registry was made global for a good reason and private mini-registries aren't an appropriate substitute in many cases.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#426949">In reply to nbplopes:</a></em></blockquote><p>It makes sense since almost all of the apps in the store are UWP.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426949">In reply to nbplopes:</a></em></blockquote><p>go check your apple store</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426959">In reply to blackcomb:</a></em></blockquote><p>crap? please can you tell me with technical details why is this crap?</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#427062">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>nothing to say as expected … just downovtes</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#426993">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>this is what paul become, especially about MS</p>
dontbe evil
<p>Am I wrong or the title changed?</p>
dontbe evil
<p>and here we go:</p><p><br></p><p>twitter.com/RudyHuyn/status/1126669913697861632</p><p><br></p><p>still no replies or article updates from paul</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427266">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>If someone has a different point of view, they can come here and comment. Paul isn't going to try to argue with every random person on twitter.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#427515">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>The problem is that this article is not written as a personal point of view, in that case i would hqve nothing to argue… But it's written like an official statement, to claim that he was right</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#427317">In reply to hz10:</a></em></blockquote><p>that's only paul personal conclusion/interpretation … the problem that unfortunately he's an heavy impact on the internet readers</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#427327">In reply to hz10:</a></em></blockquote><p>I really appreciate your help, still paul is too busy to bash on MS that didn't write a single comment or update in the article</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427317">In reply to hz10:</a></em></blockquote><p>The Windows Phone simply failed in the marketplace and IMO, the quality of the app store had little to do with it. The top reasons were (IMO).</p><p><br></p><ol><li>Late to the market with an iPhone-like smartphone.</li><li>Lack of carrier deals</li><li>Lack of public promotion </li><li>Minimal effort to motivate developers through eliminating fees and percentages.</li><li>Lack of apps in the store (see #4)</li><li>Making a new API (UWP) that was incompatible with WP 8 with the inability for most of those phones to be upgraded to Windows 10.</li></ol><p>There is nothing particularly wrong about UWP for mobile, but I don't think there's reason to consider it superior to the others. On the desktop, however, UWP is mostly a redundant subset of Win32 so I don't see much value there.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427442">In reply to hz10:</a></em></blockquote><p>1: Let's stay on topic: smartphones. </p><p>3: Any source for your $200 million claim and how did it compare with the iPhone promotion cost?</p><p>4: I guess you have a different definition of "quickly" than I do. It took over year for MS to lower the registration fee on individuals and the company fee remains $99 even today. It took MS six years to drop their cut from 30% to 5%. So, no, not quickly at all.</p><p>5: Seriously? You think consumers considering a purchase discuss the quality of the store as opposed to just being concerned about the availability of apps?</p><p>6: You don't think dead-ending a product has an effect on the perception of the family of products? A novel theory.</p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427463">In reply to hz10:</a></em></blockquote><p>1. The consequences of being late to one market aren't necessarily relevant to being late in another market. Smartphones are purchased, how much money did it cost consumers to use Google search or Facebook? And Amazon was a very early online business, what were the top 5 online businesses in 1994 when Amazon started? You'd probably have to look it up because none of those business became well-known.</p><p><br></p><p>4. WP was coming from behind, trying to match the fees of market leaders was insufficient, they needed to do much better.</p><p><br></p><p>5 We'll simply have to disagree here. I don't think developers look at the quality of the store either, they look at the phone's market share first and foremost.</p><p><br></p><p>6 A customer buys a Windows 8 phone and then after a year or two they can't run the latest apps for the phone because they work only on WP 10. The customer is even more annoyed if they bought the phone during the period when MS said that WP 8 phones could be upgraded to WP 10 only to discover they were lied to. Likely customer reaction: "What a ripoff, this is the last Microsoft phone I'll buy". </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#428102">In reply to hz10:</a></em></blockquote><p>I had a client who had a pre-iPhone Windows Mobile phone and I had a Pocket PC. When I said the later MS phones were late, I meant with the iPhone-type paradigm that changed the nature of smartphones. </p><p><br></p><p>IMO, MS mistake in those Pre-iPhone days was the reverse of the Windows 8 mistake (IMO). They tried to make these little screen devices act as much as possible like big Windows instead of considering what the best operational approach would be for a small handheld device. Thus it was tiny scrollbars and a stylus instead of finger swiping.</p><p><br></p><p>Some people get excited over the prospect of iOS and MacOS combining which I find a bit ironic since I believe that had the iPhone been modeled closely after the Mac interface, it would have crashed and burned.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#427576">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm glad you made this argument on the non-premium side too. </p><p><br></p><p>Each platform is different and even between ones that have a lot in common, there is often an opportunity to optimize them if one doesn't get caught up in the cross-platform dogma. </p><p><br></p><p>As you've said before "business logic" can be shared but UI code and resources don't need to be. </p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#427336">In reply to venividivinci:</a></em></blockquote><p>but but only ms updates are annoyn, apple updates are the best updates evaaaaaaaaaaaaa</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#427387">In reply to derekamoss:</a></em></blockquote><p>shh paul and hater don't like truth, otherwise they cannot bas what they hate</p>