Joe Belfiore finally stops the vague waffle

106

Most Windowsphone users have been realistic. They know that Microsoft has lost interest but whenever they put to Microsoft representatives the question of what they are doing about WIndowsphone they have got vague answers of little substance.

Microsoft say they will “support” Windowsphone when they out it into maintenance mode. They talk about mobile “experiences” across devices. They are never seen with a Windowsphone device.

Lack of clarity was frustrating for people.

However this weekend Joe Belfiore, recently quoted as using a Samsung S8 “Microsoft Edition”, came out and said it in a tweet;

“Of course we’ll continue to support the platform.. bug fixes, security updates, etc. But building new features/hw aren’t the focus.”

As an individual end-user, I switched platforms for the app/hw diversity. We will support those users too! Choose what’s best 4 u.”

We have tried VERY HARD to incent app devs. Paid money.. wrote apps 4 them.. but volume of users is too low for most companies to invest. “

Back in 2016 Terry Myerson said phone was not the focus. This was taken to mean in 2016 but it meant that was it.

Personally I think this is first straightforward answer we have seen.

However without mobile there seems little point in UWP and Cortana because these technologies are only relevant on a personal device like phone. UWP has limited use as a driver to the store but overall it is really PC only for most things. Cortana on PC is fine but where you really want it is on mobile. Mostly Android phones will use Google Assistant.

The investment in mobile, in my view, was never just about mobile but rather it was the place other technologies are going to live for a while. Mobile is the personal computer. AI and mixed reality are on mobile first.

So well done Joe. You have finally said what Microsoft should have said a year ago and are closing the door on consumer computing with the exception of the Xbox.

Comments (110)

110 responses to “Joe Belfiore finally stops the vague waffle”

  1. WP7Mango

    UWP doesn't need Windows Phone to succeed. UWP has many advantages (discussed millions of times) and, simply put, is the new Windows application platform going forward.


    UWP is for desktop PC, for laptop, for tablet, for hybrid, for Xbox, for IoT, for HoloLens and other AR/MR/VR devices, etc. It's for ARM and X86.



    • skane2600

      In reply to WP7Mango:

      UWP is, for the most part, redundant on the desktop (and IMO pointless on Xbox and overkill for IoT). MS has had a number of new Windows application platforms over the years but none have them have really displaced Win32. Ultimately, the market will decide if UWP is successful.

    • ponsaelius

      In reply to WP7Mango:

      For the most part UWP is a platform specific wrapper rather than a platform agnostic universal application environment.

    • JimP

      In reply to WP7Mango:


      Actually, it does need Windows Phone (or some second platform that people use) to succeed. There's nothing universal about it if the only meaningful platform that people use UWP apps is the PC.


      Yes, UWP has advantages such as better security and updating, but most normal users don't care about those things.


      How else do you explain why UWP is failing?

      • hrlngrv

        In reply to JimP:

        Has anyone explained why a common updating system couldn't be added to desktop software? 3rd party developers may not choose to use such a common facility, but is there any technical reason it couldn't be done? Would desktop/Win32 Windows software really be that far behind Linux?

        As for security, there are a number of things MSFT could do which would be a lot more useful than sandboxing individual apps.

      • WP7Mango

        In reply to JimP:

        Well, once we start seeing ARM Windows laptops, then you'll see why UWP makes sense even if it's just on the PC.


        Oh and don't forget that UWP handles scaling properly!


        • hrlngrv

          In reply to WP7Mango:

          . . . UWP handles scaling properly!

          So do the latest few versions of Qt, showing that it'd be possible to handle scaling in desktop software if that software were rebuilt. OTOH, MSFT wants UWP to be the exclusive path to handling high res scaling.

        • skane2600

          In reply to WP7Mango:

          The Buzz on Windows laptops with an ARM processor is being able to run 32-bit legacy applications, not UWP. Personally, I don't think it will matter much since Intel laptops can already run all Win32 apps (32 and 64) and UWP apps as well. IMO, the excitement of ARM is just leftover from the WinRT days. I doubt that the price/performance ratio is going to be better.

    • Jules Wombat

      In reply to WP7Mango:

      Microsoft themselves are not interested in UWP, with few of their own pedigree Applications moved to UWP. All the required desktop applications already exist in more powerful Win32. No business case to develop UWP versions, especially without phone.

    • doofus2

      In reply to WP7Mango:

      WinRT/UWP is as dead as a doornail. It was *designed* to fail since it was incompatible with all previous code written for Windows. I don't know why they were so stupid. All they had to do was add a native scalable UI API/framework to Win32 and backport it to Win7. They could have restricted the new "apps" to a subset of Win32. At least that would have had a chance to succeed. Instead, they went off on the incompatible API set and the idiotic Async tangent.

    • hrlngrv

      In reply to WP7Mango:

      First, saying for desktop, for laptop is about like saying for HP, for Dell. How much Windows software has there ever been which was for immobile PCs but not laptops or vice versa? Trying to draw a distinction between immobile PCs and laptops in terms of software may be the first sign of desperation among the UWP faithful.

      How much software is commonly run on PCs (immobile and laptops and even damn near all Windows tablets), Xbox, HoloLens and IoT? Sure, apps which would give each of these the functionality of radios. Beyond that? Going to run a Learn Esperanto app on your smart oven? Do your taxes on your Xbox? Maintain music playlists with HoloLens?

      If UWP and the MSFT Store have such clear and obvious benefits, then the lack of offerings in the MSFT Store would have to mean Windows developers were the most obtuse there are. OTOH, there may just be the slightest of possibilities that Windows users and developers don't see as much value in UWP as MSFT and MSFT fans.

  2. shameermulji

    So does this mean that hopes of a Surface Phone are essentially dead?

      • shameermulji

        In reply to paul-thurrott:

        Well, not to get too technical, but with Belfiore's "announcement", it's safe to assume Windows Phone dead. What I'm referring to is a Surface phone device that runs ARM / Windows 10S, not Windows Phone / Windows Mobile.

        • Roger Ramjet

          In reply to shameermulji:

          "I'm sure we'll make more phones, but they will not look like phones that are there today."

          They are not going to make a straight phone. At a minimum, it will be some sort of 2/1 function, etc. With any "Surface", they will be looking very hard for those niches where they can make productivity & phone into a new, wow, form factor, essentially what they have tried to do with Surface for PC/Laptops, they will try to do to phone. This script has already been written, and we have all seen it before.

          For certain that if they do this it will under no circumstances be any normal "phone" (i.e, it will not be simply something with OLED, Bezel, Face recognition, Tiles, Apps, AI or any other thing that may be a wow phone improvement, but that you will immediately see is a phone) that you see around now, and may therefore not work for most not in the particular target niche (same way Surface Studio does not work for most people, although they would probably provide over time several niche models, just like Surface today).

          This approach is even more likely now, because they have no Windows base at all in phones, they have absolutely zero possibility of successfully competing with say Samsung or Apple from an economic perspective in making normal phone hw, so the only place from which they can come is tablets or AR, if the HoloLens develops that fast.


          • hrlngrv

            In reply to Roger Ramjet:

            . . . and may therefore not work for most . . .

            Gotta wonder what the economics could be. Is MSFT even interested in a niche generating less than US$1 billion revenues?

            • Roger Ramjet

              In reply to hrlngrv:

              Well, what were the economics to Google of doing Chromebooks for K12, or now putting internet on helium balloons in Puerto Rico? Or for that matter what are the economics of Surface Studio, or Surface Book to Microsoft? There is another, longer route to world domination that starts with satisfying specific niches and building out from there. In fact that is what you have to do when the broader market is already occupied/well served. Way back when, an upstart company stayed alive by satisfying a small fastidious, high end customer segment in PCs.

              • skane2600

                In reply to Roger Ramjet:

                 "Way back when, an upstart company stayed alive by satisfying a small fastidious, high end customer segment in PCs."


                Compaq?

              • hrlngrv

                In reply to Roger Ramjet:

                Google makes Chromebook Pixels and prices them at 3 to 4 times the prices of typical OEM Chromebooks. I doubt Google sells many, and I doubt even more that they receive anywhere close to US$1 billion or any profits from them. Google's own Chromebooks are aspirational, meant to stimulate the market for OEMs' Chromebooks.

                MSFT has priced Surface Books and Surface Studios to be profitable per unit, and it doesn't expect to sell many. They're aspirational devices meant to help sell lower cost Surface tablets and OEM PCs.

                OTOH, if MSFT produced a Surface Phone or some other, exotic mobile device, even priced over US$1,000 each, they wouldn't sell in large numbers, so wouldn't reach US$1 billion total revenue, might be profitable but contribute less than rounding error to MSFT's bottom line, and would do squat all for Windows 10 Mobile more generally because there aren't any other mobile devices running Windows 10 Mobile.

                Without cheap Windows phones or small tablets also on the market, new MSFT mobile devices wouldn't be aspirational devices, they'd be an entire market all to themselves, and it's unlikely they'd do better than Lumia 950s or HP X3s.

                MSFT was an upstart until about 1983, PC/MS-DOS 2.0 and the IBM PC-XT. Then came all the clones, and when it went public in 1986 it had market capitalization of roughly US$800 million, which put it in the top 10 software companies at the time. The point is that by 1986, MSFT was selling more OS licenses than any other company in the microcomputer segment, and microcomputers and Unix workstations were the growing markets, mainframes and minis stagnant at best. To be even blunter, by 1986 MSFT was THE mass market OS provider, not a feisty niche player.

                • Roger Ramjet

                  In reply to hrlngrv:

                  According to Gartner there were approx. 1 billion smart phones sold in 2014, why would you think a high end, differentiated offering by Microsoft that fulfilled a well targeted niche could not grab 0.1% of that market, 1,000,000 units?

                  You think there could be no synergy potential between such a Surface Phone and the rest of the Surface line, or just existing PC's generally? Why would they be just an entire market to themselves in the short term?

                  But yes, of course the point of such devices, if shipped, would have to go beyond that, just as Google is not selling Chromebooks to K12 as an end goal. It would have to be that they think offering it can be a path back to owning something in mobile in the intermediate and longer term. The end goal is still to fight in the base market. You see it with Surface Laptop for example, after they meandered over several years with more niche products. All companies are this way. If they succeed at the edge of the market, or in new areas, they will eventually try to move to the center, or on old incumbents to take big profits.

                  BTW, I was referring to AAPL in my statement above, not MSFT. Microsoft customers were never "fastidious".

                • hrlngrv

                  In reply to Roger Ramjet:

                  If MSFT eschewed retailers and sold high-end mobile devices direct to end users at US$1,000 each, then 1 million units sold would achieve US$1 billion total revenues.

                  Now reality: https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/windows-phone/83821/windows-device-stats-windows-10-mobile-hp-elite-x3-stumble-october . Even if MSFT does 10 times better than HP did with the X3, MSFT won't get close to 1 million unit sales.

                  Most profits in PC and phone markets are for Apple because Apple and iSheep. What's left is mostly Samsung's for phones/mobile, and the remaining PC OEMs won't lie down and die if MSFT tries to become a major PC hardware maker. Quite possibly the only way to achieve the Year of the Linux Desktop would be MSFT making mainstream, competitively-priced PCs and laptops without the irritant of preinstalling Windows 10 S.

                  As for Apple, it nearly died in the late 1990s. Sculley era Macs didn't exactly satisfy discerning buyers.

                  Anyway, back to the main point. High-end aspirational devices only make sense when there are also low end devices. High-end Windows 10 Mobile devices alone will be as sound a business venture as jewel-encrusted toilets.

                • Roger Ramjet

                  In reply to hrlngrv:

                  Notice that I used 2014 Gartner numbers. This is 2017, the year Microsoft would ship the imaginary device is further off still, there would be a very significant number more than 1 billion devices sold that year. We are doing back of the envelope here, roughly speaking. So, to bring up retail margins is kinda getting a bit more detailed than where we were. But OK then, lets say Microsoft would take a significant discount to get net revenue, do you believe they could not do 0.15%, 0.2%, even 0.5% of the then, smartphone market, you think this is beyond the scope of a company with the heft and brand of Microsoft? Frankly it is very easy to see them blowing by that number. Easy. The market is so large, the company has so many resources.

                  Next you pull up a Thurrott link for devices that were failing. If you already decided its gonna fail, why would you do it. Why would you imagine failure as your base case if you are thinking of building new devices? This is like showing a link for Surface RT write offs just before they launched Surface Pro.

                  Now obviously if someone simply put HP X3 in new skin and called it Surface future device (please note I did not write, Surface future phone), Nadella would surely axe that. I mean, you don't trust his chopping propensity yet? The point is that they would build things that were in  new niche(s) they try to create based on capabilities that they did not have when X3 was built, just as they did for 2/1 tablets.Things like Windows ARM, Andromeda, CShell, Redstone #44, whatever folding things the hw team can dream up, or HoloLens, WMR based, etc. This is not X3, its not Windows Mobile, Its not anything you or I have seen before. Making these it will not work comparisons to things that failed is the same, again, as taking Surface RT after it failed, and saying they will never build a successful Surface. Apples & Oranges.

                  Now, to the point of aspirational devices: the sort of devices I am thinking of are not just "phones" they would be multifunctional in some way, and therefore, even if we use your framework, there is no reason why existing tablets, existing VR sets, existing whatever they are derivatives of, cannot function as the low end devices you are thinking about. Same way Surface Studio is a strange beast hybrid of tablet/desktop/digitizer.


                • hrlngrv

                  In reply to Roger Ramjet:

                  At this point do I see MSFT getting even 0.1% of the worldwide new smartphone sales? Not unless they picked out a very sound niche and none of Apple, Samsung, LG, or Google found out and came out with competing products before MSFT could ramp up production.

                  I grant MSFT has heft. However, in the smartphone market it's barely more relevant than IBM at this point.

                  The more interesting question is whether MSFT, or maybe more precisely its board of directors, is prepared to be a distant #3 for several years. Also important would be how much money they'd be prepared to lose over the first 2 years. Note also that the outside directors should prefer paying higher dividends or buying back shares of MSFT stock to wasting more of MSFT's so many resources on another futile foray into mobile.

                  Maybe someday MSFT can come up with a game-changing mobile device, but not this side of 2020, and I'd be willing to bet not before Windows 8.1 reaches EOS in 2023.

                • skane2600

                  In reply to Roger Ramjet:

                  It's generally a mistake to put too much stock in raw numbers, it's percentages that matter. What makes sense to invest in for a small company doesn't necessarily make sense for a very large one.


                  BTW, Apple wasn't an "upstart". They were the market leader in personal computers prior to the introduction of the IBM PC. In fact, that Apple II "carried the water" for the Mac in the early years.

                • Roger Ramjet

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  The raw number thing came from hrIngrv, I am just debating the $1 billion market benchmark he referenced. Sure Apple was successful in PCs earlier on, and maybe it's not accurate to say they were an upstart latter on when things were rough for them. Maybe, underdog.

          • skane2600

            In reply to Roger Ramjet:

            The problem with a small device that can't be "engineered" away is the ergonomics. Tiny virtual keyboards and tiny screens will always be awkward for PC-like tasks. The other constraint is that a mobile device to be used as phone becomes awkward to use if it's too big. That's why there's such a push for small or no bezels, but it can only take you so far.

        • Tony Barrett

          In reply to shameermulji:

          But is there actually a market for that these days? Running win32 apps on a small screen Windows device is going to be painful. UWP is already dying, and a new Microsoft mobile device isn't going to change that. If MS want to waste another few billion on a mobile device 'for the fans', then let them. I just don't think it will make a blind bit of difference.

          • skane2600

            In reply to ghostrider:

            "Running win32 apps on a small screen Windows device is going to be painful."


            I agree but doing just about any content creation on a small screen device is going to be painful regardless of platform. That's the basis for my claim that smartphones won't replace PC-like computers.

      • Jules Wombat

        In reply to paul-thurrott:

        You mean a Surface Pro + LTE is not considered a Phone ?

        Take it out, take photos, shout at it in the street.

    • hrlngrv

      In reply to shameermulji:

      Given the tenacity of such hopes so far, it'd be unwise to pronounce such hopes dead.

      OTOH, no one with an ounce of sense would bet money they'd appear within the next decade.

  3. Riki Smith

    Contact us 18668661752 Microsoft customer service toll free number.If you have any problems related to Microsoft then call 18668661752. 

  4. Paul Thurrott

    Thanks for posting this. I will certainly not write about this formally.


    That said....


    I get why this is a thing for people. But this firm abandoned Windows phone two years ago, provided a schedule for the retreat, and then implemented that strategy over two years, all on the schedule it promised.


    Related: HP's recent BS about this all being a surprise is just a cute way for them to pretend it was Microsoft's fault and save face with the handful of customers who were equally dumb enough to buy into this. But they should have never made the x3, which I told them at the time.


    So let's just move on, shall we? It's been over for a long time.

    • ponsaelius

      In reply to paul-thurrott:

      For me the "thing" is just the reluctance of Microsoft to speak in plain English. Obviously communicating properly puts journalists out of a job.


      I dont expect a Windowsphone is dead but just support/eol statements that give people who spent hundreds on a 950 or X3 a clear impression. Not this "mobile device" rumour factory doublespeak.


      For normal people this "news" will resonate more than the coded words of Nadella and team Microsoft.






      • maethorechannen

        In reply to ponsaelius:

        For me the "thing" is just the reluctance of Microsoft to speak in plain English


        They can't. Forward looking statements are difficult for companies. I bet if you asked a Microsoft representative if they ever plan on selling canned fruit you'd a get answer that's at least a little bit vague, because who knows, maybe 40 years from now the best way for Microsoft to increase shareholder returns is to start selling canned fruit. Basically "Never say never", whether it's canned fruit or a phone.

    • maethorechannen

      In reply to paul-thurrott:

       It's been over for a long time.


      Yeah, but there were still people who just didn't get the message. Just look at that "Is that a Surface Phone in Dona Sarkar's hands" nonsense from around a week ago.

    • jpwalters

      In reply to paul-thurrott:


      Perhaps being a bit harsh here! I get the point that anyone still using a Windows Phone should blame themselves for Lemming-ish behavior. But, when you say the firm abandoned Windows Phone two years ago -- that's a tad overblown. The 950 and 950XL were introduced October/November 2015 and the final axe to the Nokia team was more like May 2016. Did people hang on for either hope that the niche market Microsoft was promising for mobile, or that something like the Surface Phone would eventually happen? Perhaps. The x3 only compounded that feeling that it wasn't all over yet.


      I am ready to turn the page myself though. With that will come a healthier skepticism about what we're seeing out of Redmond.

      • Paul Thurrott

        In reply to jpwalters:

        The 950 and 950 XL were gifts to the community.

        HP never should have shipped the x3. Never, never, never. I'm sure even Microsoft was confused by that one.

        • hrlngrv

          In reply to paul-thurrott:

          Derangement, or, if you prefer, absurdly wishful thinking, hits many companies from time to time. I suspect HP really believed they could make the X3 work in the enterprise market. Pity HP had zero experience in the enterprise phone market. Seems HP had to learn the same lesson the hard way as MSFT did: major PC palyers' positions in the PC market mean nothing in phone markets.

          • skane2600

            In reply to hrlngrv:

            Wishful thinking, yes, but I doubt that HP's position in the phone market had much to do with their failure. IMO, all these schemes (Continuum, HP Workspace) had a fatal flaw - there's no economic or productivity case for trying run on or connect to PC applications from a smartphone.

            • hrlngrv

              In reply to skane2600:

              . . . there's no economic or productivity case for trying run on or connect to PC applications from a smartphone.

              We could argue that, but I'd go off on a tangent.

              By the time continuum rolled out Android phones already had docking capabilities and a Citrix Receiver app (maybe VMWare and other alternatives too). Anyone working for a large enterprise with an application server farm using an Android phone docking station could access FULL WINDOWS PROGRAMS, not just phone apps rearranged for larger monitors.

              The point is there were MORE PRODUCTIVE alternatives for people willing to use docked phones. The only thing Continuum provided which other phone systems didn't was docked AND DISCONNECTED productivity. I agree that there was damn little market for that.

              • skane2600

                In reply to hrlngrv:

                HP Workspace had a similar approach that allowed full Windows programs to run and not just UWP apps. But despite these capabilities I doubt there's a big move on the part of Enterprises to ditch their desktop or laptop PCs in favor of using Android phones and docking stations.

                • hrlngrv

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  Per https://www.onmsft.com/news/hp-elite-x3-will-enable-virtualized-win32-apps-windows-10-mobile-hp-workspace, HP Workspace will use Citrix app-virtualization or Azure RemoteApp. I tried finding the HP site for HP Workspace, but it displays a popup saying the X3 and Workspace are dead, Dead, DEAD.

                  Android had a Citrix Receiver client app first.

                  I don't expect many enterprises to standardize on docked phones, but I know the one I work for provides almost all of what I need via Citrix, so much so that I can do 95% of my job on a Chromebook with a Citrix Receiver app. The remaining 5% requires using an Excel add-in that uses inside-the-firewall license validation which doesn't work outside company offices, not even with VPN connections on work-provided Windows laptops.

                  I suppose I need to be clearer: for workday use, if one has a sound network connection, Citrix Receiver and VMWare and Azure equivalents provide more productivity for docked phones than Continuum.

                • skane2600

                  In reply to hrlngrv:

                  I agree that the Citrix solution is better than the Continuum one. I just don't think docked phones are ever going to be a big part of enterprise computing.

                • hrlngrv

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  As an investment by enterprises, no. However, individual employees may opt for docked phones rather than PCs for working at home, maybe even for work on business trips.

                • skane2600

                  In reply to hrlngrv:

                  Anything is possible, but the bad value proposition doesn't change. If an employee is going to have to work offsite, it's highly likely the company will issue them a laptop. Then the phone/hub just becomes an extra expense.

  5. Jules Wombat

    As a developer, we had no incentive once Satya declared no interest in 2015. In developer conference calls Microsoft provided no financial incentives to Indie developers, because they showed no interest in their own Bing Ad advertising performance. Thier Ad platform was very weak. And instead they piled $27 billion in Linked In.

  6. StevenLayton

    Wait? What? Windows Phone is dead? When did that happen?

  7. johnh3

    I think this mean that Android is now Microsofts primary focus on the mobile. Nokia actually did a Windows Nokia android device for some years ago called Nokia X. A very low budget device but if the project had not been scrapped by Satya Nadella, they would have been flagship devices with it to.

    Maybe the approach this time will be different but the Edge browser coming to android, so it will be interesting to see what happend.

  8. Roger Ramjet

    I just want to point out the premium article Thurrott posted today where he found a Geekwire interview Nadella gave yesterday? (which he allowed me to read, but for some reason, I could not find the comments view. Still,, thank you :-)), Nadella says almost verbatim, the things I have been writing here in my several posts below, he used exactly the same examples, 2/1's, MR as areas they will be looking at in this area.

    Is it a plausible scenario? Yes, I believe so. Of course in detail they might be attempting a little misdirection here and there, but broadly that is where they will attempt to go. In business terms these would be "product extensions", generally more defensible than a big bang approach because there should be some synergies between whatever new thing they create and products in which they are already strong.

    BTW, I found most of Thurrott's "fact checking" on that discussion tedious. The one place where Nadella was clearly disingenuous ("oh, why is there media reporting on this all of a sudden this week") is curiously where Thurrott agreed with him. The reporting started when Nadella himself a few weeks ago came out in writing as "I was against Nokia acquisition" and then they allowed Bellifore to tweet that it's over, go home. It is not coincidence the whole process unfolds as their CU 2, all kinds of software releases on iOS & Android are about to be deployed, and WMR is launched. It's Microsoft's own timing, and a I think shifty to pretend as if it wasn't orchestrated.

  9. jimchamplin

    Windows Phone could have been a strong enthusiast brand...


    ... but like anything important MS has ever done that isn't profitable, they ditched it. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW IMPORTANT THE THING IS... If it isn't making TONS OF MONEY they ditch it. Everyone else subsidizes their platform plays, but Microsoft, the former platform vendor, acts like OMG TEH BIZNIESS GROOP IS TEH FALE!!! OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG


    Idiots running the show. Just fucking do what everyone else does! Stop giving a shit about the business numbers, and only care about the goddamn developer influence and market mindshare!

    • hrlngrv

      In reply to jimchamplin:

      Loss leaders are one thing. Hemorrhaging money is another. Maybe others subsidize platform plays, but only when their investments in their platforms are expected to produce offsetting benefits.

      Anyway, if you want to change MSFT, change it's outside directors. Good luck with that.

  10. JimP

    "We have tried VERY HARD to incent app devs."


    You mean like when you dropped Silverlight?

  11. Riki Smith

    Contact us 18668661752 Microsoft customer service toll free number.If you have any problems related to Microsoft then call 18668661752. We provide toll free service 1-866-866-1752 for Microsoft Customer Support USA 24*7.


  12. JimP

    Actually, "building new features/hw aren't the focus" is still pretty vague. What wouldn't be vague would be "we will no longer be building new features/hw".


    Even less vague would be "we will no longer be building new features/hw. We recommend that you switch to iPhone or Android".

  13. skane2600

    “We have tried VERY HARD to incent app devs."


    Certainly not at the beginning. Should have been zero fee to submit apps, smaller MS cut. etc.

    • hrlngrv

      In reply to skane2600:

      . . . zero fee to submit apps, smaller MS cut . . .

      You're discounting some absurdly overinflated hopes for a HUGE windfall of $$$$$$$.

      I figure MSFT was caught completely and mortifyingly by surprise that Windows on PCs provided no leverage at all for Windows on phones. All that assumed brand value actually valueless away from PCs. Not good.

    • rameshthanikodi

      In reply to skane2600:

      Nah. That's nothing compared to the fact that they were charging a license fee to OEMs for the use of Windows Phone in a world where Android was being given away for free.


      Windows Phone lacked big name apps, not apps from cash-strapped indie devs. Removing the fee or taking a smaller cut wouldn't have made the difference, especially when MS actually paid devs for apps.


      Let's face it man. Credit for trying, but Android's radical approach to the business model won more hearts.

  14. jimchamplin

    No, seriously. I don't understand two things. UWP isn't just some "OMG TEH PHOAN" thing. It's an honest attempt to create a next-generation API for Windows.


    You people should be freaking GRACIOUS that they built it.


    The hideous, 1990s looking garbage that passed for software in the Vista and 7 era plagued Windows 8, which was a more modern take on Windows but everyone whined their arses off that OMG IT IS TEH DIFFARENT.


    I hope Win32 software dies a fiery death and it's UWP for fscking ever.

    • skane2600

      In reply to jimchamplin:

      Do you realize that there's no "look" in UWP apps that can't be matched by a Win32 app if the developer desired it to? It generally doesn't happen because the UWP approach isn't optimal for the desktop.

      • jimchamplin

        In reply to skane2600:

        You're damn right. UWP apps can't look as shitty as most of these horrid legacy apps which look like Windows 98.

      • WP7Mango

        In reply to skane2600:

        Likewise, there is no "look" in Win32 that can't be matched by UWP. It's down to the devs. There is much more focus on UI design nowadays than 10-20 years ago, certainly in Windows, which explains the swathes of drab legacy enterprise software.

        • skane2600

          In reply to WP7Mango:

          Well, in the Windows 95 era the focus was on testing UI approaches on average people to see what was the simplest for people to use. Now the focus seems to be on some artistic aesthetic that is as fleeting as skirt length in women's clothes.

        • hrlngrv

          In reply to WP7Mango:

          . . . there is no "look" in Win32 that can't be matched by UWP . . .

          Then you should be able to name a UWP software development environment at least as complete as the VBA environment for desktop Office programs.

          I believed what Jensen Harris said in his talk at Build 2012 that some software, I believe he used Photoshop as an example, had dense UIs not suited to Metro. I figure UWP is Metro's successor, and still isn't suited to dense UIs.

          As for all that drab legacy enterprise software, it probably generates at least 3 orders of magnitude more revenues than all MSFT Store apps put together.

          • WP7Mango

            In reply to hrlngrv:

            Firstly, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done or will be done. UWP can be made to look like any Win32 app. Some do. Does that mean it's automatically the thing to do? No. However, JavaScript Studio Pro and Project Studio are examples I found which use a more classic approach to the UI, in a modern style.


            There is no problem with creating dense UIs in UWP. The only reason why many aren't, is because of design choices by the dev.


            Yes, drab enterprise software probably does generate orders of magnitude more. So what's your point? It certainly has nothing to do with the point I'm making in that modern enterprise software has much more focus on the UI nowadays, partly driven by the focus on the UI experience on the Mac and the iPad which gained traction in enterprise.

            • jimchamplin

              In reply to WP7Mango:

              Amen! The problem is that from what I understand from all of this is that Windows devs don't want to have to update how things "look." OMG TEH UWP LOOKS LIKE TEH MOBAL!!!!! OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!11111eleven


              On the other hand, users honestly demand more now than a shitty app with 85 toolbars that spews six icons all over the desktop, five of which are bloatware.


              They EXPECT quality, with a clean, easy-to-glean UI. that's what UWP promises, but these people refuse to try to offer that.


              To the guy who "accused" me of not being a professional dev, you're right, I'm not. I'm still learning. I hope to be part of the generation that replaces you.

              • skane2600

                In reply to jimchamplin:

                Look, simple apps can have simple interfaces, but sophisticated programs are going to be more complicated, unless people want go through pages and pages of "simple" interfaces to perform tasks.


                Programming in the real world isn't just about technology, it's about business as well. If you are starting out you might find that listening to people with experience is just as important as learning a computer language or platform.

                • hrlngrv

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  . . . go through pages and pages of "simple" interfaces to perform tasks . . .

                  First, I admit my usage may be different than nearly everyone else on the planet. Still . . .

                  For me Piant 3D sums up nearly everything which is wrong with UWP.

                  Can it run multiple instances? No.

                  Does it have a recent files list? No.

                  Can it open multiple image files at the same time? No.

                  Why do these matter? I'm often copying PARTS of one image file to another. Easy enough to do in Paint [non-3D] because it can run in multiple instances. Easy enough to do in the other graphics programs I use (Pinta and Inkccape) because they can open multiple image files at the same time. With @#$%&*! Paint 3D, I have to open one file, crop it to the portion I want, save that as another file, open the file I want to insert into (which may involve a lot of file system navigation), then paste from the file I created from the other image file. Even ignoring the file system navigation, the Paint 3D process takes me at least 3 times longer than being able to copy + paste between multiple open image files. Paint 3D: so simple it's not productive.

                • skane2600

                  In reply to hrlngrv:

                  I also open up multiple instances of Paint. I suspect a lot of people do.


                  As you know, with increased capability comes more complex user interfaces, it's fundamental.

            • hrlngrv

              In reply to WP7Mango:

              We could argue whether JavaScript Studio Pro or Project Studio have dense UIs. You believe so, and I'll grant that compared to other UWP apps I've see, their UIs are denser. I installed JavaScript Studio [non-Pro] to see what it's like. No stepping through code. No breakpoints. No watch variables. Basically it's a programmers editor able to run (but not interactively debug) JavaScript code. Is that really an example of a development environment to you? To me it seems less complete than what Google Sheets provides.

              As for revenues, people who develop software for a living care where the money is. It ain't in UWP development for more than a very few developers. As for modern enterprise software, I guess I work for the wrong kind of enterprise. Squat all Mac- or iPad-inspired UIs or any Macs anywhere in sight. I did know one regional office manager who used an iPad, but he was fired (not for iPad use) back in 2015.

    • hrlngrv

      In reply to jimchamplin:

      . . . You people should be freaking GRACIOUS that they built it. . . .

      Perhaps you meant grateful. Then again, I looked up the definitions, and 4. merciful or compassionate does seem to pertain.

      I figure you're being sarcastic. In case you aren't, show me a UWP mainframe terminal emulator or a UWP equivalent for GNU R, SAS or Stata. I don't see UWP being particularly relevant for workplace software. I can accept that UWP is MSFT's plan for the future of consumer software, and from my perspective, that's strong evidence MSFT doesn't give a rat's ass about consumers.

      • jimchamplin

        In reply to hrlngrv:

        Grateful is correct! Thank you. I was rather drunk when I wrote it.


        Also, who gives a shit about UWP being relevant for workforce software. It's obvious that sector will be fine with using 1990s tech until the 22nd century. Those opinions matter not one whit in the larger conversation.


        Unfortunately, the general public is okay with using unstable APIs like Google Play and Apple's iOS which CHANGE EVERY DAMN YEAR.

        • hrlngrv

          In reply to jimchamplin:

          If you mean UWP is meant for consumers, I agree, and from my perspective that's strong evidence that MSFT doesn't care what gets shoveled at consumer PC users.

          Putting this differently, the market has spoken. No matter how unstable, aesthetically displeasing, or downright crappy, customers want Android and iOS, not Windows 10 Mobile, and most 3rd party developers have taken that to heart.

    • scumdogmillionaire

      In reply to jimchamplin:


      AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You're not a professional developer, are you? This is never, ever going to happen. Too many complex applications that will never be re-written for the sake of looking nicer on a platform that Microsoft has changed at least 3 times already in the last 7 years.

      • jimchamplin

        In reply to scumdogmillionaire:

        Clearly you aren't either, otherwise you wouldn't act unprofessionally.


        Also, no, I'm not. I'm learning C# right now. If this is the attitude of "professional" Windows devs, I hope to one day put assholes like you out of work. Go write garbage for Windows XP, I don't give a shit. I'll learn Xamarin and pick up the slack for you, deadweight.

  15. Roger Ramjet

    I am guessing timing on this is not coincidence with the recent canning of Groove, and even the surprise Edge for Android/iOS. It feels like they are clearing the decks for something or somethings. If that thing is some announcements for even greater involvement with Android/iOS (while leaving WP behind), I guess the sequence makes sense.

  16. The Binary Son

    I'm a little late in reading this news. It's fitting I came across this news over on WPCentral, a site I kinda regret ever going to, as I spent so many years buying/using/believing in Windows Phone, like someone with "Battered Consumer Syndrome" mixed with "Windows Stockholm Syndrome," in large part because they apparently worked as MS's PR firm, writing propaganda like a 6-part series last year as to why Windows Phone ISN'T dead.


    So I had to come over and see what Paul had to say, and am kinda disappointed by and admiring of his reaction to this.


    Also, I like how Belfiore insinuated WP's failure was because of apps. Sure that was part of it, but do you think *MAYBE* it was also stuff like going from an A+ syncing experience w Zune to an awful 'WP Desktop app' that worked like a 6th grader made it? Or like how my 1520 *STILL TO THIS DAY* pauses songs for a second when I lock the phone? You put Cortana into a phone. Congrats. How about making a phone that can receive a text message while playing a song without almost freezing the phone itself?


    Between Buffalo, NY sports teams and Microsoft products, I have a thing for supporting stuff that excels in finding the most amazingly basic things to suck at.


    And here I am looking to see if I can get a replacement 1520 off of ebay. I don't know a damn thing about Android.

Leave a Reply