Every day on this site I see dozens of comments from people who are aghast at the direction Microsoft is going (e.g. UWP, Windows Store, W10S, etc,). Can you please explain in detail what exactly you think Microsoft should do instead?
Who should Microsoft focus on? How big is that segment or segments? Are those segments growing or shrinking, and at what rate?
What should Microsoft offer them? What needs is Microsoft satisfying, and who else is competing to meet those needs?
How should Microsoft monetize its efforts? What is wrong with their current monetization efforts, and how does your suggestion improve upon it?
Based on your suggestions what does success look like for Microsoft in 5 years or 10 years? Based on what you think they should do, will they be larger, smaller or about the same size? Will they be more or less profitable?
What obstacles are there internally and externally that Microsoft would have to overcome in order to enact your plan? How do they overcome those and “sell” this plan to employees and shareholders?
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#132770"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Portable apps are definitely handy but I think the heartburn over installs, uninstalls, and leftover files due to poorly written install scripts, is mostly a techie concern. The average user doesn't know anything about the registry and doesn't go looking for trouble. Usually multi-step installs serve the purpose of setting some initial properties of the program that otherwise the user would have to go hunting for in menus. The simple approach used by UWP is one-size-fits-all process which perhaps is appropriate give the simplicity of most apps available in the store. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#132493"><em>In reply to Chris_Kez:</em></a></blockquote><p>We should all be so lucky to be making the kind of money MS is making despite declining PC sales. If the decline continues they will have to become a little leaner, but there's still a lot of profit potential there.</p><p><br></p><p>Spending tons of money on dubious initiatives as they have done in recent years isn't helpful. Engineers love to develop new stuff and CEOs love to show they're earning their keep by releasing new products, but sometimes staying the course is the optimal approach.</p><p><br></p><p>I would like to see MS restore Win32 as a first class part of Windows, matching any advances the UWP environment has been given to the extent that it doesn't compromise compatibility. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#132832"><em>In reply to Chris_Kez:</em></a></blockquote><blockquote>If MS could provide hooks to allow more graceful handling of hi DPI displays and automatic scaling that would be useful. I don't know if there are technical reasons why this would be difficult to add to Win32 and still be backwards compatible. </blockquote><blockquote>The challenge with re-energizing desktop development is that it's so saturated with applications already. What categories of applications that have a broad appeal are left to create? They'll probably always be internal business programs being developed but we'll never hear of them.</blockquote><blockquote>Windows Phone had it succeeded would have provided a new area for application growth, but it didn't happen. I think MS was late to the party, but they also didn't really pull out all the stops to promote it. IMO, coupling it to the desktop OS through Windows 8 was a mistake too. Better to make it the best mobile OS they could without making the design more complicated by sharing common elements with the desktop. </blockquote>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#132769"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I would add that MS didn't really need to transition from the "modern" environment of Windows 8/8.1 to the slightly incompatible UWP. They did so for the "purity" of "One Windows" that really is more about bragging rights than it is about offering real value. Although every platform has a common core of Windows APIs every platform is also part of a device family with it's own distinct APIs. So unless a developer avoids using features that are logically aligned with the target platform, it won't work properly on all Windows 10 devices. Developers program to APIs without regard to how those APIs are implemented by the OS. </p><p><br></p><p>The worst fallout of this choice was to throw WP8 users under the bus in order to pretend portability would extend to devices that haven't even been proven to be viable for app sales like XBOX and Hololens. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#132864"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><blockquote><em>Linux is abstract art to most people. I wasn't bragging about "One Windows" myself anyway. But as is the case with Windows, what counts for users is compatibility of applications across devices. Providing the same APIs across different devices with different kernels provides more value to users than having the same kernel with different APIs.</em></blockquote>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#132794"><em>In reply to Jules Wombat:</em></a></blockquote><p>Except that businesses aren't avoiding Windows, obviously. Chromebooks support of subset of what Windows can do. Within that subset of applications what do you maintain is less complicated to do on a Chromebook than on Windows? </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#132836"><em>In reply to Chris_Kez:</em></a></blockquote><p>People love to complain. They don't understand that capability and simplicity are often in opposition to each other. Even at the time when using a Mac was clearly simpler than using a PC, the former didn't really catch on in a big way.</p><p><br></p><p>I agree that simple devices have become dominant for doing simple things. Chromebooks are browser-based and if people wish to limit their applications to what is available via a browser, Chrome on Windows will be just as simple. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#132867"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I make a distinction between the fundamental design approach for a particular device and what can be achieved through augmentation with external equipment. Chromebooks are overkill too if they are used as mere "gateways" to running applications on a server.</p>
wiparat01
<p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33);">ทุกวันในเว็บไซต์นี้ฉันเห็นความคิดเห็นหลายสิบคนจากผู้ที่ตกใจในทิศทางที่ Microsoft</span></p>
Supatra
<p><span style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">There is still incredible power in the Win32 eco-system. It's the one thing that keeps Windows afloat. Without Win32 there would be no reason for Windows to exist. So Microsoft should harness this power and make it easy for users to install the most wanted Windows programs. Let's say a Store with the Top-1000 Win32-programs. Hunting for EXE-files on the net is so Windows 95. Gamestop is sitting on a powerful Win32 application called Impulse that can install, update and remove Win32 applications just as painless as Windows Store. This would be such a powerful tool if it was integrated in Windows. It's like Microsoft forgot what made Windows the biggest platform.</span></p>
Supatra
<p><span style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Do Apple and Google allow you to choose updates you want and don't want with their OS updates? Such an approach cant work in reality because it would require vast and vast amounts of resources to support. I guess the solution would be to remain on the prior versions for some of these objections, and there are millions and million who do so, and that's OK.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span class="ql-cursor"></span><a href="https://goo.gl/xys8PR" target="_blank">gclub casino</a></p>