“Google has revealed that it has no plans to develop dedicated apps for Windows 8 or Windows Phone 8 for its business app products such as Gmail or Drive.” Product management director for Google Apps, Clay Bavor, told V3 that Google “will go where the users are but they are not on Windows Phone or Windows 8”. Ouch – but for now, hard to argue with.
The more company’s that shun Win 8 the quicker it will die.
Why in the world would that be a good thing? The more platforms there are, the more room for innovation. Just because you personally don’t like the platform doesn’t mean it should be abolished. It’s not your world we’re living in, after all.
Even though I’ve given up on Windows Phone and I’m sticking with 7 on the desktop, I sincerely hope WP8 and RT flourish. A diverse market is a healthy market.
As a developer I really would like Windows Runtime to fully replace Win32, but only time will tell if this really happens.
How would WinRT be able to replace Win32 when WinRT itself uses Win32? See e.g. http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-winrt-everyth… for an in-depth explanation on this.
Replace it as the de-facto API, not replacing it as drop-in replacement, it isn’t.
beat me to it, WinRT is built on Win32.
I agree that in one sense i would prefer more compeition as even apple has been a little lax with their design because they think they own the market.
I also agree with Google, why spend resources on a platform that may not fully play out, when they get a bigger share Google will develop for them, Google gets its revenue from access their web services, they don’t really care how you do it, laptop, windows, mac, android as long as you connect.
It makes use of Win32 today, no one can say how it will look like in Windows 9, or whatever it is going to be called.
would ==> indicating a possible (but not definite) future action or state
Gee, why do people have to try to explain this every time, without imagination how it might look some releases ahead.
Perhaps because words have meaning, and us humans to this day seem to still lack the ability to read another person’s mind? 😉
I agree with you, btw.
Edited 2012-12-14 20:07 UTC
Because WinRT is an abstraction ontop of Win32, it can just as easily have Win32 removed in the future with consumers of the WinRT being none the wiser.
People always point this out “WinRT is built on Win32” as if it matters. .NET is built on Win32, but you don’t really say you as a developer are consuming Win32 because you’re not.
That means you’re not tied to the behavior of Win32, but to the behavior of WinRT. Its more than a subtle difference when it comes to legacy.
I’m happy enough for WP8 to flourish, but as a developer of production software on Windows, I sincerely hope Windows 8 and Metro die a quick and painless death. It brings nothing but pain and misery if you’re a developer of professional workstation applications running OpenGL. The effort required for our application to become a first class citizen on Windows 8 is probably less than the effort required to port it to MacOS or Linux.
Even the idea of creating a simpler, touch-friendly port for Metro is major pain because of the decision not to support OpenGL on Metro.
Metro makes me sad.
Qt decided to work around that with using Angle (OpenGL to Direct3D translation). But it’s not an ideal solution. In general MS nastiness and hate for open standards can turn any developer away from their platform, so I’m not really surprised about Google.
If Qt makes it through – you’ll have one decent option there.
See https://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt-5-on-Windows-8-and-Metro-UI
Edited 2012-12-14 16:32 UTC
Last time I checked, ANGLE didn’t work on WP8 because its API is too restricted compared to Windows 8. Has this changed?
I didn’t specifically monitor the progress. One of the blockers there was that Angle relies on DX9, while WP8 uses DX11, so Angle itself has to be updated first.
How does this differ from any other commercial vendor?
MS are easily the worst for it. Even Apple are more keen on embracing open standards than Microsoft are (CUPS, ODF, HTML5 (webkit far surpasses Trident), etc).
Edited 2012-12-15 10:49 UTC
They did it originally for survival when NeXTSTEP team came on board.
The original Apple was all about Apple’s own protocols and formats.
Nowadays they are going again to their old self, like any big corporation.
Just look at the amount of vendor extensions any given standard has.
Good point. I’d completely forgotten about Apple Talk et al
Corporations use standards to out source work. They don’t really care much for them. If there was a pre-packaged proprietary solution, they’d be just as keen on it.
That’s the hilarious irony when the open source community holds companies like Google, and formerly even Sun to some sort of higher ethical standard, as if they’re not just profit motivated corporations.
Apple isn’t much better. They also don’t like open standards, and use them only when they have no control over the situation. Look at their opposition to open video codecs and you’ll see it clearly.
But not every corporation is so low on business ethics, as to use crooked standards for lock in. Many are decent and favor interoperability and open standards.
Aiming for profit and being ethical are not contradicting interests. Contrary to what MS or Apple try to convince everyone around.
Edited 2012-12-15 22:44 UTC
Perhaps, I just don’t see Google, Apple, or Microsoft in this light. At all.
Look up “Windows Blue” and you’ll find out why Win 8 can’t die fast enough, because if it don’t MSFT intends to stick us on a YEARLY, yes yearly, upgrade treadmill ala OSX.
So while I agree innovation is good what we have now isn’t innovation, its Apple and ersatz Apple. the sooner Win 8 bombs hopefully the sooner the board will fire ballmer and we can get somebody in there that knows that windows is NOT made in cupertino.
Why would win8 die??? The vast majority of people will just use whatever Microsoft gives them without question.
If MS makes it, people will use it, simple as that.
You nailed it: The vast majority of people … that STILL is on Windows. That number is shrinking very fast. One of the reasons is that they are forced to use what Microsoft throws at them. Luckily they have choice today and can and in a lot of cases just switch to alternates like Android, iOS, OSX.
Edited 2012-12-16 11:29 UTC
Apple fight against Android with a tsunami of patents and endangering some of the main Google’s Partner. As a result, Google renews google maps for iOS 6 frantically
Microsoft doesn’t make any serious trouble to Android (keeping apart that small fee related with patents
). As a result, Google don’t want to develop for Windows 8 nor Windows 8 phone.
Therefore, if Redmond launch a hurricane of patents against Google, Google will quickly change this decision
I’m guessing that it has more to do with the low market share of Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 at present. As soon as enough people are using it, you can bet that Google will jump on board. Businesses are there to make money, not to play ideological wars.
But, you see, actually iOS is both more agressive and a more efficient competitor against Android. If this movement is against competitors, then google map for iOS is a clear contradiction. Apple Maps was going to be a phenomenal tool against Apple’s position as competitor of Google.
There is no ideology. There are brands and competition. That’s the reason I cannot understand why they aren’t going to offer google products for Windows 8. The raw majority of the PC that are going to be sold are going to be Windows 8, so market share of windows 8 is going to be necessarily high in some months.
Therefore, there is a weird decission here, specially keeping in mind the raw amount of damage that Apple has intended to produce to Android and Google’s partners.
Windows 8 != Windows Phone + RT
Google services/applications that are available for Windows 7 will work out of the box on Windows 8 using win32. WP8 and RT have win32 too but not allow using it for apps. You would need to rewrite anything. Lots of work to address only WP8 and RT and since nobody wants WP8 and RT [1] there is no point in that. Its just not worth the investment.
[1]
Poor Lumia WP8 sales
http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/12/nokia-corporation-adr-nysenok-lumi…
According to John C. Dvorak of PC-Mag, Windows 8 is……
A Rosier Year Ahead for Windows 8? Yeah, Right
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412327,00.asp
ZD-NET Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols also chime in his 2 cents on W8 tablet (NO ONE WANT WINDOWS TABLET)
Windows 8 Tablets: Born to fail
http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-tablets-born-to-fail-7000004389/
Stephen Chapman of ZDNET even told user to downgrade to Windows 7
From Windows 8 to Windows 7: why I downgraded
http://www.zdnet.com/from-windows-8-to-windows-7-why-i-downgraded-7…
Brad Chacos of PC-WORLD also think Windows8 failed
Windows 8: Does its 1-month report card read pass or fail?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2017110/windows-8-does-its-1-month-r…
John Matarese of ABCActionNews even say that MS Surface is an EPIC FAIL… Surface is the new playbook
Could Microsoft’s (MFST) Windows 8 and Surface tablet be an epic fail?
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/science_tech/could-microsofts…
Intel CEO Paul Otellini 2cents about Windows 8
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57520193-75/intel-ceo-slams-windo…
Windows 8 fails to impress US analysts
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/windows-8-fails-to-impress-us-analysts/3…
Sales of Lumia lower then expected
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20121212183332_Sales_of…
Searching out all those sources that you think prove your point, you really have some unhealthy obsession…
Shouldn’t Apple be more concerned about Microsoft than Google?
http://mashable.com/2012/07/10/microsofts-ballmer-war-on-apple/
“We are trying to make absolutely clear we are not going to leave any space uncovered to Apple,” Ballmer told CRN following the Worldwide Partner Conference in Toronto on Monday. “We are not. No space uncovered that is Apple’s.”
Google had apps on iOS from when iOS was first released. Apple shunned Google Maps for iOS6 in favor of their own maps program. Google had one ready, but didn’t think Apple would allow it. Low-and-behold, after the Apple Maps disaster, they submit it and it takes over iOS again.
It has nothing to do with patents. Rather, Apple probably had entered into a partnership with Google a while back to do it. That partnership dissolved but Google kept up what they were doing as it was still good for business.
Microsoft is irrelevant in the mobile space. They simply don’t get it. Sure they’ve made good strides with WinPhone7/7.5/8 but they continue to just not get it.
And as others have said, there is basically a very small market for Win8/WinPhone8/WinRT – its not enough to justify putting resources into. If the market changes and it becomes a larger market then that may change, but until then they’re leaving it alone.
And honestly, could you blame them?
Their existing apps work just fine on Win7, and likely in Legacy mode on Win8. If they did something in Win8 it’d mean redeveloping the entire app to more natively fit into the Metro UI, and then limit that version to only Win8. There’s just not enough market to make it worth it, and people just don’t like Win8 – especially on the desktop/laptop form factors.
Microsoft has their own patent lawsuits against Google and Motorola. It isn’t and will not make one iota difference in why the will or will not target Win8/WinPhone8 as the issue has nothing to do with patents and everything to do with whether there is enough of a user-base to get a sufficient ROI.
I think almost every point you make is incorrect or unfounded. There were no Google apps on iOS at launch, there were Apple written apps that used Google data (maps, you tube etc). The maps app in iOS was written by Apple and used Google maps data. Apple didn’t boot Google maps off of iOS it changed the back end of it’s own maps app to no longer use Google mapping data. It did that for a number of reasons, Google would not supply Turn By Turn functionality, Google wanted ads and Apple wouldn’t agree to having them in their Apple written app, and Apple quite reasonably felt vulnerable leaving it’s maps functionality wholly in Google’s hands.
There is no evidence that Apple delayed the deployment of the new google maps app.
I thought this was a good analysis of it all
http://techpinions.com/googles-directionless-map-strategy/13165
I am glad Apple’s marketing department was able, after tirelessly combing the internet, to find that single opinion piece that made Apple Maps not look like the ill strategized and executed fiasco it has been.
Good job boys!
As a follow up this was on Daring Fireball today.
So? I am sure google’s marketing department can come up with another opinion piece that reaches the opposite conclusion. Opinions, being what they are, are not the same as “facts.”
I have no idea what your point was, BTW. Corporations exist to make money/profit, period. Google has no obligation to provide any service to Apple, for free, in order to make their products functional. And Apple is under no obligation to do the same, or to use Google’s services.
In this case, Apple thought they had the upper hand, they over played it, missed, and screwed up big time. And that’s that…
I would be happy if their Voice and Plus apps had an API, so they could be plugged into the Windows 8 Messenger app, like Facebook is. When I chat with people on Facebook, I get a desktop notification when I get a PM, and I can reply from the desktop with a quick ALT+TAB.
You just don’t get that functionality in a browser with Voice/Plus, unless you use an extension, which will probably break on the next re-design, without some kind of API to access.
BTW: I like the desktop on Win8. It’s better than Win7, and besides what I just mentioned above, I forget Metro is even there most of the time.
Edited 2012-12-14 22:31 UTC
You mean like:
https://developers.google.com/+/api/
Google Voice is a little more problematic, but the community seems to have some solutions:
http://code.google.com/p/pygvoicelib/
http://code.google.com/p/pygooglevoice/
http://code.google.com/p/google-voice-java/
You’re one of the few.
The Google Plus API is an API in name only: It only supports access to a read-only public feed of data. In other words, shit that nobody implementing a client cares about.
However, you’d know that if you looked at the links you throw around to try to prove people wrong.
That, and the Google Voice APIs are a complete shitfuck, and they’re not even APIs, they’re screen scraping solutions half the time, and the other half the time some lucky XML feed Google felt gracious enough to expose.
None of it is enough to make a client which isn’t brain dead.
So this becomes a case of A) Google grandstanding, because they will eventually write a Windows Store application. Mark my words, in a years time they’ll have Metro clients for their services, and B) Google taking the decision out of everyone’s hands by having a poor developer story to compliment their services.
> Mark my words, in a years time they’ll have Metro clients for their services
And you already got proven wrong. Microsoft announced Windows Blue to come in a year and Windows 9 Blue apps will not run on Windows 8 Metro 🙂
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/141676-windows-blue-microsofts…
“Once Blue has been rolled out, the insider sources claim that the Windows Store will no longer accept apps that are designed specifically for Windows 8”
You find similar articles about Win8/9 app-incompatibility all over the internet at various big tech news sides. Microsoft not denied that to happen, not clarified or promised compatibility. Windows Blue may bring us finally yearly Windows API incompatibilities :/
There is one bold statement Microsoft pushes: Our APIs are constantly changing. Not port apps to our latest and greatest short-term API yet cause it WILL be deprecated in some months! Silverlight anyone?
Edited 2012-12-16 11:52 UTC
a closed constantly changing api. That’s always a winner (not). I wonder how that leaked?
Microsoft has not announced anything. Stop making things up.
This happens on every app store (except Android, where upgrading devices is a problem), if you were a developer you’d understand.
What happens is
A) The update is pushed out to all eligible devices.
B) Developers update their apps for the new release, but can maintain their old app side by side.
C) There is a grace period (For Windows Phone it was about 6-7 months or until Mango install base dwarfed that of Windows Phone 7.0) to submit apps for old and new
D) Old apps are eventually no longer supported once it no longer makes sense to.
This happens for every SDK release that contains a breaking change, and it is nothing new. The Windows Runtime supports versioning of components, so app compatibility isn’t an issue.
In fact, Microsoft has already tested this in the wild. During the Windows 8 RC and Windows 8 RTM, the SDK had breaking changes. However, during the RC the Windows Store opened up for submissions. They let developers keep their app in the store, and included the RC WinRT environment for apps which specifically needed, and the RTM WinRT environment for apps that were brand new. Eventually, RC apps were no longer accepted once a majority of people upgraded to RTM.
It is the same exact deal, and the point you’re making really isn’t a point as much as it is bullshit.
Talking about the intricacies of the Windows Store with someone who develops Windows Store apps for a living is not very sensible of you, cdude.
That’d be a good thing. I’m in favor of a constantly evolving API, especially since I’m very candid about the limitations of the current API, and ways it can be improved.
What about Silverlight? My Windows Phone Silverlight app was ported to Windows 8 in less than a weeks time.
You do NOT know ANYTHING about this subject, I suggest you drop it now.
So cdude, you don’t even realise (and/or don’t want to realise) that Silverlight basically lives on, under different name…
I find that a very logical step. Why should Google support a competitor, who’s still fighting with patents? It’s hard to believe Google Maps was released for iOS… I hope this will change in the near future.
Google is making money with its services. If there are users Google will offer them there services so they can make money. If that’s on Android, on iPhone, on Blackberry or on xyz is not relevant as long as they can reach users and are not blocked by app-store policies. They not do for WP8 cause there are no users (beside rounding errors) on WP8. Its for the same reason other ISV’s will not deliver to WP8 either: its just not worth the investment.
Edited 2012-12-15 09:17 UTC
Oh well, gets my long-delayed migration off of Googles tools underway. The way it seems now Microsofts offerings are available on all the platforms I use, where Googles are not. Annoyingly Google has not even updated their stuff for mobile IE yet, so I am quickly losing patience with them either way.
That was one of the few gripes I had when I was using WP7. I didn’t blame Microsoft, as the version of IE on that platform is actually one of the best mobile browsers available, and it worked exceptionally well with other heavily dynamic sites.
Of course, Google is under no obligation to make their web apps play nice with every browser out there; in fact I’ve been pleasantly surprised when Google products seemed to work better in Firefox or Opera than Chrome. However, their overly dismissive attitude towards Windows Phone and Windows 8 seems to go against their mantra of openness. At least, if you define “openness” as being willing to work with their competitors towards a common goal of a truly standards based, open Internet.
I’m not sure if that Google still exists.
I do not think that Google actively does things to lock out mobile Internet Explorer.
But the standard for the mobile Internet is Webkit. So Microsoft will either have to switch to Webkit, or emulate its behavior in places where standards are ambiguous.
That this is possible even with limited resources is demonstrated very well by Mozilla and Opera.
Google is sniffing the user agent and changing behavior for IE. So they are clearly in the wrong either way, having IE “pretend” to be webkit is clearly not a solution suitable for the modern web.
Yes, they are working around IE limitations and bugs. I think most web-developers know well that IE is the most problematic browser still. So, for complex web-apps you sometimes just need to special case IE to make it working in some way.
Webkit is an engine, not a standard. For a good primer on what constitutes web standards, see this:
http://www.w3.org/standards/
WebKit is a de facto standard. It does not matter if you like that or not.
A decade ago IE6 had a similar stand. Unlike IE WebKit is at least continues driven forward, fixes issues rather then turning them into standards every web-developer and browser has to deal with and its FLOSS with lots of different implementations (Safari, Chrome, Adobe AIR, etc) and has an open development process. Even Microsoft could join and integrate WebKit into IE. WebKit is the de facto industry standard and that is way better for the internet, for all of us, then what we had with the IE-lockin the decade before.
Edited 2012-12-15 09:56 UTC
No it is not!
You making stuff up does not make it so. WebKit is one of 3 primary engines with almost identical marketshare.
WebKit does dominate mobile browsers but that only makes WebKit a “de facto” of a very small browsing market.
Additionally, Opera has also a very big share there – probably bigger than simple web hits statistics show (because Opera Mini is used largely on simple & inexpensive “feature phones” – owners of which are likely to browse less – it can have a bigger share of users than it seems in http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201111-201211 and such)
The problem is more that IE10 still does not support basic web standards like WebGL. All browsers support WebGL and eg Google Maps uses it. IE10 does not for political reasons (they push for DirectX, ActiveX and other Windows-only tech they control to lockin). In the public Microsoft argues WebGL isn’t a standard (it is, its supported by all other Browsers out there and HTML5 is a living-standard) and that its insecure (allright, thats why all other browsers support it while IE does the way more secure ActiveX, LOL).
So, not blame Google or the Internet if IE10 is still not able to proper render content. Its Microsoft’s decision. They are responsible for you are not having a full internet-experience on your WinPhone. They not do so for strategic reason. Not supporting web standards, not allowing alternate browsers on there WinPhone’s who do proper support web-standards. Not blame everybody else but Microsoft. Only they decide how well IE plays with standards, only they can do changes in IE. In fact Google worked around this in the past by offering Chrome Frame for IE on Windows 7. They cannot for WinPhone cause Microsoft does not allow them to do so. Its a strategic decision. If you not agree with Microsoft then blame Microsoft. Not buy there product if you are not happy with it. There are enough alternates out which all sell better and do proper support web standards. Buy them.
Edited 2012-12-15 09:34 UTC
Other examples of browsers that do not support webGL: The Android Browser, Safari for iOS. And thus 99% of the mobile browser market. webGL is nowhere near getting a seal of approval at the W3C yet. Google Maps is not among the services I was hoping to run in the browser on my mobile phone today (it runs rather badly on all phone browsers still). You are either being disingenuous or you’re deluded.
Both wrong. The new Android Browser is Chrome: Supported. Safari for iOS supports WebGL too. Please check your facts.
WHATWG lists it. I repeat: HTML5 is a Living Standard. WebGL is de facto standard by being supported by all major browsers except IE. Just like lot of the other de facto standards its just a matter of time till included into the W3C specification. W3C is slow you have to know. That’s why WHATWG was born and why HTML5 became a living standard.
Edited 2012-12-15 10:09 UTC
You really need to call up and tell the caniuse.com guys about all the ways in which they are wrong: http://caniuse.com/webgl . Now, in the event that you are just making shit up to support an already poor argument I guess webGL is not anywhere near a de-facto standard on mobile after all. Either way; Google does not use it for any of their mobile pages, and this whole line of argument is pointless.
They don’t even say how or against what the tests where performed. That alone is unserious. They eg say Apple iOS Safari does not support WebGL but failed to note that it does for selected websides or if you apply something like http://demoseen.com/webglenabler/ for all.
So iOS does not support WebGL, and a vast, vast majority of phones don’t support WebGL because Chrome is far from being the majority browser on Android.
Speaking of de-facto, WebGL is de-facto absolutely nowhere.
Besides, Khronos isn’t part of the W3C, and thus their WebGL isn’t a fucking standard.
The fact that they’re a direct competitor to DirectX, and then people have the nerve to question why Microsoft doesn’t cede ground to a direct competitor is ridiculous.
If you want a palatable standard for 3D on the web, you’re either going to have to make it agnostic to the underlying rendering technology, or not take anything at all.
Microsoft will not capitulate to WebGL, it runs counter to their entire strategy with DirectX, for dubious gain.
Hach, come on. iOS supports it and you can verify yourself. I proved your source wrong. So either you have a better source or not.
iOS supports it for iAds, unless you do some wizardy to get it to work in the general browser.
That’s not the same thing as “iOS supports WebGL in Safari”
The real nefarious thing is that the Khronos group wants to just wish themselves to be a standard, and then their footsoldiers like you go out and spread the gospel about how everyone else must submit.
Even Microsoft goes through the appropriate standards bodies before claiming something is a standard.
Its not enabled as default, that is correct. Things are still changing and WebGL is a huge thing. When you enable it for all as default you better make sure its performed ct. Especially on mobile devices like iPhone where WebGL 3D GPU stuff can eat your battery if you not do it right.
The point is, its there and constantly improving. In Firefox, in Opera, in Safari, in Chrome. They all work on it, make it better, make it great and once the Tim is come (and I am sure that is ore winner then later) it I’ll be enabled as default.
But the IE team does not do anything like that. They not even work on it, push it to the public (disabled as default too) so public CAN TEST, give feedback and help to make there implementation fast, per formant and compatible. Microsoft just ignores it. Rejects it. Case of political reasons since WebGL does not fit into there ActiveX/DirectX vendor lock in strategy. No, its a danger even to enable interoperability.
Its the same Microsoft certified creates own standards to not be compatible with open standards story we saw and still see for decades. After all this years, after multiple anti-trust cases and official public law-punishment cause of that strategy you not really like to argue against that. Or do you? Is your point that all the judges, the law and the antitrust cases are wrong?
Ok, some WebGL is constantly changing and you want Microsoft to implement it NOW? How about finish it first, take it to the appropriate standards bodies, and then come back?
These things should be debated in the open, and I’m sure there are more than a fair amount of people who think WebGL is a laughably bad idea. It’s a ridiculous shim between JS and OpenGL which should never exist.
Especially, if, as you said, it destroys battery life. So no, WebGL isn’t enabled on iOS. You’re just making shit up, AGAIN.
So it’s not enabled by default. Okay. No need for a long paragraph, just say its not enabled by default, and don’t try to argue with me as if I was wrong before. You were wrong, you misled, and you got caught. AGAIN.
Microsoft does not generally implement “standards” that are in a state of flux. Internet Explorer releases come with an implicit guarantee of support for years to come. It isn’t like Firefox 87 or Chrome 215.
And DirectX does not fit into Khrono’s OpenGL strategy. Its two sides to one coin.
Why don’t browser vendors implement XAML? An ISO standard for application markup? Why do they continue to put resources into HTML5?
Because it runs contrary to their core position as a technology. What you’re asking for is unreasonable. I’m sure that Microsoft would love an immediate API for the Web, but it will never, EVER be OpenGL.
Make it platform agnostic and you may have something that Microsoft can accept. And if people don’t do it soon, they risk Microsoft doing it their own way, submitting it to a standards body, and doing an end run around WebGL. And it’ll be all Khrono’s fault.
You and people who believe that WebGL should be everywhere have, or are destroying any possibility of an interoperable API for 3D on the web by refusing to play ball with the biggest player in the room.
If Microsoft creates their own standards, test suites, and submits them to a standards body, there is NOTHING wrong with that. Just because they don’t cherry pick YOUR standards, doesn’t mean they’re not still open.
You’re being ridiculous.
I keep re-reading this thicket of bullshit, but I can’t find sense of any of it.
When was that? In my experience, Google products always neglected Opera …which I use fairly consistently as my main browser for over half a decade.
I don’t think this has to do with them “determined” no to develop for the WP8 and Win8 platforms. If WP8 gains enough traction, then they will. Google is an advertising company … they will go where the eyeballs are. They did not rule out development for it … not just now.
I am not sure how Microsoft’s payment requirements is. Is it better terms than Apple’s App Store?
-D
Yes, in general the Windows Store is much more developer friendly than the iOS terms and conditions. Including keeping more revenue once you hit > $25k
You don’t really believe what Google is using as justification do you? You could make the case that WP8 doesn’t have a sufficient userbase (although all signs indicate a large increase of 3-4 times), but Windows 8 sold a ton of licenses to date, with no signs of that decreasing.
“but Windows 8 sold a ton of licenses to date”
Microsoft is known for inflating sales figures in an effort to generate hype. For example, see Vista.
Now that being said, assuming MS isn’t tampering with numbers again and that they actually have sold 40 million licenses or whatever they claim, one has to remember that a lot of that, probably in the area of 3/4’s of that figure, is for OEM. Now assuming that 3/4’s is fairly accurate, that means they’ve really only sold 10 million licenses via retail. Now assume that roughly half of those sold by retail just wanted to try 8 and ended up downgrading <really an upgrade> back to whatever they were using. probably 3 to 5 million people using windows 8 vs 10’s of millions using 7/xp/OSX/linux/bsd/whatever isn’t a huge user base.
Edited 2012-12-14 16:01 UTC
The numbers from MS was 4 million upgrades in the first 4 days. Obviously, that number has increased exponentially since then. According to Steam, Windows 8 usage share on their platform has already surpassed OSX.
There is very little reason to doubt that Windows 8 will have a very large market share (much larger than OSX).
Exactly. That’s my point: go to any hardware store and look for PCs: most of them are offered with windows 8.
Small market share? That’s a succesful bet against reality. Therefore, there are other reasons involved, pretty strange if with take the goodwill to Apple into account
I don’t believe this is about market share. That’s just too easy.
From a Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 user (thanks to Apple for giving me reasons to start exploring other tech), I can tell you that with regards to WP8 there isn’t much demand for Google dedicated apps. The reason? I don’t think Google can outdo what’s already available for Windows Phone. Let’s take a look:
Google Drive: No thanks. SkyDrive integration is strong already. It allows the automatic uploading of taken photos from my phone. It automatically syncs all of my Microsoft Office documents. My OneNote data is stored on SkyDrive as well. What could Google Drive actually bring to the table.
GMail dedicated app: Why? The Mail app on my Windows Phone is sufficiently beautiful. It already does server searches on all my mail and I can link all my e-mail inboxes to one Live Tile if I want. What could a dedicated Gmail app bring to the table? Nothing compelling enough for the effort.
Google Docs: Don’t need it now, since I have Microsoft Office on my Phone with SkyDrive integration. I’m quite sure it works fine in the HTML5 IE10 browser though. Again, what could Google do to really turn an enduser.
Google Voice app: Don’t need it. GoVoice and MetroTalk are *the* apps to use if you want a seamless Google Voice experience on your phone.
YouTube dedicated app: Don’t need it OR want it. Have you seen MetroTube? Talk about a quality app. I would rate this app in the top two best apps for Windows Phone.
So my point is Google might be trying to tell us one thing, but reality is that there isn’t much demand for a Google branded experience on Windows Phone. Everything important is already replicated nicely.
Stats from NetMarketShare (and the like) disagree with you. Already at 1.41% after only 5 weeks. Will overtake Linux at 1.45% which had a 20 year head start.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qp…
Edited 2012-12-14 17:58 UTC
Nice (not) how you include Win8 desktop into your WP8/RT calculation but exclude Android from Linux.
Even if you do, their total marketshare is less than 10%, not something that will be difficult for Microsoft to surpass given that Windows XP and Windows 7 are the single biggest operating systems.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/windows_market_share_just_2…
These figures are misleading, as they don’t count the installed base of Windows, only the previous quarter sales.
This would be fine if it was just a mobile OS to mobile OS comparison, because the upgrade cycles are similar, but a PC at home is upgraded much less frequently than a mobile device.
I hate to be cliché, but: Apples to oranges.
This is why browser usage stats online hold much more validity to their claims (which you conveniently, and in an ad hominem manner dismiss):
They measure actual usage, not just new purchases. The fact that quite possibly a lot of the Android devices being purchased are used as junky feature phones is telling.
Android’s mysterious sales have never directly translated to mobile web usage, ever.
Still, it is quite good that Microsoft is at 20% marketshare for new devices.
You are as wrong today, as the people who claimed the Lumia took China by storm were back a few months ago. They’re making the same fundamental mistake as you.
However, this is a trend with your comments. You find a source, any source, where the numbers are contorted enough to meet your agenda and you spam it all over the comments.
To the non eagle eyed reader it will seem as if you’ve made some kind of brilliant point, when in reality you’ve fallen victim to the same ignorance as the layman. Congrats cdude, but you’re not as impressive as you think.
Install base is included as those NEED to either upgrade cause XP is EOL soon OR need to switch to Windows alternates. So they are direct Windows-license and Hardware sells IF they upgrade.
The difference is that install-base is not counted as being catches into Windows forever. They have choice and you can easily interpolate from past switches (and loses) how much of them would upgrade to Windows 8 Metro.
Those numbers also make one thing even more clear: The PC market is shrinking very very fast and with it the Wintel market share. In contrast consumer devices like Smart phones and Tablets are accelerating more and more. Those numbers are as of today but taking the market dynamics into account tomorrow Microsoft may down to 10% market share or even lesser.
The important fact is: Microsoft Windows is not the de facto OS on computers any longer. It is not even number 1 any longer. Android took over. Very fast and contin to grow inan incredible speed.
The installed based is NOT included in those numbers. Do not lie.
Of course, you would be able to, but that’s precisely what you’re not doing. You’re using the source as a big headliner: Windows drops from 97% to 20% in marketshare. Sure, I’ll buy that Windows is at 20% of NEW sales of ALL mobile computing devices period, but that’s nothing new.
Windows has not been a player in the mobile space, specifically the tablet space for the latter part of the decade. So them suddenly having a precipitous drop is a consequence of a wider playing field without an adequate response from Microsoft, not a consumer lukewarm reaction to Windows.
Windows 8 looks to change that by A) Making an aggressive push into tablets at a time when OEMs feel scorned by Android, and B) Unify the ecosystem among Tablets, Laptops, and Desktops.
In essence, they are bootstrapping their Tablet ecosystem on the back of Desktop Windows. It is a brilliant backdoor into marketshare.
The Windows installed base, including new sales dwarfs that of Android, and will continue to do so for years, and the PC upgrade cycle will kick in and have a positive effect on sales of Windows by virtue of it being Windows.
This in turn will be a shot in the arm for the ecosystem, which will drive mobile device sales forward. There is already preliminary data suggesting Windows 8 has had both incredible sales, and a halo effect on Windows Phone.
Windows Phone Store submissions are up 40%, sales are up 4x YoY, and the Windows Phone store is pushing 120k apps (with the Windows Store well on its way to 100k, probably by January).
Something incredible is happening, and you’d be foolish to discount the extremely positive effect that a healthy ecosystem where app developers make great money will have on the market.
Yeah, a trend… (reminds me about one exchange with cdude http://www.osnews.com/thread?525365 where he seems to think it’s OK to latch onto parts of sentences; and generally in that story)
But then, it sometimes even seems he barely has a grasp of EN…
That in no way says how many actual users there are. The majority of Windows 8 sales have been to OEMs for computers the OEMs are selling. Microsoft, of course, counts those in their overall sales numbers as they should, but those numbers say nothing concerning what happens to those copies of Windows 8 after the OEMs acquire it. Do the users run it? Do they take advantage of a Windows 7 downgrade license instead, or even wipe the OEM Windows and use their own os (be it a clean copy of Windows or another)? Have said machines even been purchased yet? Proof of licenses, in Microsoft’s case, does not translate into proof of a significant user base.
Who cares how they get there? The point is, they get there.
I always found this laughable:
UserA: Microsoft has sold XYZ licenses.
UserB: But..but there’s no way to tell how many of those are end user sales
UserA: Uh, but go to every sales channel and look at every PC, it’s preinstalled with Windows.
UserB: But..
UserA: Which means PC sales have a strong correlation with Windows sales, and PC sales are still relatively healthy.
Windows 8 will be installed on a majority of new PCs sold, and will command a monumental market share. More than iOS, more than Android, but somehow people will still find ways to contort the numbers and make it look like a failure.
> PC sales are still healthy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/11/12/pc-sales-could-de…
And we are not talking about 0.something % but huge percentage with two decimals every year. That is while world width the computer market is GROWING fast.
Analysts say whatever they want, and are conveniently ignored by some here (including yourself) when they run contrary to the message you’re trying to relay.
You can find an analyst to say that Windows Phone will become a leader in mobile by 2016, you can find an analyst to say that Apple is announcing the iPhone 12 next Thursday. This isn’t scientific as much as it is fancy guess work.
Microsoft is a monopoly (look it up). Unfortunately, nothing has been done to change the “business”… so today, when you go to buy a PC (not Apple), you get whatever OS Microsoft says you get. And right now, that’s going to be Windows 8. This creates the forced transition over time.
Sure… vendors could rebel, but they haven’t shown signs of that so far, so Windows 8 is a reality… and not by choice.
Acer did publicly criticize Microsoft for the Surface RT, which is a very unusual move. They even went so far as to predict negative impact for other business areas (read: PC sales).
That the others remained mum so far doesn’t mean that they don’t rebel (e.g. by burying or delaying their Windows RT tablet plans).
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/7/3225094/acer-ceo-jt-wang-microsoft…
Windows RT is a different beast than Windows 8. With Surface (or whatever it is called this week) Microsoft is competing directly with their HW OEMs, so it makes sense for Acer to be less than thrilled with that system.
And so did various ISV’s like Valve and Blizzard.
Also Win8 Pro includes a free downgrade-option to Win7 official granted from Microsoft but they are still counted as Win8 sells. Some hardware-vendors even deliver with the downgrade active already. They are still counted as Win8 sells too.
There are reasons Microsoft only gives out sold units and not activations like Google does with Android. There are reasons a free downgrade to Windows 7 is included.
Edited 2012-12-15 10:22 UTC
Do you have any evidence to suggest users en-masse downgraded to Windows 7?
No? Oh, alright.
Well, I go to ceneo.pl (possibly the most popular and well-known here catalogue of products and online shops; surely you have similar services…), to “laptops” category (noting that a laptop without an OS is the most popular one), pick “no OS” and “Linux” options, and…
http://www.ceneo.pl/Laptopy;017P8-250094-250095.htm
…get over 400 products, mostly from large and well-known PC vendors. Similar for netbooks or desktops (just picked the example of laptops since they’re most popular now, and typically the subject of local conspiracy theories from ~Linux-faithful – before they see the above search on ceneo)
You’re seriously telling us that your place lags in anything-tech-related behind… Poland?
But BTW, most of those machines end up with Windows, anyway (oh, and that’s no-crapware-included Windows) – at best a MSDNAA license, often pirated. People want and choose Windows, accept it finally; Windows is almost certainly pirated more than the number of desktop Linux users.
Seriously? After one month of sales Windows 8 already had 1% of the global market share (about as much as all Linux combined). In less than 6 months it will overtake Mac OS.
“Go where the users are” — Sounds more like a personal vendetta than a business plan.
Windows 8 installed base is still dwarfed by the mobile operating systems like Android and iOS and will likely never surpass them, as the PC market is shrinking, and now smaller than the market for mobile computing devices.
If OS X is overtaken by Windows 8 and users actually demand Metro applications (as opposed to shutting down Metro and installing a 3rd party start menu), then Google will certainly follow the users.
What?! Care to back that up with some actual facts? While I agree the desktop market is shrinking but it still accounts for >85% of the market. Based on the simple volumes Windows 8 WILL surpass Android and iOS and very soon.
Sources:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qp…
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-201111-2012…
>80% was in the 90s. And no, browser-stats of a hand-full of selected US websides are not representative. Today its 20%. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/windows_market_share_just_2…
Those 20% are all Windows desktop (including XP+Vista+Win7+Win8) with backwards-compatible win32-API and CE+WinPhone7+WinPhone8+SurfaceRT with backwards-incompatible Metro-API and no win32-support combined.
Google services and apps that did run on Windows 7 will continue to work on Windows 8. Its only about the total incompatible WP+RT. Those count of <2% market share. A rounding error that isn’t even listed any longer in most market-share stats.
Edited 2012-12-15 10:39 UTC
Facts? A report about a report of a leaked report from an investment firm — No facts, just opinion.
I’ll take browser stats from a “hand-full” of websites as actual representation over speculation any day. Or are you going to say that 90% of Android users don’t browse on their phones?
Edited 2012-12-16 06:04 UTC
Correct. More then 90% of the Android users are not browsing to the hand-full of *US* web-sites statcounter monitors.
Read the article I linked again. It explains things in great detail. For market share even stat counter says there numbers are not representative.
Edited 2012-12-16 12:30 UTC
Microsoft has been less aggressive towards Android in the patent wars. How long we don’t know.
I goes to reason that you would rather foster a market for the less aggressive competitor then the others.
Which will undermine sales of the aggressor.
Releasing Windows apps might help in this regard.
Edited 2012-12-14 20:13 UTC
Less aggressive? Microsoft has been suing almost every major android handset vendor for royalties for the past few years.
Under that context, why would google go out of their way to enhance the functionality of a competing product by microsoft?
Edited 2012-12-14 20:34 UTC
Yes, less aggressive. Apple generally seeks for sale ban’s more often while Microsoft are more licensing friendly.
It depends then on what your personal definition of “aggressive” is.
All of the 3 players here; apple, microsoft, and google do not mess around when it comes to enforce their patents. I assume microsoft would have sought similar sales bans if the targeted android vendors had refused to pay the requested per-device fees to microsoft.
Of course, that’s the point of a royalty bearing license. The difference is that Microsoft is willing to play ball and monetize Android. Apple is not, or has not in the past been willing to do so.
Microsoft is a lot more even handed with Android than any other company, and has a signed up a majority of Android OEMs and ODMs.
Microsoft has to “monetize” on android because it has no choice, as it was almost squeezed out from that market. If Apple and Microsoft smartphone market shares were switched, their roles would be switched as well.
Microsoft has no problem acting like an 800lb gorilla in those markets where it is the 800lb gorilla.
Has Microsoft ever aggressively shut a competitor out of the market using patents before? I don’t think they have, their Intellectual Property licensing program is pretty extensive, and has always been.
I’m not sure its because of the position their in, considering that Android encroaches not just on Windows Phone, but on Windows. If it were really about going thermonuclear, so to speak, you’d see a lot more of Apple in Microsoft.
I think Microsoft realizes that’d be a zero sum game though, and is much happier turning Android into another revenue stream. Its the easiest billion dollars they ever made, I bet.
I actually like WP8, it is an interesting user experience although I haven’t used it for extended periods of time.
However thus far it seems to have a poor integration with gmail, which to me personally is a deal breaker. I was expecting google to release a native client for it, pity.
What’s wrong with the WP Gmail integration? I’ve used it on my WP7/7.5 since launch with no problems. Only think I miss is Google Talk calls but I have no problems with the mail and contact syncing.
Edited 2012-12-14 23:42 UTC
If you use gmail just as a mail service, I assume nothing is missing really. But some of us switched over gmail because of the value added stuff (organizing mail conversations, search services, integration with google voice/services, etc). That is not yet fully supported on WP8, or at least it wasn’t when I last checked a couple of weeks ago.
I am not saying that everybody needs it, but I am used to it.
This is Google’s reply to Microsoft’s “Do not track”.
Nothing like a bit of viral to spread a few untruths around the net and earn a few cheap ass ad clicks.
This is what was ACTUALLY said:
“We have no plans to build out Windows apps. We are very careful about where we invest and will go where the users are but they are not on Windows Phone or Windows 8,” he said.
“If that changes, we would invest there, of course.”
For once, not RTFA is actually recommended.
I had a look at the local (Brisbane Australia) phone shops yesterday. People were drooling over the new Nokia and HTC WP8 models. Asus were also promoting their new ultrabooks which attracted a lot of attention.
Edited 2012-12-15 05:43 UTC