
Microsoft Is Really Turning It the Fuck Around - evo_9
http://gizmodo.com/microsoft-is-really-turning-it-the-fuck-around-1686447907
======
a3n
With all the Microsoft links on HN this week, I feel I'm being marketed to.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Microsoft is having their Build conference this week, so lots of new
announcements and such.

------
nyrulez
Have Microsoft employees taken over HN ? All I see is MS on HN....every
positive MS article out there is on HN now.

~~~
Coincoin
This is /Build week. That's why there are so many news about MS.

------
m_mueller
The article has a tongue-in-cheek yet enjoyable way of getting people updated
on what MS is up to lately.

~~~
Silhouette
The trouble is, even with the tongue-in-cheek style, the article still didn't
mention a single thing Microsoft is planning that actually made me excited or
likely to give them any of my money. In fact, it didn't even try to suggest a
general strategy for how Microsoft is going to make its money when it starts
giving away one of its most significant products, other than repeated
reference to the ubiquitous "services".

I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again, but I don't understand
betting a company with Microsoft's strengths and track record on a mobile-
first, cloud-first strategy today. The mobile market is borderline stagnant,
having reduced consumer pricing expectations for both apps and on-line
services to the point where hardly anyone makes any money in that market any
more except for the huge advertising networks. The inevitable and always
blindingly obvious risks of relying on cloud services finally seem to be
getting some acknowledgement from Serious Business People(TM), while
increasingly privacy- and security-conscious individual users are even
starting to question the likes of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter these days.

Obviously Apple, Google and Facebook aren't going to go bust tomorrow, but a
lot of things seem to be trending _against_ a mobile-first, cloud-first
strategy lately. I'm still a little surprised they appointed a CEO who was
obviously going to push in that direction -- almost a "safe pair of hands", in
much the way Tim Cook has been at Apple -- rather than someone more visionary,
who might move or _create_ technology markets in the way Apple, Google, and
indeed Microsoft all have in their more innovative days but don't seem to any
more.

~~~
wlesieutre
> having reduced consumer pricing expectations for both apps and on-line
> services to the point where hardly anyone makes any money in that market any
> more except for the huge advertising networks.

Individual developers might not make much money, but the profits for Apple and
Microsoft depend on the sales as a whole across all developers. In Apple's
case, they're making plenty.

[https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/01/08App-Store-
Rings-i...](https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/01/08App-Store-Rings-
in-2015-with-New-Records.html)

It remains to be seen whether Microsoft can get anything close to that
momentum going in the Windows Store, but it's pretty clear they're trying to
move that way.

~~~
Silhouette
_Individual developers might not make much money, but the profits for Apple
and Microsoft depend on the sales as a whole across all developers. In Apple
's case, they're making plenty._

That's true for now, but I don't think it's sustainable.

Apple's effective monopoly on the distribution channel is already a big risk
for developers. You might not get approved at all, and have no real recourse
if you don't. You might be effectively forced to update existing apps to
comply with arbitrary new rules or UI guidelines because another iOS update
came out, even though there's nothing in it for you (except for not losing
what you already had). I've lost track of how much it costs or soon will cost
just to be able to develop and ship apps in the first place via Apple's App
Store, but it's more than nothing. And even if you jump through all the hoops,
the near-zero price point of any app no matter how large or high-quality is
now firmly established, and Apple can take a huge cut of those near-zero
revenues purely because they have that monopoly on distribution of software
for their own devices.

So for users, the software available for iOS is limited in scope and much of
it is junk. For developers, iOS apps are one of the most high-risk, low-reward
options, so that situation isn't going to change. And Apple's market share,
particularly among consumers, seems to be diving faster than you can say "Good
Android devices cost half as much", making iOS an ever-less-attractive
platform for new development. If you're Facebook and giving your app away for
free because you make your money another way, or if you're a specialist
consultancy making _business_ apps that integrate with cloudy things like
SalesForce and are priced accordingly, you're playing a different game. But
for typical consumer apps, the rules are heavily stacked against developers,
and sooner or later the only people left will be the naive ones who haven't
learned better yet, until the default wisdom becomes Android-first for any
app[1], at which point Apple's mobile device business model is finished (and
potentially so is Apple itself, though it's so huge now that like Microsoft
and IBM before it there will be several chances to reinvent itself and recover
first).

[1] Edit: Or Microsoft-first, if they really land Windows 10. Or Web-first, if
mobile browsers and the APIs for using features traditionally reserved for
native apps catch up. Web apps still have a huge advantage in portability
compared to native ones, and that will also get more important if
Microsoft/BlackBerry/anyone else manages to establish additional significant
mobile platforms that aren't iOS- or Android-based.

~~~
wlesieutre
Generally agreed. I'm one of those former iOS users who jumped ship to a
cheaper Android phone.

But while there's only so much room for $10 text editors like Vesper, there
are plenty of people who are content to keep dumping money into Candy Crush.
As much as I hate it, I don't see that revenue stream drying up. Even if
nobody ever wrote a new text editor for iOS, Apple would be fine. The 1000
editors that have been written already are enough.

MS's approach is pretty interesting. It's tempting to write it off as an OS/2
style "Why would anybody bother writing apps if it's compatible with Android"
scenario, but I see that more as a stop-gap to get their phones in people's
hands. Without it, people are missing work essential apps
(Hipchat/Slack/Trello/etc) and apps driven by friend-networks (Snapchat) that
can't be easily substituted, even if a similar alternative is available. Maybe
with this, they'll have a bit of luck in actually selling phones. And then the
native apps can trickle down from Universal Apps being developed for desktops
and tablets.

I hope they manage it, but the MS name has an awful lot of baggage attached.

------
ryanlol
I don't think I've ever encountered so broken mobile scrolling.

------
more_corn
Show me the product.

