MS's business future, particuarly in mobile space *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

One can be curious, sure, but I can't see that it's sad for anyone who can't run YT in a browser on an Android device. There's nothing negative about the YT app experience that means people using the app over the browser are missing out and have reason to be sad.

 

[liolio]

It might be pretty rough to be in MSFT pants at the moment, Google set sort of a "far west" in the mobile realm, OS is free, plenty of studio and devs see Android as an Eldorado, ultimately really few are making money. Google does some though I think that the model for most devs is not sustainable, there are few rationale behind that model, it is not profitable enough, too risky.
Though till people have faith in the fact that they can make a living with such a business model it is extremely tough for more traditional, profitable, approaches to compete.

Now I don't think that MSFT strategy is the best, the "weird" blend of RT and 7 that Windows 8 is a testament to that... I think that to do better MSFT should go through a massive reorg and do some risky moves in the personal realm. That is a hard sell to investors.

 

[tuna]

One can be curious, sure, but I can't see that it's sad for anyone who can't run YT in a browser on an Android device. There's nothing negative about the YT app experience that means people using the app over the browser are missing out and have reason to be sad.

Apparently it was a "cluster" for eastmen on his note2. I was sad for him.

 

[eastmen]

Is there any point?? The YT app works fine, with no limitations AFAIK now (it used to not allow HQ on mobiles). Why would anyone want to avoid using it?

the point is simple. Even on Android created by google who created youtube , you still need an app to have a good experience .

The browser experience is shitty for youtube.

 

[betan]

I don't know much about the browser experience of Youtube on Android as I use the official app because Android and Firefox allows/enables it, but Youtube on iOS Safari works fine.

 

[tuna]

The browser experience is shitty for youtube.

Not everyone agrees with you.

 

[blakjedi]

Then they should've built it to requirements........

if the goalposts continue to move, theres no way to win. Seems purposeful.

 

[eastmen]

Not everyone agrees with you.

no apparently not , but that doesn't change much does it. If everyone had a great mobile browser experience they wouldn't need an app. So it seems google agrees with me by the very existence of the app

 

[tuna]

no apparently not , but that doesn't change much does it. If everyone had a great mobile browser experience they wouldn't need an app. So it seems google agrees with me by the very existence of the app

People build apps all the time even if they don't need them.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

People build apps all the time even if they don't need them.

^This.

Making "dedicated" apps for every single thing is getting to ridiculous levels nowadays.
Especially with so many websites waving dedicated paths/UIs for mobile browsers.
For example IMDB. There's a mobile path for the webrowser. And then there's a dedicated app... which is just a copy of the mobility version of the webpage.
What gives?

 

[DrJay24]

no apparently not , but that doesn't change much does it. If everyone had a great mobile browser experience they wouldn't need an app. So it seems google agrees with me by the very existence of the app

That is one big logical fail. Does twitter make an app because browsers can't handle it? You are making a causal connection that does not exits. Apps exist namely for simplicity and ease of use, everything has an app. That's not to say that dedicated apps can outperform a browser, but that is not what you said.

 

[eastmen]

Twitter has an app because the mobile browsers stink for twitter

 

[DrJay24]

Twitter has an app because the mobile browsers stink for twitter

Logical... so could that be the reason a YouTube app exists?

 

[blakjedi]

^This.

Making "dedicated" apps for every single thing is getting to ridiculous levels nowadays.
Especially with so many websites waving dedicated paths/UIs for mobile browsers.
For example IMDB. There's a mobile path for the webrowser. And then there's a dedicated app... which is just a copy of the mobility version of the webpage.
What gives?

Herein lies the problem with ecosystem reviews. People denigrate windows 8 (Metro) and WP8 for not having apps.. but having 700K apps most of which are redundant,(20000 calculator apps), are dumb apps (fart apps) or just suck makes using just that variable useless. .

For those businesses which dont have a dedicated, the W8/WP8 browser is so high quality that it can run full web browser as well as mobile site ui just as effectively.

There are some really ridiculous "separators" people create...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

no apparently not , but that doesn't change much does it. If everyone had a great mobile browser experience they wouldn't need an app. So it seems google agrees with me by the very existence of the app

Not to mention that a native app will generally perform better, have lower OS overheads than the browser and integrate with the host OS and other OS and OS services better.

If I'm logged into Twitter/Facebook in iOS (at OS level), I can share YouTube stuff really easy to multiple services (social networks, text, iMessage etc) from the native app. If I'm relying on the browser it's far less seamless.

There will always be shitty/buggy apps, but for the most part I'll take a native app over a web-interface.

 

[bkilian]

If I'm logged into Twitter/Facebook in iOS (at OS level), I can share YouTube stuff really easy to multiple services (social networks, text, iMessage etc) from the native app. If I'm relying on the browser it's far less seamless.

Yeah, they kinda "appropriated" that from WP7, and Kin before that. It's nice seeing them make some progress towards usability.

 

[liolio]

I follow yesterday conference from Apple, they are doing significant changes to their strategy.
In the face of lowering market shares and bad economics:
they are lowering their prices.
They are "standardizing the hardware" on their mobile products
they are giving their new OS for free.
they are not blending iOS and MacOS though the apps on those platforms are strongly converging.

Now it could really well do nothing for their sales, revenues and margins but I think that at least they are doing the right thing. Now if you compare to what MSFT is doing... it looks a lot like MSFT is going the contrary of the "right thing":
they are splitting their user base in many ways, between apps and programs and windows 8 and previous windows version.
Surface (rt) is expensive imo if you compare the overall value to what an iPad get you.
They are confusing their users by blending their mobile and "traditional" OS.
They are to diversifying the hardware they are supporting with winphone/windows RT.

The picture looks pretty grim to me. At this point I wonder if actually the right and ballsy move for MSFT would have been to mostly phase out vanilla windows from the personal space (it would still be available but more as a niche product) and really support RT/winphone as their new personal OS, no ambiguity. There are a lot of things MSFT can't do on vanilla windows because of the numerous convictions they had in monopole related lawsuit. The list is long:
they can't really make IE the only browser
not sure they could set up a proper appstore for X86 apps
They can't have office built-in
etc.
On the other hand, Apple gives its office for free on lots of its platforms, garage bands is hurting others audio software sales on Mac OS, Google deploys more and more apps on Android that can't be removed by the users even-though they are not using them, etc. MSFT could not do any of these move on Vanilla windows (they can add apps but there are no de facto desktop application for e-mail, etc.)

To the point while risky through Windows RT they could have broken away from many of the legal constrains they are facing (I guess with X86 applications).
Windows RT is a new product, they could not be suit (for monopolistic behaviors) even if they built in their apps and services somehow making it tough for other software providers to compete.
At this point, my belief is that plenty of users have realize that "vanilla windows" is to much for their use, it is a great product but it is a professional one, it does everything basically, supports everything, etc.

To the point Windows RT failure (for now) might really well be due to the fact that is it both the new OS MSFT wants to push in the personal realm but in the same time having to take the second seat to Windows. To me it almost look like MSFT was to do the move and lack the balls (I agree extremely massive ones) to do it.

That moves would have pretty extreme implications for companies like Valves which would have more serious reasons to complain about "windows" as MSFT could enforce the use of its appstore on an OS freed of the legal constrains they are facing elsewhere.
Windows RT should have been deployed not only on tablets but laptop and desktop, with along with a new "PC gaming market" etc. For the traditional windows users and gamers a windows 8 free of that disastrous UI (more the blend of imo 2 good UI) would still be available and pretty high end conf available from the usual retailers though pretty high end one.

As it is now it looks like MSFT stopped in the middle of the road they were crossing, that is risky too as there is a lot of traffic.

 

[Arwin]

Imho what they need is more integration with the Desktop, not less.

 

[liolio]

Imho what they need is more integration with the Desktop, not less.

What is the point? Most users would be fine with RT as long as there is a sane version of the office pack, a good email application, etc.
For serious users, well there would still be "vanilla windows". Windows RT is API agnostic, there could be real cheap all in one pc, etc.
The desktop is the alpha and omega for serious users, I don't see how their new approach can result in something more convenient.
Desktop can be improved that is for sure but I don't think the start screen is an improvement.
So could be the start screen (some more information akin to "beautiful systray could come handy, the lack of clock is bothering too).

Not too mention that they are splitting their users bases, de facto the devs that choose to develop "apps" pass on vanilla windows user base (now they can reach xb1 and phone). They are stuck in the middle and it is not clear to their business partners (from IHV to software developers) what environment to target.

I mod my wife and my phone (Android) with Launcher 7 and 8 (2 custom UI for Android), we are both liking it, it is imo neat, close to my favorite out of vanilla Android, iOS, even plain desktop for light uses.
Since 8.1 I try to use the desktop as few as possible, and it works. If I had a "libre office App" and games I would could mostly never use the desktop (outside of really productivity work). It would need little tweak, for example when you want to switch between apps (the good old alt+tab works though) and call the charm bar, it is uselessly long aka first appears the last apps you used and then you have the list by going down, if you were getting the list directly switching between apps would be every bit as fast on the desktop.

Desktop legitimacy is for high productivity work, it could be improve with more "desktops" as on Linux, may be some configurable charms bar could be great, etc. But touch friendly (and imho light usage friendly too) UI has another purpose fulfil the modern use of computing device.

 

[Arwin]

Most money goes into business users for one. Giving home users no option to use desktop applications just makes Windows a weaker infrastructure than any other, leveriging none of the advantages, and kililng the main appeal of the system (runs everything). Sure, there are advantages to the simpler systems, but then I would solve that problem differently: Microsoft could release a WinRT only version for Desktop systems and make that free (because fully integrated with the App Store, so the profit can come from just there).

What I would do if I were Microsoft is the following:

- make one WinRT that servers smartphones and tablets alike
- give WinRT App the option to extend their features with Win8 capabilities (run in Window, receive drag & drop)
- give x64/x86 applications the option to fully integrate into the Win8 menu
- make particularly the DeskTop UI prettier. On the Desktop, use transparency as background to the Tile interface, so that you see the Desktop through it. It's a huge psychological win. Use GPU features for animating various parts of the UI - Aero in Win7 was one of the first times ever that Windows actually looked sexy, and the Tile interface is a big step backwards.