XBox One and Windows 10 Programs [UWP, X0, W10]

What's the one thing that people rely on with consoles in the living room? When you buy a game for it, it runs well with consistent and predictable performance.
I don't think that's true. Console game performance varies widely from title to title - there's very little consistency. And those same consumers are well versed in choosing between low and high end devices with better performance or cheaper pricing. Picking a box that suits their purse and intentions is the basis of free market choice.
I took SB's comment to mean the performance of a particular title would be consistent. I.e. if I see Witcher 3 running my friends PS4, or see somebody broadcasting it on Now on PlayStation or Twitch, I know it'll run exactly like that on mine.
 
I don't think that's true. Console game performance varies widely from title to title - there's very little consistency. And those same consumers are well versed in choosing between low and high end devices with better performance or cheaper pricing. Picking a box that suits their purse and intentions is the basis of free market choice.

1) Why would it? DX12 etc. is all about getting the same sort of performance from PC. And XB1 is hardly a powerhouse!

2) They retain the option to buy an XB1. They'll just be able to play those games on their PC. And their Windows tablet. And then in a few years they can get a new living room PC and ditch the outdated XB1 and get a better experience. And a few years after that, MS won't need to release a new console because the hardware market will be completely covered by IHVs.
They made the Surface line because pretty much no-one was going to put Windows on a tablet when the world was entirely iOS and Android so MS had to do it themselves. If MS could have gotten Samsung et al to put Windows on their tablets, they wouldn't have bothered with Surface. Exactly the same reason they invented XBox. No-one wanted MS OS on their console, so MS felt compelled to compete on hardware.

And why doesn't your argument apply in the PC space? Why does MS not make PCs to ensure a minimum Windows experience? Why don't they have a range like Mac Pros as MS official PCs that can be relied upon to work perfectly? They instead make an OS and leave it to consumers to pick a price that suits them knowing, thanks to the basics of economics, that cheaper products are unlikely to be as good as more expensive ones and they need to pick an option that hits their quality standard and price range. It's the same with tablets and phones and PCs and TVs and there's no reason it wouldn't work just as well with 'consoles'. Windows needs its consolification to compete with Android devices. There needs to be a Windows TV box like the Nexus Player, and a Windows HDMI Dongle like Chromecast, and these are basically console-lites. If you have the same OS running on your cheapest box and your high-end PCs, what's the sense in having a discrete product outside the same ecosystem just for games?
While it sounds as the most reasonable proposition and alternative compared to what we have now, it all comes to the fact that the quality experience will be considerably downgraded on a Xbox environment like that.

Which means that the Xbox brand would become a clusterfuck and a den of thieves, so to speak.

If you open up the Xbox experience to everyone using a non proprietary device you are exposed to piracy, malicious players, cheaters, credit card numbers stolen from your account and inconsistent gameplay. This means that a guy could be running a game at 120 fps and you could be running it at 30 fps. :(

Someone stole my credit card number after I purchased something on the internet, in a pretty safe, well known, webpage (I think it got hacked). I don't have a CC ever since, and only use Paypal for payments.

So, what do you think it's the safest place for me to place personal data or pay with a Paypal account? Yes, the Xbox. Because it hasn't been hacked and it will probably never be. I feel more comfortable confiding some data there than in most places. I've never had a problem there.

iOS, MACs and other environments, are closed environments, and your approach wouldn't work given the nature of the PC. The PC is a free platform, and that's why it is so loved for many. Why do you think PC gaming is so popular, essential, in places like, say... Russia? Or basically all over the world?

I think that if Microsoft try to transform Windows into a closed environment where only Xbox and certain "Windows PCs" can run it, many people that like freedom would look for alternatives, such as Wine. Things are like they are and that's it.

That's why MS are hated, or liked, in some cases, so be it. But as long as you give people some freedom and don't see why you can't have a close box with the best software for it, developed entirely in house (Xbox).
 
iOS, MACs and other environments, are closed environments, and your approach wouldn't work given the nature of the PC.
The Mac's OS X is a more open platform than Windows. Great chunks of OS X is open source. :???: Don't confuse 'widespread' with 'open'.

I think that if Microsoft try to transform Windows into a closed environment where only Xbox and certain "Windows PCs" can run it, many people that like freedom would look for alternatives, such as Wine. Things are like they are and that's it.
I don't thunk that is what is being suggested, I thought the proposal was that Microsoft certify certain hardware (or combinations of hardware) as adequate to play Xbox games.
 
The Mac's OS X is a more open platform than Windows. Great chunks of OS X is open source. :???: Don't confuse 'widespread' with 'open'.
There is anything Apple I'd call "open". OS X is not an exception... for obvious reasons.
I don't thunk that is what is being suggested, I thought the proposal was that Microsoft certify certain hardware (or combinations of hardware) as adequate to play Xbox games.
The suggestion is then to create a PC called PC Xbox, for instance?
 
There is anything Apple I'd call "open". OS X is not an exception... for obvious reasons.
Not obvious to me. We use Mac's almost exclusively because OS X has long been fully UNIX compliant. You've basically saying UNIX isn't open. Don't get confused by Apple's flashy UI. I don't wish to derail though, so perhaps a PM?

The suggestion is then to create a PC called PC Xbox, for instance?
No, I thought the idea was as I posted above. Microsoft certify certain combinations of hardware on PC as adequate for a guaranteed level of performance for Xbox games. But perhaps I misunderstand.
 
If you open up the Xbox experience to everyone using a non proprietary device you are exposed to piracy
That's a problem for the devs/publishers to worry about, not consumers. The current boom of PC games and multiplatform titles suggests it's not an issue that'll result in the death of gaming on Windows.
...malicious players, cheaters...
They exist on consoles with devices that sit on the network and can only be tackled via the game code.
...credit card numbers stolen from your account...
Huh? Like PSN wasn't hacked and details stolen? Consoles are generally as vulnerable as any other networked device apart from piracy. The services used on those consoles are as vulnerable as the servers they run on, regardless of what hardware is used to access them.
...and inconsistent gameplay. This means that a guy could be running a game at 120 fps and you could be running it at 30 fps. :(
You have the choice to buy better hardware. Why is one guy playing at 120 Hz and another at 30 Hz better than two guys stuck at 30 Hz because their console can't run it any faster? If you're worried about high-end gaming, just have filters on servers to select/force maximum framerate.
Someone stole my credit card number after I purchased something on the internet, in a pretty safe, well known, webpage (I think it got hacked). I don't have a CC ever since, and only use Paypal for payments.
That problem would have happened on a console's web browser as well.
There is anything Apple I'd call "open". OS X is not an exception... for obvious reasons.
The suggestion is then to create a PC called PC Xbox, for instance?
The suggestion is leave Windows to handle all hardware. If MS want their own box, or to provide a certification process for IHVs to ensure a minimum standard, that's an option. But there's no need for a specific console when the console is just going to be a PC running the same OS as every other Windows device.
 
Not obvious to me. We use Mac's almost exclusively because OS X has long been fully UNIX compliant. You've basically basic UNIX isn't open. Don't get confused by Apple's flashy UI. I don't wish to derail though, so perhaps a PM?
My bad, you are right there... I got OS X mixed up with OS/2.

They say Windows could be open soon, but I don't know, a lot of costs involved, I guess.

No, I thought the idea was as I posted above. Microsoft certify certain combinations of hardware on PC as adequate for a guaranteed level of performance for Xbox games. But perhaps I misunderstand.
I think you got it correctly. But that was basically the little detail I am unhappy with. In that case they could transform Surface into a Xbox over time.

The problem I have with it still remains. Windows has access to all the information about the hardware and you could modify everything. I don't like that solution at all. :(

The only solution to me would be creating a Xbox layer where the user couldn't touch anything and plays games that are created for the PC Xbox as it was a console. :smile2:

Then another layer could you let run that PC with Windows like your typical PC, just featuring a bit toned down version of Windows, without access to functions like formatting the HD, or the Control Panel, or CPU/GPU information. :) But powerful enough to run games on Steam. :smile2:

In that case you'd need to perform a boot where you choose where to boot, the Xbox, Windows...
 
Last edited:
Dual-booting is a terrible option. It's simply a bad user experience.

We'll soon have DX12 and Windows 10 on both Xbox One and on PC. The barriers to running Xbox games on the PC will be mostly artificial. Windows10 has an Xbox application that duplicates the functionality of Xbox Live on the PC. That is a much better way to bring the Xbox experience to a PC than dual booting.

Hacks in PC games is an issue. One thing I like about console multiplayer is you're much more sure that you're playing on equal footing. It's something Microsoft and game devs will have to consider.
 
Apple's making crazy money without a subscription fee:

Selling a gazillion times more content through the Windows Store will be far more profitable for MS than Live subscriptions on a few tends of millions of consoles.

At one point live subs were at 48 million with half being gold members, which means at 24 million users times say $40 means almost 10 billion dollars in revenue a year. And thats without giving app devs a 70% cut.

For apple to see $10 billion in revenue it has to pull in 3 times the revenue ($10 billion) in app sales it saw in 2014.

Given that subs seems to have an higher attachment rate this gen, I think MS has a lot better chance of generating 24 million gold subs than generating $30 billion in digital sales from a proposed melded xbox/win10 marketplace.

Edit:

LOL. This is what happens when you eat a big lunch and try to mentally work out numbers with a bunch zeros.

LET THIS EXAMPLE SERVE AS A WARNING TO ALL.
 
Last edited:
They made the Surface line because pretty much no-one was going to put Windows on a tablet when the world was entirely iOS and Android so MS had to do it themselves. If MS could have gotten Samsung et al to put Windows on their tablets, they wouldn't have bothered with Surface. Exactly the same reason they invented XBox. No-one wanted MS OS on their console, so MS felt compelled to compete on hardware.

Samsung, Toshiba, Sony, Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo (part of IBM when they started), etc. were all making Windows Tablets before Microsoft entered the market with Surface. Some of them started with Windows XP tablet edition. Most started with Vista. Microsoft started with Windows 8. It wasn't about getting others to start making Windows Tablet. It was to address the claims that there were no quality Windows tablets like the best Android Tablets or iPads. And OEMs were charging a huge premium for mediocre build quality (small volume market at the time). Enter Surface and Surface RT to address build quality. Surface RT was meant to get devices into a competitive price point with Android/iOS devices. At the time Intel didn't have anything appropriate, hence the use of ARM for Windows RT.

Right now Windows Phone is in the position you stated. Although a bit backwards. That started with only OEMs making them. And now it's mostly Microsoft making them.

And why doesn't your argument apply in the PC space? Why does MS not make PCs to ensure a minimum Windows experience? Why don't they have a range like Mac Pros as MS official PCs that can be relied upon to work perfectly?

Because unlike Windows tablets there are quite a few OEMs that are actually making PCs (laptops and desktops) that have equivalent material and design quality to those made by Apple. The Asus Zenbook UX305 for example is something a lot of people buy as an alternative to the MacBook Air. Dell and Lenovo have been competing there quite well as well. There's no lack of PC's competing at all levels from budget and crappy to expensive and well made.

The console space is one that won't be able to be addressed by OEMs, however. The lack of hardware margin means it's not an area where Microsoft could back out (as some have suggested) and have OEMs take their place. That's the one major difference between my comparison between the Surface and Xbox lines. An OEM could replace Microsoft as a high end quality tablet maker. The hardware margins are there even if the volume might not yet be at a level an OEM would feel comfortable with. A console would require component or build quality compromises in order for an OEM to make a profit which would potentially harm the living room experience (mostly gaming) of the console.

The Xbox (and other consoles) is all about, you pay X dollars and you're guaranteed that anything you buy will run just as well as any other Xbox. That guarantee is extremely important.

Hence you'll still have Xbox games and PC games. It may be that at some point all Xbox games will have a PC counterpart. At that point the Xbox branding just means that this title is guaranteed to run the same on any Xbox (of that generation) with as little fuss as is possible. While PC just basically means this game will run as well as whatever hardware you put it on can run it and might or might not require you to do some digging around the internet to get it to actually run. Otherwise you get the whole, why does my Xbox game not run as well on my machine as it does on my friend's Xbox machine? And again, a potential fail and potential harm to the Xbox brand (WRT to the living room console space).

I suppose there could be some system to allow OEMs to brand their PC as Xbox capable or something. But that would require some level of oversight from Microsoft that can guarantee that there would be Zero compatibility problems. If a user has to go to the internet to find out why their game constantly crashes or why it starts to a black screen or why, etc. then it's a failed initiative and harms the Xbox brand. There would also have to be some form of making the Xbox branded game run exactly the same as any other Xbox branded machine, and that might be even more difficult than the above.

And don't even get me started on games that take advantage of IHV specific GPU features. Like why does my friend's game use Nvidia's TXAA or some other feature, and mine doesn't? That's a reality of PC games that people either accept or don't. It's not acceptable for a console game on X brand. Sure there are differences between PS4 and XBO. But there's no differences across PS4 or differences across XBO.

I took SB's comment to mean the performance of a particular title would be consistent. I.e. if I see Witcher 3 running my friends PS4, or see somebody broadcasting it on Now on PlayStation or Twitch, I know it'll run exactly like that on mine.

Thank you. This is what I meant. Coming from PC where title performance is greatly variable depending on the hardware it is being run on (the greatest weakness of PC gaming, and simultaneously the greatest strength), I'd just assumed people would understand what I meant.

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
At one point live subs were at 48 million with half being gold members, which means at 24 million users times say $40 means almost 10 billion dollars in revenue a year. And thats without giving app devs a 70% cut.

24m subscribers at $40 is $960m and Microsoft don't take the whole $40, retailers have margins. And then there are the seemingly inexhaustible supply of cheap Live cards around it's obvious Microsoft gives millions away at discount or as part of promotions because the guy you buy it from takes a cut, and there may be another guy who takes a cut. The economics of the cards is difficult to be precise about but I'd be surprised if they're making more than 70% total from the total value of the cards so perhaps $600-700m - certainly not chump change. But that's revenue, not profit. Microsoft have to run and maintain those servers and servers farms are expensive.

For apple to see $10 billion in revenue it has to pull in 3 times the revenue ($10 billion) in app sales it saw in 2014.
Do you know what Apple call $10 billion in revenue? 16 days. Their 2015 Q2 report show Apple took $58,010,000,000 in revenue over the last three months, which is approx $4.4 Bn a week. Of course it was a traditionally slow quarter in terms of revenue, down from $74,599,000,000 the previous quarter but still up 27% on that quarter last year! :runaway: And Apple converted that in to $13 Bn in profit, which is a ludicrous revenue : profit ratio. Please don't mention Apple's finances in console discussion, it's f***ing depressing. ;)
 
At one point live subs were at 48 million with half being gold members, which means at 24 million users times say $40 means almost 10 billion dollars in revenue a year. And thats without giving app devs a 70% cut.
LOL. This is what happens when you eat a big lunch and try to mentally work out numbers with a bunch zeros.
LET THIS EXAMPLE SERVE AS A WARNING TO ALL.
I've just woken up, but 24,000,000 x $40 is less than ONE billion
 
That's a problem for the devs/publishers to worry about, not consumers. The current boom of PC games and multiplatform titles suggests it's not an issue that'll result in the death of gaming on Windows.
They exist on consoles with devices that sit on the network and can only be tackled via the game code.
Of course, but devs/publishers barely fixed this, and yes, some games haven't been pirated, but just because they rely heavily on DRM via netcode, where the game is not rendered locally. That's far from what I'd call an universal experience.
Huh? Like PSN wasn't hacked and details stolen? Consoles are generally as vulnerable as any other networked device apart from piracy. The services used on those consoles are as vulnerable as the servers they run on, regardless of what hardware is used to access them.
Yes, you said it, PSN...

I've never ever experienced a security problem on Xbox Live, and probably never will. Of course, DDoS attacks can take it down momentarily, but my data is safe there. In fact, I'd say that I'd confide my important data there in a jiffy, because it is super safe and because if I ever need to blame someone for stolen data, I know who is to blame on XBL, it's not like that on a random computer or phone (i.e. the famous naked photos of celebrities)...

On an open Xbox environment I'd probably experience what I had to go through when I purchased Diablo 3, I had some issues, contacted support, a ticket opened and I had to send my identity card in the end and stuff like that, for them to believe me.
Why is one guy playing at 120 Hz and another at 30 Hz better than two guys stuck at 30 Hz because their console can't run it any faster? If you're worried about high-end gaming, just have filters on servers to select/force maximum framerate.
That sounds fine and dandy, but the quality of service would be truly awful and the experience would be a total mess.

Competitive gaming in unequal machines is the most deceiving thing ever. Of course, the size of your TV can also make a difference, but that's not even close to what a superior framerate and draw distance, crisper IQ can do.
That problem would have happened on a console's web browser as well.
Sure, that's right. But every time I did a "delicate" transaction involving money, I was never worried about the result on the console.

I just didn't use a browser, but the closed, official software of the console.
The suggestion is leave Windows to handle all hardware. If MS want their own box, or to provide a certification process for IHVs to ensure a minimum standard, that's an option. But there's no need for a specific console when the console is just going to be a PC running the same OS as every other Windows device.
Think about that, and then you realise that this machine you describe isn't a console. Do you really understand what's the philosophy of a console?

A console to me is an economical device that offers an universal experience for everyone.


Samsung, Toshiba, Sony, Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo (part of IBM when they started), etc. were all making Windows Tablets before Microsoft entered the market with Surface. Some of them started with Windows XP tablet edition. Most started with Vista. Microsoft started with Windows 8. It wasn't about getting others to start making Windows Tablet. It was to address the claims that there were no quality Windows tablets like the best Android Tablets or iPads. And OEMs were charging a huge premium for mediocre build quality (small volume market at the time). Enter Surface and Surface RT to address build quality. Surface RT was meant to get devices into a competitive price point with Android/iOS devices. At the time Intel didn't have anything appropriate, hence the use of ARM for Windows RT.

Right now Windows Phone is in the position you stated. Although a bit backwards. That started with only OEMs making them. And now it's mostly Microsoft making them.



Because unlike Windows tablets there are quite a few OEMs that are actually making PCs (laptops and desktops) that have equivalent material and design quality to those made by Apple. The Asus Zenbook UX305 for example is something a lot of people buy as an alternative to the MacBook Air. Dell and Lenovo have been competing there quite well as well. There's no lack of PC's competing at all levels from budget and crappy to expensive and well made.

The console space is one that won't be able to be addressed by OEMs, however. The lack of hardware margin means it's not an area where Microsoft could back out (as some have suggested) and have OEMs take their place. That's the one major difference between my comparison between the Surface and Xbox lines. An OEM could replace Microsoft as a high end quality tablet maker. The hardware margins are there even if the volume might not yet be at a level an OEM would feel comfortable with. A console would require component or build quality compromises in order for an OEM to make a profit which would potentially harm the living room experience (mostly gaming) of the console.

The Xbox (and other consoles) is all about, you pay X dollars and you're guaranteed that anything you buy will run just as well as any other Xbox. That guarantee is extremely important.

Hence you'll still have Xbox games and PC games. It may be that at some point all Xbox games will have a PC counterpart. At that point the Xbox branding just means that this title is guaranteed to run the same on any Xbox (of that generation) with as little fuss as is possible. While PC just basically means this game will run as well as whatever hardware you put it on can run it and might or might not require you to do some digging around the internet to get it to actually run. Otherwise you get the whole, why does my Xbox game not run as well on my machine as it does on my friend's Xbox machine? And again, a potential fail and potential harm to the Xbox brand (WRT to the living room console space).

I suppose there could be some system to allow OEMs to brand their PC as Xbox capable or something. But that would require some level of oversight from Microsoft that can guarantee that there would be Zero compatibility problems. If a user has to go to the internet to find out why their game constantly crashes or why it starts to a black screen or why, etc. then it's a failed initiative and harms the Xbox brand. There would also have to be some form of making the Xbox branded game run exactly the same as any other Xbox branded machine, and that might be even more difficult than the above.

And don't even get me started on games that take advantage of IHV specific GPU features. Like why does my friend's game use Nvidia's TXAA or some other feature, and mine doesn't? That's a reality of PC games that people either accept or don't. It's not acceptable for a console game on X brand. Sure there are differences between PS4 and XBO. But there's no differences across PS4 or differences across XBO.



Thank you. This is what I meant. Coming from PC where title performance is greatly variable depending on the hardware it is being run on (the greatest weakness of PC gaming, and simultaneously the greatest strength), I'd just assumed people would understand what I meant.

Regards,
SB
You are a well-spoken person (on this matter, Shifty is too, but I agree more with you than with him in this case).
 
Last edited:
Dual-booting is a terrible option. It's simply a bad user experience.

We'll soon have DX12 and Windows 10 on both Xbox One and on PC. The barriers to running Xbox games on the PC will be mostly artificial. Windows10 has an Xbox application that duplicates the functionality of Xbox Live on the PC. That is a much better way to bring the Xbox experience to a PC than dual booting.
Maybe it is, but you have to understand that what some of you are proposing is transforming a console into something else. Xbox would be an app, regardless of the hardware. Ok, someone could have a 50GB HD to run games, other people would be using 5TB HDs, etc etc.

I like brands. I like AMD/ATi and that's what is currently on consoles. From @Silent_Buddha post you can see how a "console gamer" could be enabling Trees FX on their "console" while some others can't -NVidia users-. Other could enable NVidia Gameworks, others not...

What you are looking after does exist already, save the exclusive games of the XO, and it's called PC Gaming.

Hacks in PC games is an issue. One thing I like about console multiplayer is you're much more sure that you're playing on equal footing. It's something Microsoft and game devs will have to consider.
In that case the dual-boot could be an option. Or a single boot where Xbox would launch like it does today, but you have a "Computer" setting in your Xbox dashboard, would be a better idea.

You use the PC setting and you are into the PC layer, and can go back and forth. The Xbox layer is untouchable -HD, memory management, the 3 OSes-.. like it is today and the PC layer lets you use your Xbox as a regular PC. So you can edit and save files, work, play PC games, and stuff like that

Even better, the machine could be called XPC.

Equal footing is nice. It has been suggested that you could limit the framerate in public online games. That sounds ok on paper. But if you play on a different machine than, say, your best friend, and they have a a better hardware, better connection, etc, they would be depriving themselves, making a sacrifice just for you by limiting their framerate to 30 in order for the experience to be equal for both if you enjoy to be online.
 
How would Ms protect Live revenue with a pc xbox?

They can make more on transactions than subscriptions, so the pain is limited ... and no matter how much some forces in Microsoft try to pretend that all their "Universal" platforms are equally important, the PC is and will stay their bread and butter. PC gaming keeps people away from Apple, the XBOX does not ... there's some indirect income in that.
 
Dual-booting is a terrible option. It's simply a bad user experience.

With GBs/s SSDs being cheap, if they wanted to they could have a PC/XBOX which switched between a dedicated gaming mode and normal windows pretty quickly ... it's not an alt tab, but it's not a minute long reboot either.
 
They can make more on transactions than subscriptions, so the pain is limited ... and no matter how much some forces in Microsoft try to pretend that all their "Universal" platforms are equally important, the PC is and will stay their bread and butter. PC gaming keeps people away from Apple, the XBOX does not ... there's some indirect income in that.

Apple aren't the only ones they are competing with. Google and Sony are direct competitors as well. Apple is a competitor for desktop and mobile devices. Google for mobile devices. Sony for living room devices.

You are somewhat correct in that PC is the most important thing. Sort of. PC isn't the most important thing Windows is the most important thing. What Windows is being run on isn't as important as Windows being what's used. As such, desktop, laptop, tablet, phone, consoles, potentially wearable devices (Microsoft Band is their take on a usable wearable), and in the future AR (in whatever form) are key markets for them.

Gaming certainly helps make Windows devices more appealing, but isn't the only thing and arguably isn't even the most important thing. Apple didn't take massive chunks of laptop computing marketshare due to gaming. They got it due to the massive disparity in design and build quality of their MacBook line, especially when the MacBook Air came out. With that being less of a factor with OEM designs that are competing not only on price but design and build quality, their market penetration has basically come to a halt. Again, not due to gaming.

Regards,
SB
 
Faux-Windows on a mobile phone doesn't do shit for them unless it directly makes them money ... it doesn't help to cement their place in other markets, the overlap is too minimal. You can see a difference between Apple and Microsoft here, Apple gets in markets because it fits them and they think there is money there ... but they don't really feel the need to try to present their devices as a single platform.
 
Faux-Windows on a mobile phone doesn't do shit for them unless it directly makes them money ... it doesn't help to cement their place in other markets, the overlap is too minimal. You can see a difference between Apple and Microsoft here, Apple gets in markets because it fits them and they think there is money there ... but they don't really feel the need to try to present their devices as a single platform.

Which gives Microsoft an opportunity. They are the only ones offering a more unified experience. It won't be long until you can basically run a full desktop Office on your phone. Obviously not on the phones screen itself, it'd be the phone UI then. But hook up the phone to a TV or monitor and blam you have full 1080p (or whatever resolution, 4k for example) desktop version of Office. Pair up a keyboard and mouse and you're good to go. And that would basically go for any potentially any Windows Universal (I guess called Continuum now) applications.

Granted it isn't as much of a breakthrough as say, replacing your desktop, tablet, and laptop with one device as many have done with the Surface 3 Pro, but it'll be interesting that if you wanted to travel light, your phone could still give you the desktop experience when at a hotel (just hook it up to a TV) using your familiar desktop applications.

One of the things people like about Chrome is that it gives access to your bookmarks and other things across devices. Microsoft is going one better and giving you access to your applications across devices.

Is it going to be enough to gain them marketshare in the phone market? Who knows, but it's a damn sight better chance than, oh I don't know...doing nothing?

Regards,
SB
 
I'm not sure that's one better than Google though who offers access to their office on any device. I've never used their office suite so don't know how it compares. But for me the idea is extended into the whole Windows library. I can buy naffy art apps on Android/iOS, or I can run my full-fat Windows applications and run them on every device. I know which I'd rather have access to. ;)
 
Back
Top