Internet Article: (Opinion only) "Microsoft plans to destroy competor Steam"

I found this interesting article:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ep...-try-to-slowly-b/1100-6442169/?comment_page=1

(EDIT: This is an article discussing someone's opinion/speculation only.)

According to Tim Sweeney:
Slowly, over the next five years, (Microsoft) will force-patch Windows 10 to make Steam progressively worse and more broken.
The risk here is that, if Microsoft convinces everybody to use UWP, then they phase out Win32 apps. If they can succeed in doing that then it's a small leap to forcing all apps and games to be distributed through the Windows Store.
what they're trying to do is a series of sneaky maneuvers. They make it more and more inconvenient to use the old apps, and, simultaneously, they try to become the only source for the new ones.

So this must explain all the urgent Windows 10 download notifications.

 

Again?

He has a point, though.

 

It wouldn't just affect Steam. It would affect every single Win32 application which at this point is the vast majority of apps.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

 

Comforting to know how that turned out.

I'll stay on Win 7 as long as I can and hope the madness has calmed down the next time I'm forced to upgrade.

 

At first I thought about that but it's only a stopgap measure at best. Eventually I'll need newer releases of Windows for some reason despite still wanting older releases. My solution is a computer designed around the idea of virtual machines for every release of Windows and a Linux host for managing them and storing my files.

 

Why is it an evil conspiracy when Microsoft do it, but everyone's cool with Apple already having done it?

On one hand I don't want it to happen either. On the other hand, surely you have to admit that having people generally sticking to single, vendor-approved channel for software has its benefits? (Back on the first hand again, based on my experience with a Windows phone I'm not sure Microsoft are making the most of those benefits...)

I think I would actually like a happy medium of a compromise where you could install 3rd party apps, but the ability to do so was disabled by default except for developers with appropriate signing. That way trustworthy companies could still release software outside of the store without issues, people who know what they're doing can still do what they want, but Average Joe who's not a tech head can't accidentally install Firefox from a legitimate-looking-but-actually-dodgy-link and nuke their computer. (I am helping someone with that right now...)

 

I've never been terribly fond of Apple's walled garden but it never truly mattered because there was a viable alternative in the form of Windows. Applications may not always be identical between these OSes but there were always programs that could fill their roles if necessary. Plus it wasn't like Apple was the dominating platform that everyone focused on supporting.

 

Did you read the article? You are quoting a part of the article in which the journalist is quoting Tim Sweeney. The whole point of the article is the exact opposite - that Tim Sweeney is likely exaggerating and wrong.

 

That's kind of my point, though. Nobody wanted MS to have any more control than absolutely necessary, but then Apple came along with a new platform which they control every inch of and, while I admit it's not to everyone's tastes, broadly speaking it took off like crazy. It does work well, to the point that they are now one of the dominant brands in computing.

I can't think of anyone who's been using traditional computers for a significant period of time and hasn't run into a virus, malware, or dodgy software of some kind. On the other hand, I'm honestly having trouble thinking of someone who's had anything like that on an iProduct, or an Android for that matter. (I'm sure the latter is possible but, again, you'd have to go outside of normal channels to do it, which is the bit I find attractive.)

 

Oh I know someone who managed to "hard crash" their Android phone and have to get it reset by the carrier. She's a special case though. She can barely use anything technological yet somehow manages to break everything. Between my dad and myself we manage to provide the necessary technical support for her to do what she needs to do though.

What would qualify as appropriate signing though? Limiting it to developers isn't good enough because a power user isn't necessarily a developer. My dad definitely can handle his own computer but he hasn't coded in years.

 

Well, isn't that exactly why Steam invested so much time and money into SteamOS?

I mean, the whole Steam Machine thing was halfassed and bound to be a rather small success, if not an outright failure.

SteamOS hasn't set the gaming community on fire because of the small selection of games and the bad performance of openGL in SteamOS apparently... with Vulkan mixing the cards new, and more and more big Studios apparently ready to ditch DX12 for Vulkan, that might no longer be such a problem in the future.


And given the resistance by many studios and valve itself to go the UWP and Windows Store route, I foresee them investing a ton of money and time into SteamOS again should Microsoft make its move, and then ditch Windows for SteamOS.
After all, Valve alone has one of the biggest Killer Apps on the backburner to make gamers migrate in big numbers to Steam OS: Halflife 3.

Make it a Vulkan game, make sure SteamOS gets improved and the Vulkan performance under SteamOS is topnotch, and players will be interested in Steam OS again. With the players, the other devs will certainly migrate, or at least make sure that they also support SteamOS.


In the end the damage for Windows and MS could be bigger than for Steam and Valve... I think THAT was the reason for the whole SteamOS initiative, to have a thermonuclear deterrent in the cellar to nuke MS with should they try to push Steam out of the business.


Of course we are just exchanging one proprietary OS directly linked to a single Store for another... yet given its just linux underneath, at least for now Valve cannot stop you from running Apps ought trough other channels, and I trust Valve more on making the right decisions for PC Gamers than MS... see that attrocity that was Windows 8.


EDIT:

Also, reading the full article, the whole article is about shooting down the wild accusations made by Tim Sweeney. Which might sound believable given MS is still seen as the root of all evil by many, yet the author of the article makes good points on why Tim Sweeneys fortune telling might be far off the marks.

The TO just took one of the quotes from Tim Sweeney out of the article and put it into the opening post omitting that context...

what the hell?

 

Microsoft's main money drawing customers are the big enterprise solutions. Presently Windows wins because its far more customizable and flexible then Mac. No enterprise customer wants Microsoft to need to approve every single executable they develop. And some of the custom software is incredibly valuable IP. Microsoft have made mistakes in the past, but even they are not dumb enough to drop their big selling points.

Of course every enterprise customer also wants the platform to be more secure. (Well, mostly, the US government would like an unsecure backdoor into everybody's system). So expect some sort of middle ground. Microsoft will make it harder to install random stuff. But they will never close the gate altogether.

 

Yeah I don't buy it, Microsoft has been fairly committed to moving in the open rather than closed direction over the last decade, despite the denial of the haters. I definitely can see a need for their windows app store, and the way they are teaching users about it makes sense. My mom took a windows 8 class and the way they were presenting it is that users should always check the appstore first rather than downloading software off a webpage since it is certified not to be malware, which makes sense. That doesn't imply in any way that they won't allow you to do it, and really doesn't imply that they would ban other certified stores such as Steam.

 

It's called flame baiting.

 

So let's say Microsoft eventually does phase out the Win32 API... It's an API that's been around forever. Eventually it probably should be replaced with something better. Microsoft has been moving toward .NET Core and Netstandard. UWP apps use the .NET Native compiler to produce native code, and even if you don't go that route you can still use C++.

There's nothing really stopping Steam from rebuilding its client as a UWP app and Microsoft is going to have to allow content delivery if they want people to build for UWP. On the down side, Steam would have to work out a deal with Microsoft (or MS would have to implement some kind of policy) that allowed apps / games to be sideloaded from delivery providers like Steam. On the upside, Steam games would be playable not only on PC but also on Xbox One, Surface, etc as they'd have to target UWP. And with Netstandard (.NET Core) alongside C++ that means we will very likely see UWP support on Linux and Mac soon as well since .NET Core runs on those platforms. Can you imagine it? Having your favorite games available cross platform? I think that would be sweet.

That being said... the Win32 API is not going away any time soon. Right now it's still very essential to Windows Server and it'll be a long long time before Azure (or whatever cloud provider you use) makes in-house servers completely irrelevant.

 

Rolls eyes 360 backward @ thread

 

I just changed "according to the article" to "according to Tim Sweeney".
I also changed the link to different non-editorial type of link.
So now there shouln't be any more reasons to criticize the OP here, which always seems to occur on the General Discussion thread.
Thanks for pointing out where I went wrong here.

 

It's just alarmist bullshit.

 

True. I don't really believe his opinions, it seems outrageous. I just thought it was an interesting and funny story to post.

 

On the other hand its a topic that has been around for some time now... since at least a year or so. So unless any new information has surfaced about UWP, Microsoft stance on UWP or Win32 legacy apps, or Steam, this is all quite old news.

Even Tim Sweeneys rant is now 4 months old...

Don't think there was any meaningful development in one or the other direction since... Tim Sweeney had another stab at MS in April, but all of his words just pointed at what MS COULD do, not at what they will do.


A platform holder having developers for that platforms by their balls is hardly news.

 

If Microsoft was really trying to push for a fully walled garden approach, why would they open-source the .NET framework?

And attempting to shut-down Steam on the Windows platform would not actually shut-down Steam entirely. It would just mean that the most popular and influential digital distribution system on the market would be available on Window's competitor's platforms, and not on Windows. People would still be able to get and use steam on Linux and Mac OSX. Having a huge chunk of content suddenly exclusive to your competitors isn't a very savvy move.

And of course, Steam isn't even the only player in this particular game. While a DRM system like Steam might find conversion to Window's UWP problematic, some of their competitors might not. A DRM-free system like Good Old Games might be able to port their Galaxy Client to UWP without stepping on any toes.

If Microsoft ever attempted to dictate how money changes hands on the Windows platform, they would effectively be slitting their own throats.

 

Wasn't this proven to be a farce????

 

Never say "everyone".

When people post alarmist bullshit, it is a good thing, though.

 

Assuming cry wolf hasn't got a shred of truth to it.

 

I hate when one guy's speculation starts spawning headlines that suggest something is factual. Then I waste my time reading it as if I thought there might be something interesting in it, but in the end I only find regret and salty comments.

 

Given I have many game with windows live I can't pla anymore and some software I use and don't work anymore on new windows, this doesn't strike me as far fetch, I have been directly hit multiple time with the side effects of these so call upgrade. Your mileage might vary. I will soon have no reason to stay with windows anyway, he keep making core stuff to me obsolete and throwing my workflow in the gutter. Hello Linux! I hope.

 

Looks like Salty has staged a comeback with popular internet dialogue.

 

[edit] nvm...

the article is humorous though

 

You'll have far better results with Windows VMs than with Linux as your main OS. It just doesn't have the app support yet.

 

That's why I said "by default". Let power users turn it off, with an appropriate warning as to the increased risk.

With that in mind, I also think that there's already systems in place for enterprises to sign and internally distribute their own stuff, so that might even already be covered @BoredMormon.

 

Microsoft announced a 'business' store which can be used for B2B or enterprise use cases... like a while ago, not a lot of details about it out there though.

I think the problem that Sweeney and Newell have had with UWP and Microsofts Windows Store is the competition... there is absolutely nothing stopping Epic and Value from continuing to create their DLM solutions... they just won't be able to distribute it through Windows Store.. ( BOO HOOO)...

 

XBOX 360?

 

Right, but they're worried that Microsoft may prevent you from installing applications that are not from the Windows Store.

 

Microsoft also allows businesses (enterprise) to sideload applications outside of the windows store and developers to do so by turning on developer mode.

 

This all really just boils down to this:

"Windows isn't secure! Too many viruses! Microsoft should be more like Apple!"
...time passes...
"Damn you Microsoft! You're just trying to kill the competition by controlling how apps get installed!"

And the lesson: Be careful what you wish for...

 

But you assume that's the same people who said both complain ...

 

That's not the lesson, though.

The lesson is that "Let's enforce windows store" is not the right way to go about security.

This is not how PC is supposed to work. This kind of approach may be suitable for cellphones, but not for a desktop platform.

Why the heck is an exe supposed to receive special treatment? A user should be able to run unsigned untrustworthy application on their machine without said application being able to do any damage to the system. The whole signature business is just an attempt to monopolize application distribution mechanism.

 

Apple doesn't do that on OS X; you're thinking of iOS. But even then, iOS has an enterprise developer license, which doesn't require Apple approval of apps. There's no appreciable difference in customizability and flexibility. Also, they seem to have $25 billion in enterprise sales.

That's what Apple does currently. You can choose to have stuff installable from their app store, or anywhere as long as it's a registered dev (no need for Apple-approved apps), or just anywhere period. Seems reasonable, as long as they don't disable those last two options...the latest OS, in beta, has made the last option more hidden. I'd be careful about using the word "never".

--Eric

 

Really? Last time I looked at this it did still require Apple approval of apps, it just changed how they were distributed after that approval was given. That stuff keeps changing, though, so it's a good thing if they've updated that or made more options available since.

Not only is "damage to the system" only a part of the issue, but that's straight up just not a practical way to look at it.

For instance, it's not generically possible for the OS to know the difference between "damage" and "intended modification to data". For example, in what possible way could an operating system tell the difference between, say, me updating a saved game file vs. me corrupting a document? All it knows is that I'm opening a file and changing some bits. It has no idea of the meaning or intent or practicality of that action.

By the same token, how can it tell the difference between me sending many legitimate emails vs. me sending spam? Or the difference between me using data that contains personal/confidential information and application pinching that stuff without my consent? And even if someone came up with ways that it could do all of those things then people who want to do unscrupulous stuff will just find workarounds. (See: copy protection.)

The OS doesn't - and can't - understand the context of most of the actions it performs, and the context is what determines whether it's productive or destructive. I fully agree that certificates and signing are a pain in the rear end, but if there's a better solution out there then I've no idea what it is.

Just how is a PC "supposed to work"? And why is form factor a consideration in this?

I will say, I'm really glad that people making online services use signing and certificates rather than just saying "no, web browsers and client machines and underlying infrastructure shouldn't let web sites do bad things!"

 

Sigh.

You're familiar with linux right? You remember what linux default permissions are? ALL write access is forbidden except user's ~ (user's home) and /tmp.

Add one step further, and fully sandbox application. Give it ONE location (folder) to which it can write by default, and forbid all write access anywhere else, and voila you have an infrastructure in which an application cannot harm os in any way.

Add two tier defense. Document folder access would require a permission. System level access would require additional permission (most applications don't need it). Those extra permission could be performed by certificates.

No "understanding" required.

It is supposed to be useable for development without going through hoops with application signing and certificates. Attempting to inject certificates into pc architecture means reducing it to an equivalent of a cell phone. This a seriously wrong approach.

 

It never has required app approval, only an Apple developer account. The point of enterprise distribution is to bypass the app store, though distribution is still limited (no possibility to spread to many people), so Apple has no incentive to spend resources on app approval.

--Eric

 

I thought the whole point was to not need certificates? And also, like I said, protecting the system is only a part of the issue.

What hoops are there if it's an option you can turn off? (I am assuming here that you're referring to my suggestion from earlier, since that's what I was talking about where you quoted me.)

- - -
Anyway...

I think that a huge part of why mobile devices have been able to largely sidestep a bunch of issues that still effect desktop-style systems is that they got to start with a relatively clean slate relatively recently, taking on board a lot of learning from the desktop style systems. There weren't a bunch of ingrained expectations about how a smart phone should work as a computing device - each vendor who tried releasing one could pretty much do what they wanted until something caught on and worked.

On the flip side, any significant change to how things are done on PCs is going to have a very tough time catching on regardless of how good an idea it is. For examples, see the retirement of native web browser plugins, or people's response to UAC when it first showed up in Windows.

Also, consider that the vast majority of users aren't developers. I wish that everyone who used a computer knew roughly how it worked, but unfortunately that's a pipe dream. And as developers, isn't it beneficial to us to be developing for users who operate in a generally safe environment and who generally feel they can trust our software, rather than the opposite? (See iTunes Connect app sales vs. Google Play app sales as a potential example of this, though there's obviously a load of other factors at play as well.)

 

Hmm, it must be different to the thing I was looking at, then.

 

I can at least say from my side that I am also not okay with Apple doing it. But i switched over to PC again only to have the same things now? Ahhhh ... well. >__>

(edit) this is generally speaking, BTW. Not referring to this article. Just stating that I try to remain agnostic to evil corporate conspiracy dislikes.

 

Turning it off is jumping through the hoops.

I'm interested in PC being a "powerful platform". Everybody else can use a cellphone/tablet/whatever.

 

In which case I stand corrected. Forgive an ignorant PC user for talking about things I don't understand.

 

I'm willing to bet money that long term apple will phase out the ability for consumers to install non-appstore software on macs.

 

You would think they would try to do things to gain more of a market share, given they are well behind Windows as it is. This doesn't seem suitable for that goal.

 

There are ways they could attempt to gain more market share but I feel like they just don't care and/or don't want to compromise the approach they take with their devices.