Developers Are Losing Interest in Windows 8.1

[Matsuda]

Microsoft continues to bet big on the Windows Store, especially after the launch of Windows 8.1, trying to lure developers into porting more and more apps to the new modern platform.

Even though several high-quality apps have recently landed in the store, including Facebook and Flipboard, analysts believe that developers might actually lose interest in Windows 8 and 8.1 due to the fact that most consumers buy the operating systems to use them on desktop computers.

“While the PC Relevant Products/Services market is shrinking, the overall volumes are still sizeable compared to the user base for tablets. So shouldn't sales of Windows 8/8.1-based PCs be driving volume and, therefore, developer interest? Why aren't developers taking this user base into account?” Sameer Singh, a Tech Thoughts analyst, was quoted as saying by News Factor.

“The answer is simple: Most Windows 8 devices are bought as PCs, not tablets. Slapping a tablet Relevant Products/Services interface (or a touchscreen Relevant Products/Services) onto a PC doesn't address this problem.”

And this pretty much makes sense. Microsoft promoted both Windows 8 and 8.1 as excellent opportunities for developers who wanted to monetize their apps, but at the same time, the company tried to improve the desktop side of the operating systems.

Sales of Windows tablets remain relatively low, even though Windows 8.1 also incorporates a number of improvements aimed at touch-capable devices and despite the arrival of the second-generation Surface model.

As a result, more adopters stay away from the Modern UI and choose to run desktop apps, using their computers in the traditional way, as with any other Windows version.

“Most users would spend very limited time in the Metro interface and switch back to desktop for the jobs they needed the PC to accomplish. As a result, the Windows 8 store has been relegated to the background and developers are losing interest in the platform,” Singh concluded.




Source

[davmil]

Geewizz. You mean some people actually use their computers to get work done? Who'd a thought?

[Avitar]

Using WIN 8 makes my laptop feel like a giant phone. I wonder how long before laptops no longer come with a BLURay drive??

[CODYQX4]

.

Edited April 28, 2019 by CODYQX4

[janedoe]

Does Windows 8 handle Blu-Ray? Because they killed OS support for DVD playback, so you need a player like VLC or whatever else you want (or maybe codec pack).

The license fees for the Bluray audio/video codecs means even the (temporarily free) Media Center pack doesn't include playback support, but of course with an appropriate player there's no problem. The amount charged for the Media Center pack includes the MPEG, Dolby, DTS and other relevant license fees for DVD support. Guess they didn't want to include Bluray support and drive up the price of the pack even further, or increase the workload for their support team.

Edited November 18, 2013 by janedoe

[MidnightDistortions]

I hope MS gets the hint now. Most people i know that are using W8/8.1 use 3rd party start menu software to get rid of the start screen. I'm sure it works great on tablets and hybrids but it's not practical on a desktop/laptop. It's awkward using a mouse on that thing.

[Sonar]

I'm waiting for a good copy of Windows 8/8.1 LITE :) I think windows 9 is gonna be junk aswell.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Sonar

[janedoe]

I'm sure it works great on tablets and hybrids but it's not practical on a desktop/laptop. It's awkward using a mouse on that thing.

Agree with both points. Thing is, according to almost all industry watchers (bolstered by yearly sales and market share figures) the PC market is in terminal decline, with most people getting their work done on smartphones and tablets. Obviously for serious work people still need a traditional desktop, but all those folks who do nothing more than occasional document editing and mainly browse the net or use webapps have now realized that they simply don't need a power-hungry Wintel desktop any more (which keeps getting burdened with malware and slowing down). Microsoft clearly wants to deprecate and eventually remove the desktop, which is why they are hell-bent on forcing people to switch to the Metro UI. Besides reduced malware a walled-garden app store based approach also boosts profits, as Apple has already demonstrated. That is also why they will never backtrack and bring back the Start Menu, which doesn't really work well as a touch-enabled interface, just like the rest of the desktop.

Problem is, they're right now caught in a weird in-between state of affairs. On non-touch hardware there's no incentive for people to use the Metro UI, but the touch UI is still very much a version 1 offering that simply cannot replace the desktop yet (exacerbated by the dismal app situation). Since touch hardware hasn't caught up (or rather become ubiquitous enough to be the dominant installed base for the OS), Windows is stuck in this weird twilight zone. It's a sort of Catch-22 situation really - app developers won't develop for Metro unless there's increased usage, but on the other hand people won't use Metro until the app situation improves drastically and they have switched to touch-capable hardware.

Unless the Metro UI becomes more full-featured and sales of touch-enabled Windows devices increase dramatically, and soon, thus providing incentive for Metro usage, Microsoft will lose the biggest strength of its ecosystem - the support of the developer community. And once that's gone, there's absolutely no way in hell Metro will ever be a success, no matter what Microsoft does.

Yet another issue for Microsoft is the delay in merging Windows and Windows Phone. The longer they dither, the more acute the problem becomes. As we all know, Android is now almost a monopoly in mobile (>80% market share) like Windows on desktops, with WP and iOS bringing up the rear. Having two competing versions of Windows cannibalizing each other is obviously idiotic. It's not even as if there's a clear distinction when it comes to device size and OS, because Windows 8.1 adds support for smaller screens and WP 8.1 adds support for larger screens. They've said they plan to merge the stores and APIs first, and the OSes eventually, but who knows how long that'll take? Meanwhile Android is pretty much running away with the show and eventually Windows will have as much chance of replacing the entrenched majority OS on mobile as Mac OS or Linux had on the desktop.

Well, interesting times ahead for sure! :) A couple of years should tell us if Microsoft can survive in consumer markets, or will be relegated to being just an enterprise solutions company (which is where most of its revenues come from right now). I know lots of people hate the company, but even Apple agrees that Google is the real threat, and more choice is always preferable to a lack of viable options.

Edited November 18, 2013 by janedoe

[irefay]

Using WIN 8 makes my laptop feel like a giant phone. I wonder how long before laptops no longer come with a BLURay drive??

+1 for StartIsBack

[Whoopenstein]

From the begining, MS has either copied or bought their way into new technology. They've never been the leading edge of technology. It's biting them in the ass now. Hopefully they won't end up like Blockbuster. To succeed, they have to look forward - not to the past and present.

[Zigen]

M$ were a little slow to catch on the App fad. A little late for them now....

[CODYQX4]

.

Edited April 28, 2019 by CODYQX4

[janedoe]

Judging my MS shit filtering of the store (all the scam, imposter, and worthless apps), I have little faith in them being able to screen out malware, because right now they want to say they have 100000+ apps even if only 10 of them are legit.

Nobody can disagree that a vast majority of apps in the Windows Store right now are worthless, but to be perfectly honest I don't see the ratio of good to bad apps to be any worse compared to the early days of iOS or Android. Also, personally speaking there are only perhaps around 15-20 apps that I really care about on my many iOS and Android devices. Rest of the apps even today in both app stores are useless for me. I no longer download and test random apps with the frequency and excitement I had when these platforms were new. So all I want is for my favorite apps to be available on Windows, and I'll be set. Who gives a damn about the other 1 million apps?

As for malware, you are being disingenuous. Have you honestly been infected with malware yet via a Windows Store/Metro app? I'm not in the least saying it's not possible (although less likely so on RT obviously), but even the US govt. stats agree with the mobile market share figures. Android attracts 80%+ of malware (see DHS/DOJ pie chart below, and recent reports from F-Secure say the figure could be much higher at around 97%), with Symbian and iOS making up the rest and Windows/WP so far isn't even a blip on the radar. This should be obvious since we've seen for years how malware and OS market share figures are closely related on the desktop as well. So blaming the Windows Store disproportionately for malware and ignoring the other market leaders (in apps and malware) clearly doesn't make sense.

The problem for Microsoft is that users don't care that the company is playing catch-up. They were slow off the blocks but all users care is that they want their favorite apps to be available, NOW! :) Even though it might be inherently unfair to compare a comparatively new app store to two extremely mature ones with far greater market-share and thus developer interest, no user is going to give Microsoft a pass and buy worthless devices and wait for the store to catch up (which might take years, by which time the devices may be defunct). The Surface Pro and other Windows tablets/laptops are surviving right now mainly due to x86 app support, but RT and Metro will surely die without more good apps.

Edited November 19, 2013 by janedoe

[davmil]

From the begining, MS has either copied or bought their way into new technology. They've never been the leading edge of technology. It's biting them in the ass now. Hopefully they won't end up like Blockbuster. To succeed, they have to look forward - not to the past and present.

So True! I used to LOL until it hurt as Gates carried on about MSFT's 'right to innovate.' Their style was to innovate the chair from underneath your butt while your boss got rich for most small software development companies... usually to the software's detriment if not outright elimination.

[Whoopenstein]

i really think the future is in instant-on-technology (IOT). There ya go - I just coined it (afaik), If an OS and BIOS company can make an OS "instant on", they'll be the sh*t. Just like when "solid state" took over tube technology.

[janedoe]

i really think the future is in instant-on-technology (IOT). There ya go - I just coined it (afaik), If an OS and BIOS company can make an OS "instant on", they'll be the sh*t. Just like when "solid state" took over tube technology.

:) Sorry to disappoint you, but read the Wiki article on "instant on" for plenty of examples.

[Whoopenstein]

i really think the future is in instant-on-technology (IOT). There ya go - I just coined it (afaik), If an OS and BIOS company can make an OS "instant on", they'll be the sh*t. Just like when "solid state" took over tube technology.

:) Sorry to disappoint you, but read the Wiki article on "instant on" for plenty of examples.

Dang!

[banned]

Even decade ol' Windows XP boots extremely fast from a SSD. I really don't care to "upgrade" to UEFI, just to save a couple of seconds on my PC boot time. Pointless...

[janedoe]

Funny you should mention SSDs. An SSD will obviously speed anything up, even Windows 95, but it was due to my switchover to an SSD boot drive that I dumped XP and installed Windows 7. Lack of NCQ and TRIM support in the OS was a real deal-breaker, and fiddling with unstable vendor firmware and drivers and toolboxes for manual maintenance was not an option. Sadly, however much you love something time does pass it by and make it obsolete eventually.