Tim Sweeney lays out a plan to make Microsoft’s UWP more open

Tim Sweeney's blistering criticism of the Universal Windows Platform (UWP) last week certainly got Microsoft's attention. Shortly after his op-ed was published, Phil Spencer, head of Xbox, took to Twitter to state that "UWP is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, and can be supported by any store." Kevin Gallo, corporate vice president of Windows, echoed that message. Now Sweeney is back with a new op-ed, and he remains unconvinced. He also calls for Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella to pledge to the games industry that Windows will remain an open platform.

Sweeney says a prime motivation for the UWP is to provide sandboxing and improve application security on the Windows platform. He says this is a good idea, and acknowledges it's difficult to do this with the old Win32 APIs in use today "because they are both extraordinarily broad in extent and extraordinarily constrained by the backward-compatibility requirements."

Sweeney doesn't like the accessibility of Microsoft's current implementation of UWP, though. He says the company is the "sole arbiter of which developers and apps are allowed on the Windows platform." He also says UWP apps must be digitally signed by Microsoft's own DRM. Instead, he'd prefer developers have the ability to obtain digital certificates from third-party certificate authorities, just as webmasters secure their sites today.

Once again, Sweeney provides a recipe for how UWP can, in his view, be made into an open ecosystem. In short, he wants users to be able to download UWP apps from any source, and let developers sign their own apps. He also wants third-party stores to have control over their own UWP apps, and allow commerce to be carried on outside of the Microsoft store. Finally, he argues the term "sideloading" should be done away with, as it implies such apps are "second-class citizens."

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft responds to Sweeney's latest post. We may learn more about the future of UWP at the company's Build Conference for developers coming up on March 30th.

Comments closed
    • ermo
    • 4 years ago

    It would be nice to hear about what MSFT intends to do with its Windows platform going forward.

    On the one hand, you have the traditional ‘open’ Windows platform, which is a nightmare to manage because you can’t ever remove APIs (documented or not) that legacy applications depend upon.

    On the other hand, you have the walled garden platform, which is tightly controlled by a (hopefully benevolent?) overlord and not really conducive to having an open ecosystem with competing app stores.

    To make Windows a compelling, modern commercial platform compared to e.g. OS X, I think a strong, well-thought-out approach to the infrastructure that enables software application packaging and distribution is absolutely necessary. Ideally, you’d be able to leverage this heavy-duty, MSFT-sponsored packaging infrastructure from both the CLI (PowerShell), via MSFT’s own app-store and via 3rd party app-stores that use the published, well-maintained and well-documented API.

    That way, the platform would be able to host both Brew/APT-like, hacker-friendly CLI-based repos, the official MSFT app-store for normal users and any number of alternative app-stores like Steam [i<]et al.[/i<] If you've ever used e.g. Ubuntu, you'll be familiar with the fact that you can install packages (apps) both from the CLI and from the Software Center GUI, where both approaches use the same underlying Advanced Packaging Tool libraries and recipes to describe and handle the installation of packages (apps). What will likely happen is that ISVs will gravitate towards the MSFT app-store, Steam will keep doing its own thing and the FLOSS crowd will standardize on using the PowerShell CLI to install stuff from a decentralized, git(hub)-managed software repository that doesn't have to deal with the commercial side of selling and distributing proprietary software. And no, I haven't read Sweeney's proposal.

    • VincentHanna
    • 4 years ago

    Tim Sweeney 2016

    • sweatshopking
    • 4 years ago

    How does sweeney propose microsoft make money if they remove the only revenue stream left to their now free operating system? All those engineers should just work for free?

      • DoomGuy64
      • 4 years ago

      lol. The OS will eventually stop being free, and Sweeney’s approach does not eliminate the MS store either.

        • VincentHanna
        • 4 years ago

        The OS was never free. You paid for your copy of windows. They are upgrading you to the latest version of the OS to save money. That’s it.

      • biffzinker
      • 4 years ago

      Must of been some vacation, no caps in your latest posts.

        • sweatshopking
        • 4 years ago

        STILL ON IT. ANOTHER TWO MONTHS.

      • GrimDanfango
      • 4 years ago

      The only revenue stream they’re interested in is the sale of telemetry data – that’s what the whole “free” business model is based around. “Big Data” is a lot more of a money-spinner than a few developer licensing deals.

      • VincentHanna
      • 4 years ago

      MSFT’s operating system is not “now free.” You can upgrade your old PC, or you can pay $99 for a fresh copy. If you buy an OEM PC, a fresh copy is still being licensed just like always. Nothing has changed since 7/8.1.

        • sweatshopking
        • 4 years ago

        Yeah, and how many people have upgraded old pcs?! 50 million? More? So… That’s how much cash in free upgrades? Nothing changed? Don’t be ridiculous.

          • JalaleenRumi
          • 4 years ago

          It’s not ‘free’ per se if the product you ‘sold’ wasn’t as per the promise. People paid money for those OSs and MSFT messed it up with their little experiments like trying to analyze how the public would react at removal of a start button. MSFT HAD to give free upgrades or else people would have lost all their faith in them. With great many choices, people easily lose interest in one product.

            • VincentHanna
            • 4 years ago

            MSFT promised that they would be going to the perpetual license before 8.0 even came out. 10 is just a re-branding and continuation of the same strategy, and is not an olive branch meant to make amends for 8.0 or some kind of emergency damage control, or free gift. They literally didn’t have a choice, except to offer the free upgrade. Not to do so would have undermined the entire project.

            That said, I was pleasantly surprised to see the free upgrade for windows 7 users also, although it’s fairly obvious why they did it, it was still unexpected and, I think it was a wise choice for a number of reasons.

          • VincentHanna
          • 4 years ago

          Cost of doing buisness. MSFT is trying to SAVE MONEY by pushing people onto their newer OSs and REDUCING spending on maintaining old OSs that cost them money.

          MSFT was forced to maintain and update Windows XP for nearly a decade longer than they ever expected to have to do it.

          MSFT would have been forced to maintain windows 7 for an addl 5 years longer than they ever expected.

          Every OS gets harder and harder to maintain, the older it gets and the more processing power pcs get and the more time it sits for. A Perpetual OS with modularity that is in constant development doesn’t cost them money, it saves it. Fewer divergent research tracks, increased compatibility with new technologies… Not to mention the value of increased visibility and consumer confidence.

          Trust me, MSFT isn’t missing the pennies on 50m licenses (out of a pool of over a bn?) Computers still break. People are still having kids/going off to college/buying new PCs. MSFT IS FINE.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 4 years ago

      Perhaps Microsoft should have thought of that before they tried to fundamentally screw PC gamers and then expect them to be grateful for their “free” OS whose chief benefit seems to be giving us a Start Menu we were originally promised in Windows 8?

        • Krogoth
        • 4 years ago

        Microsoft never “screwed over” PC gamers nor do they care about them. It has been this way since MS-DOS.

        As far as gaming is concern. Microsoft only cares about the Xbox line-up.

    • Tristan
    • 4 years ago

    UWP can’t be free, because it was designed to bring money. Companies won’t pay 20-30% of their sales just for certificate. Let Jim answer if he want pay such money, expecially that security UWP apps is higher than those for Win32.

      • dragontamer5788
      • 4 years ago

      Then make a UWP app, put it as an Appx package on their own website, and provide an installer so that your certificate is in the user’s trust file.

      Okay, so its a bit complicated (as I mentioned in my post), but there’s no need for the Windows Store at all here.

      • cygnus1
      • 4 years ago

      UWP =/= Microsoft Store. You can have UWP apps without giving a dime to MS.

        • Tristan
        • 4 years ago

        only if app is free. If apps have price, then MS take 20-30%

          • albundy
          • 4 years ago

          yarrrrrr, what price?

          • Klimax
          • 4 years ago

          Incorrect. Outside of Store distribution possible. Including your own certificate chain.

          • cygnus1
          • 4 years ago

          Wrong. You can setup a UWP store anytime you want, all on your own. And you can take the 30%, no Microsoft involvement whatsoever. You can even not bother with a store and distribute UWP apps just like old style Win32 apps. Please just read up on technet if you don’t believe me.

        • auxy
        • 4 years ago

        Why do you keep repeating this? You keep saying it everywhere. Have you tried it?

        If the Windows Store package is not installed no other UWP apps will run.

          • cygnus1
          • 4 years ago

          No, I haven’t personally tried it as I have no source for a UWP app except the Windows Store. And If you bought it from the windows store, that’s makes sense for it to fail if you remove the store.

          I mean, I believe it when I read it on Technet because it would be pretty dramatic for Ms to publish articles saying it works and then it didn’t, at all. Have you tried running UWP apps, source from somewhere other than the Windows Store, with the store removed?

          Isn’t calc.exe a UWP app now? I’ll try removing the store and running that when I get home. Would be pretty shocked for that to fail.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            It fails. That was the specific example I was thinking of, in fact.

            I don’t care, because I use [url=http://winaero.com/blog/get-calculator-from-windows-8-and-windows-7-in-windows-10/<]OldCalc for Windows 10[/url<]*, but yeah. You can't run any UWP anything with the store removed. [sub<]*[i<](on other people's Win10 installs)[/i<][/sub<]

            • cygnus1
            • 4 years ago

            Ahh, I see why that fails. Calc is tied to the store. I forgot that MS has moved several built-in apps over to UWP and they’re bundled with the store. Theoretically this would let them update those apps outside of actual OS updates. Now that I think about it, any MS UWP app is going to be tied to the store. It would be stupid of them not to.

            But MS making their UWP apps dependent on the store still =/= all UWP apps requiring the Windows Store. So, do you know of any non-MS UWP apps available yet, outside the Windows Store, with which to test this theory?

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            I don’t, no.

            Setting aside the question for a moment, don’t you think it’s a problem that Microsoft wants to update applications on your PC through a completely separate mechanism from the accepted Windows Update mechanism without your consent or even awareness?

            • cygnus1
            • 4 years ago

            Well, not particularly no. From an enterprise standpoint, I’d rather see “apps” removed/unbundled from Windows Update. It makes them easier to strip for building a deployable image. It’s less to patch. For home users, it lets them get updated apps more quickly.

            I don’t see the point in getting upset about it though. But there are people that will find a reason to hate change no matter what.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            You’re not wrong about that. Don’t lump me in that group, though. I steadfastly support Windows 10 in a general sense; I think some of the thing it does are good steps forward.

            It’s simply one step forward and two steps back, IMO.

            By the way, the version of Windows 10 that I use, called the Enterprise LTSB version (“Long-Term Support branch”), doesn’t have Cortana, or the Windows Store, or any UWP apps, and it comes with the old-style calculator! (*’▽’) You should check it out.

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]By the way, the version of Windows 10 that I use, called the Enterprise LTSB version ("Long-Term Support branch"), doesn't have Cortana, or the Windows Store, or any UWP apps, and it comes with the old-style calculator! (*'▽') You should check it out.[/quote<] That isn't even an option for the home user without resorting to piracy as you have to be a Volume License customer. If you are using it and don't have a volume license, you are pirating software.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            What exactly is the point of this post? ┐( ̄ヘ ̄)┌

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 4 years ago

        Do you have an example of any?

          • cygnus1
          • 4 years ago

          Not just yet, but given my very, very large employer is in the process of deploying Win10, I fully expect to have examples of internally built appx packages soon. And I can tell you, they will not be distributed through the Windows Store.

    • gerryg
    • 4 years ago

    Microsoft needs to decide if they are truly going down the open route or the closed rout and quit trying to have it both ways. Given their publishing of apps in the Apple ecosystem, SQL Server for Linux, etc., it seems they should jump on the open route with both feet and just make it a principle their company lives by – be open. Then they just have to be better than others at writing apps or making stores. Surely with as much capital and R&D spending they have, they should be able to do that, or buy it from somebody else.

    That said, if Win 10 starts feeling closed off, I will erase and reinstall Win7.

    Still hoping that Linux will get its act together, and Valve manages to actually make SteamOS a worthy environment. Not sure about their apparent strategy of trying to be another console, but at least it feels like they are making a good run at it and trying/learning.

      • the
      • 4 years ago

      In fairness, MS has been publishing applications for the Mac before there was even a Windows OS.

      SQL Server for LInux though, that is is a shocker.

      • ET3D
      • 4 years ago

      There’s no real need to decide. Android manages to do that well, offering an open OS that makes tons of money from an app store, and doesn’t prevent installing from other app stores.

        • Deanjo
        • 4 years ago

        And leaves 3/4’s of the installed base vulnerable to security issues with no other option but to buy a new device if they want those security issues fixed.

        If MS followed Androids model of letting manufacturers handle OS updates you would be looking at buying another PC every 12-24 months in most cases just to keep current or having to purchase a Surface from MS in order to guarantee yourself at least a few years of a supported system.

    • cygnus1
    • 4 years ago

    There’s no reason a 3rd Party store can’t install the required certs when the store itself is installed. Steam or GoG Galaxy or Origin or whoever could very easily convert itself into a UWP storefront and just install the needed certificates.

    I liked Peter Bright’s take on Sweeney’s original rant.

    [url<]http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/tim-sweeney-is-missing-the-point-the-pc-platform-needs-fixing/[/url<]

      • dragontamer5788
      • 4 years ago

      I don’t quite fully agree with Peter Bright here.

      I am actually more in agreement with Sweeney’s philosophy. Peter Bright seems to be the type who enjoys the “walled garden” approach of iOS (a philosophy I’m extremely against). But Tim Sweeney is extremely distrustful of Microsoft to the point where Sweeney is ignoring some basic facts of the UWP platform.

      Sweeney is arguing from the correct point of view, although he seems to be getting some facts wrong. Peter Bright gets the facts straight but has a poisonous philosophy.

        • cygnus1
        • 4 years ago

        My point was mainly that Sweeney is arguing a point that’s mostly non-existent. Nothing is stopping a 3rd party from creating a store that completely bypasses Microsoft. Maybe Sweeney should be yelling at Valve for that instead for being lazy. It’s only a marginally walled garden by default with walls that aren’t very tall and fairly easy to step over.

        Now, some of the odd technical limits, like forcing v-sync and such silliness, I think that’ll be changed in patches. But it’ll depend on if MS can find a way to patch it and not break the universal part of the UWP system.

          • dragontamer5788
          • 4 years ago

          I can agree with you here.

          I just don’t like Peter Bright’s slant on the issue, even if he’s getting all of the facts straight. That’s all. Especially when the thesis of his argument is:

          [quote<]The first issue is that the UWP lock-down is, overall, a positive thing.[/quote<] No, UWP lockdown is bad. Fortunately, UWP isn't very well locked down (as Peter Bright mentioned), but Sweeney is [b<]perfectly[/b<] in the right to be worried about a historically closed anti-consumer company. (And yes, Win8 was closed and anti-consumer. Microsoft made the right steps at fixing the issue with Win10, but its a [b<]good thing[/b<] that Sweeney is looking at Microsoft with distrust right now)

            • cygnus1
            • 4 years ago

            Yeah, Bright definitely seems to be of the opinion that most users are dumb and need to be protected even if the openness cost is fairly high.

            • Klimax
            • 4 years ago

            It’s not just dumb users. Too many idiotic “developers” too.

            • HisDivineOrder
            • 4 years ago

            I agree. I’ll go you one better. Let’s get all those drivers off the road because they keep having wrecks and drunk driving and checking their phones while driving and hitting children and what not. Since we can’t tell them from the good drivers, I really think humans shouldn’t be allowed to drive. Google cars for everyone! And let’s get rid of the guns and knives and anything that could hurt you. Including toys because kids can choke on them. Any toy. You never know what a kid might do, after all. Best they use their safe imaginations while chained to a bed.

            Let’s get rid of all things that might hurt people if they aren’t paying attention. Because life is hard.

            Or people can just avail themselves of the tools they have to verify and check the things they install.

            One way is easier and allows us to have nice things. Another gives us a pseudo-safe, pseudo-secure feeling that fails all the same except now with a population taught not to pay attention.

    • Tirk
    • 4 years ago

    Yeah because Microsoft never slips the finger when its promoting its software.

    It was always intentional to highly promote DX12 with a game that Microsoft was going to cancel before its release. Isn’t that how everyone advertises features?

    Darth Jar Jar is the true leader of Microsoft [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Uc84U04Sk[/url<]

    • keltor
    • 4 years ago

    The UWP apps still behave oddly, look VERY different and are a gigantic PIA to program with C++. Also they make porting even MORE difficult.

      • dragontamer5788
      • 4 years ago

      C++/CX is awkward, but it overall makes sense. Basically ^ is a .NET pointer (while * is your standard pointer).

      I dunno if its a PIA, any moreso than MFC / ATL / WTL was anyway. I can confidently say that ^ references into a .NET class (like any of the new controls) is much easier to work with than making an ATL class.

    • dragontamer5788
    • 4 years ago

    The only thing UWP needs is to make 3rd party certificates easier to install.

    But you can totally install APPx in Win10 with a (differently) signed App package. You just need to install your certificate into the Windows trust chain. Its this step that is admittingly awkward, but it makes it possible for a 3rd party store to create a chain of trust built on top of the Win10 platform.

    [url=https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt269549%28v=vs.85%29.aspx<]For details see this page[/url<]. The "Import Security Certificate" is an extra step that will probably discourage 3rd party app developers / 3rd party stores, and that's what I'm talking about. But if that step were simplified (or if it becomes regular to create "Steam Certificates" that are trusted on Win10), then I see no reason why UWP Applications can't work out "openly".

      • auxy
      • 4 years ago

      Why are you so intent on shilling UWP and the Microsoft Store? Every post I have seen you make on the topic is uniformly supportive of this extremely negative concept.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 4 years ago

        Because there’s misinformation out there. I don’t even live or work anywhere close to Redmont, so calling me a shill == lulz. I use Linux at work and use Linux servers at home for fun. But it bothers me severely when so many (supposedly) technical people seem to get basic facts wrong.

        So I ask you: what’s wrong with injecting some facts into the debate? I understand Tim Sweeney’s frustration here, but I think he’s getting some basic facts wrong on some of these issues. So its best if I called him out on it.

          • auxy
          • 4 years ago

          The implication that you have to be at or near Redmond to be a Microsoft shill is pretty damning, as even a moment’s consideration makes that obviously false.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 4 years ago

            Be careful auxy, there are shills under your bed. You probably want to go check it out.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            And now you’re mocking me without actually refuting what I said. More evidence for your bias.

            Note that I didn’t say “paid” shill; I never said you were employed by Microsoft or anything, simply that you have an irrational bias toward this platform (or perhaps more accurately, against people who are against the platform.)

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m actually right there with you with regards to factual accuracy, fighting misinformation, and generally going against the grain of “conventional wisdom”. I don’t like the Windows 7 holdouts or Linux tryhards any more than you do.

            It’s just that this attempt to sweep Win32 aside and replace it with the Microsoft-controlled and -approved “Universal Windows Platform” is indefensible, yet here you are. It really is like trying to defend forced sterilization of “undesirables” or something equally vile. You’re fighting against your own best interests.

            Again, let’s be clear — regardless of what Technet says about what you CAN do (with regards to the aforementioned certificate shenanigans and related arguments you’ve made), the fact remains that even disregarding the ethical implications and possibilities of what Microsoft has done and could do, there are HUGE [i<]technical[/i<] limitations in place with UWP that simply are not there with Win32 apps and which simply are not in the best interests of users, even IF you accept the flimsy security-based official line. Stop arguing against your own best interests. You're only making everything worse for everyone -- except Microsoft (which is why I called you a shill.)

            • dragontamer5788
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]And now you're mocking me without actually refuting what I said[/quote<] The only thing you have claimed thus far is that I'm a shill. [quote<] It really is like trying to defend forced sterilization of "undesirables" or something equally vile.[/quote<] [url=http://www.salon.com/2013/08/11/north_carolinas_shocking_history_of_sterilization/<]Holy crap, did you really just channel what I think you did?[/url<] You're a nutjob, you know that? I'm sorry that I disagree with your technical assessment, but comparing me to the most vile practices of the last century because I have a technical disagreement with you is completely and utterly wacky. How about this, you clean up your words. When you clean up your language, maybe I'll talk. I have no reason to talk with a nutjob who is comparing this position to wtf forced sterilization. Get your priorities in order kid. The forced lockdown of an App store (ie: Apple iOS) is bad, but no where close to literally Nazi territory. If you can't fathom the difference between literal Nazis / KKK killings and the locked-down walled garden that is called Apple iOS, you seriously need to get your ethics recalibrated. Dude, the fact that you're making this comparison almost requires that you apologize for this behavior. There are still women [b<]today[/b<] who are suffering from the effects of forced sterilization in their youth, living in America. You shouldn't be channeling their legacy and pain to make a point about a technical discussion with regards to app-store distribution ethics. [b<]Its completely incomparable[/b<]. -------- BTW: You still haven't responded to my original post or intent: What's wrong with the sideloading button + distributing certificates to support UWP10 applications? My gosh dude, I'm leaving some very easy areas for you to get in and argue points against me, but the fact that you haven't even attacked any of the obvious openings in my argument only makes it clear that you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about. I'll give you easy mode. ** UWP Apps can be sideloaded on any Win10 machine, provided that the certificate chain that signs the appxbundle is trusted by the user's computer. What makes this a closed platform? If you want to talk issues, talk issues man. Lets get technical. I don't want to see any of this wtf indirect Nazi comparisons going on.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            You clearly can’t even bother to read my posts, and yet you accuse me of not responding to yours?

            I’ve said time and again that you [b<]cannot install or run UWP apps if the Windows Store app is removed or disabled.[/b<] You also can't use them if you are not in Admin Approval Mode. Where's your rebuttal to this? Forcing users to run with limited permissions is not acceptable and ultimately it's just another way to take control away from the user under the guise of "we know better than you ... whoever you are." By the way, I don't care how offended you are at my suggestion, so all those paragraphs you wrote about how SHOCKED and OUTRAGED you are fall on deaf ears. The comparison is valid; both actions (forced sterilization of political opponents and willful defense of authoritarianism) are ethically reprehensible. I stand by my comparison wholeheartedly.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]You clearly can't even bother to read my posts, and yet you accuse me of not responding to yours?[/quote<] Nah man. I can bother to read your posts. I just don't wanna anymore. Respect is a two way street, and you've disrespected me far too much for me to take you seriously.

            • auxy
            • 4 years ago

            WEW LAD. Was it because public opinion turned against your ideology or was it because you realized you can’t talk circles around me?

            Well, either way, you lose. Good day sir! (´▽⊂ヽ

            • dragontamer5788
            • 4 years ago

            [url<]https://4sysops.com/archives/how-to-remove-the-store-app-in-windows-10/[/url<] Deal with facts yo. You can use UWP apps while the store app has been disabled. If you actually want me to argue with you and elaborate my point beyond this, please give more respect to your opponents.

        • sweatshopking
        • 4 years ago

        Why are you so intent on putting your politics before reality?

          • auxy
          • 4 years ago

          Why are you so intent on bringing politics into everything?

      • cygnus1
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<] For details see this page. The "Import Security Certificate" is an extra step that will probably discourage 3rd party app developers / 3rd party stores, and that's what I'm talking about. But if that step were simplified (or if it becomes regular to create "Steam Certificates" that are trusted on Win10), then I see no reason why UWP Applications can't work out "openly". [/quote<] I don't think that's as big an impediment/discouragement as it seems. It's pretty easy to do for a software installer. I think the better question is going to be what 3rd parties do you trust enough to allow them to install that kind of certificate? Are users smart enough to know that's what a 3rd party app store is doing?

        • dragontamer5788
        • 4 years ago

        If Good-ol-games and Steam created certificates, I’d trust them personally.

        Probably not EA/Origin.

          • Klimax
          • 4 years ago

          Because Steam has (and had) less of idiocies then Origin, right… (Steam is still bigger POS then Origin)

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      You cannot make it more simple. Linked approach is GUI-based for users, not applications. It has to collect information which can be otherwise provided. Applications can use either tool for import (CertMgr) or use API outright.

      Developers want CryptoAPI. No need to reinvent it.

    • ldonyo
    • 4 years ago

    Everything Sweeney wants is already a part of UWP. Maybe he needs someone to read it to him again, but slower.

    • tay
    • 4 years ago

    I don’t see the “new” op-ed. Where’s it at?

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 4 years ago

      Sorry, bad link on our part: [url<]http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/10/epics-tim-sweeney-heres-how-to-keep-windows-an-open-platform/[/url<]

    • Chrispy_
    • 4 years ago

    Once bitten, twice shy.

    Or, in the case of Microsoft’s involvement with PC gaming; twenty times bitten, now loaded for bear.

    Whatever Kevin Gallo claims, it is all but cast-iron guaranteed to be the opposite of what Microsoft will actually do in the near future.

      • davidbowser
      • 4 years ago

      This is my exact thought.

      Not that I don’t think these guys are saying/doing the right things, it’s just that I don’t trust that Microsoft will stay the course for any significant period of time. It will take a year (two at max) of breaking even (or not making enough profit) on this project and they will change it or kill it.

    • TheMonkeyKing
    • 4 years ago

    Tools: open platform
    APIs: open (platform agnostic)
    Install on Win10: closed

    Really what it boils down to is that Microsoft wants your software to play in any of their computing environments because adoption of all means better Microsoft ROI. But what it means to you, the one at home, is that you buy from the MS approved ecosystem or face the very real possibility of having anything else uninstalled remotely by Microsoft.

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      Not even wrong. At least not in this universe. Pure BS here.

        • willmore
        • 4 years ago

        [quote<]Pure BS here.[/quote<] At least you're honest about it this time.

    • Kretschmer
    • 4 years ago

    How do you lock down software security without controlling which software is installed? Based on the web implementation, I trust third party certificates about as much as Soviet surplus toilet paper.

    Maybe something like the Android system (but better, of course), where “access” is granularly quantified and approved with each install?

    I’m not trying to be contrarian, and you’ll pry Steam from my cold dead hands. Just trying to figure out how we could make this a win-win.

      • blahsaysblah
      • 4 years ago

      Except Android security is anything but granular.

      App with tons of permissions: I need to access this one server using this specific API over that specific protocol. I know i have some other scary permissions…

      Android Here: Hi, let me get you closest matching, not too big, not too small permission to limit fallout. Here you go, i found only one permission in that category. It matches your request perfectly. INTERNET….

        • Flying Fox
        • 4 years ago

        Even post-Marshmallow?

          • blahsaysblah
          • 4 years ago

          In Marshmallow apps no longer need to ask the user for Internet permission. They just put it in the manifest and it is automatically granted.

          From the horses mouth, fyi:
          [url<]https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/security/normal-permissions.html[/url<] Android M is horrible for user privacy, both power users and just want things to work folks. Pre-M: They asked user if they can access the internet. Post M: They were forced to get behind Ad/Search revenue streams. Could have: asked for specific permission to contact ads.google.com via TCP But choose: they made INTERNET not even something the user has control over. Could have: use fragments/intents to pop up, which contact to share with this app:check all, check some, always, just once But choose: give everything if they ask or give nothing at all.

            • nanoflower
            • 4 years ago

            Wow.. If that’s true I can see most business either choosing to stay away from Android phones or requiring them to be locked down so that nothing gets installed without their prior approval since who knows what information might leak.

        • Kretschmer
        • 4 years ago

        I strongly agree and would hope that Microsoft could come up with something better (either more granular for power users or more intuitive for the general population). The model itself is interesting.

        (Edited my post for clarity.)

      • nanoflower
      • 4 years ago

      I don’t think Microsoft will ever be able to satisfy Sweeny as what they want is something that will work on the Xbox One and Windows 10 (and possibly Windows Phone.) That requires them to lock it down as tightly as they can or give up control of the Xbox scene. Which we know isn’t going to happen as the game sales are where Msft makes their money.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This