Tim Sweeney: Microsoft UWP Still "Woefully Inadequate"

[Megalith]

The head of Epic Games was recently asked whether he felt any differently about the Universal Windows Platform, and as expected, he reiterated his hate for the technology. If you can remember, Sweeney saw UWP as an attempt by Microsoft to lock down the PC ecosystem, and he thinks the company is being deceitful when they parade the platform as a measure for preventing malware and other malicious code.

"All of the things that Microsoft can do to make Windows more secure, they can do without forcing everybody to sell their stuff through their store," he said. "And so, all of these claims that they’re forcing people into the Windows Store and adding friction to non-Windows Store software purchasing, it’s just a lie when they say that they’re doing that to secure users. Those are two completely separate issues that they’re only conflating because it’s the only possible excuse they can use for their efforts. But yeah, UWP is a very, very long way from being able to support the kind of openness and flexibility of PC games today.”

 

[OutOfPhase]

He's not wrong, but they can't add too much friction to "non-store" (what a fun new way of describing normal software) applications. If they do, they make the evaluation of alternatives much simpler. After all, if legacy apps don't work or are cumbersome, there are other platforms which are cheaper which are also cumbersome or incompatible.

I do want to maintain the push-back on MS for the increased pressure for their new love for a walled garden. We really don't need more of those. What I like about windows is the flexibility to do what I want, and they are really working overtime on peeling that back over time. THAT concerns me. I want to control my PC, thanks.

 

[steakman1971]

I'm wary of anything like that. Look at Apple - they have the app store for iOS and macOS. For iOS, you can only go through the app store to get your apps (unless you jail break, but it's a cat and mouse game...probably 99% of iOS users would never even consider it so there is a very limited market). There has been malware from the app store. Apple reviews and controls everything. They don't like your app? You get rejected from the store. I've worked with Apple a lot - it can be a real pain as a developer at times. On the macOS side, you can still get apps from other sources but Apple is pushing the app store. I get why - it makes a lot of sense for the vendor. Complete control and the illusion of security. Oh yeah, you have to pay to be a developer for this platform - no pay, no app in the store! (It's $99/year which isn't horrible, but what if I want to release free games/utilities?)

What happens to stores like Steam if UWP takes off? They would eventually die. Could something like Glide (ok, very old example), non-DirectX rendering engines have a chance? What about emerging technologies? Only if MSFT allows it.
On the flip side, malware could be reduced some I suppose. Apps would be sandboxed, only signed apps allowed, etc. However, malware is still going to be around - computers are still going to get hacked.

I dunno - keep this kind of stuff on tablets (which I don't care about). I have always had an open platform and would move over to Linux or whatever other options I might have available.

 

[heatlesssun]

What friction about non-Windows Store software? I'm using all of the same sources of software procurement I've always used, and now also the Windows Store.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

What friction about non-Windows Store software? I'm using all of the same sources of software procurement I've always used, and now also the Windows Store.

Until MS changes the policy and does not allow outside of store purchase due to security features. Without any proof of the concept (that security will increase on windows platform) they only have to say this and act on it.

There are already changes in Windows 10.

 

[oldmanbal]

The gaming market on pc is rediculously fragmented now, possibly more than ever. Everyone used to just hang out in Mirc and have their little #whatever their clan hung out in. Then it moved to Xfire, and after Half-Life 2 dropped everyone was on steam, which created a centralized area to buy games and chat. Now more and more companies are providing services like Origin, Uplay, Twitch, discord, mumble, curse, ect. Gamers are more spread and out and buying from the most diverse array of retail/etail ever in the history of the PC.

I don't see any near future where all of these products are filtered through the lens of a Microsoft Online Store. It's just not possible, there's too money to be made on the fringes of computer gaming for this to ever happen. Supporting computers and their evolution is one thing, but trying to steal content creators money by forcing them through your store is bullsht. Tim sweeny might be awkward but he definitely DGAF about anxiety when it comes to companies trying to put their hands in his pockets.

 

[heatlesssun]

Until MS changes the policy and does not allow outside of store purchase due to security features. Without any proof of the concept (that security will increase on windows platform) they only have to say this and act on it.

There are already changes in Windows 10.

I don't see how Microsoft essentially breaking countless billions in software is of any benefit to Microsoft.

 

[M76]

He's not wrong, but they can't add too much friction to "non-store" (what a fun new way of describing normal software) applications. If they do, they make the evaluation of alternatives much simpler. After all, if legacy apps don't work or are cumbersome, there are other platforms which are cheaper which are also cumbersome or incompatible.

I do want to maintain the push-back on MS for the increased pressure for their new love for a walled garden. We really don't need more of those. What I like about windows is the flexibility to do what I want, and they are really working overtime on peeling that back over time. THAT concerns me. I want to control my PC, thanks.

It's not that hard. It was proven beyond any kind of doubt by now that people are willing to pay for a better service. So if they provide a better service, people will start using it. But banning regular apps is a sure way to insignificance. The whole point of PC is to use software freely. It's completely unfathomable that they'd disallow programs that are not from the store. Imagine I develop an util, then in order to use it I must submit it to the store to be able do distribute it to my colleagues? Ridiculous

 

[dandirk]

UWP isn't and doesn't have to be MS Store only. Though MS isn't helping to make that clear or supporting its use as a next gen "installer". As others have rightfully indicated most of the focus is on its store, sideloading can be done but requires disabling default security features.

Good things? UWP/AppX sideloading required proper signature which is a good security feature.

Personally if I was MS I would be pushing UWP/AppX as the new installer technology. Forcing apps to install in a more standardized and isolated way is GOOD imo.. Linux has been doing this for years, Windows has been able to do it as well but it hasn't been forced (or even standardized) before now.

Obviously still offering the store as the easy way to get and manage your apps but also allow installation outside of the store... either via a exe installer or through 3rd party apps like Steam.

They would have to do something to support their store, maybe limit auto-updating of sideloaded apps.

 

[GaryJohnson]

I don't see how Microsoft essentially breaking countless billions in software is of any benefit to Microsoft.

You can't see how forcing everyone to purchase new software through the windows store where they get a cut of the sales isn't of benefit to them?

 

[umeng2002]

I haven't used a UWP app that works correctly or offers more features than a normal Windows program.

 

[M76]

UWP isn't and doesn't have to be MS Store only. Though MS isn't helping to make that clear or supporting its use as a next gen "installer". As others have rightfully indicated most of the focus is on its store, sideloading can be done but requires disabling default security features.

Good things? UWP/AppX sideloading required proper signature which is a good security feature.

Personally if I was MS I would be pushing UWP/AppX as the new installer technology. Forcing apps to install in a more standardized and isolated way is GOOD imo.. Linux has been doing this for years, Windows has been able to do it as well but it hasn't been forced (or even standardized) before now.

That's one thing I despise about linux. Probably one of the reasons I never even considered moving to linux. In Windows 10 my control over the system might be reduced, but compared to linux I'm still king of the world on my pc.

It's not the store that I'm against, it's UWP specifically. I don't care where I get my software I care about the quality of the software and the way it's delivered.

 

[heatlesssun]

You can't see how forcing everyone to purchase new software through the windows store where they get a cut of the sales isn't of benefit to them?

One defining characteristic of Windows is backwards compatibility, it's a primary reason why people stick with Windows. How Microsoft throws all of that away along with the huge sums of money people have spent on Windows software, it just cant work in Microsoft's favor.

 

[Frobozz]

One defining characteristic of Windows is backwards compatibility, it's a primary reason why people stick with Windows. How Microsoft throws all of that away along with the huge sums of money people have spent on Windows software, it just cant work in Microsoft's favor.

But they can buy all new versions of the same software. This time MS gets a direct cut of the sale and the shareholders go wild! Beside, what's the customer going to do? (if the scenario were true) They can't stay on Win7 with that version of Quickbooks forever.

 

[heatlesssun]

But they can buy all new versions of the same software. This time MS gets a direct cut of the sale and the shareholders go wild! Beside, what's the customer going to do? (if the scenario were true) They can't stay on Win7 with that version of Quickbooks forever.

Who is going to go rebuy all of that software? And there's plenty of older software out there that still gets used that will never get updated. I simply don't see how this works and how it would work in Microsoft's favor.

 

[Frobozz]

Who is going to go rebuy all of that software? And there's plenty of older software out there that still gets used that will never get updated. I simply don't see how this works and how it would work in Microsoft's favor.

I'm fairly sure we've had this exchange before. I don't think they're going to just flip a switch and force people to get UWP versions of everything in the near future either.

However, to answer your question given the scenario - the customer. Besides, it's not the first time people had to leave software behind, even on Windows. I remember the tears of leaving all that 16-bit goodness behind. Like that, they will/could offer an intermediate stage where both are supported, but UWP is "supported more" (whatever that would look like) and they'd push with partners to get products into the Store. Eventually (and after sufficient warning and partner support) in the Bungholio Edition update, they'll cut off Win32. I doubt they could cut out other software distribution platforms without legal backlash, but the Windows Store will have intertia at that point and be a money printing machine, and they'll be closer to their goal of being like Apple and Google as far as market places go.

I doubt anything would be traumatically implemented. Frog in pot style such that no one complains and has sufficient time to upgrade their software comfortably.

It's all hypothetical hoo-ha. So, the discussion is worth exactly as much.

 

[HoffY]

One defining characteristic of Windows is backwards compatibility, it's a primary reason why people stick with Windows.

Its funny how the definition of "backwards compatibility" is for some reason now "anything prior to Windows 7". Not much "backwards" in that, but a lot of it in your comments.

 

[heatlesssun]

Its funny how the definition of "backwards compatibility" is for some reason now "anything prior to Windows 7". Not much "backwards" in that, but a lot of it in your comments.

All I'm saying is that compatibility with tons of existing software is a primary reason that people use Windows. Take that away and that's a big reason not to use Windows.