In a few years we will all learn that MS Windows 11 was not about freedom, openness, etc. but instead about collusion between MS, Amazon and Google to maintain their advertising and search revenue buy silently collecting user metrics on EVERYTHING the user does.
One can only hope that this will put an end to the "a Windows machine cost less" FUD. Those specs should raise the base computer price?
Come on, did you even read the article? It is clearly mentioned - "Microsoft's requirement of TPM 2.0 and other requirements will limit processors to ones delivered in approximately the last six years.". We are talking about specs that belong to 6 year old computers here. How and why would that increase cost, that too to Apple levels?
It's 4 years, not 6 years. That's because the earliest Intel CPU Architecture that's supported looks to be Coffee Lake, from 2017. It's basically the same with AMD, but potentially a year later, with Zen+ being the earliest, there.
Thank you for the information. Even then, my point still stands in context to the post that I replied to. Arrival of Windows 11 is not magically going to increase the cost of entry-level PCs, with 4-year old hardware capable of running it.
Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
Microsoft has always supported older hardware for as much and as long as they could.
They sell software -- the more types of hardware it runs on the more money they make.
They are going to limit any limitations they can.
MS doesn't "support older hardware"! Instead folk refuse to upgrade and put their machines in stasis b/c they have everything they need, checkbook program, email, word processor, spreadsheet. It MEETS their NEEDS.
MS does not make ANY money on software that was sold 10-20 years ago.
In fact, this is why years ago MS finally started to EOL their products. The fat days were over and still are. Corporations/departments have targets to meet. They already cut employees and capital investment. One of the only opportunities for IT to save is to stop blindly upgrading unless they have to. How could they do that? B/c like you, they had everything they needed (see first sentence), nothing was broke and the VALUE could not be quantified. No one needs MS Word and MS Excel version 20. Most people/employees don't even know how to use the features in version 5.
In my experience Windows 10 doesn't run great with its minimum 2GB requirement (yeah,a cheap boss), so it will be interesting to see if the new 4GB requirement will be more of the same. Adding RAM resulted in a palpable improvement.
One of the Mac things I really miss when using Windows is Exposé, and it doesn't appear they've added anything like that, but the Snap layout feature might be handy.
I still wish Apple did a better job with window management, even something simple like remembering size and position, which sometimes goes awry, but after all these years of OS X, the FTFF dream is probably dead.
No version of windows has ever run great with the ‘minimum’ system requirements. Basically, those are what lets you boot the system, not actually use it to get some work done.
One can only hope that this will put an end to the "a Windows machine cost less" FUD. Those specs should raise the base computer price?
Come on, did you even read the article? It is clearly mentioned - "Microsoft's requirement of TPM 2.0 and other requirements will limit processors to ones delivered in approximately the last six years.". We are talking about specs that belong to 6 year old computers here. How and why would that increase cost, that too to Apple levels?
It's 4 years, not 6 years. That's because the earliest Intel CPU Architecture that's supported looks to be Coffee Lake, from 2017. It's basically the same with AMD, but potentially a year later, with Zen+ being the earliest, there.
Thank you for the information. Even then, my point still stands in context to the post that I replied to. Arrival of Windows 11 is not magically going to increase the cost of entry-level PCs, with 4-year old hardware capable of running it.
Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
Microsoft has always supported older hardware for as much and as long as they could.
They sell software -- the more types of hardware it runs on the more money they make.
They are going to limit any limitations they can.
All of the above is why MS can't get out to its Wintel rut and into ARM. Too much value to Windows customers in legacy support. (note to self; consider Windows 7 upgrade this decade),
...
So supporting your customers and their billions of dollars of investment in your systems is a bad thing!
Thanks! I wasn't aware of that!
You're quite welcome, and I would add, how very astute it is of Microsoft to invite the No. 1 cloud service vendor, Amazon, to host their alternative to Google Play Store in Microsoft's App Store.
Next thing you know, Amazon is going to be invited to host Luna cloud gaming within xCloud.
The conversation was about how you denigrated Microsoft for supporting legacy systems.
No. the conversation is about how MS has failed, over and over again, to take advantage of ARM, and hence, why I contrasted that with Apple, which is a year away from having its entire device architecture on ARM.
That MS has been unable to transition its customer and developer base to ARM due to legacy support is obvious. That MS has invited its primary cloud competitor to provide an ersatz Google Play store is hilarious, demonstration yet again how MS has completely failed in mobile.
As usual, when you lose an argument you simply change the topic and go on to your next lecture...
One can only hope that this will put an end to the "a Windows machine cost less" FUD. Those specs should raise the base computer price?
Come on, did you even read the article? It is clearly mentioned - "Microsoft's requirement of TPM 2.0 and other requirements will limit processors to ones delivered in approximately the last six years.". We are talking about specs that belong to 6 year old computers here. How and why would that increase cost, that too to Apple levels?
It's 4 years, not 6 years. That's because the earliest Intel CPU Architecture that's supported looks to be Coffee Lake, from 2017. It's basically the same with AMD, but potentially a year later, with Zen+ being the earliest, there.
Thank you for the information. Even then, my point still stands in context to the post that I replied to. Arrival of Windows 11 is not magically going to increase the cost of entry-level PCs, with 4-year old hardware capable of running it.
Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
Microsoft has always supported older hardware for as much and as long as they could.
They sell software -- the more types of hardware it runs on the more money they make.
They are going to limit any limitations they can.
All of the above is why MS can't get out to its Wintel rut and into ARM. Too much value to Windows customers in legacy support. (note to self; consider Windows 7 upgrade this decade),
...
So supporting your customers and their billions of dollars of investment in your systems is a bad thing!
Thanks! I wasn't aware of that!
That's not "support" that's enabling. Just like welfare.
If MS doesn't provide value or an incentive for me to upgrade the status quo will remain. But let's be truthful with ourselves. People don't upgrade b/c they don't want to spend the money on the cascade that will come. Oh, need a new software, oh need a new printer, etc.
To tell the truth this level of "legacy support" is probably the only reason Windows can claim such high "installed" numbers.
No, the job of any business is not to force their customers to upgrade. It's to meet their needs -- which is what Microsoft has done with older copies of its OS.
Those were business customers. And, unlike retail customers, they didn't hold back upgrading because they didn't want to buy a new copy but because they had millions and billions of dollars of custom software that would need to be upgraded and/or rewritten to run on the latest and greatest OS.
Microsoft was right deciding not to screw their biggest, most important customers.
One can only hope that this will put an end to the "a Windows machine cost less" FUD. Those specs should raise the base computer price?
Come on, did you even read the article? It is clearly mentioned - "Microsoft's requirement of TPM 2.0 and other requirements will limit processors to ones delivered in approximately the last six years.". We are talking about specs that belong to 6 year old computers here. How and why would that increase cost, that too to Apple levels?
It's 4 years, not 6 years. That's because the earliest Intel CPU Architecture that's supported looks to be Coffee Lake, from 2017. It's basically the same with AMD, but potentially a year later, with Zen+ being the earliest, there.
Thank you for the information. Even then, my point still stands in context to the post that I replied to. Arrival of Windows 11 is not magically going to increase the cost of entry-level PCs, with 4-year old hardware capable of running it.
Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
Microsoft has always supported older hardware for as much and as long as they could.
They sell software -- the more types of hardware it runs on the more money they make.
They are going to limit any limitations they can.
MS doesn't "support older hardware"! Instead folk refuse to upgrade and put their machines in stasis b/c they have everything they need, checkbook program, email, word processor, spreadsheet. It MEETS their NEEDS.
MS does not make ANY money on software that was sold 10-20 years ago.
In fact, this is why years ago MS finally started to EOL their products. The fat days were over and still are. Corporations/departments have targets to meet. They already cut employees and capital investment. One of the only opportunities for IT to save is to stop blindly upgrading unless they have to. How could they do that? B/c like you, they had everything they needed (see first sentence), nothing was broke and the VALUE could not be quantified. No one needs MS Word and MS Excel version 20. Most people/employees don't even know how to use the features in version 5.
Really? "put it in stasis"? No, that's what Apple users do.
The machine I'm typing this on is 8 years old running Microsoft's most recent OS: Windows 10.
I have another that's 15 years old running a fully supported copy of one gen back: Windows 8.1
... I've been meaning to upgrade it to an SSD running Windows 10 but just haven't gotten around to it yet mostly because it's doing what I need just fine.
Likewise, when I was working IT for a Red Cross region that was a big part of my job: Upgrading older equipment to run the latest software: And why not? We had a corporate license. Upgrading cost nothing. But buying new machines took valuable money people had donated away from the core mission: helping people in times of disaster.
One can only hope that this will put an end to the "a Windows machine cost less" FUD. Those specs should raise the base computer price?
Come on, did you even read the article? It is clearly mentioned - "Microsoft's requirement of TPM 2.0 and other requirements will limit processors to ones delivered in approximately the last six years.". We are talking about specs that belong to 6 year old computers here. How and why would that increase cost, that too to Apple levels?
It's 4 years, not 6 years. That's because the earliest Intel CPU Architecture that's supported looks to be Coffee Lake, from 2017. It's basically the same with AMD, but potentially a year later, with Zen+ being the earliest, there.
Thank you for the information. Even then, my point still stands in context to the post that I replied to. Arrival of Windows 11 is not magically going to increase the cost of entry-level PCs, with 4-year old hardware capable of running it.
Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
Microsoft has always supported older hardware for as much and as long as they could.
They sell software -- the more types of hardware it runs on the more money they make.
They are going to limit any limitations they can.
All of the above is why MS can't get out to its Wintel rut and into ARM. Too much value to Windows customers in legacy support. (note to self; consider Windows 7 upgrade this decade),
...
So supporting your customers and their billions of dollars of investment in your systems is a bad thing!
Thanks! I wasn't aware of that!
You're quite welcome, and I would add, how very astute it is of Microsoft to invite the No. 1 cloud service vendor, Amazon, to host their alternative to Google Play Store in Microsoft's App Store.
Next thing you know, Amazon is going to be invited to host Luna cloud gaming within xCloud.
The conversation was about how you denigrated Microsoft for supporting legacy systems.
No. the conversation is about how MS has failed, over and over again, to take advantage of ARM, and hence, why I contrasted that with Apple, which is a year away from having its entire device architecture on ARM.
That MS has been unable to transition its customer and developer base to ARM due to legacy support is obvious. That MS has invited its primary cloud competitor to provide an ersatz Google Play store is hilarious, demonstration yet again how MS has completely failed in mobile.
As usual, when you lose an argument you simply change the topic and go on to your next lecture…
He lost? LOL I can count on my schlong the number of times you've made a salient argument or sage comment in this forum.
One can only hope that this will put an end to the "a Windows machine cost less" FUD. Those specs should raise the base computer price?
Come on, did you even read the article? It is clearly mentioned - "Microsoft's requirement of TPM 2.0 and other requirements will limit processors to ones delivered in approximately the last six years.". We are talking about specs that belong to 6 year old computers here. How and why would that increase cost, that too to Apple levels?
It's 4 years, not 6 years. That's because the earliest Intel CPU Architecture that's supported looks to be Coffee Lake, from 2017. It's basically the same with AMD, but potentially a year later, with Zen+ being the earliest, there.
Thank you for the information. Even then, my point still stands in context to the post that I replied to. Arrival of Windows 11 is not magically going to increase the cost of entry-level PCs, with 4-year old hardware capable of running it.
Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
Microsoft has always supported older hardware for as much and as long as they could.
They sell software -- the more types of hardware it runs on the more money they make.
They are going to limit any limitations they can.
All of the above is why MS can't get out to its Wintel rut and into ARM. Too much value to Windows customers in legacy support. (note to self; consider Windows 7 upgrade this decade),
...
So supporting your customers and their billions of dollars of investment in your systems is a bad thing!
Thanks! I wasn't aware of that!
You're quite welcome, and I would add, how very astute it is of Microsoft to invite the No. 1 cloud service vendor, Amazon, to host their alternative to Google Play Store in Microsoft's App Store.
Next thing you know, Amazon is going to be invited to host Luna cloud gaming within xCloud.
The conversation was about how you denigrated Microsoft for supporting legacy systems.
No. the conversation is about how MS has failed, over and over again, to take advantage of ARM, and hence, why I contrasted that with Apple, which is a year away from having its entire device architecture on ARM.
That MS has been unable to transition its customer and developer base to ARM due to legacy support is obvious. That MS has invited its primary cloud competitor to provide an ersatz Google Play store is hilarious, demonstration yet again how MS has completely failed in mobile.
As usual, when you lose an argument you simply change the topic and go on to your next lecture...
From your very own words;
"Yeh, the move from XP to Windows 7 was long and painful because so much business software was written for XP. The same happened with the migration from Windows 7 to Windows 10 -- very long, very painful because of all the business software that had to be updated in order to run.
The transition to Windows 11 will be the same.
I doubt that Microsoft will be dropping support for Windows 10 anytime soon (despite current predictions).
For some reason when people talk computers they always focus on the hardware.
Yet, it is the software that does the work and is generally the controlling factor: First it's the operating system but then its all the applications (some retail, some custom developed) that does the actual work.
Microsoft, more than most, understand that. At least they always have in the past."
and;
"Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
Microsoft has always supported older hardware for as much and as long as they could.
They sell software -- the more types of hardware it runs on the more money they make.
They are going to limit any limitations they can."
As I responded in my first link;
"All of the above is why MS can't get out of its Wintel rut and into ARM. Too much value to Windows customers in legacy support. (note to self; consider Windows 7 upgrade this decade),
On the other hand, Apple is a year away from ARM across all of its platforms, and all of it devices. With that, Universal Control is going to be widely adopted by Apple's customer base within the next year, creating an even larger moat, and new opportunities for developers."
One can only hope that this will put an end to the "a Windows machine cost less" FUD. Those specs should raise the base computer price?
Come on, did you even read the article? It is clearly mentioned - "Microsoft's requirement of TPM 2.0 and other requirements will limit processors to ones delivered in approximately the last six years.". We are talking about specs that belong to 6 year old computers here. How and why would that increase cost, that too to Apple levels?
It's 4 years, not 6 years. That's because the earliest Intel CPU Architecture that's supported looks to be Coffee Lake, from 2017. It's basically the same with AMD, but potentially a year later, with Zen+ being the earliest, there.
Thank you for the information. Even then, my point still stands in context to the post that I replied to. Arrival of Windows 11 is not magically going to increase the cost of entry-level PCs, with 4-year old hardware capable of running it.
Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
Microsoft has always supported older hardware for as much and as long as they could.
They sell software -- the more types of hardware it runs on the more money they make.
They are going to limit any limitations they can.
All of the above is why MS can't get out to its Wintel rut and into ARM. Too much value to Windows customers in legacy support. (note to self; consider Windows 7 upgrade this decade),
...
So supporting your customers and their billions of dollars of investment in your systems is a bad thing!
Thanks! I wasn't aware of that!
You're quite welcome, and I would add, how very astute it is of Microsoft to invite the No. 1 cloud service vendor, Amazon, to host their alternative to Google Play Store in Microsoft's App Store.
Next thing you know, Amazon is going to be invited to host Luna cloud gaming within xCloud.
The conversation was about how you denigrated Microsoft for supporting legacy systems.
No. the conversation is about how MS has failed, over and over again, to take advantage of ARM, and hence, why I contrasted that with Apple, which is a year away from having its entire device architecture on ARM.
That MS has been unable to transition its customer and developer base to ARM due to legacy support is obvious. That MS has invited its primary cloud competitor to provide an ersatz Google Play store is hilarious, demonstration yet again how MS has completely failed in mobile.
As usual, when you lose an argument you simply change the topic and go on to your next lecture...
From your very own words;
"Yeh, the move from XP to Windows 7 was long and painful because so much business software was written for XP. The same happened with the migration from Windows 7 to Windows 10 -- very long, very painful because of all the business software that had to be updated in order to run.
The transition to Windows 11 will be the same.
I doubt that Microsoft will be dropping support for Windows 10 anytime soon (despite current predictions).
For some reason when people talk computers they always focus on the hardware.
Yet, it is the software that does the work and is generally the controlling factor: First it's the operating system but then its all the applications (some retail, some custom developed) that does the actual work.
Microsoft, more than most, understand that. At least they always have in the past."
and;
"Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
Microsoft has always supported older hardware for as much and as long as they could.
They sell software -- the more types of hardware it runs on the more money they make.
They are going to limit any limitations they can."
As I responded in my first link;
"All of the above is why MS can't get out of its Wintel rut and into ARM. Too much value to Windows customers in legacy support. (note to self; consider Windows 7 upgrade this decade),
On the other hand, Apple is a year away from ARM across all of its platforms, and all of it devices. With that, Universal Control is going to be widely adopted by Apple's customer base within the next year, creating an even larger moat, and new opportunities for developers."
What part of that argument did I lose?
It’s useless to try and have any sort of debate of discussion with Georgie. He goes around in circles, changes the subject and denies or contradicts his previous posts. It’s best just to ignore his rants and move on.
I only half agree about the window size and positioning issues are a shortcoming of macOS. Individual applications have always been able to implement the ability to retain their window positions and sizes themselves. I’ve implemented such behaviors in apps myself and most drawing apps with floating pallets and toolboxes do this.
I suppose the operating system could provide additional support for this capability, beyond what is already provided in terms of making screen metrics available to query and firing events for things like screen resolution changes, but each application is much more aware of what its own needs are and how to move its controls around to make sure that the UI still functions correctly when the operating system enacts changes in the overall UI. I still see it at least as a shared responsibility between the OS and apps.
My complaint isn't with app windows, or controls in general, but the basics, and in particular, the Finder.
My style of workflow carries over from Classic OS, where every window, without fail, would retain its characteristics (size, position, content view), and used with multiple windows. The Spatial Finder paradigm that John Siracusa has repeatedly ranted about. Fix the F*cking Finder (FTFF).
In turning NeXT's foundation into OS X, some useful concepts were brought over, like column view, but the basic approach was different. Some concessions were made to have the OS X Finder more closely resemble the Classic Finder, but it's as if they were made through the prism of a non-Mac user's perspective, and therefore not quite right.
(Also recall that during that time, early peeks at OS X revealed a menu bar with a centered Apple that was purely ornamental, and not a functional menu. Sanity prevailed, and that was abandoned, but it did reflect the kind of "WTF is going on" thinking from the people who were shaping the new OS.)
That persists to this day (or at least through Mojave, which I still use because I have a couple essential 32-bit apps; but I doubt 10.15 or 11 are any different), and manifests itself though things like opening a folder, and finding that it no longer has the desired size, position, or content view characteristics it was set up with.
I find that still happens every so often, which is both maddening and frustrating. And when it does, trying to recreate the desired view doesn't necessarily "stick," which leads to more frustration. Create a folder, set up the desired views, close it, and reopen it again to find it has reverted to the default setup. That's now how the Finder should work, especially when it didn't before.
There is an element of uncertainty to how windows act, and that should not be the case, even if one chooses to adopt the single window "portal" style Apple prioritized after the switch. As @Xed points out, these are fundamentals that shouldn't require a piece of 3rd party software to fix, and should have been fixed long ago.
UIs do change and evolve. But consistency and predictability are traits that should be present in any interface, and sometimes that's still not the case.
OK, now I understand your concerns better. Thank you for the clarifications.
As you say, some 3rd party add-ons like BetterSnapTool can improve the situation but they aren't very reliable and in the case of BetterSnapTool seem to forget what you wanted depending on how you dispatch an app window, i.e., close vs minimize. I really wish that I could define spatially oriented regions across my entire multi-monitor display surface and always know that one or more app windows will always be rendered exactly where I expect them to be.
Being able to define a reliable and persistent spatial orientation and layout of my entire virtual workspace that includes multiple apps and stacks of apps would really make me feel like my computing environment is truly mine and not some ever-changing and seemingly random collection of windows strewn about. It's like someone else deciding every few day that your kitchen should be where your bathroom currently is ... but then changing it to put the coat closet there instead.
The new business model surrounding the Windows 11 App Store is the biggest announcement
"Microsoft has always been trying to find a way to get back at Apple for the iPhone revolution that killed their market dominance in short-order. Their new Microsoft Store model could be a major win for them over time if Apple refuses to change their current App Store model in good time."
"While only time will tell if this strategy will actually be a winner for Microsoft, one thing is for sure – Microsoft's new store model has just set the Apple Store model on fire in techland and Antitrust commissions around the globe will only be emboldened by this move and push harder for major changes to Apple's App Store."
"While the security issue is still a good one for Apple, antitrust groups, in general, just aren't buying it. The only question now is, how far will Government's go to force change to the App Store (and Google Play)."
The problem is Apple does not have a monopoly and a single store is not that. Can Target be a monopoly when Walmart is much larger just because they are more profitable ?
The new business model surrounding the Windows 11 App Store is the biggest announcement
"Microsoft has always been trying to find a way to get back at Apple for the iPhone revolution that killed their market dominance in short-order. Their new Microsoft Store model could be a major win for them over time if Apple refuses to change their current App Store model in good time."
"While only time will tell if this strategy will actually be a winner for Microsoft, one thing is for sure – Microsoft's new store model has just set the Apple Store model on fire in techland and Antitrust commissions around the globe will only be emboldened by this move and push harder for major changes to Apple's App Store."
"While the security issue is still a good one for Apple, antitrust groups, in general, just aren't buying it. The only question now is, how far will Government's go to force change to the App Store (and Google Play)."
The problem is Apple does not have a monopoly and a single store is not that. Can Target be a monopoly when Walmart is much larger just because they are more profitable ?
In almost all other areas, I would agree with you. However, when it comes to the iOS App Store, unless I missed big changes, Apple's own App Store is the only online store that's available for Apps. Even "business app stores" on iOS are special access versions of the App Store, I think. They don't allow anybody's third party apps onto the device, without using the App Store, or violating their terms of service, by "jail breaking" the device, I think it was.
In every other device, (Android, Microsoft Windows, those are the only two I know), there are multiple options to install apps and other content, either directly from 3rd-Parties, or via 3rd-Party App Stores, such as the Amazon App Store, on Android. Even MacOS has the option for installing 3rd-Party apps/from 3rd-Party locations.
In other words, with such a large market share, and being the only ones who can (legally) install apps on iOS, Apple does have a monopoly on iOS, in my opinion, at least. They are getting "better", I think, but it doesn't change what I think of the current situation.
The new business model surrounding the Windows 11 App Store is the biggest announcement
"Microsoft has always been trying to find a way to get back at Apple for the iPhone revolution that killed their market dominance in short-order. Their new Microsoft Store model could be a major win for them over time if Apple refuses to change their current App Store model in good time."
"While only time will tell if this strategy will actually be a winner for Microsoft, one thing is for sure – Microsoft's new store model has just set the Apple Store model on fire in techland and Antitrust commissions around the globe will only be emboldened by this move and push harder for major changes to Apple's App Store."
"While the security issue is still a good one for Apple, antitrust groups, in general, just aren't buying it. The only question now is, how far will Government's go to force change to the App Store (and Google Play)."
The problem is Apple does not have a monopoly and a single store is not that. Can Target be a monopoly when Walmart is much larger just because they are more profitable ?
That's not a problem. You don't need to hold a sales monopoly to operate anti-competitively.
The new business model surrounding the Windows 11 App Store is the biggest announcement
"Microsoft has always been trying to find a way to get back at Apple for the iPhone revolution that killed their market dominance in short-order. Their new Microsoft Store model could be a major win for them over time if Apple refuses to change their current App Store model in good time."
"While only time will tell if this strategy will actually be a winner for Microsoft, one thing is for sure – Microsoft's new store model has just set the Apple Store model on fire in techland and Antitrust commissions around the globe will only be emboldened by this move and push harder for major changes to Apple's App Store."
"While the security issue is still a good one for Apple, antitrust groups, in general, just aren't buying it. The only question now is, how far will Government's go to force change to the App Store (and Google Play)."
The problem is Apple does not have a monopoly and a single store is not that. Can Target be a monopoly when Walmart is much larger just because they are more profitable ?
In almost all other areas, I would agree with you. However, when it comes to the iOS App Store, unless I missed big changes, Apple's own App Store is the only online store that's available for Apps. Even "business app stores" on iOS are special access versions of the App Store, I think. They don't allow anybody's third party apps onto the device, without using the App Store, or violating their terms of service, by "jail breaking" the device, I think it was.
In every other device, (Android, Microsoft Windows, those are the only two I know), there are multiple options to install apps and other content, either directly from 3rd-Parties, or via 3rd-Party App Stores, such as the Amazon App Store, on Android. Even MacOS has the option for installing 3rd-Party apps/from 3rd-Party locations.
In other words, with such a large market share, and being the only ones who can (legally) install apps on iOS, Apple does have a monopoly on iOS, in my opinion, at least. They are getting "better", I think, but it doesn't change what I think of the current situation.
The AP store enables Apple to vet the apps and add the value of security and stability to the phone that their customers buy. It adds a feature to the phone that their competitors lack: Security and stability. It is, in essence a feature of the phone like a camera or face id.
But you espouse the the glories of the open architecture of their competitors while ignoring them as competitors.
The new business model surrounding the Windows 11 App Store is the biggest announcement
"Microsoft has always been trying to find a way to get back at Apple for the iPhone revolution that killed their market dominance in short-order. Their new Microsoft Store model could be a major win for them over time if Apple refuses to change their current App Store model in good time."
"While only time will tell if this strategy will actually be a winner for Microsoft, one thing is for sure – Microsoft's new store model has just set the Apple Store model on fire in techland and Antitrust commissions around the globe will only be emboldened by this move and push harder for major changes to Apple's App Store."
"While the security issue is still a good one for Apple, antitrust groups, in general, just aren't buying it. The only question now is, how far will Government's go to force change to the App Store (and Google Play)."
The problem is Apple does not have a monopoly and a single store is not that. Can Target be a monopoly when Walmart is much larger just because they are more profitable ?
In almost all other areas, I would agree with you. However, when it comes to the iOS App Store, unless I missed big changes, Apple's own App Store is the only online store that's available for Apps. Even "business app stores" on iOS are special access versions of the App Store, I think. They don't allow anybody's third party apps onto the device, without using the App Store, or violating their terms of service, by "jail breaking" the device, I think it was.
In every other device, (Android, Microsoft Windows, those are the only two I know), there are multiple options to install apps and other content, either directly from 3rd-Parties, or via 3rd-Party App Stores, such as the Amazon App Store, on Android. Even MacOS has the option for installing 3rd-Party apps/from 3rd-Party locations.
In other words, with such a large market share, and being the only ones who can (legally) install apps on iOS, Apple does have a monopoly on iOS, in my opinion, at least. They are getting "better", I think, but it doesn't change what I think of the current situation.
The AP store enables Apple to vet the apps and add the value of security and stability to the phone that their customers buy. It adds a feature to the phone that their competitors lack: Security and stability. It is, in essence a feature of the phone like a camera or face id.
But you espouse the the glories of the open architecture of their competitors while ignoring them as competitors.
As Spock would say: "That's not logical doctor".
Most Apple users are uninterested in a third party store, and won't use that even if available, and developers understand that. Despite the protests, developers, for the most part, just want a bigger cut, so "open" really doesn't mean much.
MS can pump this however they want, but the truth is that the success of the MS App Store had been, at best, mixed.
The trick here, of course, is that the one thing the various Microsoft Store variants have done well is serve as a place for downloads that were explicitly trusted by Microsoft. Kevin Gallo, Microsoft’s corporate vice president for the Windows developer platform, and the person most directly in charge of this part of the company, told Foley last year that he was still trying to figure out another way to communicate to users that apps could be trusted.
Given past miscommunications—the press was told at Build 2019 that UWP, Microsoft’s Windows 10-only development framework was “dead,” something the firm has not admitted publicly—I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that there’s no announcement about these changes, and that the two stores are simply quietly deprecated.
Regardless, these changes have me wondering anew about the Microsoft Store, which has never risen to the prominence of popular app stores like those from Apple and Google. I still believe that the Store is a good idea, but its lack of success is undeniable. As are the moves that Microsoft is making to ensure that trusted apps can be found and installed from elsewhere.
Windows 11, third party stores, higher developer returns, and the addition of Amazon's App Store, are Microsoft's latest attempt to salvage their App Store.
LOL... Mac users seldom use the app store -- yet you claim "apple users are uninterested in any but the app store".
And, for proof, you use your usual: "Somebody said".
The truth is though: if or when sideloading is permitted on iPhones the app store concept will likely fade into the background: Not only will developers have little reason to subject themselves to hassle and expense of selling through the app store -- but users will be bombarded with pleas to "just click here...." (simple, quicker and cheaper than going through the app store.
While that sounds great what will be lost is the security of Apple vetting all apps and the overall security of iPhones -- which for many is its #1 feature and what separates it from its competition.
And, for proof, you use your usual: "Somebody said".
The truth is though: if or when sideloading is permitted on iPhones the app store concept will likely fade into the background: Not only will developers have little reason to subject themselves to hassle and expense of selling through the app store -- but users will be bombarded with pleas to "just click here...." (simple, quicker and cheaper than going through the app store.
Google Play serves as the primary Android app store for the world outside of China, is highly profitable, and relatively recent (since 2019) Android phones are considered as secure as iPhones by many security experts. Bonus: You didn't lose your warranty by side-loading, and Google will still scan that outside app for malware if you choose to install it on your phone so you're not entirely on your own. https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en
And all that while "other" Android app stores exist, even do fairly well as the Amazon App Store shows, and China with their own successful Android stores.
George, I think that's proof enough that you're 100% wrong about side-loading being the death of Apple's AppStore, and iPhone security being lost if users can install apps from a 3rd party store.
LOL... Mac users seldom use the app store -- yet you claim "apple users are uninterested in any but the app store".
And, for proof, you use your usual: "Somebody said".
The truth is though: if or when sideloading is permitted on iPhones the app store concept will likely fade into the background: Not only will developers have little reason to subject themselves to hassle and expense of selling through the app store -- but users will be bombarded with pleas to "just click here...." (simple, quicker and cheaper than going through the app store.
While that sounds great what will be lost is the security of Apple vetting all apps and the overall security of iPhones -- which for many is its #1 feature and what separates it from its competition.
You mock someone for saying "most apple users are uninterested in any but the app store" and on the other hand say "security of Apple vetting all apps and the overall security of iPhones -- which for many is its #1 feature and what separates it from its competition"
Most/many aren't so different, so it seems like you're more in agreement that you think.
LOL... Mac users seldom use the app store -- yet you claim "apple users are uninterested in any but the app store".
And, for proof, you use your usual: "Somebody said".
The truth is though: if or when sideloading is permitted on iPhones the app store concept will likely fade into the background: Not only will developers have little reason to subject themselves to hassle and expense of selling through the app store -- but users will be bombarded with pleas to "just click here...." (simple, quicker and cheaper than going through the app store.
While that sounds great what will be lost is the security of Apple vetting all apps and the overall security of iPhones -- which for many is its #1 feature and what separates it from its competition.
You probably need to be reminded that Apple distributes all of its Mac Apps, including Arcade, via the Mac App Store, so you really need to link your source(s) to support your statement, "Mac users seldom use the app store". Otherwise, I'll continue to believe that you just "made your statements up", as you are notorious for, rather than attempt to actually research it. Myself, I prefer purchasing via the Mac App Store, but I will also purchase directly from the developer when that is required. Most of my existing Mac Apps are available on the Mac App Store, I get automatic updates, and I prefer to look in the Mac Apps Store first, when I looking for a Mac software solution. With that out of the way, I agree with Gatorguy that most mobile users will continue to prefer to find their apps either in the Google Play Store, in the case of Android OS devices, or in the iOS App Store, in the case of iPhones. Developers are aware of this preference, so no, those two stores aren't going anywhere.
EDIT;
You know how you're just browsing around, and find the exact article that you want to link to, and just happens to show up when you need it?
Comments
MS does not make ANY money on software that was sold 10-20 years ago.
In fact, this is why years ago MS finally started to EOL their products. The fat days were over and still are. Corporations/departments have targets to meet. They already cut employees and capital investment. One of the only opportunities for IT to save is to stop blindly upgrading unless they have to. How could they do that? B/c like you, they had everything they needed (see first sentence), nothing was broke and the VALUE could not be quantified. No one needs MS Word and MS Excel version 20. Most people/employees don't even know how to use the features in version 5.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/end-of-support/end-of-support-2020
As usual, when you lose an argument you simply change the topic and go on to your next lecture...
"Yeh, the move from XP to Windows 7 was long and painful because so much business software was written for XP. The same happened with the migration from Windows 7 to Windows 10 -- very long, very painful because of all the business software that had to be updated in order to run.
and;
"Well, some of it is 4 year old hardware. But the guts of it (# of cores & RAM) are more like 20 years old.
As I responded in my first link;
"All of the above is why MS can't get out of its Wintel rut and into ARM. Too much value to Windows customers in legacy support. (note to self; consider Windows 7 upgrade this decade),
On the other hand, Apple is a year away from ARM across all of its platforms, and all of it devices. With that, Universal Control is going to be widely adopted by Apple's customer base within the next year, creating an even larger moat, and new opportunities for developers."
What part of that argument did I lose?
In almost all other areas, I would agree with you. However, when it comes to the iOS App Store, unless I missed big changes, Apple's own App Store is the only online store that's available for Apps. Even "business app stores" on iOS are special access versions of the App Store, I think. They don't allow anybody's third party apps onto the device, without using the App Store, or violating their terms of service, by "jail breaking" the device, I think it was.
In every other device, (Android, Microsoft Windows, those are the only two I know), there are multiple options to install apps and other content, either directly from 3rd-Parties, or via 3rd-Party App Stores, such as the Amazon App Store, on Android. Even MacOS has the option for installing 3rd-Party apps/from 3rd-Party locations.
In other words, with such a large market share, and being the only ones who can (legally) install apps on iOS, Apple does have a monopoly on iOS, in my opinion, at least. They are getting "better", I think, but it doesn't change what I think of the current situation.
MS can pump this however they want, but the truth is that the success of the MS App Store had been, at best, mixed.
https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/227795/microsoft-takes-another-step-back-from-its-app-store
Windows 11, third party stores, higher developer returns, and the addition of Amazon's App Store, are Microsoft's latest attempt to salvage their App Store.
Nobody cares about "open".
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/222561/app-store-spending-grew-22-1-yoy-in-first-half-of-2021#latest
Google Play serves as the primary Android app store for the world outside of China, is highly profitable, and relatively recent (since 2019) Android phones are considered as secure as iPhones by many security experts. Bonus: You didn't lose your warranty by side-loading, and Google will still scan that outside app for malware if you choose to install it on your phone so you're not entirely on your own.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en
And all that while "other" Android app stores exist, even do fairly well as the Amazon App Store shows, and China with their own successful Android stores.
George, I think that's proof enough that you're 100% wrong about side-loading being the death of Apple's AppStore, and iPhone security being lost if users can install apps from a 3rd party store.
Most/many aren't so different, so it seems like you're more in agreement that you think.
Myself, I prefer purchasing via the Mac App Store, but I will also purchase directly from the developer when that is required. Most of my existing Mac Apps are available on the Mac App Store, I get automatic updates, and I prefer to look in the Mac Apps Store first, when I looking for a Mac software solution.
With that out of the way, I agree with Gatorguy that most mobile users will continue to prefer to find their apps either in the Google Play Store, in the case of Android OS devices, or in the iOS App Store, in the case of iPhones. Developers are aware of this preference, so no, those two stores aren't going anywhere.
EDIT;
You know how you're just browsing around, and find the exact article that you want to link to, and just happens to show up when you need it?
https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-apps/134142/microsofts-android-app-plan-for-windows-11-is-doomed
OMG...