The Windows Store is Filled with Scam Apps

Chris Hoffman, writing for How-To Geek about app scams in the Windows Store:

Why doesn’t Microsoft care about the cesspool of garbage they’re hosting and offering to hundreds of thousands of Windows 8.1 users? The only answer we have so far is that Microsoft doesn’t care how good apps are — they’re just approving everything to get as many apps as possible. It’s been nearly two years now, and we haven’t seen any indication Microsoft actually cares about the pile of garbage they’re hosting.

The various app stores have their fair share of problematic apps. Google Play, with its focus on automated store rule enforcement, allowed a scam anti-virus app to become the #1 paid app. Apple's App Store, with its focus on manual store rule enforcement, allowed a bootleg Pokemon game to become the #3 paid app.

However, in both the App Store and Google Play examples, these scams were the exception rather than the rule. The numerous examples illustrated by Hoffman in the linked article are damning for Microsoft. While Hoffman's stated reasons for why Microsoft allows these blatant scams to exist is pure speculation, it is speculation that makes a lot of sense. Microsoft's Windows Store and Windows Phone Store are woefully behind the App Store and Google Play in terms of quality and quantity of apps. There is no subjective way to measure the former, but the latter is easy to measure (and is arguably even easier to inflate). There is a strong incentive to increase the number of apps in the Windows Store.

Folks, we all know what happens to an app store's credibility when it allows such garbage to become commonplace.

Vinyl Records and Microsoft Azure

As a follow-up to a previous post about Microsoft needing to be everywhere, I thought it would be appropriate to describe a recent interaction I had at a developer event.

As it so happens, I met a Microsoft employee and we started talking about what we do. The topic naturally turned to my job as an iOS developer for my current employer. Upon hearing that I developed iOS apps, the Microsoft employee asked me why I don't develop apps for Windows Phone. I responded that while Windows Phone is a technically solid platform, it just wasn't enough of a factor in the industry (e.g. installed user base) for me to jump onboard. I told this person that, if anything, I would probably look to Android as my second platform of choice. They seemed satisfied by my answer.

As is common in these types of meetups, we later exchanged contact information. Since neither of us carried business cards, we exchanged phone numbers. Later that evening, I received a 'Nice to meet you!' message on my phone. I went to the Messages app to respond, and was taken aback by something I noticed. It didn't say 'Text Message' at the top. It said 'iMessage'. This Microsoft employee who had asked me about my hesitance in developing for Windows Phone was in fact an iPhone user.

...

Back to the question of me getting involved with developing for Microsoft's platforms: would I actually do it as either my 9-to-5 job or as a side project? Honestly, probably not. I suppose that I might be convinced, in a fit of hipsterism, to develop a Windows Phone app while listening to vinyl records, waxing my mustache, and munching on artisanal cheeses, but it just seems unlikely. However, based on the renewed vigor of Azure (and some trepidation with Facebook owning Parse), I could easily see myself using something like Azure Mobile Services to power an app.

...

The purpose of this anecdote is to illustrate the difficulty that Microsoft has had and will likely continue to have in convincing people to use and develop for its platform. Despite an initiative to provide its employees with free Windows Phone devices, clearly Microsoft has not been able to capture the hearts and minds of its own employees with its platform. Likewise, Microsoft has a difficult road ahead of it trying to convince developers to support its platforms.

Folks, this is why Microsoft needs to focus on providing Azure-based services to the entire world. It's their best chance to stay relevant.

For Microsoft to Win, It Must Be Everywhere

We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose.

-- Steve Jobs

Those words were uttered by Steve Jobs at Macworld Boston in 1997 as he described the groundbreaking deal between Apple and Microsoft.

That announcement set the stage for one of the greatest corporate turnarounds of all time. While it may seem foreign to those who came of age in the era of web apps and smartphones, at the time of this announcement, Microsoft was an unstoppable behemoth and Apple was a staggering challenger. Since that historic moment, Apple has become one of the most powerful companies in the world and Microsoft has seen its influence on the industry diminish.

How did we get here? As it has been said, Microsoft lost the API war. But it's more than just that; Microsoft twice failed to quickly adapt to major shifts in the industry. First, it was late to the shift to the World Wide Web. More recently, it was late to the shift to the latest wave of multitouch-enabled mobile devices. With each successive failure to adapt quickly, Microsoft lost more and more of its grip on the industry.

You can't show up late to the party and expect everything to be the same as it was at the beginning of the party.

Microsoft reacted to the rise of the WWW by attempting to put a stranglehold on it (Internet Explorer and ActiveX, anyone?). Microsoft saw the web--and applications that ran on the web--as a danger to its monopoly. It stubbornly refused to participate openly in this fundamental change in the industry and was left behind.

Similarly, Microsoft failed to quickly adapt to the rise of multitouch-enabled mobile devices. Instead, it stuck its head in the sand and didn't realize that the game had changed and its products in the mobile space were no longer good enough. (As an aside, this same fate befell the other juggernaut in the space, BlackBerry. Google, however, was wise enough to scrap the BlackBerry-ish design that Android had at the time and started from scratch.)

What, then, can Microsoft do to regain prominence in the industry? Simply put: For Microsoft to win, it must be everywhere.

What exactly does this mean? Wasn't Microsoft everywhere to begin with? Actually, no. Microsoft was where everybody had been but wasn't where everybody was going. The Microsoft of old was 'everywhere' by having Windows on everybody's desktop. For Microsoft to move forward, it must look further back into its past, at a time when it made software for darn near every platform out there. If you had a platform, chances were good that Microsoft wrote software for it.

It's not about apps, though. Certainly, apps help but Microsoft isn't going to be able to win the hearts and minds of developers and consumers with apps alone. Instead, Microsoft is going to have to be 'everywhere' with services.

Services are the new frontier. It's an area where its competitors are weak and Microsoft is strong (even if it isn't the strongest). Microsoft might not be able to convince developers to hop onto its Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Phone platforms, but if it can convince longtime Apple champions like John Gruber and Brent Simmons to jump onto Azure, then it can convince anybody to join. Likewise, consumers may not be all that jazzed about Microsoft's platforms, but they sure do love Xbox Live. The Office 365-based apps aren't doing too shabby, either.

Folks, Microsoft may not be able make a dent in the mobile space (or the upcoming wearables space), but it stands a good chance of making a huge splash in the services that power those experiences.

Selling Copies of Windows and Office is not Microsoft's Future, Redux

Remember when I said that selling copies of Windows and Office were not Microsoft's future? Well, here's a first step towards that future, courtesy of Paul Thurrott:

In a bid to counter the threat from low-cost PC alternatives like Chromebooks and non-Apple tablets, Microsoft will reported slash the licensing cost of Windows by 70 percent. But the price cut will only apply to low-end Windows devices that cost less than $250.

Traditional Video Game Consoles Aren't Dead Yet, Folks

Wow, what a difference a year makes. Last year, there were some pundits who were convinced, absolutely convinced, that the traditional video game console was doomed. Doomed, I tell you! I took the time to write about why I thought that such talk was a bunch of malarkey.

Turns out, I was right.

What has happened in the past year? Well, the Sony PlayStation 4 and the Microsoft Xbox One were released to the public, that's what happened. Guess what? Both of those consoles were record-smashing successes. Sony sold 4.2 million units. Microsoft sold 3 million units. Folks, even poor ol' Nintendo managed to have success with software sales for its 3DS handheld console (though the less said about the much-maligned Wii U, the better).

This was my statement on the reality of the console market in a post-PC, mobile device-driven market:

What then, of the rise of mobile gaming? To those who say the console is in trouble, the success of devices like the iPhone and iPad as well as the success of titles such as Angry Birds point to a future where consoles aren't relevant. This is a narrow view of the world that doesn't take into account what is happening in the industry. Mobile gaming isn't taking gamers away from traditional consoles...it is expanding the term 'gamer' beyond its traditional form. Just as the Nintendo Wii helped to bring games into the mainstream by making games more accessible to non-traditional gamers (e.g. the elderly), mobile games have further expanded the gaming market. And that's what it is, an expansion of the overall gaming market, not a reduction of the market for consoles.

Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony combined for sales of roughly 260+ million units over an eight year cycle for the previous console generation. Yes, mobile device sales easily eclipse that figure in a shorter span of time. However, as I mentioned earlier those devices are causing the overall gaming market to grow, which is to say that they aren't necessarily causing the traditional console market to shrink.

Console gaming isn't dead, folks.

Even with Instagram on Windows Phone, Microsoft Can't Win for Losing

Tom Warren, writing for The Verge:

Instagram Windows Phone users can use the app to upload photos, but they'll need to shoot photos separately using the camera as there is no direct in-app camera support. A button within the app links out to the camera, and returns the photo after it's taken to apply a filter and upload it. Instagram says "as with every platform we take into account how users are using the platform natively, and thought this was the best approach."

To be fair, this version that is currently in the Windows Phone store is a 'beta', but for heaven's sakes why release an app that can't perform the primary function of the service? A few more weeks to create a fully baked version (even if it didn't have feature parity with the iOS and Android versions) would have been worth it. Windows Phone is three years late to the party, so waiting a bit longer to have a proper, elegant user experience would have been the correct choice.

Microsoft is Somewhat Less Terrible at Branding and Marketing Than It Used to Be

Microsoft is a company that doesn't seem to understand how to handle the branding and marketing of its products. Poor branding has been part of its corporate culture for a long time now. This might be somewhat understandable for the enterprise side of the house since IT managers aren't typically interested in how cool a product name sounds, but even the consumer side of Microsoft has fallen victim to misguided branding. Recently, the folks in Redmond admitted "...that there was some confusion in the market last year on the difference between Surface RT and Surface Pro". Microsoft certainly didn't help matters by releasing terrible commercials for the Surface product lines.

However, it appears as though Microsoft has learned a lesson or two from its disastrous year for the Surface. This year, the Windows RT-based tablet will be dubbed the 'Surface 2' while the Windows 8.1-based tablet will be dubbed the 'Surface Pro 2'. This naming scheme doesn't really help reduce consumer confusion surrounding the incompatibilities between Windows RT and Windows 8.1, but at least it does a better job of helping consumers figure out which tablet is meant for their needs. As a bonus, this new naming scheme does away with the 'RT' moniker that was meaningless to consumers.

The new branding is highlighted in a series of new commercials. Unlike the previous terrible commercials, these new commercials do a good job of of describing what the Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2 can do and why I should care as a consumer. 

Surface 2 commercial:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCpOvTHmtU

Surface Pro 2 commercial:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lr1WbNz7g0

Folks, Microsoft might finally have figured out that it needs to be better at branding and marketing its products if it wants to compete with the likes of Apple, Google, and Amazon. 

Selling Copies of Windows and Office is not Microsoft's Future

Tim Culpan, Dina Bass, & Peter Burrows over at Bloomberg: 

Terry Myerson, head of Microsoft’s operating systems unit, asked HTC last month to load Windows Phone as a second option on handsets with Google Inc. (GOOG)’s rival software, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. Myerson discussed cutting or eliminating the license fee to make the idea more attractive, the people said. The talks are preliminary and no decision has been made, two people said.

This would be a bold move for Microsoft. Over much of its life, Microsoft has been accustomed to having people (or companies) pay for licensed copies of its Windows operating system and the Office suite. That, however, is Microsoft's past. Microsoft isn't a software company; it is a devices and services company.

It is fitting that Microsoft has finally gotten around to releasing Office for the iPad (after previously releasing Office for the iPhone). The timing couldn't be better, especially if the news about eliminating or reducing license fees for Windows Phone is true.

The old Microsoft could not have made the decision to eliminate or reduce license fees for one of its operating systems. Granted, Windows Phone is not the crown jewel that is Windows (desktop), but the OS has been a source of revenue for Microsoft. The new Microsoft, perhaps, has realized that the future for the company is not selling licensed copies of Windows and Office, but instead earning revenue from its cloud-based services.

Folks, Windows and Office were the past. Azure and its offspring are the future of Microsoft. 

The Windows 8.1 UI Designers Might Have a Special Message for You

The guys at Penny Arcade pretty much nailed it, folks. 

Amazon Should Create a Competitor to Facebook's Parse

Roughly six weeks ago Facebook bought Parse, the mobile-backend-as-a-service that lets app developers focus on their app's business logic instead of sticky bits like hosting data services. There are many reasons that Facebook made this purchase. Of course, there is the developer/user base that comes along with such a purchase. However, the primary reason is that Parse's platform (data storage, user account management, Facebook/Twitter login integration, push notifications, the ability to run code in the cloud with multiple service integrations) has extensive capabilities that allow app developers to quickly and cheaply create new apps with sophisticated features. Facebook wants more developers to create apps that integrate with Facebook, and the Parse acquisition goes a long way towards that goal.

Where, then, does Amazon come into play? Well, I've used Parse for a few projects in the past. I was also seriously considering using it in two different apps that I've been contemplating. However, after the Facebook acquisition, I'm a bit hesitant to put my faith in Parse as a platform. The main reason for this stance is that Facebook isn't known for being very kind to developers. There are alternatives such as Microsoft's Windows Azure Mobile Services, but those alternatives are either inferior in feature sets, more expensive, produced by fledgling startups with uncertain futures, or some combination of the above. Amazon, however, could provide a suitable alternative for developers worried about betting their business on Facebook/Parse.

Amazon has been quite successful with its AWS (Amazon Web Services) offering, and many of the web's biggest players use AWS as their backend. In fact, Parse itself is a platform that is developed on top of AWS.​ Something that Amazon is missing, however, is a service that provides the same ease of use for mobile app developers that Parse does. (Seriously, go check out Parse's documentation...it's amazingly well done.)

From a technical perspective, Amazon could create a service that is simpler to use than the raw services provided by the current AWS stack and with deeper integrations with third party services. From a business perspective, Amazon could price this service very competitively. From a trust perspective, Amazon is clearly a business that isn't going to go away any time soon.

How would this fit into Amazon's strategy? Creating a mobile-backend-as-a-service would encourage even more developers, particularly mobile app developers, to use Amazon's services. This creates greater revenue opportunities for Amazon by reaching developers that might not otherwise have selected the full AWS offering. Also, it creates an opportunity for revenue sharing with some of those niche magazine apps that have become all the rage on the iOS Newsstand (The Magazine​ and The Loop​, for example). After all, that type of content needs to be hosted somewhere and the subscriptions inherent in those magazines provide recurring revenue opportunities. (Bonus points if Amazon makes it easy to migrate to the full AWS stack when/if a developer is ready to do so.)

It's not clear if Amazon has ever considered creating this type of service. It certainly sounds intriguing to me as a mobile app developer. If the 'Featured Customers' section of Parse's website is any indication, there are many big name app developers that might agree.​