Better late than never, I guess?

It's a far, far cry from an actual, official apology for their bad behaviour, but someone from Microsoft has finally actually acknowledged that their GWX campaign went too far. No duh, dude.

From Softpedia:

Microsoft has often been criticized for how aggressive it was with the free Windows 10 upgrade offer, with some users complaining that the new operating system was installed on their computers even though they refused the upgrade.

One particular moment that fueled all this criticism was when Microsoft change the behavior of the X button in the Get Windows 10 app, as clicking this button no longer canceled the upgrade, but ignored the setting and prepared the install in the background.

Chris Capossela, Chief Marketing Officer at Microsoft, said in the latest edition of the Windows Weekly that this was the moment when the company indeed went too far, pointing out that the two weeks between the moment when users started complaining about the unexpected behavior and the one when a patch was released were “very painful.”

“We know we want people to be running Windows 10 from a security perspective, but finding the right balance where you’re not stepping over the line of being too aggressive is something we tried and for a lot of the year I think we got it right, but there was one particular moment in particular where, you know, the red X in the dialog box which typically means you cancel didn’t mean cancel,” he said.

“And within a couple of hours of that hitting the world, with the listening systems we have we knew that we had gone too far and then, of course, it takes some time to roll out the update that changes that behavior. And those two weeks were pretty painful and clearly a lowlight for us. We learned a lot from it obviously.”

Apparently they didn't learn how to simply say, "Sorry," but whatevs.

Considering how much bad PR Microsoft garnered with their ham-handed GWX tactics, and how much consumer trust and goodwill they pissed away in the process, the fact that they've never publicly apologized for any of their bad behaviour is plainly ridiculous. Users had to resort to 3rd-party software to block their damn upgrade, for crying out loud, and with 47% of PC users still stubbornly using Windows 7, after Microsoft spent an entire year giving Windows 10 away for free, the damage has clearly been done.

It would seem that Microsoft are finally starting to realize that they need to address the issue, though, rather than simply waiting for it all to just blow over. So, here's the question: Is this the entirety of their response to the issue? Or do they have something more active planned, by way of outreach, to win back the hearts and minds of Windows users who now have clear and substantive reasons to distrust everything they say?

UPDATE:

Lots of discussion about this on Slashdot, including one commenter who pointed out something I'd missed:

They don't have to do it again. Windows 10 is the final version of Windows.

Which is totally true, isn't it? We'll never get another GWX debacle, because there will never be a Windows 11, just "updates" to Windows 10, all of which will also be pushed to users who have almost zero say in the matter, with no sign that Microsoft intend to change anything about that setup. This half-hearted mea culpa seems even hollower, now.

UPDATE #2:

It would seem that a lot of people were waiting for this news to finally break.

A sampling of the headlines:

Twas the week before Xmas ... not a creature was stirring – except Microsoft admitting its Windows 10 upgrade pop-up went 'too far'

Microsoft finally admits that its malware-style Get Windows 10 upgrade campaign went too far

Microsoft finally reaches step 1; admission

Microsoft admits its aggressive Windows 10 push was a low point for the company

Microsoft Exec Admits Windows 10 Push Was Too Aggressive

Microsoft admits it went ‘too far’ with Windows 10 push

I get it; the fact that one of the company's executives have finally kinda admitted they did wrong is the validation that a lot of us had been waiting for, but this admission still soft-pedals the issue, and it's still coming from their marketing chief, and not Satya Nadella, himself. When Microsoft issues an official apology for their bad behaviour, or when Nadella himself makes a public statement on the issue, maybe I'll be more excited about things. As it is, though, this latest PR exercise is still months late, and well short of winning back my trust or goodwill.

UPDATE #3:

Another decent take from Gordon Kelly at Forbes:

Capossela is right. Changing the operation of the red X was Microsoft hitting rock bottom but there remain several aspects to his confession that don’t ring true:

1. Windows 10 upgrade tactics were dirty long before the red X debacle. Bombarding users with nagware-like upgrade notices was the first step. Secretly downloading Windows 10 on all Windows 7 and Windows 8 users’ PCs even if they said no to the upgrade was the second. Removing the ‘Cancel’ button from upgrade prompt windows was the third and increasingly crippling the control and longevity of Windows 7 and Windows 8 by removing granular control over updates and compatibility with new silicon were the fourth and fifth.

And that’s just scratching the surface.

2. It doesn’t take two weeks to change how a single red X operates. For a company capable of rolling out complex security patches to a billion PCs within 24 hours of a threat being discovered, this just doesn’t wash. My personal opinion is Microsoft waited to see if the initial outcry would die down and it could get away with this. They couldn’t.

3. The red X was not some innocent misstep by a random software engineer, it was a calculated move that required senior approval to implement and came at a time when Windows 10 upgrades were slowing dramatically. It also came after (as mentioned above) nagware attempts had failed, secret downloading had failed and removing the ‘Cancel’ button from upgrade notifications had failed (‘Upgrade Now’ and ‘Upgrade Tonight’ were the only written options!).

Only then was the behaviour of the red X changed (and in violation of Microsoft’s own developer guide for how the button must work) because it was the only cancellation option left.

So yes, it is nice that Microsoft has publicly admitted the pinnacle of its malware-like efforts to get Windows 10 onto users’ computers by any means necessary was a step too far. But it should be apologising for the rest of these dirty tactics as well and the claim that “for a lot of the year I think we got it right” is a laughable attempt to rewrite history.

[...]

So yes, saying (a partial) sorry now is better than nothing, but for millions this is much too little far too late…

What can I say? I agree with all of this.

Native 4K gaming is not actually a thing

It turns out that Sony and Microsoft have been lying to us. Surprise!

From Pretty Good Gaming:

The Country Caller also has coverage of this story:

4K and HDR are the two buzzwords that have been circulating in the tech world and now, in the gaming world as well. The launch of Xbox One and PlayStation 4 Pro brought those two technologies in to the console space.

Showing the difference introduced by the two standards can be difficult, and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) acknowledges as such. In a recent podcast with Major Nelson (via SegmentNext), Xbox’s Albert Penello talked about the two standards and how it is challenging to market them simply because showcasing them requires the right display technologies.

[...]

4K presents four times as many pixels as 1080p, but to actually perceive a clear difference, one must own a 4K display first to see all those pixels sharpen up the image as we go from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. High-Dynamic Range (or HDR) is probably even more difficult to showcase, just because the displays until now have been SDR in comparison. HDR improves the range of colors that the TV can produce. For example, if you get 10 shades of gray with a standard TV, you get 50 shades of gray (no pun intended) with an HDR display. You simply get colors that are true to life. The luminosity of the screen can allow dark scenes to show more depth and hidden details, and bright scenes can be brighter.

This is the underlying problem; you cannot show the difference when the tech required to demo isn’t available at the consumer’s end. “You have to fudge things a little bit to show the differences,” said Albert Penello. TV manufacturers have been marketing 4K HDR TVs by ramping up colors and making scenes more pop in comparison shots.

So, basically, they're using bullshots to sell 4K gaming. And why not? They've been using bullshots for years to sell all of their games, so why not their game systems?

4K gaming is not going to be a thing. I mean, it's not actually even available, except on PC, and since PC gamers don't seem to be in any rush to buy $1400 monitors, that means that 4K isn't going to become a widespread phenomenon the way HD did. That's because HD adoption was driven by legislative fiat in the U.S., when every broadcaster in the land was required by law to switch from analog broadcasts to HD broadcasts.

Makers of HD televisions reaped an enormous windfall in when everybody replaced their old, analog TV with an HD TV, but that wasn't a natural result of market forces; everybody in NA did not just wake up and want HD television sets. Everybody in NA, faced with the need for an HD TV if they wanted to keep watching television, bit the bullet and bought one, mostly with borrowed money.

4K does not have an equivalent legislative force pushing it, which means that consumers, almost all of whom have recently bought HD televisions, have no need for 4K, especially since there's almost no native 4K content to display on them. HD TVs are good enough for now, which means that only early adopters, the very wealthy, and those whose HD TVs are needing replacement, are in the market for 4K at all. 

That's not a recipe for mainstream adoption, and without mainstream adoption, you've got a chicken-and-egg situation again: a small 4K customer base means that it doesn't make sense to make 4K content for them, especially given all the added costs involved; and a lack of 4K content means that there's no real desire on the part of consumers to buy expensive 4K displays.

This is a problem for consumer electronics companies, who need for revenues to go up year after year, and who can't sell huge volumes of HD equipment anymore because everybody has it already. Their solution to this problem is, apparently, lies. I wish I could say that I was surprised, but I'm not surprised.

You don't need a 4K display for gaming. You don't need to buy a new console to drive the 4K gaming experience, especially since those consoles aren't rendering in native 4K anyway. Nobody needs any of this shit, in exactly the same way that we didn't need 3D displays a couple of years back, and don't need VR displays now.

The result, in all three cases? A passionate but very niche market for specialized content which requires the specialized hardware, followed by declining interest, and eventual irrelevancy. It's already happened to 3D displays, of course; it's happening to VR right now, and I predict that it will happen to 4K, too.

Will Nintendo Switch be less powerful than the PS4?

It's looking that way; and we do mean the original, 3-year-old PS4, and not the new PS4 Pro.

From VentureBeat:

Two sources (who asked to keep their names out of this story) confirmed to GamesBeat that the Switch uses Nvidia’s last-generation Maxwell graphics-processing architecture. Nvidia introduced its new Pascal architecture earlier this year, but that technology is not ready for the Tegra chip going into the Switch. The custom Maxwell Tegra (which uses a 20nm process as opposed to the more efficient 16nm process of the Pascal) in the machine is still powerful enough to play Nintendo-style games that rely on quality art over horsepower, but don’t expect Switch software to match the graphical fidelity of the highest-end PS4 games.

Switch’s visual capabilities could still satisfy most gamers. Nintendo has implied it can handle realistic-looking games like Skyrim and NBA 2K in the trailer for the system. Considering the context that the Switch is both a portable gaming device as well as a home console, it may even surprise people with its older Maxwell hardware. We’ll get a better look at what the system can pull off in January when Nintendo hosts a full media presentation for the Switch in Japan.

In the meantime, however, some fans might find it disappointing that Nintendo is using the Maxwell chip in the Switch instead of Pascal. But the timing just didn’t work out for Nintendo. Sources told GamesBeat that the Kyoto-based Japanese company is in such a rush that it can’t wait for the Pascal version of the Tegra. That’s both because the publisher wants to replace the failing Wii U and because it wants to strike quickly with its hybrid concept before a competitor can introduce a better product.

So.... it's a handheld game system, in an age when smartphones are dominating the handheld gaming market. And it's an underpowered console, even by comparison with the original XBOne and PS4, at a time when both Microsoft and Sony are giving their consoles a significant power and performance boost. Seriously, apart from the same diehard Nintendophiles who bought the WiiU... who is this for?

Another hard truth about VR

Yes, simulation sickness is still a thing. No, it's not just a problem in VR games.

From Alex Cranz at Gizmodo:

Michael Fassbender’s soft lilt is in my ear spouting nonsense about assassins and their creed. Around me is a whirl of action set against a cartoonish backdrop. I’m in the new Assassin’s Creed virtual experience, and thanks to a blend of low-res graphics and high-res people, it feels like I’ve found my way inside some lost Mortal Kombat game circa 1993.

I don’t have any control. The camera, (and I) race down the corridor of a medieval castle. We skitter to a stop at the edge of a turret. I don’t have a body—I hover over the ground like a spectre—so there’s no way to fully comprehend how close to the edge my virtual self is.

Then the camera is lurching forward as my ghostly form is thrown off the turret. I’m seated, but my stomach is in my throat. At the moment my lunch lasagna is about to reacquaint itself with my mouth, the screen goes black. The experience is over.

I rip off the headset and gulp in a huge lungful of air. The world stops spinning long enough for me to catch the eye of one of the creators. He’s grinning, ecstatic with his debut of the Assassin’s Creed experience, and I’m nauseous and trying to be polite.

This is a carefully designed virtual experience. It was shot on the same locations as the big budget movie, and intended to get the average person excited about virtual reality—a surprisingly daunting task. This is, in many respects, the best that VR has to offer. And as the nausea tries to settle in my stomach one thing is painfully clear.

Our bodies aren’t ready for it.

Cranz's article goes into a lot more depth about how VR affects your vestibular system, and about how not nearly enough research has been done on the problem of VR localization (seriously, it's a solid read, so click the link already), but the conclusion seems clear: even if they can solve all of VR's other crippling problems, simple physiology will still turn the whole experience into a nauseating disaster. VR sickness doesn't affect every user to the same extent, but it does affect every user, and nobody's anywhere near figuring out how to fix the problem.

And that's not the only problem. Different kinds of VR content, it turns out, need different levels of visual fidelity and different frame rates, and VR doesn't do any of them well:

The first time I tried VR, I was using an old gaming laptop and an Oculus Rift DK2. I didn’t pay attention to minimum spec requirements for a PC. I didn’t think of how a slower PC might dramatically change the VR experience. In my mind it would be as simple as mirroring the screen on the laptop to the two in the headset—the chunky behemoth with its mobile video card would be enough.

Then I tried playing Alien: Isolation. The computer’s fans hummed angrily as it struggled to output video to the headset. It was having to power not one, but two 1080p displays inside the headset, while immediately rendering a whole new world with every quick turn of my head. The alien’s tail swished across the screen at 60 frames per second. That’s more than adequate when you’re sitting three feet back, but the headset was trying to replicate the real world from only a few inches away. That demands, for a gamer, at least 90 frames per second.

When the refresh rate goes below that, VR sickness can set in, and it’s directly tied to how often you move your head. While a high refresh rate might be coveted by gamers, regular joes will find it wanting, particularly if they plan to watch any live action content on it. That’s because all the content we watch on our phones and TVs is coming in at around 24 to 30 frames per second. It gives content, especially content in motion, a pleasant “cinematic” blur that’s impossible to replicate with current VR headsets. Increase that frame rate and actors look like goofy jackasses in a cheap soap opera.

So, mitigating VR sickness might just render VR useless for non-gaming content, which could be crippling for a nascent industry that's hoping for virtual concert-goers and sporting-event fans to help propel the tech to mainstream acceptance. Even I hadn't thought of that problem until now. It seems like every time I look at VR, there's another problem, and no solutions in sight for any of them.

Seriously, folks, ignore the VR hype. VR is not actually a thing yet, and it's probably not going to be a thing, at least for this generation of VR hardware. If you're on the fence about whether you should buy an Oculus for XMas, I recommend waiting for another year, or for several more years, until they a) work out the practical issues which make VR unusable for most users, and b) figure out what it's actually good for, and build a reasonable library of apps that will make use of your VR gear, right out of the box.

The hard truth about Virtual Reality development: Is VR's gold rush over already?

According to RocketWerkz founder Dean Hall, there are a lot of terrible assumptions being made about what it's like to develop for VR right now.

From gamesindustry.biz:

Dean Hall, CEO of RocketWerkz and previously lead designer of DayZ, has spoken openly on Reddit about the harsh financial realities of VR development, explaining that without the subsidies provided by platform exclusives and other mechanisms, the medium would currently be largely unviable.

In an extended post which has garnered over 200 comments, Hall proclaimed that there was simply "no money" in VR game development, explaining that even though his VR title Out of Ammo had sold better than expected, it remained unprofitable.

Hall believes that many consumer expectations from the mature and well-supported PC market have carried over to VR, with customers not fully comprehending the challenges involved with producing content for such a small install base.

[...]

"I laugh now when people say or tweet me things like 'I can't wait to see what your next VR game will be!' Honestly, I don't think I want to make any more VR games. Our staff who work on VR games all want to rotate off after their work is done. Privately, developers have been talking about this but nobody seems to feel comfortable talking about it publicly - which I think will ultimately be bad."

It's not a universal opinion among VR developers, however: there was opposition to Hall's points both within and beyond the thread. Sam Watts, Operations Lead at Make Real had the following to say.

"I think the reality of that thread is a direct result of a perceived gold rush by developers of all sizes to a degree, since analyst predictions around sales volumes of units were far higher than the reality towards the end of the year. There have been waves of gold rush perceptions with VR over the past few years, mostly around each release of new hardware expecting the next boom to take the technology into the mainstream, which has mostly failed to materialise.

"For us it became clear that the rise of VR would be gradual rather than explosive when in 2015, it was revealed that the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive would be released in 2016 and that the gold rush would be on hold."

It seems that VR's gold rush is already over, having not even properly started yet. And that's according to someone who's still bullish on VR; according to those whose enthusiasm is starting to wane, the situation is more dire still.

The problem with VR development is simple: VR is too expensive, and not useful enough, to have attracted a large user base, and without a large installed user base, it's simply not profitable to make VR content. Anyone wanting to develop for VR needs to be willing to lose money doing so, for the foreseeable future, in order to build a library of top-notch VR content that will attract reluctant consumers into dropping hundreds of dollars on an otherwise useless peripheral device.

The question is not, will VR lose money for years? The question is, who will lose money on VR for years? Who can afford to lose money on VR for years, hoping that they can make it back later, if and when a user base has finally been established for these devices? So far, nobody's really stepping forward in any big way, and even Facebook/Oculus seem to be reluctant to really put the kind of money into VR content development that they have into the tech itself. Until that happens, the growth of VR's content library will continue to be slow.

Users beg Microsoft to end its Windows 10 update experiments

Did I mention yet, that Windows 10's update regime is terrible?

From Windows Report:

Oops, Microsoft did it again! The Redmond giant rolled out Windows 10 KB3201845 to the general public a few days ago, but many users complain that the company didn’t thoroughly test the update. As a result, KB3201845 brings more issues than it fixes.

As a quick reminder, the latest Windows 10 update makes computers unusable and kills various Microsoft and third-party apps. Moreover, uninstalling the update doesn’t solve this problem. Users report they are experiencing the same bugs even after removing KB3201845.

Unfortunately, it appears that KB3201845 clings to Windows 10 computers like a leech. Since this update is downloaded and installed automatically, oftentimes it comes back after users remove it.

We noticed another interesting trend related to KB3201845’s deployment. Windows 10 users are simply tired of Microsoft’s update experiments. This is not the first time that a Windows 10 update breaks users’ computers. However, we hardly recall any other time when users have been so angry with Microsoft.

[...]

In a nutshell, regular Windows 10 users feel that Microsoft is conducting experiments on their computers. Many users complain that the company is pushing too many unpolished updates lately: “What is Microsoft doing? Do they release updates without testing?”

Users also feel that Microsoft is forcing these updates on them by removing all options to block updates. It’s worth mentioning that many users who installed KB3201845 report the update keeps coming back, even after they uninstalled it.

[...]

Microsoft has yet to issue any comments on this situation. Actually, the company’s silence is one of the most annoying things for users. Microsoft’s forum has been flooded with KB3201845-related threads, yet there is no official answer available yet.

This is a show-stopping bug, and one that Microsoft won't even acknowledge, let alone talk about a fix for. That would be bad enough, if it were the only Windows 10 Update-related problem in circulation right now. 

So, of course, it isn't the only show-stopping bug in circulation right now.

From The Reg:

With more and more Windows 10 users losing internet and network connectivity – thanks to a dodgy software update that broke DHCP – you'd have thought Redmond would be on the ball with a cunning fix. Sadly not: the only official advice is to go away and reboot your PC.

“Some customers have reported difficulties connecting to the Internet, and instructions on how to address this are posted here in our help forum,” a Microsoft spokesperson told The Reg.

The Redmond spinner would not reveal which Windows Update patch is at fault – and it's hard for us or anyone to tell from the online documentation because Microsoft is deliberately vague about the contents of its updates.

The robotic response simply advises people to reboot the PC and try again, and includes a how-to guide of which buttons to press. Holding down shift while shutting down forces a clean restart may clear the problem. If that fails, there are a lot of drivers to reinstall, firewalls to be reconfigured and wireless reports to be found – which is all a bit complex for someone who needs instructions on how to reboot their PC.

And also unnecessary and unreliable. Rebooting doesn't always correct the problem. A better solution, for now, is to use static IP addresses. Alternatively, you can run the commands in this article to restart gummed-up components in the operating system's networking stack.

[...]

In an ideal world, Microsoft would identify and name the patch that is causing the upset, users could take it off their systems, and everyone's happy. But Microsoft is either unwilling or unable to give out that information.

Did I mention how thrilled I was, that Microsoft was bringing Windows 10's broken Update regime to Windows 7 & 8? Because I'm not. At all.

Which brings me to the one good(ish) piece of news: apparently Redmond is walking back the decision to bring Windows 10's broken update regime to Windows 7 & 8! Well... kinda.

From Forbes:

Microsoft has made a major improvement to Windows 7 and Windows 8.1. In a blog post titled “Update to Supersedence Behaviour for Security Only and Security Monthly Quality Rollup Updates,” Microsoft field engineer Scott Breen said:

"Based on feedback, the team has updated the supersedence relationship of updates so that Security Only updates are not superseded. In addition, the logic of the updates has been modified so that if the Monthly Quality update is installed (which contains the security updates), the security update will not be applicable. This allows organisations managing updates via WSUS or Configuration Manager to:

• "Selectively install Security Only updates at any time
• "Periodically deploy the Security Monthly Quality Rollup and only deploy the Security Only updates since then, and;
• "More easily monitor software update compliance using Configuration Manager or WSUS."

Forbes contributor Gordon Kelly pointed out that this change puts an end to the accept all / reject all policy of the patches, meaning users would be able to accept the latest security updates without having to download anything else. Interestingly, this is how Windows 7 and Windows 8 used to work before Microsoft forced the Windows 10 upgrade. The return of the ability to selectively install Security Only updates is definitely welcomed!

All of this comes at a time when Microsoft is trying to sell Windows 10 as ready for enterprise deployment, and when it desperately needs large corporate customers to start switching to Windows 10. 

Hmmm... Show-stopping bugs that break your applications, both 3rd party and Microsoft's own, and also break internet and network connectivity (because who needs that for business these days), combined with changes that restore superior Windows Update functionality to Windows' older versions? Sold! (Not.)

Time will tell what sort of impact this has on Windows 10's 2017 rate of enterprise adoption, or to consumers' opinion of Windows 10, and of Microsoft generally. But it does keep Win10's Anniversary Update's streak of bad press coverage alive, and further undermine the trust and goodwill of customers whose trust and goodwill was badly bruised, if not killed outright, by the debacle of Microsoft's GWX campaign, and comes at a time when Microsoft are trying to put all the bad press behind them and move on.

Yes, the PS4 is selling well. No, that doesn't mean that this isn't still the last console generation.

I've been running into a particular argument every so often, lately: that the PS4 is selling well, therefore consoles are still as big as ever.

The fact that Sony themselves say that they're trying to compete with PCs and not XBoxes; the fact that Microsoft has straight-out said that the the concept of console generations is passé; the fact that this generation of consoles were all very PC-like, except for the WiiU, which flopped; the fact that none of the current generation of consoles is anywhere near Steam's 125 million users; none of that matters to these console evangelists. PS4's exceptionally good sales must be the only meaningful data point, right?

I disagree. And I'm not the only one.

From Business Insider:

The PlayStation 4 is killing it. Sony announced on Wednesday that it has sold 50 million PS4 consoles since the device launched in November 2013. All signs point to that being a good ways ahead of Microsoft’s Xbox One and Nintendo’s Wii U, which is no longer being made.

Considering that the PS4 arrived at a time when many onlookers said the home gaming console was in its death throes, that’s a very strong figure. But as this chart from Statista shows, it’s still a long way from its predecessors.

The PS4 has been on the market for a much shorter time, but it’s hard to say if it’ll ever reach the summit. The PlayStation 2 was many people’s main DVD player, the Wii hit the pre-smartphone casual gamer jackpot, and the original PlayStation was a breath of fresh air that stayed on sale for nearly 12 years.

[...]

It's easy to forget that the PS2's record-setting sales were due, in large part, to PS2 being a cheap DVD player, and not just because it was a great game system. It also bears mentioning that neither XBox One nor WiiU made this "top 10" list, having been beaten by Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, and Sega Genesis; PS4 is still some distance behind the original NES.

More interesting, though, is how this console generation compares to the last. PS2 is still the all-time highest selling console, beating the #2 finisher (the original PlayStation) by a whopping 54 million units, but the next three spots on the list are all from the last console generation. Nintendo's Wii was the clear winner of generation 7, but it was only 16 million units ahead of the PS3, which actually came from behind to edge out the XBox 360. That's 273 million consoles, pretty evenly distributed among the three big console manufacturers, in the last console generation.

This generation sees the PS4 at 50 million, followed by the XBOne at about half of that (Microsoft stopped talking about their sales numbers when the PS4 was at 40M and the XBOne was at 20M, and there's no particular reason to believe that they've closed the gap since). And the WiiU was selling only half as well as the XBOne when Nintendo stopped making it, leaving only 13.32 million units in circulation, total. That means that the consoles of this generation have managed only 85 million in sales or so, combined, with PS4's gains coming at the expense of its competitors.

Meanwhile, Steam has an estimated 125 million users... and has every reason to believe that those gamers will continue to game on Steam for the foreseeable future. After all, it's not like their current PC titles will fail to work on future PCs, meaning that they don't have to start from scratch building an entirely new library of games every few years. That gives Steam, and PC gaming generally, a kind of momentum that consoles can't match. No wonder Sony is making the PS4 as PC-like as possible, while Microsoft's XBOne straight up runs Windows 10 now.

XBox Scorpio is still coming, as is the Nintendo Switch, and both will sell millions of units when they launch, but I'm not expecting either offering to change the overall trajectory of this console generation any more than the PS4 Pro did. The movement away from consoles (which run on exclusivity) and towards Steam and Android (which run on open-ness) seems pretty clear by now; even the AAA PC games publishers have been unable to break this trend, with "walled garden" services like Origin and Uplay failing to lure users away from Steam; it seems like even PC gamers are only using those services to install the games that they're buying elsewhere, and not as the portal for all their gaming.

So, is this still the last console generation? I think it is, and I don't think that PS4's exceptional sales numbers change that, simply because PS4's sales are the exception, when it comes to console sales, and not the rule, while Steam continues to strengthen its hold as gaming's #1 platform, a hold that even Microsoft now seem unable to break.

Is Microsoft's "Home Hub" doomed before even being released?

I hadn't thought much about Microsoft's "Home Hub" announcement. In a bid to regain ground already lost to Amazons' Echo and Alexa devices, the device is basically a PC peripheral that replicates some of the Big Brother-ish behaviour that Microsoft had removed from the XBox One, constantly listening to everything you say, and pouncing when you say something that it's pre-programmed to respond to.

The idea seems to be that PC users who are already leery of Windows 10's approach to privacy issues will jump at the chance to actually have their PC actively listening to everything they say, while still beaming unspecified data to unspecified locations to be shared with unspecified 3rd parties for non-specific purposes. Have I mentioned latently that Cortana uses a web service to conduct all searches, even if you're only searching for files on your local hard drive?

So, I wasn't particularly impressed by Home Hub... and apparently I wasn't the only one.

From BRG.com:

According to the report, Microsoft thinks Home Hub PCs will be the center of the family, with a special new “family account” that anyone can log into. It’s meant to live on a kitchen counter or somewhere convenient, so everyone will use it as a replacement for a family calendar or to-do notes on the fridge.

It’s a nice idea, but I almost guarantee it will fail for a list of reasons. Specifically:

• Desktop PCs are already dying as everyone moves to laptops. No family wants to spend hundreds of dollars on a Windows PC that’s a replacement for $5 of fridge magnets.
• Microsoft apparently envisages its hardware partners building “Home Hub PCs.” These will probably look like glorified all-in-ones with small screens and cute, colorful plastic cases. They’ll also cost a minimum of $300, which is a hard sell when the cheapest Echo hardware is $30.
• People don’t want a PC sitting in their kitchen. Amazon Echo and Google Home are designed to look like unobtrusive Bluetooth speakers for a reason: having a gigantic touchscreen gadget sitting on your kitchen counter is not good interior design.
• The magic of Alexa and the Google Assistant is the deep integration into your music services and smart home. If people want calendar appointments, they’ll probably ask the assistant on their phone.

All these reasons also assume that Microsoft manages to deliver this product on time, without a bunch of strange bugs, and before the trend for in-home personal assistants has been wiped out by brain implants or something. Let’s just hope that Home Hub is an optional software upgrade, for once.

Ouch. Hard to argue with any of that assessment, though.

Microsoft have spent most of their history as a software company, rather than a hardware company, and their only hardware devices are the XBox line... the latest installment of which is in a distant third place (behind PC and PS4) in the current "console" generation. Now, suddenly, they want to be Apple (Steve Jobs' Apple, that is, not Tim Cook's Apple). I can understand why they'd want to replicate Steve Jobs' feats of consumer electronics dominance, but I'm not at all convinced that they have enough hardware savvy to make it work.

It was bound to happen eventually

With Windows 7 & 8 no longer available for sale, and Windows 10 now the only option available for buyers of new Windows PCs, Microsoft's new OS was going to see its market share start to increase this month. The only question was how much. Well, we now know the answer to that question: not that much.

This was October...

... and this is November.

From InfoWorld:

Windows usage reports for November are in, and the numbers are sobering. There's no call to start building a Windows 10-sized coffin, but it’s definitely time to stow the confetti and air horns. And if you're expecting to see a billion Win10 devices, you should be looking for an alternate universe.

Windows 10 adoption continues to disappoint, with NetMarketshare saying that OS accounted for 23.72 percent of all desktop OS usage in November, compared to 22.59 percent in October (see screenshot). The slight uptick stands in marked contrast to the Win10 ratchet slope that ended in August—the month when free upgrades to Win10 and the “Get Windows 10” campaign ceased.

Since January, Win10 usage has increased by nearly 12 percent, according to NetMarketshare. Over that same period, Win7 share has decreased by 5.3 percent, Win 8.1 by 2.4 percent, and XP by 2.8 percent. Windows 7 continues to dominate the desktop, with more than 47 percent of measured November usage—higher than it was in July.

Interestingly, while Windows XP may be down compared to January, it actually regained some ground over the past month, ticking up from 8.24% to 8.63%; Linux was up, too, from 2.18% to 2.31%; and MacOS gained as well, from 6.43% for all versions combined to 6.74%. 

But the big number, the one that everyone is watching, has to be Windows 10, which has finally crossed the 23% boundary for the first time since flirting with it (at 22.99%) in August. And all it took was to remove its two most popular competitors, Win7 and Win8, from the market. Microsoft, for the win! Pay no attention to the fact that Edge is still losing ground to Chrome and Firefox, on the browser side of things.

Again, from InfoWorld:

Browsers were another story, as Microsoft continues to drop precipitously.

According to NetMarketshare (screenshot), Chrome and Firefox use was up slightly in November, while the combination of IE and Edge share fell from 28.39 percent in October to 26.87 percent in November. Individually, both IE and Edge usage declined.

I guess the hard-sell tactics aren't working, eh?

So, yes, by eliminating Windows 10's most popular competitors from the market, Microsoft have finally managed to see some growth in Windows 10's share of the desktop OS market, which is significantly better than they'd been doing for the last couple of months. None of the earlier versions of Windows, including Windows XP, will be going anywhere anytime soon, though, and with Windows' other competitors are both showing signs of renewed life, Redmond should still be very nervous about the slow pace of Windows 10 adoption.

UPDATE: The Reg has a different, and rather interesting, take on the numbers.

This is something that hadn't occurred to me. From The Register:

As we've seen before, Windows 10 use spikes at the same time Windows 7 usage dips. Trust us: this is a weekend effect. Over at the right-hand edge of the chart you can see the impact of the Thanksgiving holiday, on which it looks like Americans really did spend time with family rather than online. The next day we see a smaller-than-usual weekday bounce for Windows 7 and then a normal weekend surge for Windows 10.

Windows 7's weekday decline is also obvious in the graph.

So, not only is Windows 10's growth spurt pretty marginal, it might be ephemeral, too? Suddenly, I can't wait for January 1st, so that we can test that hypothesis.