Microsoft's determination to make "fetch" happen may prevent Windows 10 S from happening, too.

In Microsoft's ongoing quest to become Amazon, and Apple, and Google, and Sony, few things have been as ineffectual, as desperate, or as irritating, as the way they're insisted on forcing Edge, and Bing with it, onto all their customers. Nailing Edge to Bing has prevented it from catching on among Windows 10 users - and since Windows 10 S limits users to Edge only, it may discourage users from picking up that version of the OS as well, along with the PCs that run it.

That's the argument put forth by Michael Allison, over at mspoweruser:

My issue with Windows 10 S lies in two aspects: search and the browser. With Windows 10 S, the browser remains locked to Microsoft Edge (or store skins of it), and Microsoft has now mandated that users of Edge use Bing — and only Bing as their primary search engine. This means that students who use Windows 10 S won’t be able to use Google Chrome, including its vast number of recommended extensions for education (cue the Microsoft fans arguing that you don’t NEED X extension because Y does just as well if you ignore its shortcomings in Z). [...]

Now, for fans of Microsoft products, there’s no reason why someone wouldn’t want to use Microsoft Edge or Bing. Both services are victims of a “works perfectly for me” mentality, and it is easy to imagine that both are completely serviceable apps and services with their own advantages. In the real world, however, many users aren’t a fan of Microsoft Edge, with users actively downloading and installing Chrome on their PCs despite Microsoft’s best attempts. Bing for its part is a lovely search engine, but it remains the punchline to many ribald jokes. [...]

I’d say that most people who use Google’s excellent Chrome browser don’t use it because it’s a classic Windows app, or because they have any particular love for Google, it is just that Chrome has a lot to offer. [...] It is in some ways its own web standard, with sites almost always guaranteed to be working with Chrome. [...] Similarly, most people who use Google use it because it is a good search engine. Google the company may have some odd practices, but that doesn’t matter to most people. Google the search engine is a pretty useful tool for research and general work. [...]

It has been argued in comments, in social media like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and elsewhere that the lack of these two services isn’t a problem since Microsoft’s services can be almost as good as Google’s if you give them a chance — or so the saying goes. Well, I disagree. Just like people who prefer different brands of similarly tasting pizza, people simply prefer Google to Bing. You can make all sorts of arguments about why they should give your preferred pizza a try, but if there are choices, there’s no reason for them to favor your brand over their choices (especially if you happen to own the said brand).

It may be trivial right now to upgrade to Windows 10 Pro — but next year when comparing a new MacBook to a Surface Laptop, a consumer will see a £1000 laptop that doesn’t run Google Chrome until you pony up, and a £900 one that does.

I don't really have a whole lot to add this, except to say that the whole article is well worth reading. Allison's occasional cheerleading aside, I agreed with most of what he writes, including the assertion (near the end) that "Universal Windows Apps aren’t going to take off ever," a conclusion that I'd reached already - it's interesting to see others not only having come to the same realization, but mentioning it in passing while making larger points, as if the failure of UWP was a foregone conclusion, unworthy of elaboration.

Seriously, though... Microsoft need to stop trying to make "fetch" happen, here, If Bing wasn't good enough for people to use it when Microsoft was offering to pay them to do so, then it certainly isn't so good that Microsoft should be barring them from using alternatives. You'd almost think that they don't have any faith in their own product, or something...

The Iron Chef of missing the point entirely

From PCGamesN:

When the Steam Sales are on, everyone wants to fight back against the massive attention it gets with their own offers and deals. Microsoft have just waded in with their offering: the Ultimate Game Sale.

So, what’s on offer? You’re probably assuming it’s most things, being an Ultimate Game Sale, but some big first-party hits, such as Forza Horizon 3, have no discounts at all. Ultimate.

Forza Horizon 3 is almost a year old, but you still have to pay $59.99 to play it on PC, which is just ridiculous. It wouldn't be so bad, but there's not all that much else on the store. You'd think Microsoft would offer something on first-party games.

I'm getting daily emails from Steam listing the 47 games that are on sale just from my wishlist, most for 50% off or more, and that's after I bought everything that had already been marked down below CAD$5.00. Meanwhile, Microsofr's Ultimate Game Sale puts a grand total of 5 games on sale, all for $29.99 (except ROBLOX, which I guess is free2play because it only offers in-game discounts).



Honestly, can someone please sell Microsoft a clue?

Windows 10 est assez bon, dit CNIL.

Score one for Microsoft, I guess - it looks like French regulators have been appeased.

From Tech Republic:

Microsoft has scaled back the volume of data it collects from Windows 10 PCs by 'almost half', leading French authorities to drop their threat of a fine.

The French regulator CNIL today announced that Windows 10 is no longer in breach of the country's data protection laws, following changes to how the OS handles user privacy. Microsoft had previously faced the threat of a fine of up to €150,000 ($158,000) if Windows 10 wasn't brought into compliance with French data protection rules.

Since the notice was issued to Microsoft in July last year, Windows 10 has almost halved the volume of data it collects when the user picks the 'Basic' telemetry setting, according to a notice issued by CNIL.

Other positive changes highlighted by CNIL include Microsoft making it clearer that devices will be tied to an ID used for advertising purposes and making it easier for users to opt-out.

[...]

While Swiss data protection and privacy regulator FDPIC also dropped its enforcement action related to Windows 10 earlier this year, Microsoft has faced questions about Windows 10 telemetry from an EU data protection body. In February, the EU's Article 29 Working Party, said it "remained concerned about the level of protection of users' personal data".

At the time of publication, a spokesperson for the Article 29 Working Party had not responded to a request for comment about whether subsequent changes to Windows 10 had addressed its concerns.

The changes made weren't actually all that substantial (Paul Thurrott described them as "privacy theatre"), and since Microsoft had always maintained that all of the data it was harvesting via telemetry was essential, the simple fact that they were able to reduce mandatory data collection by half and still be collecting everything they "needed" pretty clearly reveals that their statements on data collection have always been at least 50% bullshit.

It's an open question whether CNIL's threatened penalties actually forced Microsoft to change anything, either. Microsoft had already applied for, and received, multiple extensions to CNIL's deadlines, and with the EU's Article 29 Working Party already on the case by the time the Creators Update changes came into effect, it's entirely possible that the much bigger threat of EU regulatory action was actually the determining factor behind the changes made to date.

Those EU regulators are still a potential thorn in Microsoft's side, and there's still a possibility that they'll mandate the kind of changes that Windows 7 holdouts, among others, have been calling for, but the chances of further meaningful change arising from European regulatory action appear to be dimming. It's still an open question whether consumer pressure, in the form of stagnant Windows 10 adoption rates, can still do the job, but after nearly two years of slow-to-stagnant adoption, it's looking less likely that Microsoft will respond to that pressure, either, especially since the Universal Windows Platform initiative appears to be nearly dead, anyway.

So, for the moment, nothing changes that hadn't changed already, while we wait for EU regulators to decide whether they'll also be appeased, as independent Swiss and French regulatory bodies have been already. I'll be keeping an eye on this one, but I'm less hopeful than I was a week ago.

Is Microsoft secretly planning an "Advanced" version of Windows 10?

From Forbes:

Windows 10 is incredibly clever, and we're only just starting to see the benefits of all these platforms running the same kernel. We're also starting to see problems.

For a business upgrading to Windows 10 isn't without its concerns. For one thing there's the ongoing issue of Microsoft's telemetry. Now I'm not personally someone who worries about this, and you can turn it off, but it's not entirely business friendly. Then there's the issue of adverts popping up in Windows 10 and the fact that Microsoft thinks it's cool to stuff new installs with Candy Crush. These are not business compatible notions, in my view.

So, the leak suggests that Microsoft will bring in something called "Windows 10 Pro for Workstations" although it might actually be called "Windows Pro for Advanced PCs" which will help Microsoft move away from the stigma of Windows 10.

[...]

So will it help? Probably actually. Windows 10 is great and offers a lot to home users. I can see why businesses might not be so keen. Some of that is perhaps based on things that aren't really a big problem, and some will be legitimate concerns (like employees wasting time on Candy Crush, data security) that Windows for Workstations might address.

Like a lot of things, sometimes the answer is to do a bit of PR on the problem and hope it goes away. Microsoft needs to win over businesses to Windows 10 or it's sitting on a ticking support timebomb, and we have recently seen how older versions of Windows work out in business.

There are a couple of things about this article that I found interesting. The first thing that leaped out at me was "the stigma of Windows 10," which is presented as a baseline assumption, unworthy of discussion or debate. Apparently, Microsoft's Windows 10 problems, and the stagnant adoption that has resulted, is no longer something that needs to be explained.

More important, though, is the breathtaking cynicism of those last couple of paragraphs, and their assumption that Windows 10's problems are essentially nothing more than a PR matter. In a typical move from the apologist playbook, serious personal privacy and data collection issues are dismissed as being on the same level as "employees wasting time on Candy Crush," before the writer moves on to assert that a simple name change will solve all of Windows 10's issues - the implicit assumption being that Windows 10 has no real issues, only perceived ones.

The problems with that assumption are legion, but let's start with the obvious one: Windows 10 is already a re-brand, an attempt by Microsoft to put as much distance as possible between the current version of the OS and the disastrously unpopular Windows 8, without ditching the Windows name entirely. To have to re-brand their attempt to re-brand Windows just adds another version number to the list of consecutive failed Windows versions, something which is unlikely to make the newest version seem more appealing.

Added to that, Windows 10 already suffers from a certain amount of SKU confusion, with multiple different versions and very little to differentiate between them except price, especially for enterprise customers. Adding several more SKUs to that list, even if they're replacing ones that are already available, does nothing to relieve the confusion.

And then there's the really big problem, namely that the new Pro for Advanced PC verison includes several performance enhancements, but doesn't appear to touch on Windows 10's problematic areas at all: personal privacy, data collection, advertising, and Microsoft-sponsored bloatware (like, yes, Candy Crush) are not on the leaked list of improvements. This makes sense only if you assume that Windows 10 has no real issues, only perceived ones that can be addressed with a name change, but it ignores the reality: Windows 10 has real issues, non-trivial ones that users are prefectly right to be upset about, and changing the name without first addressing any of those problems doesn't move the ball forward in any way at all.

What the Forbes article advocates is basically the same thing that Microsoft already did when re-releasing Windows 8 as Windows 10 with a new browser and some UI upgrades. Sure, Microsoft fixed some superficial things about Windows 8, but they totally ignored the core of the consumer discontent that made Win8 one of their least popular OS releases ever. Yes, people wanted their start menus and desktops back, but what they wanted even more was for Microsoft to quit trying to monitor and monetize their every action. Microsoft, clearly believing that this was more a PR matter than anything else, have already changed the packaging, but not what's in the package, and are now apparently plotting in secret to repeat that same action, while expecting the result to change.

That is why Windows 10 is in the process of failing to launch. Windows 10 doesn't just have PR problems, although Microsoft have had their fair share of those, also. Windows 10 has real issues, areas of reasonable and serious concern that Microsoft's apologists are still refusing to take seriously, in part because Microsoft themselves refuse to properly acknowledge and address them. Giving yet another new name to yet another new version of the same turd doesn't change that, no matter how much polish is applied to the turd.

Also... Windows 10's telemetry can't be turned off. Not without third party software, or a registry edit (and then some). I don't know whether this is a case of genuine ignorance, or one of intentional misinformation, but either way, it's factually wrong. Shame on you, Ian Morris, for not being either better informed about such an important subject, or more honest about it. He does start by saying that he doesn't much care about the issue, but he clearly knew that it was enough of an issue to have spent time contemptuously dismissing it, so that's hardly an adequate excuse.

Also... holy fuck, are Microsoft serious about that name? "Windows Pro for Advanced PCs?" What, Microsoft couldn't come up with something longer, and even more unwieldy? What does its acronym even work out to? WPFAPCs? Even if Windows 10's problems were purely of a PR nature, if Redmond's PR department can't do any better than WPFAPCs, then they're in some serious shit.

#failuretolaunch

The Nintendo Switch's big problem, nicely illustrated

Kotaku posted a list today of the 12 best games currently available on the Nintendo Switch. You can read their list yourself, along with the reasoning for each game's inclusion, here; for my purposes, though, I'm just going to type out the list in bullet points, along with the system that each game was originally released on. See if you can spot the pattern.

1. Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Switch)
2. Disgaea 5 (PS4)
3. Snipperclips (Switch)
4. Thumper (PC)
5. Puyo Puyo Tetris (*)
6. The Binding of Isaac: Afterbirth+ (PC)
7. Minecraft (PC)
8. Cave Story+ (PC)
9. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (Switch)
10. Jackbox Party Pack 3 (PC)
11. Shovel Knight: Treasure Trove (PC)
12. Arms (Switch)

Puyo Puyo Tetris is the one oddball on the list, a crossover between the Puyo Puyo and Tetris franchises. It has a gameplay mode which involves alternately playing both games side-by-side, or something? It's supposed to be quite fun, but I'd hesitate to describe it as "new," and PPT's two component games date back to 1991 and 1984, respectively, making them just slightly less old than dirt.

Of the other 11 games on the list, 6 are ports from PC, and one is a port from the PS4, leaving only 4 games that are actually seeing their first release on the Nintendo's new console. The Switch-first games are all first-party titles, published by Nintendo themselves. Of these, Zelda is the only proven system-seller, although it's unclear just how many systems it will sell, beyond the same Nintendo fanbase that wasn't enough to keep the WiiU alive. That leaves Snipperclips as the 3rd-best game on the console (and, be honest, has anyone that doesn't already own a Switch even heard of this game?), Mario Kart 8 in the obligatory Mario Kart spot (quite good, I'm sure, but still only good enough for the #9 spot on a list filled with PC ports), and Arms (at a rock-bottom #12, and again, hardly the image of a system-seller).

That's it: four games seeing their first release on the platform, all of them made by Nintendo themselves, including two gimmicky tech demos that only hardcore Nintendo fans will even care about, one game that every Switch owner already owns (and which can only drive so many console sales by itself), yet another Mario Kart game, and Puyo Puyo Tetris, which is a retread of two of the oldest game franchises still alive. That is the Nintendo Switch arsenal of system-selling titles.

And, sure, Super Mario Odyssey will probably find its way onto Kotaku's list (and other best-of lists) when it comes out this fall, but that's yet another Mario title, and another first-party Nintendo release for their own console. Nintendo only have so much money to spend making games, and we already know from the WiiU that their output alone cannot keep a platform afloat. If the Switch is to survive, then third-party developers have to buy in. So far, the new only third party title that I've seen announced for the Switch is Square Enix's Lost Sphear, which is releasing simultaneously on PS4 and Steam (although not on XBox).

This is a problem, and with Nintendo struggling just to get product onto store shelves, it's just one of many hurdles facing the Switch. Nintendo's managed a fairly successful release for the Switch, and there's quite a bit of good buzz around the console for the moment, but continued supply problems are already turning excitement to frustration, and if Nintendo kill their own console's buzz before they achieve widespread, third-party developer support, then the Switch could easily go the way of the WiiU. Nintendo are a big company, but they're not Microsoft-sized, or Sony-sized; a second failed console in a row could easily be the end of their hardware business.

Chrome now boasts better battery life than Edge. Your move, Microsoft...

Back in April, when Microsoft was  (yet again) trying to woo users of Google's Chrome browser over to Edge by boasting about Edge's battery performance, I predicted that it would only be a matter of months before Google improved Chrome's battery performance to be every bit as good as, if not better than, Edge's. Having previously confessed my unseemly love of saying, "I told you so," I will now take this opportunity to point out that Google have done precisely that.

From Mihăiță Bamburic at betanews:

Ask Microsoft which browser offers the best battery life on Windows 10 and it will not hesitate to tell you that Microsoft Edge is the best. And it has the test results to prove it: on a Surface Book, for instance, Microsoft Edge lasts a couple of hours longer than Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, which is remarkable.

But, and there is a but, an independent test disputes Microsoft's claim. YouTuber Linus Tech Tips has pitted Microsoft Edge against Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Opera and discovered that it does not deliver as strong a performance as Microsoft claims.

Linus Tech Tips took four Dell Inspiron laptops, with the same specs, and found that Microsoft Edge trails Chrome and Opera in battery life tests. It would seem that it still beats Firefox, after all. However, the results are much, much closer than what Microsoft's own tests indicate.

Linus Tech Tips' video is worth a watch:

 
Yet another Microsoft product claim debunked? That hasn't happened since Friday.

This is how Microsoft's month has been trending. After managing to go weeks with nary a negative headline in sight, they've now managed to fumble their response to WannaCry twice, are scrambling to do damage control after a source code leak, and had both their Windows 10 S security claims and their Edge browser battery life claims debunked, by experimentation, in the last week. I don't know why they thought that PC consumers would simply accept their PR releases as fact without independent benchmarking, given that independent tests have only been part of the PC culture for a few decades now, but Microsoft seem to have done exactly that. Winning!

So, in the face of all these headwinds, what is Microsoft's current focus? Apparently, mobile. Yes, again.Yes, really. From ZDNet:

The PC is Windows' stronghold, and, despite predictions of its demise, the PC seems to be holding its own, thanks in part to some nice hardware designs coming out of Microsoft recently.

But a few projects that Microsoft has been working on recently also show how it wants a life for Windows beyond the classic PC.

One of these is the effort to get Windows 10 running on ARM. Running Windows on ARM chips - the same chips used to run smartphones - means that Windows could start appearing on small, lighter, always-on devices. The first hardware is expected later this year.

Another project that could still show promise is Continuum, which allows a Window Phone device like the Elite X3 to dock with a keyboard and monitor and perform like a PC.

And finally there is Windows 10 S - a locked-down version of Windows 10 that aims to compete with Chromebooks on ease of use.

All these projects are looking at slightly different things, but they are all linked in their goal to take Windows beyond its traditional PC - that is, desktop and laptop - territory.

[...]

The bigger question is whether Microsoft can make a real breakthrough with any of these new categories. The desktop is Microsoft's home territory but when it comes to mobile it's an outsider at best. Android and iOS are firmly in control and as Microsoft found last time around, dislodging them is going to be incredibly hard.

However, it seems that Microsoft could be finally getting over the technical issues that have held back its ambitions beyond the desktop. The next question is to persuade consumers why they should make the switch.

Did I mention that Microsoft and Qualcomm are being threatened by Intel with possible patent infringement litigation for that Windows 10 on ARM project? Because that also happened last week. It's almost as if Intel realized how many of Microsoft's future plans were depending on Windows 10 on ARM to be their linchpin, and pounced.

Did I mention, too, that Microsoft themselves now can't be bothered to develop natively for UWP, essentially signalling the beginning of the end for a platform which is critical to their mobile efforts? Or that Microsoft have other lawsuit troubles, with their defence against Kaspersky Lab's antitrust complaint not exactly getting off to a strong start? Added to all of that, it's nearly month end, putting us just days away from learning just how stagnant Windows 10's growth has been over the last 30 days.

Honestly, Microsoft have so many issues, on so many fronts, that it's becoming difficult to keep track of them all. Their efforts seem to be focused on everything, which sounds impressive until you think about it for a second, and realize that "Microsoft is focused on everything" is just another way of saying that Microsoft lacks focus. The strain has been showing for a while now, but the cracks in the facade are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, and it's hard to say what benefits, if any, are being realized through this seeming lack of strategic focus. I know that Microsoft want Windows 10 to somehow make them everything to everybody, on every device, in every circumstance, all the time, but somehow that seeming less and less like a realistic plan, and more and more like the Underpants Gnomes.

It's Microsoft's move, but with the situation becoming less tractable with each passing month, I'm not sure how many more chances they'll have to make "fetch" happen. Especially since their competitors in all these various tech-driven spaces aren't exactly standing still, waiting for Microsoft to catch them and pass them. How many more moves will Microsoft get, before it's effectively game over? Rich as they are, how many more missteps and outright failures can even Microsoft afford?

Windows 10 is not as invulnerable as Microsoft claims... and its leaked source code may undermine that even further.

It's been a tough week for Microsoft on the Windows 10 security front.

The week started with Microsoft essentially boasting that Windows 10 S was invulnerable, claiming that "no known ransomware" would run on their latest, gimped version of the OS. That prompted ZDNet to test if such a bold claim would hold up under testing, and the results were somehow both slightly surprising and completely predictable:

Last week, on its debut day, we got our hands on a new Surface Laptop, the first device of its kind to run Windows 10 S. We booted it up, went through the setup process, created an offline account, and installed a slew of outstanding security patches -- like any other ordinary user would (hopefully) do.

And that's when we asked Matthew Hickey, a security researcher and co-founder of cybersecurity firm Hacker House, a simple enough question: Will ransomware install on this operating system?

It took him a little over three hours to bust the operating system's various layers of security, but he got there.

"I'm honestly surprised it was this easy," he said in a call after his attack. "When I looked at the branding and the marketing for the new operating system, I thought they had further enhanced it. I would've wanted more restrictions on trying to run privileged processes instead of it being such a short process."

Ouch. Microsoft, naturally, immediately claimed that black was white, saying that ZDNet's test results don't show what they clearly showed, while simultaneously subtly walking back the claim itself in comments made to Gizmodo:

Microsoft, meanwhile, roundly rejected ZDNet’s assertion that its test proved Windows 10 S is, in fact, vulnerable to ransomware attacks. “In early June we stated that Windows 10 S was not vulnerable to any known ransomware, and based on the information we received from ZDNet that statement holds true,” a spokesperson said.

Added the spokesperson: “We recognize that new attacks and malware emerge continually, which is why [we] are committed to monitoring the threat landscape and working with responsible researchers to ensure that Windows 10 continues to provide the most secure experience possible for our customers.”

Clearly, based on the test conducted by ZDNet and Hickey, Microsoft’s claim is specious at best. While Windows 10 S may be less vulnerable to attack because it will only run rigorously tested software approved by Microsoft, there *are* still ways to infect machines running the OS.

Although Microsoft never actually claimed to have built an unhackable machine, even implying that its OS is invulnerable to all “known ransomware” is pretty pretentious. Bold security claims invite challenge. Since Microsoft summarily dismissed ZDNet’s research without much explanation, I’d expect to see more egg on its face soon.

That eggy expectation was realized later in the week, when a huge chunk of Windows 10's source code was discovered to have leaked online, as first reported by The Reg:

A massive trove of Microsoft's internal Windows operating system builds and chunks of its core source code have leaked online.

The data – some 32TB of official and non-public installation images and software blueprints that compress down to 8TB – were uploaded to betaarchive.com, the latest load of files provided just earlier this week. It is believed the confidential data in this dump was exfiltrated from Microsoft's in-house systems around March this year.

The leaked code is Microsoft's Shared Source Kit: according to people who have seen its contents, it includes the source to the base Windows 10 hardware drivers plus Redmond's PnP code, its USB and Wi-Fi stacks, its storage drivers, and ARM-specific OneCore kernel code.

Anyone who has this information can scour it for security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited to hack Windows systems worldwide. The code runs at the heart of the operating system, at some of its most trusted levels. It is supposed to be for Microsoft, hardware manufacturers, and select customers' eyes only.

The leak was later confirmed by Redmond to The Verge:

“Our review confirms that these files are actually a portion of the source code from the Shared Source Initiative and is used by OEMs and partners,” reveals a Microsoft spokesperson in an email to The Verge. While The Register claims 32TB of data, including unreleased Windows builds, has been leaked, The Verge understands most of the collection has been available for months, or even years.

[...]

The source code leak comes just a day after two men were arrested in the UK as part of an investigation into unauthorized access to Microsoft’s network. Detectives executed warrants to arrest a 22-year-old man from Lincolnshire, and a 25-year-old man from Bracknell. The Verge understands both men have been involved in collecting confidential Windows 10 builds, and that at least one is a donator to the Beta Archive site. A spokesperson for Thames Valley police refused to provide more information on the arrests to The Verge, and would not confirm the two identities of the individuals.

It’s not clear if the arrests are directly linked to the source code leak, but Microsoft is evidently concerned about some potential intrusions into its networks by Windows enthusiasts. The alleged offences took place between January and March, and a large dump of confidential Windows 10 builds was leaked to Beta Archive on March 24th. An administrator of Beta Archive, named only as "mrpijey," revealed "with the help of members (whose names shall never be mentioned) I've downloaded a whole lot of Windows Insider builds of Windows 10 directly from Microsoft" at the time of the leak. Ars Technica also reports that Microsoft’s build systems may have been hacked in March.

Now can everyone stop pretending that Windows 10 is some sort of security silver bullet? Or that Microsoft are the very bestest experts in all matters relating to cyber security? Because, frankly, I'm a little sick of seeing and hearing the "Windows 10 is more secure" argument from every Microsoft apologist who's spent time scare-mongering for Microsoft, trying to terrify Windows 7 users into switching operating systems. This argument is not winning anyone over; it's time to let it go.

"There is no such thing as perfect security, only varying levels of insecurity."

- Salman Rushdie

Well.... I guess that's one way to approach the problem...

When Kaspersky Lab filed its antitrust complaint with the EU earlier this month, Microsoft's response was basically boilerplate corporate legalese. "Microsoft's primary objective is to keep customers protected and we are confident that the security features of Windows 10 comply with competition laws," they said, adding that they'd reached out directly to Kaspersky a number of months ago offering to meet directly at an executive level to better understand their concerns," but without success (quotes from The Inquirer).

But that was then, and this is now, and their current strategy for fighting this antitrust complaint, is... novel, let's say. Yes, let's go with novel.

From The Reg:

Redmond is currently being sued by security house Kaspersky Lab in the EU, Germany and Russia over alleged anti-competitive behaviour because it bundles the Windows Defender security suite into its latest operating system. Kaspersky (and others) claim Microsoft is up to its Internet Explorer shenanigans again, but that’s not so, said the operating system giant.

“Microsoft’s application compatibility teams found that roughly 95 per cent of Windows 10 PCs had an antivirus application installed that was already compatible with Windows 10 Creators Update,” said Rob Lefferts, director of security in the Windows and Devices group.

“For the small number of applications that still needed updating, we built a feature just for AV apps that would prompt the customer to install a new version of their AV app right after the update completed. To do this, we first temporarily disabled some parts of the AV software when the update began.”

Basically, Kaspersky are complaining about Microsoft abusing their control of the Windows platform to disable competitors' software, violating EU rules about such things, and Microsoft's defense is that they do exactly this, but that it's OK, because security. Presenting their actions as a consumer protection move is pretty baller; it's also bullshit, because there's plenty of evidence just floating around that Microsoft can, and do, disable competing AV software for reasons other than compatibility issues.

If you're wondering what it looks that like, then wonder no longer! It looks like this:

So, Microsoft can use their control of Windows to (a) know when your AV subscription is due to expire, and (b) "helpfully" remind you a day or so ahead of time.... that they have a free AV solution already installed on your machine, which they'll just be switching you to, automatically, if you should be, I dunno, too busy, or something, to renew that. Because they have your back (wink, wink). Somehow, according to Microsoft, this is about software compatibility, even though compatibility issues with the 3rd part software are never once mentioned.

This genius legal strategy is the work of the same team who are defending against multiple class-action lawsuits using basically the same argument that cost Microsoft US$10,000 in small claims court. Redmond's anticonsumer, monopolistic practices seem so blatant here that I'm finding it hard to imagine the EU doing anything except ruling in Kaspersky's favour. There's a reason why Microsoft already have a not-dissimilar, €497 million antitrust ruling on record.

All of this comes even as Microsoft's data privacy practices still being assessed by EU regulators - most of their recent improvements in that area were done in response to regulatory pressure, and regulators were not sounding convinced that Redmond's concessions in that area went far enough. To be facing antitrust action, again, with the data privacy stuff still not resolved, and multiple class action lawsuits grinding their way to apparently inevitable losses... well, I'm not an expert, but it sure looks to me like Microsoft's leadership have been on the receiving end of some seriously awful legal advice.

Microsoft are now perpetually operating in a mode of trying to minimize eventual penalties, while doing as little as possible about their bad practices in the meantime, all while knowing that their arguments in defense of those practices are basically insufficient to win any case on its merits. And, as a yuge corporation with plenty of cash in reserve, they can probably afford to wage these legal battles of attrition for quite a while yet. Whether they can afford the long-term damage that they're doing to their reputation in the meantime, or the momentum gains they're missing while spending years mired in legal trouble, remains to be seen.

"S" is for sucks - Windows 10 S gets roasted by reviewers.

This is the part where I'm supposed to say that I hate saying, "I told you so," but I'd be lying. For one thing, I actually love saying that. Also, I told you so.

From ZDNet:

Microsoft debuted its first true laptop last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive, even downright effusive.

For the hardware, that is.

Microsoft chose to debut a new edition of Windows with the Surface Laptop, and the same reviewers who loved its elegant design and performance were almost uniformly scathing in their rejection of the brand-new Windows 10 S.

And rightly so. Whoever made the decision to debut Windows 10 S on this particular piece of hardware was not thinking clearly. This is an ultralight premium laptop, sold at a premium price. It competes with devices like the MacBook Air, Dell's XPS 13, and HP's Envy x360 [and] starts at $1000 and the highest-spec configuration costs a hefty $2200. If you're willing to pay that price, you want to run the full range of Windows software.

By contrast, the machines that will ultimately form the installed base for Windows 10 S are low-cost PCs designed for use in classrooms, managed by professional IT staff. [...] The mismatch between the hardware and software could not have been more profound, and the reaction from reviewers could not have been more predictable.

Windows 10 S represents Microsoft's truest vision of Windows 10, with users wedded to the UWP and the Windows Store, utterly dependent on Microsoft for everything. It's not a new vision; Windows 8 was exactly this same package, and pretty much everybody hated it then, too.

With their Surface Laptops, Microsoft has apparently made a really decent piece of hardware, and then loaded it with a gimped OS that proves, beyond any doubt whatsoever, not only that MS have absolutely no understanding of what makes Google's Chromebooks so popular, but also that MS have zero understanding of what's kept Windows at 90% or more of the PC OS market for decades.

(Here's a hint: it's got absolutely nothing to do with the walled garden storefronts, in either case.)


GG, Microsoft. GG.

Xbox boss says that VR success is 5 to 10 years away.

Well, I guess this explains why Microsoft's XBO-X rollout didn't include any mention of VR.

From mspoweruser:

It’a no secret that Microsoft has been very bullish on VR for the past few years. Debuting its Hololens headset at Build 2015, building mixed reality into Windows and so on.

In an interview with Time magazine, the Xbox chief Phil Spencer stated that tech firms were about 5-10 years away from creating the kind of VR service that could produce the amount of fidelity and consistent experience that would be needed to see consumer success at scale.

“I love that we did HoloLens, not because I think everybody should go buy a $3,000 HoloLens. It wasn’t made for everybody, we’ve said that, it’s a developer kit. Now we’re doing kind of the other end with Windows Mixed Reality and $299 with OEM partners. But even then, with all these cables hanging off the back of your head, especially in a family room environment, that’s hard.”

You know that VR is a flop when even it's proponents start putting distance between their upcoming efforts and the VR label. "Mixed Reality?" Really, Mr. Spencer?

Still, whether you call it VR, AR, MR, or VRARMR, the fact that it's not ready for prime time, and not appealing to consumers at all, is pretty damn obvious by this point. Honestly, I think that 5 - 10 years is being overly optimistic. The current crop of VR hardware is not going to see mainstream acceptance, and its failure may tarnish the VR name thoroughly enough to make it hard to sell anything resembling VR until a new generation of consumers exist to pitch to. We could be looking at another 20 years' hiatus... decades in which deep-pocketed VRARMR developers will have to be willing to spend money on research and development, with no expectation of a return on that investment in the near-to-mid term.

Yes, I'm saying it... VR is dead, and the big VR makers know it.

This is becoming something of a theme for the week, innt?

#VRisdeadandtheyknowit
#xisdeadandtheyknowit

UWP is a failure, and Microsoft knows it.

The Universal Windows Platform was always one of the central components, if not the central component, of Microsoft's Windows 10 strategy. Intended, among other things, to leverage their desktop OS dominance into a mobile app presence, it was also going to provide a lucrative revenue stream for Redmond, with Microsoft taking a hefty cut of the proceeds from every piece of software sold, on every Windows PC and phone, from here on out.

It seemed foolproof; all that Microsoft needed to do was convince their customers to switch to Windows 10. With 50% of the desktop market on the new platform, developing natively for UWP becomes a no-brainer, and a flood of new UWP software would not only help close the mobile "app gap," it would fill Microsoft's pockets with cold, hard, cash, all while slowly pushing their competitors' store fronts out of business. Bye-bye, Steam, Origin, Uplay, and GOG! Nice knowing you...

Hell, it might not even have needed to be 50%. If Microsoft could only manage to have more users on Windows 10 than were still on any other version of the OS, that might have been enough for a tipping point, fuelling a nigh-unstoppable paradigm shift, away from the historical openness of Windows, and towards a UWP destiny. And so, with this end firmly in sight, Microsoft proceeded to give Windows 10 away for free, and waited for their monopoly to materialize.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, though, their customers had other ideas about all of this.

The problem, you see, is that Microsoft has a long history of terrible OS releases. Windows 95 was a bug-ridden mess, crashing completely with such frequency that we all still know what a Blue Screen of Death looks like, and when it occurs, even though none of us have likely seen a BSOD for years. Windows 98 was slightly more stable, but Windows wasn't actually fixed (which is to say, finished) until Windows XP.

Microsoft immediately followed XP with Vista, which came with brutal hardware requirements, suffered from poor performance even if those requirements were met, and was married to the "Vista Ready" OEM program, a Microsoft-endorsed bait-and-switch tactic which resulted large numbers of "Vista Ready" PCs that really weren't, and multiple huge class action lawsuits. Windows 7 fixed a lots of Vista's performance problems, and also fixed Vista's terrible "cancel or allow" UAC regime, making it only the 2nd complete, fully-functioning version of Windows out of five releases to this point. Most Windows users skipped Vista entirely, whether or not their PCs were "Visa Ready."

Windows 8 saw Microsoft's first attempt to turn Windows into a walled garden, with Microsoft serving as primary provider of software to Windows' users (and taking a tidy cut of every sale). This was so unpopular that OEMs demanded, and were granted, the freedom to simply install Windows 7 on the new PCs and laptops of all their new Windows 8 licence-holders, which most of them did; there's a reason why Microsoft numbered the next iteration of Windows 10 and not 9, and regardless of what they might say on the subject, it sure looks like they did it to put more distance between them and their horrible Windows 8 miscalculations.

To say that Windows 7 users were somewhat wary of Windows 10, by this point, just on general principles, would be something of an understatement. Savvy Windows users simply don't buy or install any new Windows OS in its first year, period, and they normally wait until at least one service pack is available. Hell, that's what I was doing, in the early days of the GWX campaign: waiting out the bug-filled first year, so that all the problems could be found (and hopefully fixed) before making a decision as to whether I would switch horses.

That didn't work for Microsoft, though, who needed users to switch. And, thus, the bullshit started, with Microsoft turning users' existing Windows installations into something that behaved like malware: downloading Windows 10 in the background without their knowledge or prior consent, incessantly nagging them to switch, no matter how many times users refused the upgrade, and ultimately just switching them anyway. Savvy users turned to 3rd party solutions to avoid the upgrade, while less-savvy users simply turned off Windows Update entirely to avoid Microsoft's "optional" offer that literally couldn't be refused. In the same way that Vista's many problems inspired Windows XP users to dig in (a significant percentage of PCs are still running Windows XP), Windows 8's problems made Windows 7 user reluctant to switch their operating systems, and the abuses of the GWX campaign now have them digging in deeper as time goes on.

The available evidence all points at one, and only one, conclusion: Windows 7 is the new XP. And for Microsoft, who need Windows 10, and its UWP payload, to reach that tipping point where is makes more sense to develop for UWP than for Win32, this really is disastrous. Nobody develops natively for UWP; with only 26% of PC owners having access to UWP and the Windows store, it simply doesn't make sense to do so.

And when I say nobody, I mean nobody... including Microsoft themselves.

From WindowsReport:

Microsoft’s Office desktops apps just reached the Windows Store, coinciding with the launch of the brand new Surface Laptop running Windows 10 S.

The Office suite was brought to the Windows Store by Microsoft’s Project Centennial desktop app bridge, and is available to all the Surface Laptop users who are part of a preview install and update process.

Nearly two years after releasing Windows 10 and UWP into the world with dreams of marketplace dominance dancing in their heads, Microsoft themselves are only now bringing their 2nd-biggest software product to their own store. And it isn't a native UWP version of the program, either; it's a port, brought over via the Project Centennial Desktop App Bridge (henceforth referred to as PCDAB).

That's right: Windows 10 and UWP have flopped so hard that Microsoft themselves can't be bothered to develop natively for the platform.

If Microsoft can't be bothered to develop natively for UWP, then nobody else is going to, either, ever, and that means that UWP is effectively dead on arrival. The only programs that Microsoft will see on its storefront from here on out will be PCDAB ports, none of which will perform as well as Win32 executable versions of those same programs, and even that assumes that developers bother to do that much; with the Windows 10 store being such a shit-show, and the added costs involved in maintaining a 2nd version of their software, all in service of lining Microsoft's pockets, I suspect that most developers simply won't bother to port their programs over in the first place.

Worse yet, a dearth of quality UWP apps means that Windows 10 users are spending this crucial time in the platform's life-cycle locking software-buying habits that exclude the Windows store almost entirely. That's not reversible; if even Windows 10 users are thoroughly trained to buy their software elsewhere, then developers have even less reason to develop for UWP, and that is self-reinforcing. It's a vicious cycle, with the lack of adopters resulting in a lack of apps, which ensures not only a slower rate of adoption, but also ensures that new adopters of Windows 10 don't adopt the storefront along with the OS, resulting in ever fewer apps...

At this point, Microsoft would probably love to be faced with a simple chicken-and-egg problem, rather than this rapidly increasing inertia.They seem to be hoping that the upcoming Windows 10 S will turn this trend around, but they're already undermining that, too, by giving free Windows 10 Pro upgrades to every Windows 10 S customer. 10 S's total reliance on UWP and the Windows Store have already proved so massively unpopular that Microsoft has been forced to back off, meaning that any momentum that 10 S might have imparted to UWP will now not happen.

It seems to be that only one question remains: is this vicious cycle now so well-established that Microsoft is simply unable turn it around?

Leave aside for the moment that turning this tide would require Microsoft to do multiple things that they've, thus far, shown no appetite for. What if they were willing to apologize for the abuses of the GWX campaign, even if that meant settling multiple class-action lawsuits rather than fighting them? What if they were willing to relinquish their unjustifiable death-grip on their users' metadata, ending a their data collection scheme entirely, allowing users to turn Cortana off completely, and maybe even allowing users of Cortana to use something other than Bing as a its default search engine? What if they dropped the pretense, and simply announced that Windows 10 would remain a free upgrade forever, rather than relying on this "assistive technologies" nonsense (seriously, how do kotkeys qualify as as assistive technology)?

What if they did all of that? Would even that, at this point, after all the bullshit that's already happened, be enough to turn these trends around? We live in a very big universe, and a great many things are possible, so I suppose it's still possible that Microsoft could find some way to win enough dug-in Windows 7 customers hearts and minds, and do it quickly enough, to still save their UWP gambit, but I've gotta say... I'm starting to have serious doubts about that. Which sucks; my hope was that the need to salvage the rest of their Windows 10/UWP strategy could be the lever that shifted Microsoft on some that strategy's more egregiously anti-consumer elements, but it's looking more and more like there simply isn't enough time anymore for that to work.

There's little doubt that Microsoft have damaged their relationship with 49% of PC users. They've so thoroughly undermined the trust and goodwill of their customers, and so thoroughly undermined their own cause in the process, that it will take them years to repair the damage... crucial early development years which their UWP initiative simply cannot afford to lose. And Microsoft keeps letting time slip away, doubling and tripling down on the very policies and practices that got them into this fine mess in the first place, repeating the same actions while hoping that the result will change. Well, I don't think that the result is going to change... at least, not in time for Microsoft to reap the benefits that they're clearly hoping for. And the longer this continues, the less incentive there is for Microsoft to change course, as Windows 7 users dig even deeper in, become even less receptive to any changes in either tone or substance by Redmond.

Microsoft are a huge company, and both they, and Windows, will be around for a long time to come. Windows still owns over 90% of the OS market on PCs and laptops, and gradual adoption by Enterprise customers, who need expensive support plans along with the OS itself, can probably keep Microsoft afloat more-or-less indefinitely. But their ambition to make Windows 10 the centrepiece of everything their customers do, their big dream of being everything to everybody, on every device and appliance, at all times... I think that's done, killed by Microsoft's own hubris before it even had a chance to be properly born. Stick a fork in it, already.

#UWPisdeadandMSknowit
#xisdeadandtheyknowit

The Pandering continues...

If you were wondering which was actually the most successful game of Blizzard's Diablo line, consider this: after years of claiming that Diablo III was a YUGE success, Blizzard has apparently abandoned development on D3 almost completely, with only one further DLC (the Necromancer class) planned, and nothing else in the pipeline. Diablo II, meanwhile, appears to be getting a high-def remaster.

From GameRant:

Without a doubt, the Diablo franchise is one of the most revered series to ever be released thanks to its populous fan base that is so dedicated to the titles, that some have even made a theme wedding revolving around the art, characters, and design style of the releases. With this being the case, long-time followers and even newbies to the action-RPG will likely rejoice to learn that a job listing on Blizzard’s website points to the possibility of there being a remaster for Diablo 2 in the works.

The posting on the publisher and developer’s jobs page is advertising a “Lead Software Engineer, Engine” role and it insinuates that not only is Diablo 2 seemingly getting an HD upgrade, but also a Warcraft 3 remaster is in the cards as well. The open position originally alluded to these titles getting enhanced versions, but it has since been changed. Thanks to the screenshot from Blizzplanet below, however, fans can see that the following quote was at first used as a means to get folks to apply prior to being scrubbed and relisted as an “unannounced project.”

The job posting itself looks like this:



I've said it before, and I'll say it again: D3 is dead, and Blizzard knows it. Their best hope for resuscitating the Diablo franchise involves pandering to the same D1 & D2 fans that they spent years talking alienating, but they've been trying to have their cake and eat it: pretending that D3 was still a popular goldmine, while simultaneously pandering to D2 fans with Kanai's Cube, the Darkening of Tristram event, and even the classes they've added to the game, starting with almost-the-Paladin, and culminating with straight-up-the-Necromancer.

Well, the pretense seems to be finally nearing its end. With a straight-up remaster of D2 in the works, and nothing much in production for D3, it sure looks like Blizzard is squarely aiming their nostalgia cannons at D2 fans in an effort to win them back, while simply letting D3 lie fallow.

The problem? After having spent years telling D2 fans that they needed to let it go and move on, most of them actually have let it go, and moved on, mostly to competitors' games like Grim Dawn and Path of Exile. Having moved on to other, better games, from developers that didn't spend years shitting on them, I'm not sure that D2 fans actually have whole lot of nostalgia left for Blizzard to tap into.

Time will tell, I suppose, but I'll tell you for nothing that I'm neither excited nor surprised by the news that Blizzard is taking the obvious next step with their Diablo franchise. It's just a little too little, and much too late, for me to actually give a shit.

#D3isdeadandBlizardknowit
#xisdeadandtheyknowit

Better slowly. than not at all...

From the notes on Windows 7 update KB2952664 [emphasis added]:

This update performs diagnostics on the Windows systems that participate in the Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program. The diagnostics evaluate the compatibility status of the Windows ecosystem, and help Microsoft to ensure application and device compatibility for all updates to Windows. There is no GWX or upgrade functionality contained in this update.

Well, well, well. It seems that they do learn, after all. Slowly, to be sure, and at some great cost, but they do seem to be finally getting the message.

Other good news? This month's security updates also include further patches for the exploit employed by WannaCry, and were released to Windows XP concurrently with Windows 7, 8, and 8.1, and for free, rather than after several months' delay of trying to sell expensive extended support packages to XP customers. So I guess they learned that lesson, too.

It's nice to see tacit acknowledgement from Microsoft that they and their Windows 7 users don't still have the same relationship of trust and good will that existed just two years ago, but it's also a clear sign of how seriously that relationship has deteriorated. How badly must Microsoft have fucked this up, that a note promising a clean update, i.e. with no upgrade bullshit, is even necessary? How many Windows 7 users do you think will avoid installing these updates anyway, just to be "safe?" How many of them still have Windows Update turned off completely, thanks to Microsoft's GWX abuses?

Microsoft have a long, long way to go, yet, to get back into their customers' good graces. Considering that they haven't yet actually apologized for all the bullshit they've pulled in the last couple of years, it's fair to say that you haven't even really started to make their way back. They do seem to be thinking about it, though; I just hope they learn the real lesson of their XBO-X failure, though, and start working to earn redemption before it's too late, and not after.

OK, it's maybe that response isn't so "muted" after all...

... but I'm apparently not the only one that was underwhelmed by Microsoft's XBO-X reveal.

From Kotaku:

Even though E3 has only just gotten underway, most of the biggest companies have already made their biggest announcements, and amazingly, Microsoft’s offering already feels like a miss. I say “amazingly” because Microsoft was the only company to debut major hardware at the show.

Normally when a company announces a brand new console and 22 exclusive titles, as Microsoft just did on Sunday night, you’d be hard-pressed to declare them a loser. The sheer number of announcements Microsoft made is astounding, but shock and awe couldn’t save the company from a reaming by fans.

[...]

There’s one major reason Microsoft is being perceived as a loser despite all the news it dropped in one of the longest press events of the E3: It’s got no games. Both Nintendo and Sony left fans freaking with announcements of major exclusive games coming soon, titles like the much anticipated Super Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade Saga 2 for Nintendo, and Spider-Man, Detroit, and a new Uncharted game from Sony.

Microsoft, meanwhile, had a new Forza car racing game and...actually that’s it. The majority of its “exclusives,” the games you buy a console for because it is the only place to experience the game, are either “Microsoft” exclusive, which means they can be played on a PC as well, or they’re “timed” exclusives, like 2015's Rise of the Tomb Raider. That means that for a short period of time the title will only be available for Xbox One. Later it will be available on Windows, PS4, and in rare cases, Nintendo Switch.

With its tiny, tiny bench of exclusive games to lure people in, Microsoft is going to need some other way of enticing consumers, and it needs it desperately. Last night Sony announced it has sold over 60.4 million PS4s to date. Nintendo hasn’t made it’s numbers available, but as it just went on sale in March, the estimated 2.74 million units sold is impressive. Microsoft hasn’t made it’s own numbers available either, but in January SuperData estimated the total consoles sold between its launch back in 2013 and January 2017 to be around 26 million.

Microsoft is losing.

Yes, they certainly are.

To keep things in perspective, though, keep in mind that Microsoft are 500 billion U.S. dollars' worth, and then some, of global multinational corporation, and have so many irons in the fire that writing off their XBox division probably wouldn't be fatal for them. I mean, yes, games are big money, and losing the console contest to Sony and Nintendo will probably result a loss of revenue and jobs for Redmond, but the failure of the XBO-X won't be as big a deal for Microsoft as the failure of the Switch would've been for Nintendo, who are a tenth of Microsoft's size.

The bigger problem for Microsoft is that none of the other irons in the fire are heating up the way Redmond need them to. Windows 10, the lynch pin of the whole enterprise, is stalled at 26% market share when it clearly needs to reach 50% to have any chance of driving UWP development, and the Windows Store with it. Windows Phone is dead, killed by Android and iOS; Edge is mostly dead, with Chrome dominant in the browser space, and Google's Chromebooks are gaining ground with schools and businesses alike. Amazon is clobbering everybody in cloud storage and server services, and in the new home "smart speaker" market. The list goes on.

So, yes, Microsoft are losing the gaming console contest, but they're also losing all the other contests, apparently due to a lack of focus. The one area where they dominate, i.e. in desktop/laptop OS market share, is due mostly to Windows 7... a product that they're desperate to phase out as quickly as possible. Where, exactly, are they winning?

Microsoft's vision for the future is one in which Windows 10 forms the core of everything their customers do, on any device, in any environment, whether at work, or at play, or on the go, or at home. I'm far from convinced that "we're going to to be everything to everybody" is a viable business plan, though, and it looks like the cracks are really starting to show; XBO-X may be just the first of many dominoes to fall.

XBO-X? XBox One X garners a curiously muted response.

For months, gaming media sites have been waiting with bated breath for Microsoft to actually debut the XBox Scorpio. The specs were teased months ago, of course, but questions still abounded.

• What would they call it? 
• What would it cost? 
• When would it go on sale? 
• Would any XBox exclusive games debut along with it?

The answers, it turns out, are:

• XBox One X (which Kotaku immediately dubbed the XOX, pronounced "Zox," although XBO-X may end up being the more obvious abbreviation);
• US$499, which is exactly double the XBox One S (henceforth referred to as the XBOne S);
• November 7th, and
• no, not really, since XBOne runs Windows 10 anyway, so everything released for the platform will also be coming to, at the very least, Microsoft's Windows Store on PC.

The one remaining question: Will enough people care about XBO-X to revive it as a viable gaming platform? The answer to which seems to be: Probably not.

As a gaming console, the new XBO-X is very technically impressive, and if Microsoft had launched with the more impressive specs at the start of the current console generation, it might have made a real difference to the way things unfolded. But they didn't, and we're now several years into Gen8, and Steam is the dominant platform in games, with Sony's PS4 as a solid #2, and Nintendo's Switch occupying the "new hotness" niche nicely. Considering that the average consumer only buys one gaming platform each generation, it's pretty fair to say that gamers have all picked their horses for this race, already, with only the Nintendo fans getting a changes to switch to a better horse mid-race.

So, XBO-X doesn't have the same sales job to do that XBone did; it doesn't just have to be the best console, starting out on an equal footing with all the other consoles, and with consumers having yet to make up their minds. It has to change peoples' minds, convincing them to buy a 2nd console at the highest console price point at a time with Steam and PS4 are dominant, with Switch ascendant, and XBO-X not even available until November. Oh, and everything it can do, your PC can also do, without costing you anything extra.

Everything, that is, except for 4K gaming, which may be why Microsoft harped on it so much, apparently oblivious to the fact that basically nobody has 4K TVs. 4K is not a thing, people; 4K gaming isn't going to become a thing, anytime soon. Seriously, VR has a better chance of becoming a thing than 4K does, and VR's chances suck.

The new XBO-X is a decent-enough, $499, budget-to-midrange gaming PC that sits in your living room and runs Windows 10. If that's what you're in the market for, then the XBO-X is a decent-enough option, and the end of Moore's Law means that it will continue to be a decent-enough option for years, so Microsoft will eventually sell enough of them to be able to declare XBO-X to be a success. But I don't see it changing any PlayStation owners' minds; if you've already picked a different horse for this race, there's nothing here that can justify switching now. And if you already own a better-than-average gaming PC, there's really nothing here for you, either.

Meanwhile, big game publishers like Square Enix are dropping the XBox logo from their new releases, having apparently decided that the XBox brand isn't relevant to the current gaming marketplace anymore. And did I mention that XBO-X isn't available until November?

It was a pretty slick presentation, I'll give Microsoft that much, but it's several years too late, and this gaming generation has already passed XBox by. People have been asking for months if "Scorpio" could turn things around for XBox, but the big assumption underlying that question was that the market would stand still until Microsoft could releasing the thing. But the market hasn't stood still for them; Nintendo have successfully cast the Switch as Gen8's console comeback kid, and Microsoft have just been too slow getting XBO-X out the door. Time will tell, of course, but I have the feeling that XBO-X is just a little too little, and a little too late.

Sorry, Microsoft. It was almost good enough, and almost soon enough, but now? It's just not enough. And I doubt you'll get a 3rd chance to make this 1st impression, either.

"WannaCry" ported to Windows 10

Remember when WannaCry was making the rounds, and Microsoft's apologists were taking advantage of that to scare reluctant WinXP and Win7 users into switching to Windows 10? Well, it turns out that Windows 10 may not be as safe as all that, after all, because the same exploit that WannaCry... exploits also works on Windows 10. Oops!

From threat post:

The NSA’s EternalBlue exploit has been ported to Windows 10 by white hats, meaning that every unpatched version of the Microsoft operating system back to Windows XP—and likely earlier—can be affected by one of the most powerful attacks ever made public.

Researchers at RiskSense, among the first to analyze EternalBlue, its DoublePulsar backdoor payload, and the NSA’s Fuzzbunch platform (think: Metasploit), said they would not release the source code for the Windows 10 port for some time, if ever. The proof of concept has been in the works since the ShadowBrokers’ April leak of Equation Group offensive hacking tools targeting Windows XP and Windows 7, as well as the development of a Metasploit module based on EternalBlue released two days after the WannaCry attacks. The best defense against EternalBlue, researchers maintain, is to apply the MS17-010 update provided in March by Microsoft.

So, it seems that the only advantages that Windows 10 provided were: (a) that not enough users had switched to Windows 10 for black hat hackers to bother targeting it, and (b) Windows 10 users have no control over Windows Update, which means that they were updated in spite of themselves...which is something of a mixed blessing.

This is part of the problem that Microsoft have when pitching Windows 10's alleged security superiority over Windows 7. Redmond had spent years working to convince Windows users that their OS was every bit as safe as any other OS on the market; Linux and MacOS may have been targeted by fewer attacks and exploits, but that was just because Windows was so much more popular than they were. Well, guess what? That worked. And now Windows 7 users aren't buying it, when Microsoft try to convince them that safe-as-houses Windows 7 is full of fatal flaws.

That's the catch-22, the cleft stick in which Microsoft find themselves. If Microsoft were telling the truth before, then Windows 7 is basically as safe as any other OS, and users have no reason to believe Microsoft's recent scare-mongering. On the other hand, if Microsoft were lying before, then Windows has never been safe, and users would always have been better served by switching to Linux, because why would Microsoft be any more trustworthy on the subject now, when they have a vested material interest in lying to us? Having spent two years eroding users' trust with their abusing GWX shenanigans, intrusive "privacy" policies, and monopolistic bullshit, Microsoft's customers simply aren't willing to listen as they WannaCry wolf.

GG, Microsoft. Good job.

Still flatlined

It's the first day of a new month, which means that it's time to check Microsoft is progressing on their mission to lure PC users to Windows 10. Redmond spent most of the month touting the various new features in the Creators Update (the rollout of which is going Just Fine, thank-you), while boasting of having crossed the 500M active devices mark for their new OS, and their apologists have spent the last couple of weeks using the WannaCry outbreak to scare-monger on Windows 10's behalf, but the real question, as always, is: how will actual Windows 7 users react to all of this? Is Win10 finally enticing enough as a package to lure them away? Or was WannaCry finally a scary enough threat to push them over?

Well, according to the latest data from NetMarketShare, the answers would seem to be negative.

This was the picture at the end of March:

and this is how things look at the end of April:

with this as the 6-month trend line:

It looks to me like Windows 7 has ticked back up again, reversing all of its previous month's loss, while Windows 10 gained slightly as well, mostly at the expense of Windows 8.1 and Windows XP. The changes are very slight, though, and the overall trend is still pretty damn flat.

So, what does this mean? Well, early reports about WannaCry had inaccurately pegged WinXP as the major vector for transmission, so it's probably no surprise that WinXP's share of the market dropped again this month; Win8.1 also dropped again, which isn't a surprise, either, considering that 8.1 was massively unpopular, and also considering that 8.1 and 10 are basically the same OS, anyway; the slightly older Windows 8 is still holding steady, though, which I find little odd.

The other winner this month is MacOS 10.12, posting a healthy 0.38% gain; the increasingly relevant "Other" category (a.k.a. Google's ChromeOS) dropped 0.17%, a reversal of the previous month's gain that can probably be chalked up to noisy data, one way or the other. Linux also dropped again very slightly -- while that change (-0.1%) also wouldn't normally be large enough for significance, the fact that it's the 3rd such change in a row can't be ignored.

Overall, we seem to have Windows 10 posting just enough of a gain for Microsoft to declare victory and stay the course on their most unpopular practices for another month, even as Windows 7 becomes ever more entrenched as the top PC OS. The much-predicted imminent mass migration of businesses to Windows 10 is still not showing up in the market share data, which isn't much of a surprise. Basically, it's another month of stagnation, with Windows 10 continuing to fail in its goals, even as users of XP and 8.1 migrate to the latest versions of both Windows and MacOS.

All that remains is to see how the tech media react.