To put it another way, I either have to learn a new technology or become my own distributor. If I decide to learn a new technology, I'm now choosing between unproven Windows 8, with MS' horrible track record competing with Apple, or another proven OS with tons of market penetration. Why would I choose DirectX?

I think Microsoft have quite a bit more market share than Apple...

(In you mean only in mobile phones, true, Microsoft aren't doing great. But then on market share, there are better platforms than Apple too, anyway.)

To answer the first statement about no XNA with metro interface, if the platform is toting the new interface as the future of PCs, why would I want to continue developing apps that don't use it? You don't have to explicitly stop supporting a tool to kill it. If I wasn't a hobbyist, I would be transitioning to iPhone or Android development to prepare for the future.[/quote]Well, if you think that everyone's going to be using IPhones instead of computers, sure. I really hope not...

Anyhow, Apple have a long history of ditching technology and APIs when it suits them, whilst Microsoft are pretty good on giving long support with backwards compatibility. It seems odd to bring them up, of all companies, as a better alternative here.

2. Convert to the new DirectX, you're taking a step backwards in terms of managed code. You're target market is competing against the apple iPad and any new tablets coming to market in the next year and a half. MS has a bad track record in the last few years in this kind of war.

What track record? We've yet to have a non-phone tablet war.

MS haven't done well with their mobile OS, but Windows 8 isn't a mobile OS. MS have done very well with Windows, of which 8 is a continuation, including on mobile devices like netbooks (which are the same market as tablets - we don't categories phones by whether they have a physical keyboard or not), despite Linux having a head start.

3. Develop for another platform with much greater market penetration in tablets(ie iPad, Amazon, etc.)[/quote]Windows has a far bigger market share.

#3 is bad for MS. They're already losing market share to iPads in the PC division, this just makes it worse.[/quote]I've not seen any evidence that MS have _lost sales_ as a result of the IPads? Note, it's a fallacy to look at simple market share in a growing market - when new products are added to a market, it's expected that the market share of the existing products must fall, even if their sales are actually increasing. The IPad's market share will fall as new Android tablets come put.

So if MS loses that edge of easy development, why would anyone choose that platform willingly?[/quote]Maybe same reason people write IPad and IPhone games when they had tiny market share, and there have always been larger platforms.

[quote name='phantom']Right, so lets remove money/income/market size from this because frankly if that was even a remotely likely reason to shift platforms then any XNA/SL developer should have jumped ship to Apple some time back; that was/is the market to be in. (Android, as much as I love my own two devices, is just fragmented and I've heard a slight pain to work with. I've never got past setting up the IDE myself, too much bother).[/quote]I would add that I don't see Apple were the obvious choice based on market size, especially with so much competition due to the bandwagon. Symbian was the number one platform during its lifetime of up to earlier this year, and is easy to develop for (Qt). It's a shame if Android isn't so easy - but Apple require a custom Apple PC to develop on, so isn't straightforward either.

So having said that, I'm even more in agreement with your basic point - market size isn't an issue, because it was never the issue for developing for the IPhone in the first place.

[quote name='ChurchSkiz' timestamp='1317240329' post='4866927']
2. Convert to the new DirectX, you're taking a step backwards in terms of managed code. You're target market is competing against the apple iPad and any new tablets coming to market in the next year and a half. MS has a bad track record in the last few years in this kind of war.

What track record? We've yet to have a non-phone tablet war.

MS haven't done well with their mobile OS, but Windows 8 isn't a mobile OS. MS have done very well with Windows, of which 8 is a continuation, including on mobile devices like netbooks (which are the same market as tablets - we don't categories phones by whether they have a physical keyboard or not), despite Linux having a head start.
[/quote]

Zune vs iPod - utter failure
WP7 vs iPhone - utter failure
W8 vs iPad - ???

W8 might not be a mobile only OS, but that is certainly the market they are targeting.

3. Develop for another platform with much greater market penetration in tablets(ie iPad, Amazon, etc.)[/quote]Windows has a far bigger market share.
[/quote]

Not in terms of casual app development. AFAIK no one is making a living writing $1 apps for the PC. iPhone/Android/Xbox live opened up a huge new market for casual developers to make money. This is only going to expand. I don't think the PC is dead, or anywhere close, but certainly casual users are trending more to tablets and phones than personal computers.

#3 is bad for MS. They're already losing market share to iPads in the PC division, this just makes it worse.[/quote]I've not seen any evidence that MS have _lost sales_ as a result of the IPads? Note, it's a fallacy to look at simple market share in a growing market - when new products are added to a market, it's expected that the market share of the existing products must fall, even if their sales are actually increasing. The IPad's market share will fall as new Android tablets come put.
[/quote]
Microsoft already released information about declining PC sales. Meanwhile iPads sales are going through the roof. It's hard to prove that directly but with 9m sales a quarter of iPads it would be a hard case to say they aren't losing customers. Here's a good rundown from some insiders from the annual meeting: http://minimsft.blogspot.com/ .

This isn't an MS vs Apple competition, it's about W8 vs ALL the competition in the new tablet market before a W8 launch. Adding Android or Blackberry OS only increases the likelihood that W8 sales will lower. In a competitive marketplace where vendors are pushing updates hard and fast, Microsoft is a slow-moving behemoth that will not win the war unless it alters its execution.

So if MS loses that edge of easy development, why would anyone choose that platform willingly?[/quote]Maybe same reason people write IPad and IPhone games when they had tiny market share, and there have always been larger platforms.
[/quote]


Well look at WP7. If WP7 required a special piece of hardware to develop for and no toolkit (like XNA or silverlight), do you think you would see more than a handful of apps for it? There just isn't enough market share in WP7 to make it worth it on its own. W8 should utilize the synergy between xbox and wp7 (or wp8). Make it so you can push out an app for one platform and distribute it to all the platforms, all from one marketplace. They are the only company with the availability to have a cross-platform market for PCs, tablets, phones, MP3 players, media centers, and consoles. I was expecting that to be the front and center message of W8.

Zune vs iPod - utter failure
WP7 vs iPhone - utter failure
W8 vs iPad - ???

I think it's too soon for WP7 vs iPhone talk. WP7 nokia handsets aren't even out yet, and I still prefer the WP7 OS to android or iPhone even though I don't have one. My carrier doesn't have any WP7 phones.

Windows 8 I think will have it's strongest pull because it isn't just a tablet os. I love the idea of having a simple touch based OS that also has all the features of my windows desktop. I am pensive given M$'s every other OS history, but the concept makes tons of sense to me. I also recently bought a windows 7 tablet recently for similar reasons, in that for $300 more I got a desktop replacement convertible tablet.

Not in terms of casual app development. AFAIK no one is making a living writing $1 apps for the PC.[/quote]
rusrs? There are $1-5 apps EVERYWHERE online.

Microsoft already released information about declining PC sales. Meanwhile iPads sales are going through the roof. It's hard to prove that directly but with 9m sales a quarter of iPads it would be a hard case to say they aren't losing customers. Here's a good rundown from some insiders from the annual meeting: http://minimsft.blogspot.com/ . [/quote]
They aren't losing customers. The market is expanding at a faster rate than their percentage marketshare is decreasing. At the least their number of new customers every year is staying just about the same.

Well look at WP7. If WP7 required a special piece of hardware to develop for and no toolkit (like XNA or silverlight), do you think you would see more than a handful of apps for it? There just isn't enough market share in WP7 to make it worth it on its own. W8 should utilize the synergy between xbox and wp7 (or wp8). Make it so you can push out an app for one platform and distribute it to all the platforms, all from one marketplace. They are the only company with the availability to have a cross-platform market for PCs, tablets, phones, MP3 players, media centers, and consoles. I was expecting that to be the front and center message of W8.
[/quote]
This I agree with. I am continually surprised by how M$ products don't cooperate more simply; though they do better than most other products. It still makes sense that it should be a 100% painless process to have all your M$ products talking to each other.

oh hahahahah I write 'M$'... hahahah I'm so witty... hahahahaha....



christ on a bike.

oh hahahahah I write 'M ... hahahah I'm so witty... hahahahaha....

I write M$ because it's 7 characters shorter than microsoft and people know exactly what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with me thinking I'm witty or anything derogatory toward the company. Get the knots out of your panties.

MS is short for Microsoft. M$ is more normally short for "Microsoft, that evil empire who actually had the audacity to, get this, make money in an emerging market and create actual jobs and money circulation. OH TEH NOES!!! Quickly, Linus, circle jerk!!!"

You may not have meant it that way but it has become kind of synonymous with that on these fora.

MS is short for Microsoft. M$ is more normally short for "Microsoft, that evil empire who actually had the audacity to, get this, make money in an emerging market and create actual jobs and money circulation. OH TEH NOES!!! Quickly, Linus, circle jerk!!!"

You may not have meant it that way but it has become kind of synonymous with that on these fora.

MS is also short for mississippi, miss, and masters of science. I just write M$ because it's less ambiguous in most of my conversations where it isn't quite as obvious what "MS" might stand for and over time my fingers just hit M$ whenever I think of Microsoft faster than it would take me to slow down and correct it.

I'm actually a huge fan of microsoft, and even if you read my post it's fairly pro-microsoft except for the fact that I used a dollar sign instead of an S.

MS is also short for mississippi, miss, and masters of science. I just write M$ because it's less ambiguous in most of my conversations where it isn't quite as obvious what "MS" might stand for and over time my fingers just hit M$ whenever I think of Microsoft faster than it would take me to slow down and correct it.

There's no ambiguity in this context.

If you want an abbreviation which won't get you accused of trolling or being petty, I recommend using "MSFT".

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1317418945' post='4867741']
MS is also short for mississippi, miss, and masters of science. I just write M$ because it's less ambiguous in most of my conversations where it isn't quite as obvious what "MS" might stand for and over time my fingers just hit M$ whenever I think of Microsoft faster than it would take me to slow down and correct it.

There's no ambiguity in this context.

If you want an abbreviation which won't get you accused of trolling or being petty, I recommend using "MSFT".
[/quote]

That's not the point I made. "I just write M$ because it's less ambiguous in most of my conversations where it isn't quite as obvious what "MS" might stand for and over time my fingers just hit M$ whenever I think of Microsoft faster than it would take me to slow down and correct it." As I didn't expect people to get their panties in a bunch over a dollar sign when I'm pro microsoft, I didn't really care enough to correct it at the time.