Seems far-fetched but I can see Microsoft slowly deprecating Win32. It would be similar to when Apple deprecated Carbon, only slower: they'll stop adding new features, they'll tell developers to avoid it for any new development, etc. Won't happen overnight though as they're too much legacy software out there, but it could happen in the span of several years, a decade or so. Right now what I'm saying is fiction but it's a possibility any store developer like Valve and customers too should have in mind.

They'd have to be really, really careful going down that path, though. Microsoft's biggest advantage in the OS landscape, aside from preinstallation deals, has long been the broad range of established software that is exclusive to Windows. It's tough to migrate your business to Apple laptops or Linux servers or tablets in the mobile workforce if several key applications that 1,000 of your staff have been using every working day for a decade don't run on those other platforms. It's a closed loop for software developers as well, because as long as your customers are almost all on Windows, there's little benefit to developing for other platforms concurrently.

With so many business applications now offering web-based access, that exclusivity has already been eroded, and that process shows no sign of slowing down. If Microsoft were to nerf the long-established Windows APIs that "heavyweight" software like graphics and CAD packages rely on, that would force the redevelopment issue for those software developers, and I'm not sure Microsoft would like the long term results. They might wind up with exclusive control of the main delivery channel on Windows, but that only matters if the developers and users are still on Windows at all. With gaming in particular, we've seen in the past that one or two smash hits can be all it takes to establish a new platform, whether it's one of the consoles or mobile or just puzzle games via Facebook. With the resources available to Steam, that has to be a scary prospect for Microsoft.

> "The risk here is that, if Microsoft convinces everybody to use UWP, then they phase out Win32 apps. If they can succeed in doing that then it’s a small leap to forcing all apps and games to be distributed through the Windows Store. Once we reach that point, the PC has become a closed platform. It won’t be that one day they flip a switch that will break your Steam library – what they’re trying to do is a series of sneaky manoeuvres. They make it more and more inconvenient to use the old apps, and, simultaneously, they try to become the only source for the new ones."

I like windows today but I have no real loyalty. I would have no issues with leaving it for Linux the day it's too locked down.

I'll start worrying about the future of locked-down UWP applications once I start seeing anybody build some that are more than gimped versions or toys. Wake me up when Visual Studio or SQL Management Studio is rewritten as a UWP app.

This is the company that still provides monthly updates for Windows Vista.

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that for most practical purposes, Win32 is their platform.

We've heard this mantra from Microsoft many times before, switching out things like database APIs, dev tools, interop protocols, the entire history of .Net, and so on. These things have come and, in many cases, gone, all while Win32 endures in the background supporting the software that makes the real money.

In almost any other topic on HN, if we were discussing moving to running things in secure containers, people would agree it makes sense to move that way and that the additional layer of security is worthwhile. But because it's Microsoft doing it, and Microsoft is changing their software from like... the same way they've been doing it for the last twenty years, people are upset about it? I'm confused.

When we talk about UWP, it shouldn't be "UWP is inherently evil", we should comment on and criticize issues Microsoft may have with the development of UWP. Initially, UWP was very hard to use outside of the Windows Store, and so it's fair to criticize there. And arguably, they've been working on improving this. They demonstrated Steamworks running on a UWP app at Build this year.

We should definitely criticize if Microsoft does something specifically to lock down UWP. But we should not inherently decide UWP is evil because it's new.

That doesn't nullify the concerns that started this whole discussion, though: Microsoft could be pushing people towards UWP for less benevolent reasons, and surely has the technical and commercial capabilities to try to make Sweeney's hypothetical scenario the new reality.

Maybe this is just a mistaken perception, but I suspect Microsoft may have burned a lot more bridges with their recent actions than they have realised so far, particularly among enthusiast and "professional geek" communities that have remained generally positive about MS and its products for longer than most. Viewing anything they do with suspicion is a natural consequence of the way they've been treating their customers lately, and I don't see anything they do that has any hint of lock-in getting an easy ride from here on out.

So it's weird this post is becoming a thing now, after he demonstrably knows they're not (currently, at least) trying to do that.

Reading the parent post: "The risk here is that, if Microsoft convinces everybody to use UWP, then they phase out Win32 apps. If they can succeed in doing that then it’s a small leap to forcing all apps and games to be distributed through the Windows Store."

That's not a small leap, it's a huge leap. And this is an inherently fallacious statement. It's equating a technical one, swapping an insecure app format for a secure app format, with a policy one, blocking third party apps. When, as a closed platform, they could block third party Win32 apps if they wanted to just as similarly. They could make Win32 apps ship through the Windows store, and I believe they discussed it at one point. It's silly that he's particularly equating UWP, a security feature, with a platform lockdown, when the platform lockdown could easily come with or without that security feature.

And even if this imaginary reality of Tim's became real, we currently have two viable OSes that Steam works great on that aren't Windows. So Microsoft would have to weigh their perceived gain of a lock-in against the potential loss of the gaming community. Ubuntu wouldn't have a hard time attracting gamers if Steam support was solid, and was kinda broken on Windows.

But I've mostly learned to take a wait and see attitude with new silver bullet APIs from Microsoft. Sometimes they take off and really do became the way forward, but far, far too often, after some initial hype, there is a lack of uptake, they wither on the vine, and then are abandoned for the new shiny, leaving behind the developers that did invest in them.

Meanwhile, Win32, like the Dude, abides.

But I think they could limit Win32 it for the Windows 10 consumer editions without the common user being affected much, if they port IE and Office to UWP and can also convince major game publishers to release their next AAA games as UWP applications in the windows store.

Given that they already ported an entire browser to UWP (Edge), that may happen sooner than you think. I wouldn't consider a browser a "toy".

False. With Windows 10, sideloading is permitted by default. The caveat being, of course, that you're on your own for making sure the app is safe if you choose to use a sideloaded app.

http://www.howtogeek.com/219651/windows-10-allows-you-to-sid...

For now.

Since November UWP sideloading has been allowed in Windows by default.

If Microsoft makes the Windows Store the only place for users to get applications, then they can abuse that position like you can abuse any monopoly. They could start charging developers more or make life harder for developers who offer a product that competes with one of Microsoft's products or push through any policies they want etc.

Nobody minds Microsoft setting up a Windows store and trying to attract game devs to it. The problem is when they try to lock out their competitors out, somehow, using operating system functionality.