How could it be both "well" and "truely dead" at the same time?

 

"Well and truly" is an idiom and means "completely"

 

For example:

 

Many people remained in their hiding places until they were sure the war was well and truly over.

Way to go Jesse, you are on the right path of life!!

 

:Applause:

+1 God speed to you son

Microsoft has just announced that its profits for the 1st Quarter increased by 17%. Its share price rose by 6% as a consequence.

 

 

Microsoft must be getting something right!

Microsoft seems to be a mess right now. If you look at the Xbox for instance, you find a mishmash of random services that they are struggling (with only mild success) to integrate into one consistent whole that works well together. The internal systems are all over the place, and are pretty much a nightmare-kludge of originally independent services tied together with spit, rope, bubblegum and paperclips.

 

Windows 8, Widows phone and WindowsRT are another example of them struggling (not that impressively) to integrate their various offerings into something resembling a consistent whole. Another is the way they are trying to integrate people across the various domains (Zune.com , Msn.com, Live.com, Hotmail.com) onto the Live id without scrambling everything even more horribly than it already is. Windows 8 can create a new Xbox account that then gets confused with the original account etc, and much fun ensues.

 

Witness the clumsy recent security update that locked a gazillion people out of their own Xbox accounts and then required them to re-input security data that many had created in their childhood/teens and had no memory of at this late date. Can you say mess, boys and gurls? (Don't even mention Smart-Glass)

 

If it looks confusing on the front end, its an absolute nightmare on the back end. Xbox id's are often confused with Live Id's which are cross referenced with various email domains, causing bewildered users to regularly screw up their accounts trying to negotiate the mess. And password changes for already confused people who barely remember even creating their multiple accounts in the first place? Good luck! This is exacerbated by systems that are cumbersome, contradictory and prone to various malfunctions that make things even worse.

 

They have a lot to do to get their house in order, to compete with their relatively much more successfully integrated competitors.

 

On the other hand, they are getting a lot of good news from the upcoming Xbox 1 launch that's looking like its going to be a stunning monetary success.......

 

And an absolute nightmare behind the scenes with Windows Live going away, Killing the popular family plan, the switch-over to local currency from Microsoft points and other instances of making the customers go through multiple confusing changes that fit Microsoft's desperate need to pull its crap together while frustrating the hell out of customers. (in the apparent belief that said customers will just put up with it)

 

Fun Fun Fun.

Also note how MS had to do a complete about turn on the "always on" connectivity of the XB One after the outcry from their customer base. Sony seemed to have their finger much better on the pulse in this regard.

 

Right now they're very much in a reactionary mode - they seem to be spending a lot of time reacting to competitor's products or customer dissatisfaction with their own.

 

Perhaps it's time for MS to get back to basics and concentrate on their traditional core products?

 

Then again seeing the announcement of the new Apple iPad Air I'm increasingly convinced this company is also struggling to innovate and is just re-hashing old products. The difference is Apple can get away with it (for now at least) because are in vogue at the moment. How long the Apple honeymoon will last for remains to be seen.

Microsoft has just announced that its profits for the 1st Quarter increased by 17%. Its share price rose by 6% as a consequence.

 

 

Microsoft must be getting something right!

 

Yes, they're doing great in the enterprise related markets. Windows Pro sales are up, but the non-Pro sales are down. And they are still struggling with the tablet and smartphone markets (areas they have been active in longer than either Apple or Google). Windows Phone marketshare appears to be growing at the expense of BlackBerry currently, not Android or iOS (wonder how Ballmer feels about his comments from 2007 about the iPhone being a toy no one would buy?).

 

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/microsoft-posts-record-q1-revenue-increased-operating-income/

I could see the writing on the wall when Howard started talking total gobbledegook in various interviews about Microsoft Flight. His responses to questions were a combination of the worst kind of corpo-babble and euphemisms, plus a good deal of post-modern obfuscation, amongst which is the repeated use of the word "extensible" (meaning extendable, ie he was going to invite third party content) but actually his intention was the opposite.

 

When asked if he was going to embrace third party content for Flight, his answer was:

 

"Instead of opening Flight up to everything, anywhere, by anybody, which frankly creates sort of a confusing mess for a new customer, we get to manage it more, we get to tell a story, we get to help it grow and get up on its feet. I completely believe that this ecosystem will come to be even larger than the existing product’s ecosystem."

 

Whenever corporate junkies start using the word "ecosystem" and "we get to tell a story" my BS-alert faculties kick in. What he is really saying here is "No, we won't be allowing third party content because WE want to design it, control it, distribute it and profit from it". That's fine to say if he had actually achieved it, but he wraps up his pseudo-reasoning in nonsensical obfuscation using the implausible excuse that third party content "frankly creates sort of a confusing mess". NO it doesn't. 

 

The BS continues. Reading this several times, and, apart from the poor grammar, I have no idea what he is saying except a continuation of corpo-babble:

 

"If you think about our mission of bringing Flight to whole new audiences, you ask what the opportunities are. Well there’s new devices, there’s new software solutions, there’s new home form factors, it’s a pretty exciting world."

 

Yes...very exciting. So exciting that Flight was pulled when it was clear it was a dumbed down, lowest common denominator, ill-conceived, shallow, vacuous and patronising attempt to bring a good product into the realms of casual platform games and shoot em ups, thereby stripping out everything that made FSX absorbing and intelligent.

 

This "business model" and "ecosystem" (pass the sick bag) is exactly the kind of short-term misjudgement of a previously solid and long lasting piece of software which the suits at Microsoft were clearly trying to change because it wasn't enough to sell the backbone product but Howard and his suits also wanted to get their claws on third party content. That would have been fine if there was to be any hope of high quality content arriving in time to save the dumbed down core product, but it was never going to happen. He complete under-estimated, or rather deliberately discounted, the huge support among even the most casual sim enthusiasts for decent, thoughtfully designed addon content.

 

When I saw this interview I was sceptical that Flight would last even as long as it did. This demonstrates that many large corporations are not interested in long term, lasting development, or the building of a solid customer base. Unfortunately this inner club of corpo bullsh*tters are ever in the ascent, and worse still, they seem to find a voice among the suits and accountants who understand the price of everything but the value of nothing.

 

I wanted to post this (and should have done) right after I saw that interview, but I suppose I lacked the courage to go against the grain and the perception at the time that somehow "Flight" was going to be anything other than a "lite" version of something whose very support was predicated on it NOT being a "lite" piece of software. Whenever corporate interviews are riddled with marketing nonsense and high levels of BS, it is always best to allow one's critical faculties to strip away the rubbish and examine what is really being said. No wonder large corporations are viewed with global cynicism and scepticism!

I actually think Mr Howard was spot on: The current third party market is extremely confusing for newcomers. Factor in looking for updates and installing them in the correct order, and its a completely uncorrected mess. (Think of the length/complexity of an average FSX and addon's reinstall) Its just that the inhabitants of the current ecosystem are so use to swimming in these particular (murky) waters that they are now accustomed to it.

 

Add in local curmudgeons snarling RTFM! and other "God, these people" type sentiments at bewildered newbies that ask too many questions about why things are done the way they are, plus a steadily increasing complexity curve, and the current market is in fact extremely unfriendly for newcomers without an extremely high degree of innate interest and at least a bit of grounding in the way things now work.

 

Flight got that right, and at the time, it was even acknowledged that there was a flood of new people onto the forum, drawn by something that did not appear to require an engineering degree to get into. He was also correct in realizing that the word simulator had/has become a synonym in the public mind for "not fun" and "complicated beyond reason" Hence its removal from FLIGHT.

 

I've always believed that at least one reason why Xplane has never taken off (except for tablets) with a wide general audience over the years is that there's no "ground level" entry to the sim. It pretty much starts you off at the controls of a jet and walks away, saying absently over its shoulder "Have fun!"

 

I believe Fsx maintains its popularity and is still on store shelves not because of complexity or even realism, but because its welcoming to all comers and allows you to grow from a lower level of knowledge, Something I believe FLIGHT wanted to emulate, and something that some in the current ecosystem often seem to kind of look down on, perhaps having forgotten their own uncertain, faltering first steps.

 

I actually agreed with Mr Howard on several points.

 

(Stands ground and waits for lynch mob)

I didn't mean third party addons were devoid of confusion (although there have never been more opportunities for examining extremely frank and sometimes even ruthless customer reviews, along with the plaudits). What I meant was that Howard was citing "confusion" as his logical reason for not opening Flight to other developers, and that plainly was a less than truthful real reason.

 

There is a large difference between dumbing down a product because the perception is that people are thick (which is what Howard implies), and offering opportunities to use a product in many dimensions, which I think FSX does very well. You can fire up FSX and be flying just as quickly as you could in Flight, but there were opportunities to learn more if you chose to (FSX's excellent help files and knowledge centre). 

 

Flight clearly did not "get that right", and if you think that initial enthusiasm was anything more than a desire or hope that it might succeed despite the corporate BS, I think you are mistaken but you are entitled to that view of course. 

 

I don't think developers "snarl" at you to read the manual, but it is a statistical fact that just a few minutes reading a guide does stave off frustration and misunderstanding. If anything the "snarling" is the other way around, ie: "Why does this not work as it should" and the answer is often "because you did not take a couple of minutes to investigate how it works".

 

I do agree with you that as far as possible core software should be hand holding, but most of it is if you can just take a while to read a few paragraphs. You can't expect a complex piece of software to play like it's an instant platform game!

As someone with an 8th grade education it's easy for me to see the bigger picture on this topic. A couple of things that came into my simple mind while browsing this thread:

 

1) "The only people making decent money are those doing indecent things"
    -from an Occupy Oakland marcher

 

2) In his book Guns, Germs and Steel - The Fates of Human Societies, Jared Diamond infers that the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs and Incas had a less to do with superior technology but more to do with some dood falling in love with a sheep.

Add in local curmudgeons snarling RTFM! and other "God, these people" type sentiments at bewildered newbies that ask too many questions about why things are done the way they are, plus a steadily increasing complexity curve, and the current market is in fact extremely unfriendly for newcomers without an extremely high degree of innate interest and at least a bit of grounding in the way things now work.

 

To be fair, every question related to MSFS has been at least asked once before. Using one of the various search engines to find a solution is neither hard nor all too tedious. It's also much quicker than posting and waiting for a reply.

 

If you stick with vanilla FSX, you also won't need much intimate knowledge to enjoy it. And as you've pointed out, the trouble only starts with third party add-ons.

So yes, the content-locked Flight was perfect to bring new meat into the genre and the step up to FSX is doable as long as you keep away from add-ons.

Anyone agrees that perhaps MSFT failed to understand what FSX was (market, product, customers), before they draw the road map for the new product ...FLIGHT?

I agree completely with HiFlyer on this topic. I think FLIGHT was on the right track in many areas, but failed miserably in others. I think a lot of hard core simmers fail to realise they are the minority of flight sim users and all their yearning for increased realism and complexity is not shared by all - far from it. Luckily those who are very serious about it have P3D. The rest of us are are going nowhere fast.

 

While I enjoy all the wonderful addons that have been made over the years It is a miserable user experience on many levels, and no doubt the lack of a closed ecosystem has put off most flight sim users from ever buying and installing an addon.

 

If there ever is a flight sim aimed at the average simmer I hope it comes with an intergrated addon store. That would make buying, installing and updating the simulator a breeze. I am in no doubt that 3PDs would have made a lot more money this way because of increased sales.

 

But I digress, I'll let you get back to the lynching of Howard.

Anyone agrees that perhaps MSFT failed to understand what FSX was (market, product, customers), before they draw the road map for the new product ...FLIGHT?

Maybe Microsoft did understand what FSX was and realised it no longer had a commercially viable future?

IMHO, both Robert and Devon have brought up quite salient points. The first time I read Howard's "interview" I thought to myself that he must have been a graduate of a Management school who's official motto reads: "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance; buffalo them with bulls..t!"

 

To be perfectly honest though, I have to admit that I did not myself get truly interested in the flightsimulator genre until well into my middle years, and could finally afford to buy a yoke and pedals and take it "more seriously..."

 

Up until then, trying to "fly by keyboard" was just too bloody frustrating and joyless. It wasn't "fun" at all.

 

With regards to "Flight," it is critical I think to keep in mind that "Flight" was well into development and heading in the right direction before Howard was put in charge. Up until that point, third-parties were working with the "Flight team," and plans were in place to allow third-party developed content into the MS Marketplace after being vetted by an MS review.

 

There were also some credible reports of an internal struggle between the then head of "Flight" and upper management, which resulted in Howard being put in charge. Once firmly in place, he (Howard) executed an "about face" and changed the entire focus and structure of "Flight."