6 ms·

> We were really lucky that developers and users let at least the Windows store fail. This might be an unpopular opinion but: I like the comfort of the Windows

> We were really lucky that developers and users let at least the Windows store fail. This might be an unpopular opinion but: I like the comfort of the Windows Store regarding installation & updates for Win32 apps. The app is installed into its own little corner and a lot of them also come with their own contained registry hive. I don't need a thousand auto update services or an app updating itself only when I open it. And the store requires extensive file signing so as long as I know it's the right developer, the need to manually check installer signatures goes out the window. And regarding minimal exposure, if you simply use it as a download source and redirect customers there, Microsoft takes only 5%. I didn't like S Mode, Windows RT, the restriction to use just the store, etc. That shouldn't be forced upon the already-open PC platform. But I liked having a trusted channel for applications. (I don't mean that every app on there was trustworthy but you get what I mean, like above) > I think Sweeney is correct, although I also think Epic tried to do the same. Their success with some of their games created capital that they used to create their own platform. Maybe as a defense mechanism or maybe because they wanted part of the pie. That's what I think, too. Tim Sweeney likes to harp on about consumer choice, store freedom and such -- but with all the exclusives it's clear they just want to be the new Steam. They want you to have a big Epic Games Store library that you can't give up on, that you would always prefer to add to instead of going to another store. That's why they have these weekly free games, to get everyone to start a foundation of games without having to convince them to buy any for that to happen.

smichel17 6y ago
In my experience, Linux repositories are all of the upsides you mentioned (trusted, auto-updated, signed (at repo level, at least)) with none of the lock-in downsides, since you can add third party repositories (and then use them via the same workflow you're already comfortable with!).
- darthrupert 6y ago
  Many of them rely of a free-of-charge labour. Would you volunteer your free time to maintain Apple Store?
  - tomohawk 6y ago
    No, but I might volunteer at an open source store that Apple users were allowed to install from.
  - spaceribs 6y ago
    App developers who need a distribution channel would.
  - majewsky 6y ago
    You're literally describing Homebrew.
    - darthrupert 6y ago
      I was thinking of that, but it seems to me that maintaining the Store has nearly totally different set of problems.
- elondaits 6y ago
  But (official) Linux repositories are curated. App Stores need to be able to deal with submissions for borderline malware freemium games that could contain content that is illegal in some countries for political reasons, too much violence, porn, etc. The Linux model works for a handful of trusted curators who only concern themselves with software worth their time... it can't deal with every single publisher who wants their content in your platform. It doesn't have to deal with issues regarding content for the most part (trademarks, copyright, decency, etc.) Also npm has shown that open repositories, at certain scale, become fertile ground for malware. pip also had issues with this. I sometimes worry about homebrew, since it wouldn't be that hard to get malware in.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    > The Linux model works for a handful of trusted curators who only concern themselves with software worth their time... it can't deal with every single publisher who wants their content in your platform. Sure it can, anyone can set up a Linux repository. Some apps have their own repositories just for themselves. The Linux model is great for curation, because having multiple repositories means that you don't have to grow to npm's size if you don't want to. Arch is a great example of this. The existence of the AUR repositories gives the official repositories much more freedom to more tightly moderate what goes into them, and it gives me a lot more confidence that packages aren't being blindly added to the official repositories. It's the opposite of what people are implying, having more storefronts means that storefronts can be stricter about what they apply. It means as a storefront owner you don't have to come up with one moderation policy that binds literally everyone in the world, so you can be a lot more choosy and subjective about what you approve and reject.
simion314 6y ago
I like the Linux repos too but I don't want some smart-ass dev to decide that since 95% of users only install from repos then I should not have the choice to install from a tar.gz or God forbid some unapproved content. Alternatives stores could also provide sandboxing,review and maybe even better support.
ubercow13 6y ago
Is it possible to use something like SweetFX with Windows Store apps? Last I checked you didn't even have access to the where program's files are stored. It's designed to limit user freedoms just like the App Store is. Something like PCGamingWiki would be useless in a world where software was all distributed that way.
- smileybarry 6y ago
  Late reply, but: Windows Store apps can also be Win32 apps nowadays and those are just layered somewhere in the filesystem. For example, install and run Spotify from the store, then check where it's running from.

smichel17 6y ago

In my experience, Linux repositories are all of the upsides you mentioned (trusted, auto-updated, signed (at repo level, at least)) with none of the lock-in downsides, since you can add third party repositories (and then use them via the same workflow you're already comfortable with!).

darthrupert 6y ago
Many of them rely of a free-of-charge labour. Would you volunteer your free time to maintain Apple Store?
- tomohawk 6y ago
  No, but I might volunteer at an open source store that Apple users were allowed to install from.
- spaceribs 6y ago
  App developers who need a distribution channel would.
- majewsky 6y ago
  You're literally describing Homebrew.
  - darthrupert 6y ago
    I was thinking of that, but it seems to me that maintaining the Store has nearly totally different set of problems.
elondaits 6y ago
But (official) Linux repositories are curated. App Stores need to be able to deal with submissions for borderline malware freemium games that could contain content that is illegal in some countries for political reasons, too much violence, porn, etc. The Linux model works for a handful of trusted curators who only concern themselves with software worth their time... it can't deal with every single publisher who wants their content in your platform. It doesn't have to deal with issues regarding content for the most part (trademarks, copyright, decency, etc.) Also npm has shown that open repositories, at certain scale, become fertile ground for malware. pip also had issues with this. I sometimes worry about homebrew, since it wouldn't be that hard to get malware in.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > The Linux model works for a handful of trusted curators who only concern themselves with software worth their time... it can't deal with every single publisher who wants their content in your platform. Sure it can, anyone can set up a Linux repository. Some apps have their own repositories just for themselves. The Linux model is great for curation, because having multiple repositories means that you don't have to grow to npm's size if you don't want to. Arch is a great example of this. The existence of the AUR repositories gives the official repositories much more freedom to more tightly moderate what goes into them, and it gives me a lot more confidence that packages aren't being blindly added to the official repositories. It's the opposite of what people are implying, having more storefronts means that storefronts can be stricter about what they apply. It means as a storefront owner you don't have to come up with one moderation policy that binds literally everyone in the world, so you can be a lot more choosy and subjective about what you approve and reject.

simion314 6y ago

I like the Linux repos too but I don't want some smart-ass dev to decide that since 95% of users only install from repos then I should not have the choice to install from a tar.gz or God forbid some unapproved content. Alternatives stores could also provide sandboxing,review and maybe even better support.

ubercow13 6y ago

Is it possible to use something like SweetFX with Windows Store apps? Last I checked you didn't even have access to the where program's files are stored. It's designed to limit user freedoms just like the App Store is. Something like PCGamingWiki would be useless in a world where software was all distributed that way.

smileybarry 6y ago
Late reply, but: Windows Store apps can also be Win32 apps nowadays and those are just layered somewhere in the filesystem. For example, install and run Spotify from the store, then check where it's running from.