7 ms·

Absolutely. Microsoft doesn't have a large existing Windows Store business to protect, so why not make Apple's life harder? I think it's also the solution that

by apozem 5y ago

Absolutely. Microsoft doesn't have a large existing Windows Store business to protect, so why not make Apple's life harder? I think it's also the solution that best meets the reality of apps in 2021. Big third-party devs like Netflix and Amazon will opt out of in-app purchase entirely before giving a cut to the platform owner. May as well let them use their own payment system so users get a better experience than signing up on the web.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
> Microsoft doesn't have a large existing Windows Store business to protect, This is how you GET a large existing Windows Store business.
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  It's not like Microsoft hasn't tried very hard in the last 10 years to emulate the iOS business model, but I guess Windows users don't like walled gardens.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - oezi 5y ago
    But they messed up so bad with the Windows store. It is beyond belief: - By including Candy Crush and other bloatware in the store, the store started with a bad reputation already. - By allowing manufacturers to define apps you cannot uninstall via the store, this infuriated any power user. - By no allowing to delete any items from your "purchase history" you could never try out any free apps without them contaminating your history. They did so to prevent people from losing their purchases, but this was just stupid with free apps. - Discovery in the store was a joke. Search results showed apps with less than 100 installs. Descriptions and screenshots of apps are often so bad that there is no way to figure out what an app does. - Not finding a way to offer legacy apps in the store was such a fail, it is incomprehensible. It is 2021 and end users still have to download applications from CNet and Sourceforge. A security nightmare. Don't get me started on UWP and the UIs from hell caused by it. Finally, there is absolutely no reason that the Windows store couldn't have been what Steam is now. Just MS incompetence in their vision of where to start. -- Edit: It seems legacy apps are coming to the store with Windows 11. Yeah! Let's see how they mess up this time.
    - ljm 5y ago
      I don't think it helps that MS have been trying to build new UI and app development frameworks for the past several years, each one with varying capabilities. I've lost track, I think UWP is the latest one but it's not UWP any more, or something? It just seems harder to build and sell software that has that same quality look-and-feel that many MacOS apps have. I just wonder what they'd be capable of if they had a separate OS that didn't have to concern itself with backwards compatibility. It'd be a monumental undertaking to do all that from scratch, not really worth it from a business standpoint, but it'd be interesting to see what they'd come up with if they started off with Linux.
  - alickz 5y ago
    I think this is similar on Mac. Anecdotally I don't know anyone who uses the Mac App Store to install apps. Everyone I know just downloads the .dmg from whatever website.
actuator 5y ago
It is such a welcome thing. Big platforms like Netflix, Spotify don't owe any revenue share to Apple, Microsoft or others. They made their own brand and have been responsible for their own success. These big OS/device companies in fact compete with them with unfair advantages like pre installed apps, prominent product placement on AppStore and closed/early integrations.
- askonomm 5y ago
  Alright. So if Netflix wants their app to be hosted and indexed by the App Store, Apple should just provide the costs related to that because of charity? The bandwidth alone I imagine carries a pretty hefty price for an app like Netflix. By your logic, this should all be given free - which actually is negative profit for Apple .. why? Would you create an App Store, dedicate resources on moderation and app curation, as well as infrastructure, and then just give it away free? Would your stakeholders still back you if you did that? I never understand this line of logic, and the idea that for-profit entities somehow _should_ do lots of charity.
  - javchz 5y ago
    You could give Devs two options A) Give me X% of revenue, and I will give you free hosting of your app, and some form of promotion. B) No commission, but you host your own binaries. To be a valid installable app, you need to give me a hash of the binary valid to install, that I have approved before. Each audit of binaries cost X. No promotion for free in the app store.
    - themacguffinman 5y ago
      The main problem with Option B is the potential for bad/inconsistent app download experiences. Many companies may cheap out on binary hosting and have very slow or broken downloads (especially in certain countries), which results in a kind of random "never know if this will work well" patchy UX for iOS/Android users at large. This isn't an insurmountable problem of course. Perhaps Apple/Google could charge fixed bandwidth rates and host it themselves, or they could contractually set SLA requirements that could be verified regularly with an uptime service.

by apozem 5y ago

SavantIdiot 5y ago

> Microsoft doesn't have a large existing Windows Store business to protect, This is how you GET a large existing Windows Store business.

flohofwoe 5y ago
It's not like Microsoft hasn't tried very hard in the last 10 years to emulate the iOS business model, but I guess Windows users don't like walled gardens.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- oezi 5y ago
  But they messed up so bad with the Windows store. It is beyond belief: - By including Candy Crush and other bloatware in the store, the store started with a bad reputation already. - By allowing manufacturers to define apps you cannot uninstall via the store, this infuriated any power user. - By no allowing to delete any items from your "purchase history" you could never try out any free apps without them contaminating your history. They did so to prevent people from losing their purchases, but this was just stupid with free apps. - Discovery in the store was a joke. Search results showed apps with less than 100 installs. Descriptions and screenshots of apps are often so bad that there is no way to figure out what an app does. - Not finding a way to offer legacy apps in the store was such a fail, it is incomprehensible. It is 2021 and end users still have to download applications from CNet and Sourceforge. A security nightmare. Don't get me started on UWP and the UIs from hell caused by it. Finally, there is absolutely no reason that the Windows store couldn't have been what Steam is now. Just MS incompetence in their vision of where to start. -- Edit: It seems legacy apps are coming to the store with Windows 11. Yeah! Let's see how they mess up this time.
  - ljm 5y ago
    I don't think it helps that MS have been trying to build new UI and app development frameworks for the past several years, each one with varying capabilities. I've lost track, I think UWP is the latest one but it's not UWP any more, or something? It just seems harder to build and sell software that has that same quality look-and-feel that many MacOS apps have. I just wonder what they'd be capable of if they had a separate OS that didn't have to concern itself with backwards compatibility. It'd be a monumental undertaking to do all that from scratch, not really worth it from a business standpoint, but it'd be interesting to see what they'd come up with if they started off with Linux.
- alickz 5y ago
  I think this is similar on Mac. Anecdotally I don't know anyone who uses the Mac App Store to install apps. Everyone I know just downloads the .dmg from whatever website.

actuator 5y ago

It is such a welcome thing. Big platforms like Netflix, Spotify don't owe any revenue share to Apple, Microsoft or others. They made their own brand and have been responsible for their own success. These big OS/device companies in fact compete with them with unfair advantages like pre installed apps, prominent product placement on AppStore and closed/early integrations.

askonomm 5y ago
Alright. So if Netflix wants their app to be hosted and indexed by the App Store, Apple should just provide the costs related to that because of charity? The bandwidth alone I imagine carries a pretty hefty price for an app like Netflix. By your logic, this should all be given free - which actually is negative profit for Apple .. why? Would you create an App Store, dedicate resources on moderation and app curation, as well as infrastructure, and then just give it away free? Would your stakeholders still back you if you did that? I never understand this line of logic, and the idea that for-profit entities somehow _should_ do lots of charity.
- javchz 5y ago
  You could give Devs two options A) Give me X% of revenue, and I will give you free hosting of your app, and some form of promotion. B) No commission, but you host your own binaries. To be a valid installable app, you need to give me a hash of the binary valid to install, that I have approved before. Each audit of binaries cost X. No promotion for free in the app store.
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    The main problem with Option B is the potential for bad/inconsistent app download experiences. Many companies may cheap out on binary hosting and have very slow or broken downloads (especially in certain countries), which results in a kind of random "never know if this will work well" patchy UX for iOS/Android users at large. This isn't an insurmountable problem of course. Perhaps Apple/Google could charge fixed bandwidth rates and host it themselves, or they could contractually set SLA requirements that could be verified regularly with an uptime service.