5 ms·

As an user, I look at the search results to evaluate the quality of an app store. Microsoft needs to change this problem. Many trash and scam apps are on Micro

As an user, I look at the search results to evaluate the quality of an app store. Microsoft needs to change this problem. Many trash and scam apps are on Microsoft Store for years. User and even developer do not want to download and push their apps in a place like this.

qwerty456127 5y ago
App stores should just have sections curated by humans with reason (and also the wilderness - as a separate section).
- saurik 5y ago
  I agree, though I might even go further? My controversial take (as someone who ran a very popular software market for a decade myself, which notably didn't do what I am saying, though was effectively handicapped in its search for other reasons): they simply shouldn't have search or discovery of their own, as it is going to be some opportunity for the moral equivalent of a TOCTUO "parser differential" security issue that leads to malware. If a user goes to Firefox's website and thinks they want to install Firefox, they shouldn't then go to an App Store to search for it and hope they find the same product: it should be essentially forced by the flow that users use direct links--which the user could get from any process, including offline mechanisms--to specific and individual products to install software, rather than assuming the store's search is of high enough quality to help the user not get phished. But at least only having the somewhat-manually-browsed sections with highly-curated content (to be clear, in the UI as lists from the store developer, not the ability to install things on the device at all or even potentially from the store: you can have content that people can install that isn't in your curated lists) makes it very difficult to use the store itself to phish people.
  - _jal 5y ago
    I actually agree. I never use app store discovery or search, and I don't think anyone who understands the app market does. I think it is mainly used by folks who don't know search engines work better, who are exactly the sort of folks who fall for fake apps and scams, because their flawed assumption that the platform gives a shit about it hasn't yet been corrected. The other problem, though, is that not having discovery is not really an option. Corporate incentives are such that they basically have to be built. ("Why are you leaving money on the table and control for someone else to grab?")
    - nyanpasu64 5y ago
      Is "app store" discovery a viable option on moderated community platforms like Flathub or F-Droid, or "non-platforms" (primarily software distribution methods built around command-line installation, rather than UI-focused ecosystems with reviews and such) like Linux distribution packages?
      - qwerty456127 5y ago
        Debian's Synaptic is great.
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    Sounds reasonable. But why would anybody even need a store then?
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      > But why would anybody even need a store then? How else would Apple and Google tax the entire mobile software market? Getting a cut of all sales in the mobile market is a dream come true.
      - qwerty456127 5y ago
        Nevertheless, besides these (discovery and taxation), what is any value app stores are supposed to add?
        squarefoot 5y ago
        Checking for malware. ...In theory.
    - saurik 5y ago
      The "store" is in some sense a package manager and installation queue application; it still can provide value even without discovery... if nothing else, for paid products, it provides a convenient way for users to purchase the product with stored credentials and then an account mechanism to do license transfer to new devices (which is the reason why most developers used my payment system and most users wanted them to, even though I didn't force anyone to do so: I solved these problems well, which added value, particularly for the smaller development efforts that don't have the resources to pull that work in house to decrease their fee).
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  I’m not sure how “the Wilderness” compares to the status quo, but you’d always need a search option, wouldn’t you? And since search results have to be in some order, you will need to come up with at least one indicator to sort them. Pure randomness is perfectly “neutral” but also entirely useless. Case in point: the complaints here are about Firefox ranking badly for a very specific search term that it should dominate. Remove any attempt to assess relevancy will lead to that happening for every search. So what everyone is complaining about will become the norm. How is that supposed to be an improvement? The strictly-worse option appears better because people are judging intention (as they perceive it), not outcome. But just giving up on trying to return good search result isn’t the morally unassailable solution people here tend to think it is: randomness is fair in that it treats everyone the same. But the results will be highly unfair. Knowing as much when you set up the process means you’re still culpable for shitty results, even if you didn’t know or intent the specific shittyness of the results. If there’s rampant fraud in the store you operate, that falls back on you. Throwing up your hands and stopping all efforts to combat fraud doesn’t get you out of this: there was never any doubt that you had the ability to remove items from your store in the first place, nor is there any reason why an attempt to mitigate at least some of the harms would create an expectation to be perfect at it and create liabilities that supposedly didn’t exist before.
olyjohn 5y ago
It's fucking sad. This is exactly how the MS Store looked 10 years ago when Windows 8 came out. How has it not changed at all? These assholes don't seem to have a clue why nobody wants to use their store. Maybe someone at Microsoft should actually try using their products. The poor employees have buggy shit dogfooded to them all the time, while I bet all the C-levels and other execs have Apple shit for work and home.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  Where is Steve Ballmer when you need him! https://www.businessinsider.com/ballmer-snatches-microsoft-employees-iphone-at-company-meeting-pretends-to-stomp-on-it-2009-9?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/ballmer-snatches-microsoft-e...
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  It's kinda good too. It makes the store unviable and thus makes local installations still a very legit requirement. Which leads to less Microsoft control over what you do with your PC, and more user freedom. It also means using your computer without a Microsoft account is still a thing. If it had really taken off they could be free to block installers like iOS does. Or at least make it difficult to do so like macOS.
  - jamesgeck0 5y ago
    It’s bad in that the app confusion happens on malicious websites that try to game search results. The consequences of installing a sketchy sandboxed app from the Windows Store can be significantly less severe than the consequences of installing a sketchy traditional app.
branon 5y ago
It's seriously embarrassing and terrible. Anybody who uploads a $4.99 "Firefox user guide" to the Microsoft Store should be banned for life before the app even hits prod. Microsoft should require a sufficient barrier to entry so these "developers" can be proactively identified and expelled before they have an opportunity to clog the Store with their detritus. App store cruft like this is one of the most mind-numbingly frustrating things and I tend to avoid mainstream app stores altogether because of it. There's just too many people in one place, and too many parasitic bad actors sucking the lifeblood out of everybody they can reach. The worst part is that an app store has the potential to be such a boon for a platform. But these people ruin it. Tragedy of the commons at work, even though it's a company's walled garden and isn't the commons at all! How could they let this happen?!
- duskwuff 5y ago
  "Guides" aren't even the worst of it. The Microsoft Store has some apps which are outright squatting on the names and logos of real applications, like "Reader for Reading Kindle Ebooks" [1] or "Meeting using Google Meet" [2]. While I haven't investigated, I'm pretty sure they're literally just frames for web apps. [1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/reader-for-reading-kindle-ebooks/9p1fsjlwq6dr https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/reader-for-reading-kindle-... [2]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/meeting-using-google-meet/9plccjfqqw3d https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/meeting-using-google-meet/...
  - beardog 5y ago
    There is also cases of people uploading unofficial distributions of open source software (not even forked) and charging money for it https://www.qbittorrent.org/news.php https://www.qbittorrent.org/news.php (ctrl-f: windows store)
mc32 5y ago
They must have fixed it quick, the Browser from Moz is #1 and that guide is #2.
- ziml77 5y ago
  I'm not sure that Microsoft did anything. According to the Reddit comments, Firefox was just added to the store a day ago. Sounds like it quickly rose to the top as people started downloading it.

qwerty456127 5y ago

App stores should just have sections curated by humans with reason (and also the wilderness - as a separate section).

saurik 5y ago
I agree, though I might even go further? My controversial take (as someone who ran a very popular software market for a decade myself, which notably didn't do what I am saying, though was effectively handicapped in its search for other reasons): they simply shouldn't have search or discovery of their own, as it is going to be some opportunity for the moral equivalent of a TOCTUO "parser differential" security issue that leads to malware. If a user goes to Firefox's website and thinks they want to install Firefox, they shouldn't then go to an App Store to search for it and hope they find the same product: it should be essentially forced by the flow that users use direct links--which the user could get from any process, including offline mechanisms--to specific and individual products to install software, rather than assuming the store's search is of high enough quality to help the user not get phished. But at least only having the somewhat-manually-browsed sections with highly-curated content (to be clear, in the UI as lists from the store developer, not the ability to install things on the device at all or even potentially from the store: you can have content that people can install that isn't in your curated lists) makes it very difficult to use the store itself to phish people.
- _jal 5y ago
  I actually agree. I never use app store discovery or search, and I don't think anyone who understands the app market does. I think it is mainly used by folks who don't know search engines work better, who are exactly the sort of folks who fall for fake apps and scams, because their flawed assumption that the platform gives a shit about it hasn't yet been corrected. The other problem, though, is that not having discovery is not really an option. Corporate incentives are such that they basically have to be built. ("Why are you leaving money on the table and control for someone else to grab?")
  - nyanpasu64 5y ago
    Is "app store" discovery a viable option on moderated community platforms like Flathub or F-Droid, or "non-platforms" (primarily software distribution methods built around command-line installation, rather than UI-focused ecosystems with reviews and such) like Linux distribution packages?
    - qwerty456127 5y ago
      Debian's Synaptic is great.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  Sounds reasonable. But why would anybody even need a store then?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > But why would anybody even need a store then? How else would Apple and Google tax the entire mobile software market? Getting a cut of all sales in the mobile market is a dream come true.
    - qwerty456127 5y ago
      Nevertheless, besides these (discovery and taxation), what is any value app stores are supposed to add?
      - squarefoot 5y ago
        Checking for malware. ...In theory.
  - saurik 5y ago
    The "store" is in some sense a package manager and installation queue application; it still can provide value even without discovery... if nothing else, for paid products, it provides a convenient way for users to purchase the product with stored credentials and then an account mechanism to do license transfer to new devices (which is the reason why most developers used my payment system and most users wanted them to, even though I didn't force anyone to do so: I solved these problems well, which added value, particularly for the smaller development efforts that don't have the resources to pull that work in house to decrease their fee).
KarlKemp 5y ago
I’m not sure how “the Wilderness” compares to the status quo, but you’d always need a search option, wouldn’t you? And since search results have to be in some order, you will need to come up with at least one indicator to sort them. Pure randomness is perfectly “neutral” but also entirely useless. Case in point: the complaints here are about Firefox ranking badly for a very specific search term that it should dominate. Remove any attempt to assess relevancy will lead to that happening for every search. So what everyone is complaining about will become the norm. How is that supposed to be an improvement? The strictly-worse option appears better because people are judging intention (as they perceive it), not outcome. But just giving up on trying to return good search result isn’t the morally unassailable solution people here tend to think it is: randomness is fair in that it treats everyone the same. But the results will be highly unfair. Knowing as much when you set up the process means you’re still culpable for shitty results, even if you didn’t know or intent the specific shittyness of the results. If there’s rampant fraud in the store you operate, that falls back on you. Throwing up your hands and stopping all efforts to combat fraud doesn’t get you out of this: there was never any doubt that you had the ability to remove items from your store in the first place, nor is there any reason why an attempt to mitigate at least some of the harms would create an expectation to be perfect at it and create liabilities that supposedly didn’t exist before.

olyjohn 5y ago

It's fucking sad. This is exactly how the MS Store looked 10 years ago when Windows 8 came out. How has it not changed at all? These assholes don't seem to have a clue why nobody wants to use their store. Maybe someone at Microsoft should actually try using their products. The poor employees have buggy shit dogfooded to them all the time, while I bet all the C-levels and other execs have Apple shit for work and home.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Where is Steve Ballmer when you need him! https://www.businessinsider.com/ballmer-snatches-microsoft-employees-iphone-at-company-meeting-pretends-to-stomp-on-it-2009-9?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/ballmer-snatches-microsoft-e...
GekkePrutser 5y ago
It's kinda good too. It makes the store unviable and thus makes local installations still a very legit requirement. Which leads to less Microsoft control over what you do with your PC, and more user freedom. It also means using your computer without a Microsoft account is still a thing. If it had really taken off they could be free to block installers like iOS does. Or at least make it difficult to do so like macOS.
- jamesgeck0 5y ago
  It’s bad in that the app confusion happens on malicious websites that try to game search results. The consequences of installing a sketchy sandboxed app from the Windows Store can be significantly less severe than the consequences of installing a sketchy traditional app.

branon 5y ago

It's seriously embarrassing and terrible. Anybody who uploads a $4.99 "Firefox user guide" to the Microsoft Store should be banned for life before the app even hits prod. Microsoft should require a sufficient barrier to entry so these "developers" can be proactively identified and expelled before they have an opportunity to clog the Store with their detritus. App store cruft like this is one of the most mind-numbingly frustrating things and I tend to avoid mainstream app stores altogether because of it. There's just too many people in one place, and too many parasitic bad actors sucking the lifeblood out of everybody they can reach. The worst part is that an app store has the potential to be such a boon for a platform. But these people ruin it. Tragedy of the commons at work, even though it's a company's walled garden and isn't the commons at all! How could they let this happen?!

duskwuff 5y ago
"Guides" aren't even the worst of it. The Microsoft Store has some apps which are outright squatting on the names and logos of real applications, like "Reader for Reading Kindle Ebooks" [1] or "Meeting using Google Meet" [2]. While I haven't investigated, I'm pretty sure they're literally just frames for web apps. [1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/reader-for-reading-kindle-ebooks/9p1fsjlwq6dr https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/reader-for-reading-kindle-... [2]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/meeting-using-google-meet/9plccjfqqw3d https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/meeting-using-google-meet/...
- beardog 5y ago
  There is also cases of people uploading unofficial distributions of open source software (not even forked) and charging money for it https://www.qbittorrent.org/news.php https://www.qbittorrent.org/news.php (ctrl-f: windows store)

mc32 5y ago

They must have fixed it quick, the Browser from Moz is #1 and that guide is #2.

ziml77 5y ago
I'm not sure that Microsoft did anything. According to the Reddit comments, Firefox was just added to the store a day ago. Sounds like it quickly rose to the top as people started downloading it.