9 ms·

Microsoft controlling what software you can run on Windows used to be the reductio ad absurdum I used to argue against the iOS model. Now Android is the only pl

Microsoft controlling what software you can run on Windows used to be the reductio ad absurdum I used to argue against the iOS model. Now Android is the only platform standing between us and a Right to Read world (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html).

ebiester 15y ago
If Microsoft were to shut down the other channels, that would be true. However, nothing stops you from making a traditional windows app. It just won't run with the Metro UI.
- tree_of_item 15y ago
  Which is barely a defense: Metro is the future of Windows applications and I doubt users will be very excited about their ability to install "traditional" apps. I'm surprised that Microsoft beat Apple to locking down their desktop OS in the style of iOS, but in either case this is extremely disturbing.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    It's too early to call the desktop-lockdown race between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft may be locking down a broader class of apps with their Metro restrictions, but Apple already has their locked-down desktop store up and running.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - saturdaysaint 15y ago
      What would Apple's incentive be to do that? Both Apple and Microsoft have too much to lose if a big budget software maker (ie anyone selling stuff over $50) left their platform. Microsoft will never risk driving Electronic Arts into Google's arms, Apple will never risk sacrificing OSX's image as the "platform for creative people" (which would indeed happen if they lost Photoshop and ProTools). The %30 cut of app sales is a blip on both companies' balance sheets.
    - r00fus 15y ago
      Perhaps, but Apple has no "Metro" lockdown - in fact the apps you sell on their storefront for the Mac are the same you can sell and market on your own (for now). Software publishing freedom exists with equal footing to the locked-down storefront on the Mac. This is not the case in Windows8. Microsoft will trumpet everything Metro-UI in their new release, and in order to play their game, you need to play their game.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    I think its a positive development, across the board. The ability to better combat malware (no plugins is part of this too) will generally make these platforms safer. If you really must distribute an app that needs to go outside of these walls non-metro apps are perfectly fine. You can accomplish a lot of what Metro apps can do today outside of Metro (at least from a look and feel perspective). And as Apple has noted, there is the web too. I personally like the fact that you now have a CHOICE of where you get your apps. A curated app store, the old wild west of native apps, or the web. Choice is good.
    - alex_c 15y ago
      How are you spinning this to be about choice? You're conflating the app type with the distribution channel. I agree that curated native app stores are generally great. Users get higher quality apps with great discoverability, developers get a great distribution channel, and let's not forget, the platform owner gets 30%. It's hard to argue that this is about choice of where you get your apps, though.
      - slowpoke 15y ago
        If by "higher quality apps" you mean loads and loads of thinly disguised ad- and spyware, as well as generally useless crap, then yes, curated native app stores are "great". I'd say the density of pure and utter crapware has never been higher than in the various app stores. While a unified distribution method is generally a good idea for various reasons (see package managers), the whole app store concept runs completely contrary to those. It's not about choice, it's about control. It's not about security, it's about locking down the system. It's not about convenience for the user, it's about completely undeserved profit for the platform owner. It's not about helping the developers, it's about forcing them to play by someone else's (highly arbitrary) rules. I'm frankly scared about this entire development. Call me paranoid all you want, but we're heading with full speed to some sort of digital 1984 if it goes on anything like this.
        alex_c 15y ago
        > If by "higher quality apps" you mean loads and loads of thinly disguised ad- and spyware, as well as generally useless crap, then yes, curated native app stores are "great". > I'd say the density of pure and utter crapware has never been higher than in the various app stores. Compared to what? Download.com? Tucows? Every app put on the internet, ever? There are lots of useless and borderline malicious apps on the existing mobile app stores (and a handful of downright malicious apps), but I'm far from convinced that it's in any way worse than what we've had so far on the desktop. All the "browser toolbar" apps out there, by themselves, are enough to make app stores look good. And having a unified place where you know you can get the official version of any app, along with any updates, and from where you can painlessly re-install all your apps when you get a new machine, cannot possibly be a bad thing. What do developers get for that 30% cut? In Apple's case, they get access to a huge userbase who has already entered their credit card into the system and just need to press "buy"; they get access to payment processing, currency conversion, and storefront internationalization, close to world-wide, without lifting a finger. Is 30% "fair"? Probably not - it's probably a bit high for small developers, and larger developers may prefer to opt out and solve all those challenges for themselves, for much cheaper. (edit: for desktop Mac apps, they can. The fact that some developers choose to sell their Mac apps through the App Store suggests the 30% is worth it for those developers. It's important that those developers still have the choice to sell their desktop apps through other channels - so far, anyway). Yes, it's ultimately about control, and about that 30% commission. I did say it's less choice, not more. But you can't say there are no benefits at all, to both users or developers.
tomjen3 15y ago
Well, if you don't count Linux, the BSDs, webapps and even the venerable freedos (yes, somebody did clone DOS http://www.freedos.org/ http://www.freedos.org/ and yes it runs the old DOS programs) I guess you are right.
- saturdaysaint 15y ago
  and OSX.
  - notauser 15y ago
    OS X already has the app store, now it just needs the restrictive policy. You might think it'll never come; well, people said the same things about Windows. In fact, they were far more outspokenly confident about Windows because Microsoft has historically been much less control-freakish than Apple.
- bergie 15y ago
  Linux will only help as long as there is hardware open enough that you can install it. With tablets and smartphones and their closed drivers this will be a disappearing opportunity in the Post-PC world.
megamark16 15y ago
Just until the day when it moves to the hardware level, where your hardware will refuse to run certain processes unless they are digitally signed. Good times. See also "Intel Trusted Execution Technology": http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-trusted-execution-technology-a-primer/ http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-trusted-execu...
- dexen 15y ago
  Things got quite close by now: mandatory driver signing in 64bit Windows Vista & 7. You need to select extra boot option to be able to load unsigned driver. Like the venerable ext2fsd: driver for ext2 & ext3 FS [1]. It won't work for Joe the Average User. Terrorists win, game over. [1] http://www.ext2fsd.com/ http://www.ext2fsd.com/ EDIT: it's a clever move, limititing that requirement only to 64bit Windows. No need for one-time big switchover; the balance towards 64bit will shift gradually over time and before people raise enough opposition it may be too late for independet driver development. We already know security based on centralized Certification Authorities did not work well for securing HTTPS.
  - ReadEvalPost 15y ago
    Only allowing signed drivers to run in ring 0 by default makes a lot of sense though. The average user is way less likely to need ext2fsd and much more likely to install randommalwared.
  - xpaulbettsx 15y ago
    For what it's worth, this wasn't to stop free software drivers, it was a stick to force IHVs to ship drivers that didn't suck, since they could no longer ship drivers that didn't pass WHQL testing. The end result is a more stable system for consumers, but F/OSS got caught in the fallout. If you as a F/OSS driver dev really want to avoid signatures, sign your driver using the test cert and run the following command in your installer: bcdedit -set testsigning on
- fhars 15y ago
  This is the one feature that Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) does not provide. We really wanted to have something like that for a security type appliance, but it is impossible. The only thing TXT provides is the ability to prove to a third party that you are running an unmodified version of the software endorsed by them, so they can avoid sending their valuable content to a device controlled by you. It doesn't help you to ensure that the device will only boot software endorsed by you (or anybody), only to prove what software is running to somebody else. But one should probably be lucky that that functionality is missing...

ebiester 15y ago

If Microsoft were to shut down the other channels, that would be true. However, nothing stops you from making a traditional windows app. It just won't run with the Metro UI.

tree_of_item 15y ago
Which is barely a defense: Metro is the future of Windows applications and I doubt users will be very excited about their ability to install "traditional" apps. I'm surprised that Microsoft beat Apple to locking down their desktop OS in the style of iOS, but in either case this is extremely disturbing.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  It's too early to call the desktop-lockdown race between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft may be locking down a broader class of apps with their Metro restrictions, but Apple already has their locked-down desktop store up and running.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - saturdaysaint 15y ago
    What would Apple's incentive be to do that? Both Apple and Microsoft have too much to lose if a big budget software maker (ie anyone selling stuff over $50) left their platform. Microsoft will never risk driving Electronic Arts into Google's arms, Apple will never risk sacrificing OSX's image as the "platform for creative people" (which would indeed happen if they lost Photoshop and ProTools). The %30 cut of app sales is a blip on both companies' balance sheets.
  - r00fus 15y ago
    Perhaps, but Apple has no "Metro" lockdown - in fact the apps you sell on their storefront for the Mac are the same you can sell and market on your own (for now). Software publishing freedom exists with equal footing to the locked-down storefront on the Mac. This is not the case in Windows8. Microsoft will trumpet everything Metro-UI in their new release, and in order to play their game, you need to play their game.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  I think its a positive development, across the board. The ability to better combat malware (no plugins is part of this too) will generally make these platforms safer. If you really must distribute an app that needs to go outside of these walls non-metro apps are perfectly fine. You can accomplish a lot of what Metro apps can do today outside of Metro (at least from a look and feel perspective). And as Apple has noted, there is the web too. I personally like the fact that you now have a CHOICE of where you get your apps. A curated app store, the old wild west of native apps, or the web. Choice is good.
  - alex_c 15y ago
    How are you spinning this to be about choice? You're conflating the app type with the distribution channel. I agree that curated native app stores are generally great. Users get higher quality apps with great discoverability, developers get a great distribution channel, and let's not forget, the platform owner gets 30%. It's hard to argue that this is about choice of where you get your apps, though.
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      If by "higher quality apps" you mean loads and loads of thinly disguised ad- and spyware, as well as generally useless crap, then yes, curated native app stores are "great". I'd say the density of pure and utter crapware has never been higher than in the various app stores. While a unified distribution method is generally a good idea for various reasons (see package managers), the whole app store concept runs completely contrary to those. It's not about choice, it's about control. It's not about security, it's about locking down the system. It's not about convenience for the user, it's about completely undeserved profit for the platform owner. It's not about helping the developers, it's about forcing them to play by someone else's (highly arbitrary) rules. I'm frankly scared about this entire development. Call me paranoid all you want, but we're heading with full speed to some sort of digital 1984 if it goes on anything like this.
      - alex_c 15y ago
        > If by "higher quality apps" you mean loads and loads of thinly disguised ad- and spyware, as well as generally useless crap, then yes, curated native app stores are "great". > I'd say the density of pure and utter crapware has never been higher than in the various app stores. Compared to what? Download.com? Tucows? Every app put on the internet, ever? There are lots of useless and borderline malicious apps on the existing mobile app stores (and a handful of downright malicious apps), but I'm far from convinced that it's in any way worse than what we've had so far on the desktop. All the "browser toolbar" apps out there, by themselves, are enough to make app stores look good. And having a unified place where you know you can get the official version of any app, along with any updates, and from where you can painlessly re-install all your apps when you get a new machine, cannot possibly be a bad thing. What do developers get for that 30% cut? In Apple's case, they get access to a huge userbase who has already entered their credit card into the system and just need to press "buy"; they get access to payment processing, currency conversion, and storefront internationalization, close to world-wide, without lifting a finger. Is 30% "fair"? Probably not - it's probably a bit high for small developers, and larger developers may prefer to opt out and solve all those challenges for themselves, for much cheaper. (edit: for desktop Mac apps, they can. The fact that some developers choose to sell their Mac apps through the App Store suggests the 30% is worth it for those developers. It's important that those developers still have the choice to sell their desktop apps through other channels - so far, anyway). Yes, it's ultimately about control, and about that 30% commission. I did say it's less choice, not more. But you can't say there are no benefits at all, to both users or developers.

tomjen3 15y ago

Well, if you don't count Linux, the BSDs, webapps and even the venerable freedos (yes, somebody did clone DOS http://www.freedos.org/ http://www.freedos.org/ and yes it runs the old DOS programs) I guess you are right.

saturdaysaint 15y ago
and OSX.
- notauser 15y ago
  OS X already has the app store, now it just needs the restrictive policy. You might think it'll never come; well, people said the same things about Windows. In fact, they were far more outspokenly confident about Windows because Microsoft has historically been much less control-freakish than Apple.
bergie 15y ago
Linux will only help as long as there is hardware open enough that you can install it. With tablets and smartphones and their closed drivers this will be a disappearing opportunity in the Post-PC world.

megamark16 15y ago

Just until the day when it moves to the hardware level, where your hardware will refuse to run certain processes unless they are digitally signed. Good times. See also "Intel Trusted Execution Technology": http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-trusted-execution-technology-a-primer/ http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-trusted-execu...

dexen 15y ago
Things got quite close by now: mandatory driver signing in 64bit Windows Vista & 7. You need to select extra boot option to be able to load unsigned driver. Like the venerable ext2fsd: driver for ext2 & ext3 FS [1]. It won't work for Joe the Average User. Terrorists win, game over. [1] http://www.ext2fsd.com/ http://www.ext2fsd.com/ EDIT: it's a clever move, limititing that requirement only to 64bit Windows. No need for one-time big switchover; the balance towards 64bit will shift gradually over time and before people raise enough opposition it may be too late for independet driver development. We already know security based on centralized Certification Authorities did not work well for securing HTTPS.
- ReadEvalPost 15y ago
  Only allowing signed drivers to run in ring 0 by default makes a lot of sense though. The average user is way less likely to need ext2fsd and much more likely to install randommalwared.
- xpaulbettsx 15y ago
  For what it's worth, this wasn't to stop free software drivers, it was a stick to force IHVs to ship drivers that didn't suck, since they could no longer ship drivers that didn't pass WHQL testing. The end result is a more stable system for consumers, but F/OSS got caught in the fallout. If you as a F/OSS driver dev really want to avoid signatures, sign your driver using the test cert and run the following command in your installer: bcdedit -set testsigning on
fhars 15y ago
This is the one feature that Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) does not provide. We really wanted to have something like that for a security type appliance, but it is impossible. The only thing TXT provides is the ability to prove to a third party that you are running an unmodified version of the software endorsed by them, so they can avoid sending their valuable content to a device controlled by you. It doesn't help you to ensure that the device will only boot software endorsed by you (or anybody), only to prove what software is running to somebody else. But one should probably be lucky that that functionality is missing...