4 ms·

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.

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.

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.