4 ms·

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

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.
AndrewDucker 15y ago
Except that the ARM tablets will only run Metro apps. Which means that if you have one of them then you have no choice at all.
- crenshaw 15y ago
  Has that been stated or confirmed?
  - AndrewDucker 15y ago
    They've said that x86 apps will not work on ARM: http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/231601663/microsoft-arm-based-devices-wont-run-windows-7-x86-apps.htm http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/231601663/microsoft-...
    - crenshaw 15y ago
      OK. And Windows on ARM won't run Amiga apps either. You and I both know that's not really related to what the poster stated. The poster said that ARM will only run Metro apps. You can not run x86 apps and still run non-Metro apps. And you can run x86 apps, but not run non-Metro apps. It's a completely orthogonal statement.
      - AndrewDucker 15y ago
        I took it as saying there were two types of apps - Win32 x86 apps and Metro apps, and that ARM would only run one of them. If he'd said "ARM will not run x86 apps, so you'll need to recompile" then that would have been different, but without any kind of assurance there it sounded very much like they were ruling out running any existing apps on ARM tablets.
      - tomjen3 15y ago
        Actually there is no good reason Microsoft didn't write an X86 virtual machine so that their tablets could run the old programs. The instructions set is obviously different, but Android does that with Java (on an ARM processor too) and Microsoft has enough smart people who could make sure that the performance would be great.
saturdaysaint 15y ago
Confusion is bad. It's a shame that Windows' highest cachet titles (pro creative software, big budget games, etc.) won't be Metro.
- ryannielsen 15y ago
  Why not? There's nothing that prohibits them from being Metro, right? If not, then why wouldn't developers of those apps eventually adopt Metro? If Metro provides the best customer experience and becomes associated with "high quality" apps, I bet they'll make the move to Metro. (Note: I don't expect major vendors will adopt Metro the second Windows 8 ships, as they'll want to continue shipping titles with support for at least 7 for quite some time.)

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.

AndrewDucker 15y ago

Except that the ARM tablets will only run Metro apps. Which means that if you have one of them then you have no choice at all.

crenshaw 15y ago
Has that been stated or confirmed?
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  They've said that x86 apps will not work on ARM: http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/231601663/microsoft-arm-based-devices-wont-run-windows-7-x86-apps.htm http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/231601663/microsoft-...
  - crenshaw 15y ago
    OK. And Windows on ARM won't run Amiga apps either. You and I both know that's not really related to what the poster stated. The poster said that ARM will only run Metro apps. You can not run x86 apps and still run non-Metro apps. And you can run x86 apps, but not run non-Metro apps. It's a completely orthogonal statement.
    - AndrewDucker 15y ago
      I took it as saying there were two types of apps - Win32 x86 apps and Metro apps, and that ARM would only run one of them. If he'd said "ARM will not run x86 apps, so you'll need to recompile" then that would have been different, but without any kind of assurance there it sounded very much like they were ruling out running any existing apps on ARM tablets.
    - tomjen3 15y ago
      Actually there is no good reason Microsoft didn't write an X86 virtual machine so that their tablets could run the old programs. The instructions set is obviously different, but Android does that with Java (on an ARM processor too) and Microsoft has enough smart people who could make sure that the performance would be great.

saturdaysaint 15y ago

Confusion is bad. It's a shame that Windows' highest cachet titles (pro creative software, big budget games, etc.) won't be Metro.

ryannielsen 15y ago
Why not? There's nothing that prohibits them from being Metro, right? If not, then why wouldn't developers of those apps eventually adopt Metro? If Metro provides the best customer experience and becomes associated with "high quality" apps, I bet they'll make the move to Metro. (Note: I don't expect major vendors will adopt Metro the second Windows 8 ships, as they'll want to continue shipping titles with support for at least 7 for quite some time.)