4 ms·

But certification isn't new, and is still optional... I don't understand why developers are up in arms over it? Also, is it intrinsically bad? It's proving tha

by ZoFreX 14y ago

But certification isn't new, and is still optional... I don't understand why developers are up in arms over it? Also, is it intrinsically bad? It's proving that the software you installed is from a particular publisher and hasn't been tampered with, isn't that a good thing?

k-mcgrady 14y ago
I think it's a minority of developers that are up in arms against in. As a user and developer I've welcomed it on the Mac. Developers can easily certify their apps and it gives customers confidence. If you choose not to certify your app you don't lose out, your software will still run. It will be pretty much the same on Windows (although I find their policies a bit more restrictive). If you don't want to certify, it doesn't prevent your software from working.
- morsch 14y ago
  But if you certify and offer a shop for certified apps where the shop owner gets a cut this creates a huge incentive for the owner to do everything in its power to get more apps into the shop.
  - k-mcgrady 14y ago
    There will always be apps people need that don't fit in the store. e.g. 18+ games won't be available but lots of PC users want to play them. If Microsoft made it so only certified apps could be installed they would lose a lot of users to alternative platforms. People are looking at this like it is a slippery slope. It could be but it's highly unlikely as it would hurt consumers and the barriers to switching OS aren't that high for most people.
    - morsch 14y ago
      There's no need to completely prevent non-certified content from being accessed, you just make it a second class citizen, e.g. by making installation more difficult or restricting the access to native interfaces. E.g. you can increasingly fall back to distributing stuff that's incompatible with Apple's morals using HTML5, so customers don't need to switch devices to access some version of it. Barriers to switching are falling as more people are using cross-platform stuff (first and foremost, web content and apps) but at the same time they are increasing as people get a large portfolio of content that is either not available or that they haven't bought for other platforms. E.g. switch from iOS to Android and lose access to game X that's not available on Android, app Y that's available but you only bought an iOS license and, of course, convenient access to your collection of iTunes music and videos. Contrast this to a waning desktop era where most casual users seemingly only used and paid for three pieces of software (office, browser, something else) and had much of their other content in cross-platform containers (CD/DVD, MP3, Xvid, office files).
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    There is no cut for Microsoft for desktop apps while Apple takes a cut for OS X apps sold from the app store. But for desktop apps in the Windows Store, it will be only linked to the dev's website. Downloads and updates are handled by the developer.
daliusd 14y ago
Could you name second bigest Android app store? I think there are at least two problems: 1) average user will not download anything what's not in win8 app store; a) There are extra burden to upload app to store and pass QA process (I think the only exception here is Google). Haven't you heard horror stories about clueless QA people? 2) there are extra warnings for apps that are not from win8 app store (like in Mac OS X). E.g. I find it annoying because I use relatively lot of tools that are not from app store. Again average user might prefer safe way over risky one and it is problem for indie (game) developers.

by ZoFreX 14y ago

k-mcgrady 14y ago

I think it's a minority of developers that are up in arms against in. As a user and developer I've welcomed it on the Mac. Developers can easily certify their apps and it gives customers confidence. If you choose not to certify your app you don't lose out, your software will still run. It will be pretty much the same on Windows (although I find their policies a bit more restrictive). If you don't want to certify, it doesn't prevent your software from working.

morsch 14y ago
But if you certify and offer a shop for certified apps where the shop owner gets a cut this creates a huge incentive for the owner to do everything in its power to get more apps into the shop.
- k-mcgrady 14y ago
  There will always be apps people need that don't fit in the store. e.g. 18+ games won't be available but lots of PC users want to play them. If Microsoft made it so only certified apps could be installed they would lose a lot of users to alternative platforms. People are looking at this like it is a slippery slope. It could be but it's highly unlikely as it would hurt consumers and the barriers to switching OS aren't that high for most people.
  - morsch 14y ago
    There's no need to completely prevent non-certified content from being accessed, you just make it a second class citizen, e.g. by making installation more difficult or restricting the access to native interfaces. E.g. you can increasingly fall back to distributing stuff that's incompatible with Apple's morals using HTML5, so customers don't need to switch devices to access some version of it. Barriers to switching are falling as more people are using cross-platform stuff (first and foremost, web content and apps) but at the same time they are increasing as people get a large portfolio of content that is either not available or that they haven't bought for other platforms. E.g. switch from iOS to Android and lose access to game X that's not available on Android, app Y that's available but you only bought an iOS license and, of course, convenient access to your collection of iTunes music and videos. Contrast this to a waning desktop era where most casual users seemingly only used and paid for three pieces of software (office, browser, something else) and had much of their other content in cross-platform containers (CD/DVD, MP3, Xvid, office files).
- cooldeal 14y ago
  There is no cut for Microsoft for desktop apps while Apple takes a cut for OS X apps sold from the app store. But for desktop apps in the Windows Store, it will be only linked to the dev's website. Downloads and updates are handled by the developer.

daliusd 14y ago

Could you name second bigest Android app store? I think there are at least two problems: 1) average user will not download anything what's not in win8 app store; a) There are extra burden to upload app to store and pass QA process (I think the only exception here is Google). Haven't you heard horror stories about clueless QA people? 2) there are extra warnings for apps that are not from win8 app store (like in Mac OS X). E.g. I find it annoying because I use relatively lot of tools that are not from app store. Again average user might prefer safe way over risky one and it is problem for indie (game) developers.