6 ms·

In what way are Windows 8 app certification requirements written in stone? If there are hundreds of millions to be made from changing some text, trust me, those

In what way are Windows 8 app certification requirements written in stone? If there are hundreds of millions to be made from changing some text, trust me, those rules will fall faster than Felix Baumgartner.

cube13 14y ago
In all honesty, the requirements aren't that bad, especially for game designers that aren't just attempting to make a quick buck. There's really nothing in there that should force good developers to really have to stretch to follow them. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh694083.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh69408... And their user agreement is friendlier to FOSS projects than Apple's. c. Third Party Rights. Your app, including any app that contains FOSS, must not infringe or misappropriate any intellectual property or personal right of any third party. You will obtain and maintain all necessary rights, clearances and consents, and pay all performance, licensing and reuse fees, including any consideration associated with providing music or video related content in and through your app. If your app includes FOSS, you must comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms, including any source availability requirements. d. FOSS Software. If your app includes FOSS, it must not cause any non-FOSS Microsoft software to become subject to the terms of any FOSS license.
- mattmanser 14y ago
  Did you read the article? He's talking about this, mass censorship that many of today's games and TV shows cannot pass: 5.1 Your app must not contain adult content, and metadata must be appropriate for everyone 5.2 Your app must not contain content that advocates discrimination, hatred, or violence based on membership in a particular racial, ethnic, national, linguistic, religious, or other social group, or based on a person’s gender, age, or sexual orientation 5.3 Your app must not contain content or functionality that encourages, facilitates or glamorizes illegal activity 5.4 Your app must not contain or display content that a reasonable person would consider to be obscene 5.5 Your app must not contain content that is defamatory, libelous or slanderous, or threatening 5.6 Your app must not contain content that encourages, facilitates or glamorizes excessive or irresponsible use of alcohol or tobacco products, drugs or weapons 5.7 Your app must not contain content that encourages, facilitates or glamorizes extreme or gratuitous violence, human rights violations, or the creation or use of weapons against a person or animal in the real world 5.8 Your app must not contain excessive or gratuitous profanity
  - ngcazz 14y ago
    any of those points can be easily challenged i suppose!
  - cube13 14y ago
    All of which are CYA statements that are there to remove MS' liability for any app used for any of those purposes. It's worth pointing out that Google has roughly the same requirements in their Google Play content requirements( http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html ), as do Apple and Amazon. Google's ratings requirements are potentially even more stringent, especially because they're in plain English.
    - bad_user 14y ago
      Just because everybody with similar platforms do it, doesn't make it right. And I do not agree about those statements being CYA - the worst thing you can get is an environment where the rules are selectively enforced, based on a decision-making process that will never be transparent. Oh so content-makers are complaining that Youtube steals their traffic? Clearly there's enough content on Youtube to justify a ban under any of those rules and Google is not exactly on Microsoft's list of favorites. Let's also remember the apps banned by Apple for being "offensive". Were they obnoxious, definitely, to some people at least. However that's censorship. And it's OK as long as controlled platforms are a minority, but when it becomes a monopolizing problem leaving consumers with no choices left, then it should really be against the law.
      - cube13 14y ago
        >However that's censorship. And it's OK as long as controlled platforms are a minority, but when it becomes a monopolizing problem leaving consumers with no choices left, then it should really be against the law. I have trouble accepting this argument. Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon are not preventing the production of that content. They're simply refusing to sell it, which is their prerogative. That's not censorship, at all. It's no different from any of the major big-box chains refusing to sell things because of content.
bo1024 14y ago
Sure, and if there aren't hundreds of millions to be made in some area, the rules for that area might not change. The point is that we should be very unexcited about the walled garden approach because it will exclude a lot of cool and fun and useful software. Even if they make an exception for high-grossing software, the whole idea is still a bad one.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Indeed. The concern isn't for AAA-level games or multi-billion dollar software industries, they will find their way. The problem is: how many billion-dollar markets are we nipping in the bud because we operate strictly in a walled garden?
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    That depends on how high the walls are, and the argument could be made they're not very high at all. A minor entry fee, hardware (don't count this highly, someone wanting to develop for platform x likely already has platform x), and an approvals process that blocks mostly porn and malware (plus a few more edge cases).
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      > "(plus a few more edge cases)" That's my argument - "a few" edge cases aren't actually that few, and these are edge cases with the potential to grow into hugely productive industries. Under the current scheme, DOOM would never have been released, and the multi-billion dollar action/shooter games industry would be dead on arrival. Applying the same standards to textual content, sites like Reddit and Digg would never have been approved (in fact Reddit apps on the App Store are rated 18+, a rating strictly disallowed in MS's scheme), and we would never have seen the explosion of link aggregation. These few edge cases aren't that few, and they aren't that edge casey.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      What's wrong with porn? I know there will be plenty available through the browser anyway but it seems odd for an OS vendor to be in a position to take a puritan stance. The problem with not allowing for 'edge cases' is that a lot of popular software probably started as a weird 'edge case'.
mark-r 14y ago
One of the points in the article is that Microsoft can't predict the future, and might miss a hundred-million dollar opportunity because they don't recognize it. Today there's nothing to stop someone from exploiting that opportunity regardless of Microsoft's blindness, but that won't be true in the future.

cube13 14y ago

In all honesty, the requirements aren't that bad, especially for game designers that aren't just attempting to make a quick buck. There's really nothing in there that should force good developers to really have to stretch to follow them. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh694083.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh69408... And their user agreement is friendlier to FOSS projects than Apple's. c. Third Party Rights. Your app, including any app that contains FOSS, must not infringe or misappropriate any intellectual property or personal right of any third party. You will obtain and maintain all necessary rights, clearances and consents, and pay all performance, licensing and reuse fees, including any consideration associated with providing music or video related content in and through your app. If your app includes FOSS, you must comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms, including any source availability requirements. d. FOSS Software. If your app includes FOSS, it must not cause any non-FOSS Microsoft software to become subject to the terms of any FOSS license.

mattmanser 14y ago
Did you read the article? He's talking about this, mass censorship that many of today's games and TV shows cannot pass: 5.1 Your app must not contain adult content, and metadata must be appropriate for everyone 5.2 Your app must not contain content that advocates discrimination, hatred, or violence based on membership in a particular racial, ethnic, national, linguistic, religious, or other social group, or based on a person’s gender, age, or sexual orientation 5.3 Your app must not contain content or functionality that encourages, facilitates or glamorizes illegal activity 5.4 Your app must not contain or display content that a reasonable person would consider to be obscene 5.5 Your app must not contain content that is defamatory, libelous or slanderous, or threatening 5.6 Your app must not contain content that encourages, facilitates or glamorizes excessive or irresponsible use of alcohol or tobacco products, drugs or weapons 5.7 Your app must not contain content that encourages, facilitates or glamorizes extreme or gratuitous violence, human rights violations, or the creation or use of weapons against a person or animal in the real world 5.8 Your app must not contain excessive or gratuitous profanity
- ngcazz 14y ago
  any of those points can be easily challenged i suppose!
- cube13 14y ago
  All of which are CYA statements that are there to remove MS' liability for any app used for any of those purposes. It's worth pointing out that Google has roughly the same requirements in their Google Play content requirements( http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html ), as do Apple and Amazon. Google's ratings requirements are potentially even more stringent, especially because they're in plain English.
  - bad_user 14y ago
    Just because everybody with similar platforms do it, doesn't make it right. And I do not agree about those statements being CYA - the worst thing you can get is an environment where the rules are selectively enforced, based on a decision-making process that will never be transparent. Oh so content-makers are complaining that Youtube steals their traffic? Clearly there's enough content on Youtube to justify a ban under any of those rules and Google is not exactly on Microsoft's list of favorites. Let's also remember the apps banned by Apple for being "offensive". Were they obnoxious, definitely, to some people at least. However that's censorship. And it's OK as long as controlled platforms are a minority, but when it becomes a monopolizing problem leaving consumers with no choices left, then it should really be against the law.
    - cube13 14y ago
      >However that's censorship. And it's OK as long as controlled platforms are a minority, but when it becomes a monopolizing problem leaving consumers with no choices left, then it should really be against the law. I have trouble accepting this argument. Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon are not preventing the production of that content. They're simply refusing to sell it, which is their prerogative. That's not censorship, at all. It's no different from any of the major big-box chains refusing to sell things because of content.

bo1024 14y ago

Sure, and if there aren't hundreds of millions to be made in some area, the rules for that area might not change. The point is that we should be very unexcited about the walled garden approach because it will exclude a lot of cool and fun and useful software. Even if they make an exception for high-grossing software, the whole idea is still a bad one.

potatolicious 14y ago
Indeed. The concern isn't for AAA-level games or multi-billion dollar software industries, they will find their way. The problem is: how many billion-dollar markets are we nipping in the bud because we operate strictly in a walled garden?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  That depends on how high the walls are, and the argument could be made they're not very high at all. A minor entry fee, hardware (don't count this highly, someone wanting to develop for platform x likely already has platform x), and an approvals process that blocks mostly porn and malware (plus a few more edge cases).
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "(plus a few more edge cases)" That's my argument - "a few" edge cases aren't actually that few, and these are edge cases with the potential to grow into hugely productive industries. Under the current scheme, DOOM would never have been released, and the multi-billion dollar action/shooter games industry would be dead on arrival. Applying the same standards to textual content, sites like Reddit and Digg would never have been approved (in fact Reddit apps on the App Store are rated 18+, a rating strictly disallowed in MS's scheme), and we would never have seen the explosion of link aggregation. These few edge cases aren't that few, and they aren't that edge casey.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    What's wrong with porn? I know there will be plenty available through the browser anyway but it seems odd for an OS vendor to be in a position to take a puritan stance. The problem with not allowing for 'edge cases' is that a lot of popular software probably started as a weird 'edge case'.

mark-r 14y ago

One of the points in the article is that Microsoft can't predict the future, and might miss a hundred-million dollar opportunity because they don't recognize it. Today there's nothing to stop someone from exploiting that opportunity regardless of Microsoft's blindness, but that won't be true in the future.