5 ms·

Because, just like Mac users, Linux* users and users everywhere which has a full rich user-interface, not a minimal mobile interface, they like to be able to ge

by trezor 17y ago

Because, just like Mac users, Linux* users and users everywhere which has a full rich user-interface, not a minimal mobile interface, they like to be able to get applications from any source, not just one central location. While the Apple AppStore no doubt is successful, Apple has most definitely proven just how bad that idea works out in practice, and how trying to control it effectively leads to inconsistent censorship leading developers to either hold back on ideas or spend programming effort which could have been spent making their applications better, to make sure it complies with the store-policies. I can just picture updates & security updates lagging behind 2 months because the application needs reapproval. No thanks. I'll just google, download a setup.exe and run the app thank you very much. Now you might argue "How would you know that this download is safe and properly QAed?". That could be a fair point. But given how badly Apple has handled the AppStore with its rather limited set of applications, imagine if Microsoft were all of a sudden tasked to deal with the entire back-catalog of Windows software out there. Do you honestly believe that could be reasonably QAed without Microsoft spending millions, millions and more millions in the process? And if they didn't people wouldn't bother using the store, since "I find all the software I need with google, and nothing with this AppStore thing". Microsoft is making a pretty good move doing nothing here. * Yes I know about package-management, repositories, etc etc. That still doesn't cut the need to custom compile applications from various non-official sources every now and then.

graemep 17y ago
Non-geek Linux users do not custom compile stuff. They do download packages or binaries with installers, or perhaps add a repo, but then, as you point out, an MS app store would not rule out downloading or purchasing elsewhere. I agree with your other points. It would also be very difficult to set up the deals with enough other vendors for it to be worthwhile. I can imagine many of them not being happy relying on a single channel. Also, the presence of software on CDs in shops is good marketing for MS - a major objection to MacOS and Linux is "I cannot buy software for it in the shops around here". If they excluded open source, it would reduce what is available. If they include it, they would give a message that they do not want to about free (in both senses) software.

by trezor 17y ago

graemep 17y ago

Non-geek Linux users do not custom compile stuff. They do download packages or binaries with installers, or perhaps add a repo, but then, as you point out, an MS app store would not rule out downloading or purchasing elsewhere. I agree with your other points. It would also be very difficult to set up the deals with enough other vendors for it to be worthwhile. I can imagine many of them not being happy relying on a single channel. Also, the presence of software on CDs in shops is good marketing for MS - a major objection to MacOS and Linux is "I cannot buy software for it in the shops around here". If they excluded open source, it would reduce what is available. If they include it, they would give a message that they do not want to about free (in both senses) software.