Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Bans VoIP, Rival Stores At Mobile Market

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the thou-shalt-have-no-other-app-stores-before-me dept.

Microsoft 151

narramissic writes "Microsoft has identified 12 application types that won't be accepted at the MarketPlace for Mobile store. Among them: VoIP apps, programs that are larger than 10MB, and programs that change the default browser on a device. Overly restrictive? Maybe. But perhaps the clear set of rules (PDF) will prevent confusion similar to what's been encountered over Apple's policy for approving or rejecting applications from the App Store."

cancel ×

151 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Excuse me (2, Insightful)

sam0vi (985269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844219)

Excuse me for saying this, but does anybody else think this is MADNESS!!?? They are not going very far with those restricitions. Follow the way of the Zune.

Re:Excuse me (4, Insightful)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844249)

I personally don't care, since you are not tied to this store to get applications for Windows Mobile. This is not Apple where you have to jailbreak the device to install software from anywhere.

Re:Excuse me (4, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844333)

The top 2 things in the prohibited list are "Applications that link to, incent users to download, or otherwise promote alternate
marketplaces" and "Applications that are or distribute alternate marketplaces".

This doesn't fill me with confidence about the future of alternatives to Microsoft's store, surely they must be envious of Apple's 30% cut of 1 billion app sales.

Re:Excuse me (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844569)

Why should the supplied market place advertise and enable rival services?

Re:Excuse me (2, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845407)

Wait a minute. What's a "supplied market place?" Before these goofy phones came along, I never heard of such a thing.

Re:Excuse me (4, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844589)

Anyone familiar with the PlaysForSure initiative should be extremely wary of purchasing anything for these devices without a way to guarantee that they'll work after Microsoft moves on to greener pastures.

Re:Excuse me (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844705)

Anyone with any understanding of DRM at all should be wary of any service that employs DRM that depends on a server (there is some distinction between server based schemes and something like DVD style protection, the latter being someone less likely to explode).

Of course, whether than means not using it at all or simply factoring it into the purchasing decision is going to be up to the individual. The short term payoff could well be significant enough that the DRM simply isn't relevant.

Re:Excuse me (2, Interesting)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844601)

Reading this I am starting to wonder how I managed to get software for my windows mobile devices all these years since I got an XDA in 2004.

Re:Excuse me (3, Interesting)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844605)

In their defense, this rule makes sense. In no company should one promote the activities of another rival company, this is natural. However it's another thing to Hitler things around, such as prohibiting VoIP. This is such a natural step in communication that it hurts to see that Microsoft kills innovation like this. I really admire the ignorance of those that support this store. This is no longer even about opinions, this is a plain fucking fact, do you want to pay your carrier for a service that you can get for free with another service you're already paying for? To me it's simple, get as far away from such a company as possible. They clearly have no interest in pleasing you, their interest lies in pleasing AT&T and Vodafone etc. That's where they get their income, by allowing other companies to fuck you over and then charge them for the service.

Re:Excuse me (3, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844699)

In their offense, this ruling doesn't make sense.

Apple apps don't run on Windows phones; hell, most of their own apps barely run on their phones. My Windows 5 Treo 700w is miserable.

It's true that banning VoIP makes friends with the carriers. A good alt.store some place will deliver those apps soon. Then things are out of the carrier's gouging control again, and so much the better.

Competition is cool. The Amazons of the world can actually make money from rivals, easily and handily.

Open a store, make it a cool and safe place to go, and clean up. Microsoft keeps hardware vendors in business by getting their OS and apps to run in lots of places on lots of hardware. Their UI, good or bad as it might be, is at least understood. They have a chance to be egalitarian, but instead, copy the mistakes of their rivals, instead of breaking new ground. Oh, wait.... that's what they always do-- or at least that's the perception.

Re:Excuse me (0, Flamebait)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845355)

It's true that banning VoIP makes friends with the carriers. A good alt.store some place will deliver those apps soon. Then things are out of the carrier's gouging control again, and so much the better.

So basically you're saying that it's ok for them to treat the consumers in this way because someone else won't? By that logic you can even justify murder. Don't glorify it, this is horrible. This is just as bad as McDonalds employees spitting in your food. That's exactly the way you should feel. I don't understand how people can be so easilly manipulated to accept these things. People wake the hell up, it's NOT ok for companies to shit all over your head, not even Microsoft. So don't even begin to justify it. Fucking hell, you have power, consumer force. Don't compromise, it's just self destructive and as always (not different from this case in any way) someone else will leech on YOU. If you continue supporting companies taking advantage you will always pick the shortest straw.

Re:Excuse me (2, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845541)

Uh, no.

Your analogies don't hold water at all. I think skype on a mobile phone is great. I want dialtone, not monopoly in the same way that I want a carrier/Internet connection of some kind. I'll buy the products and services from whom I wish, and not be captive to some joker MBA's idea of a monopoly. Choice counts.

Enslaving developers to draconian rules is not only boorish, but it's ultimately harmful to the business doing it-- and consumers get wise to the BS quickly, and go elsewhere.

Say you were the #4 mobile OS maker, and you wanted to get market opportunities. Would you enslave your developer community in this way? Or would you try and eat your competitor's lunch by outdoing them in quality, selection, variety, and freedom?

Re:Excuse me (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845695)

Microsoft is offering quality, selection, variety, and freedom.

At least, I'm pretty sure that the banned list wouldn't exclude "shake-a-baby" apps. That's quality, selection, variety, and freedom. Of a sort.

Re:Excuse me (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845725)

You will just throw anything out there to bash Microsoft.

I Hate you. You are going to make me defend Microsoft and for that you should be shot.

1 Its only like McDonald's employees spitting in your food if the sign on the wall say's "Attention all McDonald's food comes with spit." Then your dumb ass analogy would make sense. I wouldn't at that point be bitching at McDonald's but laughing at those paying for spit.

2 It is perfectly ok for a company to decide what they want to offer and what they don't. As long as Microsoft is not making it impossible for me to go somewhere else to get my apps I am perfectly ok with it. It is a dumb ass decision that will drive some of their profits to another company but I am ok with freedom and choice.

What is your real problem with this?

Re:Excuse me (2, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844911)

It really depends on what they see as their revenue stream.

One option is to try to lock all your customers in to your vertical stack, such that you spend all your money with them. This is known as the "bundle everything with your OS" tactic. Microsoft has had some success with this.

Another option is to enable partners to drive sales of your base product. That is, you provide the base product (say OS) and encourage others to provide value to your product by producing add-ons. This could be known as the "contract out your OS to some weenie startup who stole the code they're trying to sell you" model. Didn't work so well for IBM. Although IBM is doing better with it now - perhaps they vet their partners better.

I'm not really sure why MS would go the other road, especially since the first one works so well for them in the Windows space, and seems to be the way Apple is going... though the second way seems to be the way that Sony does their PlayStation which has traditionally worked well for them (until the Xbox came in and further divvied up the console market). What the second method really does is encourage others to sell your product. Maybe I'm naive in business (I'm just a drone at a big company, not an entrepreneur), but I'd probably want to go with the second method, if only to get people selling my stuff without having to pay them ;-)

Re:Excuse me (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844645)

I'm not real sure that a policy of not promoting other appstores puts them at a competitive disadvantage versus Apple, which simply refuses to support any other appstores.

Re:Excuse me (4, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844769)

That 1 billion is a misnomer.

Every time you download an update to an app, its considered a sale (and you get a $0 receipt for it).

I'm sure I've racked up hundreds of sales, but I've only bought maybe four programs.

Re:Excuse me (1)

cbackas (324088) | more than 5 years ago | (#27846341)

Really? I never get a receipt for app updates. I do get a $0 receipt for free apps I download for the first time, but never an update to one I have installed. Not sure if deleting it, then downloading an updated version "fresh" again would be different, I haven't tried.

But anyway, you're making a lot of assumptions about how they're counting downloads. How do you know they aren't filtering out re-downloads/updates, or even free apps from the count? I can't imagine it'd be hard to do.

I don't know that they are either, but unless they published their methodology somewhere it's all just conjecture.

Re:Excuse me (-1, Troll)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844345)

Who's to say the next WinMo version won't tie users in??

Re:Excuse me (1, Offtopic)

lucifig (255388) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844495)

Why is this insightful?

Who is to say that it will?

Who is to say that the next WinMo store won't send goblins in the night to steal your baby?

Lets try to judge the current situation by the current criteria set shall we? Hypothesizing on the future is fine as long as it has some basis. (I know, I know...here comes the party line of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish...)

Re:Excuse me (5, Insightful)

m50d (797211) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844499)

Who's to say the next IPhone won't stab users in the face with a fork?

Could we maybe wait until such restrictions are actually, you know, announced, before bashing MS for them?

Re:Excuse me (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844807)

Who's to say the next IPhone won't stab users in the face with a fork?

Doesn't it do that already? No wait that was locking in users to force them to use their approved products instead of anybody elses allowing them to completely control the market leaving the consumer helpless when it comes to anything else than what Apple considers "in the line of their business". Well in all fairness I'd take a fork in the face any day over that.

Re:Excuse me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844821)

I'd totally buy that one. Would make a great present too.

Re:Excuse me (2, Funny)

hoooocheymomma (1020927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844825)

I'm already on the iFork mailing list for pre-order updates!

Re:Excuse me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844991)

It this the iPhone killer app that we've all been waiting for...

Re:Excuse me (3, Funny)

funkatron (912521) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844841)

If it did I'd be impressed. Facial recognition, depth perception and accurate robot arm control on a handheld device would be a major technical achievement.

Re:Excuse me (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845043)

Ah, that would be the [SA]HatfulOfHollow Edition.

Re:Excuse me (4, Funny)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845145)

Who's to say the next IPhone won't stab users in the face with a fork?

And when it does, you can bet that it will be touted as an advantage :)

"It doesn't matter that other phones stabbed users in the face with a fork, Apple were the first ones to integrate the fork properly with your face".

And when the next version after that removes the fork-stabbing, there'll be media hype and praise [slashdot.org] about that too.

Re:Excuse me (0, Offtopic)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845563)

Who's to say the next IPhone won't stab users in the face with a fork?

Should have RTFM [xkcd.com] .

Re:Excuse me (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844603)

(Score:2, Troll)

Awesome.

Re:Excuse me (1)

Markwiki (1548047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27846129)

I don't care either.

Re:Excuse me (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844279)

The killer is they won't accept VoIP apps. Any attempt at control creates a pressure for change away from that control. The market will simply move past Microsoft.

Re:Excuse me (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844313)

Um, the restrictions are basically nothing. The ones Apple use are far more restrictive (e.g. arbitrarily remove an app just because it costs $1000 and does nothing but show a picture of a red ruby).

I can foresee this list spiralling.

Re:Excuse me (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844401)

Madness???!?!?!

THIS

IS

REDMOND!

Re:Excuse me (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844447)

Only the restriction on replacing the SMS/MMS interface seems braindamaged to me. You can likely already configure a winmo phone to send those messages via TCP. If I had unlimited internet on my cellphone (RAZR V3i) I could do this, and send SMS and MMS for free. (I don't...)

Re:Excuse me (2, Insightful)

tb3 (313150) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844491)

Exactly. I can't see anything in there that would stop porn, or the baby-shaking app, or anything else that could be controversial or offensive. The first time someone tries to submit an app like that, Microsoft is going to have to accept it, and deal with the PR firestorm, or reject it, and deal with the PR firestorm. :-P

Re:Excuse me (2, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844587)

This is a list of application types that will be rejected. I think it's safe to assume there will also be a list of application content that will be rejected, which will cover the sort of things you mention.

So? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844255)

We're up in arms because they don't want you using other companies products on their stuff?

This seems like a fairly normal corporate model: why give other companies a chance to wow your consumer base?

Meanwhile, Apple's latest evil is barring Trent Reznor from using his music in an app when they sell the uncensored version of his music on itunes. I think Apple is winning the 'my store is more evil' award for now.

Re:So? (1, Flamebait)

ShanxT (1280784) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844477)

They get fined for bundling their software with their own software, but it's ok for them to simply not allow other company's software on their stuff? Isn't this the same as Microsoft not allowing Firefox on Windows?

Re:So? (4, Informative)

kingturkey (930819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844621)

No - a more accurate analogy would be Microsoft not allowing Firefox links on microsoft.com.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844665)

no?

You already purchased Windows, one way or another (unless you're a pirate - ARRR!!!!!), so you can put whatever the heck you want on there.

The Windows Marketplace is a -store-. You don't own it. Why exactly should they have to -sell- (or offer) another company's software - especially if it's competing software?

Don't like it? Go to Handango.com or pocketgear.com or any of dozens of other stores.

Microsoft isn't stopping anybody from installing competing 'market place'-type software; they just don't want to offer/sell it through their own market place. Sounds normal to me.

Re:So? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845271)

They get fined for bundling their software with their own software, but it's ok for them to simply not allow other company's software on their stuff? Isn't this the same as Microsoft not allowing Firefox on Windows?

You can simply go to othercompany.com and download the setup .exe/.cab and install it. Unlike the iPhone on which you have to jailbreak it to do that. So 'not allow' just means it won't be sold from their online store.

!Overly restrictive (3, Informative)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844287)

The no VoIP will have been imposed by phone companies who don't want their customers making cheap calls. These restrictions don't seem excessive to me, merely the result of enforcing software standards (from TFA) and the usual price fixing from mobile phone companies.

Anyway, can't you just install unofficial apps (not from the store) if you want to bypass these restrictions? Any sort of software protection preventing this will likely be broken in short order...

Cellular telephony pricing... (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844883)

These restrictions don't seem excessive to me, merely the [...] usual price fixing

Price fixing. Not excessive. Right...

I'm shocked by the mobile telephony prices in the US: $0.25 per text message. What The Fuck??

I get 50 messages for free every month (and 50 minutes of calls) for a monthly fee of nothing, and $0.032 per text after the first 50.

That's in the socialist haven that is Denmark, where income is most evenly distributed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#cite_note-0 -- UN Gini, second most equal by CIA Gini, more equal than the US by every metric).

Re:Cellular telephony pricing... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27845795)

I don't see what citizen income equality has to do with the cost of SMS. Europe is a very competitive mobile market, so prices go down as a natural consequence. The US has quasi-monopolistic companies who can afford to tax whatever they want. As long as the customers are paying, it works.

Re:!Overly restrictive (1)

exhilaration (587191) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845095)

Any sort of software protection preventing this will likely be broken in short order...

True. My buddy installed a program on his jailbroken iPhone that tells the Skype app that it's connecting via wi-fi when it's actually connecting via 3G. He lowered his monthly plan down to the minimum number of minutes, saving $30, and is now using Skype for all his calls.

Re:!Overly restrictive (3, Insightful)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845515)

What do you mean unofficial.. there is no such thing in the WinMo world. Anyone can create and distribute apps for WinMo devices, in any way they please.

The only thing that the Windows Market place is allowing for is the ability for developers to create applications that can be sold through a 1 stop shopping space directly on the phone.

there is nothing stopping users from buying apps from developer websites, handango, or whatever other distribution method is out there, and installing via activesync. These are still official applications.

As for the VOIP thing, well thats to appease the carriers. And no, MS does not have to allow applications that will point to competing market place applications. Thats like Walmart selling you a coupon that points to best buy to buy a piece of software...

I read the rules a few days ago, I do not see anything wrong with them. As someone else pointed out, if you don't like those rules, go elsewhere, thats the advantage of WinMo, unlike Apple where you have to jailbreak if you want to do anything fun

disclaimer, I have an iphone.. but I also have half a dozen winmo phones too.

Re:!Overly restrictive (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#27846191)

there is nothing stopping users from buying apps from developer websites, handango, or whatever other distribution method is out there, and installing via activesync. These are still official applications.

Except, the ability to install applications on Windows Mobile is dependent on the carrier. Most carriers ship the phone "unlocked" (can run unsigned binaries), but there's always the option to "lock" the phone (only allow signed binaries to run, from a specific list of signers)

Re:!Overly restrictive (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#27846563)

The no VoIP will have been imposed by phone companies who don't want their customers making cheap calls.

God forbid we should let the market decide! The phone companies have spent a lot of time chaining their customers to the floor, we can't just let them buy hacksaws, now can we?

Funny (0)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844307)

I thought MS was trying to WIN marketshare in mobile devices back from Apple, and this is how they do it??? Someone needs to throw a chair at Ballmer and tell him MS is the UNDERDOG in this market and Apple/Symbian are far, far ahead.

Re:Funny (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844347)

This isn't about devices, this is about an App Store. If I understand correctly, you can install whatever you want on MS devices, you just can't get everything from the app store. From Apple, you can't install anything on the device you purchase from them without their permission.

Re:Funny (2, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844357)

And RIM is ahead of them. I read just yesterday that RIM overtook Apple in marketshare of mobile devices. Not that any of us ever doubted Linux would one day surpass MS and Apple.

Google to the rescue! (2, Funny)

ShanxT (1280784) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844323)

*chants* Android! Android! Android! Their motto is "Do No Evil", and I'm very gullible!

Re:Google to the rescue! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844683)

I'm very gullible!

So you also voted for Obama?

Baby Shake Porn Edition OKAY by these guidelines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844377)

Yes - I can finally release Baby Shake Porn Edition! Thank goodness Microsoft didn't repeat Apple's error by releasing this thorough, definitive set of guidelines.

dialers (4, Interesting)

iocat (572367) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844431)

Sadly one of the banned apps is the only thing that would make me return to WM -- an alternate dialer. The default dialer app uses about 50% of the screen real-estate for the virtual buttons, pretty much necessitating the use of a stylus to dial. Apple uses almost 100% of the screen, making dialing with your finger on glass much more reliable. Of course, the BlackBerry uses actual buttons, so that's what I have.

Re:dialers (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844541)

I think it might be allowed, the wording isn't all that clear about it (so much for the question of clarity!). It prohibits apps that "replace, remove or modify the default dialer". Does this include alternate dialers that peacefully coexist with the default one? That depends how you interpret the word 'replace'.

Re:dialers (1)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844697)

That was my interpretation as well. An app can duplicate functionality (alternate dialers, browsers, etc.) but not overwrite the existing MS-provided apps or, in the install process, make itself the default behavior for certain actions.

Re:dialers (3, Insightful)

kyuubi42 (1424889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844549)

But the beauty of windows mobile is that you do not have to go through an app store, installing apps on your own does not void the warrenty.

This is just guidelines for what MS will allow in the store, and it makes sense that they would not like to advertise competing products.

Re:dialers (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844599)

There are other dialer apps you can install. You don't need the App Store for that.

And there are WinMo phones with actual buttons.

Re:dialers (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844619)

Why not just get a WM phone with buttons?

Re:dialers (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845239)

Besides repeating that no one NEEDS to use the WinMo app store, unlike the iPhone, I'll add that you might want to look into two apps, either Inesoft Phone Extensions or SPB Mobile Shell 3.00. Both of these have dialer improvements (to say the least) and offer the ability to customize the replacements to an extent.

I'm not a shill for either company, but I can say I am using both of them and am quite happy with the options and differences they make. Not quite turning my Samsung i760 an iPhone replacement but getting damn close.

VOIP is NOT banned (4, Informative)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844459)

Ignore the sensationalist headline, Microsoft's VOIP policy is actually the same as Apple's. VOIP is prohibited when it's over the mobile carrier's network, but it's allowed if it's not going over the mobile network.

This means the an app that only connects over wifi, like Skype for the iPhone, would be fine.

Re:VOIP is NOT banned (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844895)

Skype for Windows Mobile works fine over UMTS.

Re:VOIP is NOT banned (1)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844917)

Or you know...you could just go install Skype yourself.

Resistance is Futile... (2, Interesting)

BroadbandBradley (237267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844473)

Windows® Marketplace for Mobile
Prohibited Application Types:
        1. Applications that are or distribute alternate marketplaces for content types (applications,
                games, themes etc.) that are sold or otherwise distributed through Windows® Marketplace for
                Mobile.
        2. Applications that link to, incent users to download, or otherwise promote alternate
                marketplaces for content types that are sold or otherwise distributed through Windows
                Marketplace for Mobile.
        3. Applications that promote or link users to a website, or contain functionality within the
                application itself, which encourages or requires the user to purchase or pay to upgrade the
                application outside of Windows® Marketplace for Mobile.
        4. Applications that enable VoIP (Voice over IP) services over a mobile operator network.
        5. Applications that sell, link to, or otherwise promote mobile voice plans.
        6. Applications that display advertising that does not meet the Microsoft Advertising Creative
                Acceptance Policy Guide http://advertising.microsoft.com/creative-specs.
        7. Applications that replace, remove or modify the default dialer, SMS, or MMS interface.
        8. Applications that change the default browser, search client, or media player on the device.
        9. Applications with an OTA (over the air) download >10 MB.
        10. Applications that run code outside Microsoft runtimes (native, managed, and widgets)
        11. Applications that publish a userâ(TM)s location information to any other person without first having
                received the userâ(TM)s express permission (opt-in) to do so, and that do not provide the user a
                means of opting out of having their location information published.
        12. Applications that publish a userâ(TM)s data from their mobile device to any other person without first
                having received the userâ(TM)s express permission (opt-in) to do so, and that do not provide the user
                a means of opting out of having their data published. A âoeuserâ(TM)s dataâ includes, without limit,
                contacts, photos, SMS or other text communication, browsing history, location information, and
                other data either stored on the mobile device or stored in the âoecloudâ but accessible from the
                mobile device
Microsoft reserves the right to update these policies as needed to protect the Windows® Marketplace
for Mobile service or the users of the service

Re:Resistance is Futile... (3, Insightful)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844611)

Windows® Marketplace for Mobile
Prohibited Application Types:
1. Applications that... etc

Basically 'You can't sell stuff in our store which directly competes with the stuff we sell in our store?'

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable policy for a store owner to have.

That only becomes a problem when you have a monopoly. In this case, Microsoft don't. They don't across Platforms because of Apple, Palm, Android, and they don't within their own platform, because you can go elsewhere for apps (unlike with Apple!)

Re:Resistance is Futile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844739)

Windows Marketplace for Mobile Prohibited Application Types:
...8. Applications that change the default browser, search client, or media player on the device.

Ow.

They'll stick IE in whatever it takes.

Re:Resistance is Futile... (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845979)

8. Applications that change the default browser...

They'll stick IE in whatever it takes.

Wouldn't this restriction prohibit IE8?

Resistance is Futile? (3, Insightful)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844793)

Really?
1-3 make good business sense
4,5,7,9 are probably rules pushed by the provider
7,8,10 protect tech support
11,12 are to protect the consumer
6 is probably just a loophole to make sure they can get around any creative ideas that would have been intended to fall under 1-3 but might not be covered.

Of course if you are unhappy with these rules maybe you could return to the open and free policies of buying apps for your iPhone...

Re:Resistance is Futile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844861)

Wouldn't #10 disallow anything that is scriptable?

Re:Resistance is Futile? (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845317)

I would suspect that as long as your script host is native, managed, or a widget then scripting would be fine. It looks like they are keeping people from selling any code that might access privileged instructions that they didn't properly secure. But I don't work for Microsoft so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Re:Resistance is Futile... (1)

noahwh (1545231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845645)

I think I found their inspiration for the first few:

1. I am the Lord your God
2. You shall have no other gods before me
3. You shall not make for yourself an idol. . . You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God.

Re:Resistance is Futile... (1)

tcdk (173945) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845675)

7. Applications that replace, remove or modify the default dialer, SMS, or MMS interface.

8. Applications that change the default browser, search client, or media player on the device.

In other words: anything that makes our crappy OS suck less...

It's kind of strange that they think this is okay, but they haven't added "email client" to one the above lists. Maybe they just forgot it or they know, that mobile outlook is so crappy that it would be useless...

Re:Resistance is Futile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27846483)

Well, there seems to be quite some trolling here, or people can just not read.

1. Applications that are or distribute alternate marketplaces for content types (applications, games, themes etc.) that are sold or otherwise distributed through Windows Marketplace for Mobile.
2. Applications that link to, incent users to download, or otherwise promote alternate marketplaces for content types that are sold or otherwise distributed through Windows Marketplace for Mobile.
3. Applications that promote or link users to a website, or contain functionality within the application itself, which encourages or requires the user to purchase or pay to upgrade the application outside of Windows Marketplace for Mobile.

They want to protect their business.

4. Applications that enable VoIP (Voice over IP) services over a mobile operator network.
5. Applications that sell, link to, or otherwise promote mobile voice plans.

This is probably in order to please the greedy telcos. You can always install such software from another source, unlike with the iPhone.

6. Applications that display advertising that does not meet the Microsoft Advertising Creative Acceptance Policy Guide http://advertising.microsoft.com/creative-specs.

Makes sense.

7. Applications that replace, remove or modify the default dialer, SMS, or MMS interface.

Note the "replace", "remove", and "modify". Is says nothing about providing an alternate dailer, SMS, or MMS interface. It just prevents crapware from installing itself as the default. It does not prevent the user from changing the default dailer, SMS, or MMS interface.

8. Applications that change the default browser, search client, or media player on the device.

See above. This mostly targets crapware changing the user's default search page.

9. Applications with an OTA (over the air) download >10 MB.

Makes sense for mobile apps.

10. Applications that run code outside Microsoft runtimes (native, managed, and widgets)

It can be assumed that code running outside of these runtimes performs some hacks that it should not be doing. This mostly applies to root kits and alternate operating systems.

11. Applications that publish a user's location information to any other person without first having received the user's express permission (opt-in) to do so, and that do not provide the user a means of opting out of having their location information published.
12. Applications that publish a user's data from their mobile device to any other person without first having received the user's express permission (opt-in) to do so, and that do not provide the user a means of opting out of having their data published. A user's data includes, without limit, contacts, photos, SMS or other text communication, browsing history, location information, and other data either stored on the mobile device or stored in the Ãoecloudà but accessible from the mobile device.

Makes sense. Only really applies to spy ware.

Fight Club Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844505)

First rule of Marketplace: Don't write another marketplace.

Second rule of Marketplace: Don't write another app to connect to another marketplace!

Third rule of Marketplace: Only 1 VOIP app at a time (Ours)!

MS sells out (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844685)

Man, who would have thought the once-cool MS would one day become as heavy-handed as Apple!

Re:MS sells out (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845295)

Huh... You can still go to randomwebsite.com and install software they provide... just try that with an iPhone without jailbreaking it...

Windows Mobile? (0, Troll)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844687)

Windows Mobile is such a failed piece of software, I can't see how this even matters. Nobody would use a WM6 device unless it is provided for them by their employer. My WM phone gets a 1-second lag between pressing a button and having anything change on the display. It also has to be hard reset every other day or the web browser stops working. How the HELL did that ever make it past QA?

Re:Windows Mobile? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27844859)

These issues are caused by the poor configuration and bloatware installed by the carriers, not Windows Mobile. Once I corrected my phone and ditched some of the crap installed by AT&T, my phone became a stable, feature rich, fast thing of beauty. Check out xda-developers.com for guidance.

Re:Windows Mobile? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845969)

Interesting. My device is from AT&T. So you're saying AT&T badly broke WM6 phones and never tried to update/fix the problem? That's horrible. I'll look at XDA forum--hopefully there's a way I can strip out AT&T's malware without having to become a mobile phone expert in the process.

Re:Windows Mobile? (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844975)

I use Windows Mobile devices since 2004 and I love them - they are very versatile. Never had the problems you mentioned so maybe your device is broken or you have installed a lot of crappy software on it.

Re:Windows Mobile? (1)

Palmateer (1533975) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845149)

I have my WMPro 6.1 HTC Touch fairly highly customised with a different start menu, browser, dialer, Cisco VPN, MS Office Communicator, etc. I do find that it is a bit sluggish and yes, every few days I need to soft-reset it (there are some apps which will force this if they are left running in the background like TCPMP). On the whole I love it as it can do practically ANYTHING I can imagine a tiny computer could do. I can access my office computer desktop, online streaming multimedia, read almost any book, play games. My wife has the identical device without almost no customisations and I think it's been soft-reset maybe twice in six months. And we got these for $0 when we renewed our cell contract (unlimited internet usage) for three years. It's not perfect, but it suits me very well.

Re:Windows Mobile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27845159)

I'm sorry that you weren't intelligent enough to fix the bloatware problem. Many of us do custom ROMs that run very fast with a much smaller footprint.

My Tilt (flashed as a custom Tytn II) will blow away ANY iphone.

Re:Windows Mobile? (2, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27846005)

Yes, the fact that you spent the time to figure out how to do custom ROMs for phones clearly indicates that you are more intelligent than the other 99.999% of the human population. We are all very impressed.

Re:Windows Mobile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27845661)

My iPhone has the same issues!

Not interested (1)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 5 years ago | (#27844951)

Apple's policy may be messy, but for me the important difference is that MS doesn't seem to be interested in individual developers (see faq [windowsmobile.com] . As a result, I (currently iPhone developer) do not care for them either.

Hey, you insenstitive clods! I develop a... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845051)

... game with VoIP, that needs 15 MB and has its own in-game browser. How will I sell this thing now! *waaaaahh*

I even had a cool name for it: eMacs mobile

No Apps above 10MB means no dictionaries (1)

TedTodorov (121485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845065)

Dictionaries are a whole excellent App category that exists on the iPhone, and can be supremely useful when traveling. Microsoft is eliminating them for no discernible reason. Yeah, the MS App store is going to be a HUGE success. Good luck with that.

Not really a 10MB limit though (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845817)

Just like the VOIP thing, the 10MB limit seems only to apply for "OTA apps".

To me that's a weird restriction though as it should be enforced in the store what users can or cannot download over the carrier network, but instead it seems like possibly you are required to tell them which mechanism your app allows.

If you read the actual bans... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845219)

It's only for VOIP apps that work off a mobile network. So Skype can still be on Marketplace, just not allowed to work over a cellular network, only Wifi.

It's not much different than what Apple has allowed. Except they are idiots because of banning the NIN App.

FOX News Headline (1)

bickle (101226) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845275)

Here's a headline worthy of FOX News. An impartial headline would be something like "Microsoft sets WinMo App Store Acceptibility Guidlines". But when run through the Slashdot yellow journalism filter it becomes "Microsoft Bans VoIP, Rival Stores At Mobile Market". Classy.

Phone app "markets" (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845293)

Can you imagine what it would be like, if there was one central store for your personal computer software?

The situation with the phones (Apple's, Google's, Microsoft's) is totally absurd.

And yet, people are talking about the restrictions on the software in "market," rather than the existence of these "markets" and the railroading of so many users into them.

User, you've got TCP/IP. The world should be your market.

Re:Phone app "markets" (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845555)

You do know that only one of the companies you have listed actually restricts people to their marketplace, and that it's trivially easy to find applications for the other two somewhere else?

12 more reasons (2, Interesting)

Tragedy4u (690579) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845305)

To not get a Windows Mobile device

Microsoft hates competition (1)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 5 years ago | (#27845393)

Why is this news?

Hmm.... (1)

purpleraison (1042004) | more than 5 years ago | (#27846055)

Microsoft has a mobile app store?

10 Meg ought to be enough for everybody... (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 5 years ago | (#27846257)

Mod +1 Meme

This is not really a big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27846561)

These apps that are not allowed on there store can still be run with out "Jail Breaking" the phone.

Windows Mobile is an open platform

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?