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!

Leaked MS Presentation Shows App Store Plans For Windows 8

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the hopping-on-the-bandwagon dept.

Microsoft 339

FrankNFurter sends word of an internal Microsoft presentation leaked online today that contains details about Windows 8. The slides mention support for 3-D displays, connectivity upgrades, rapid startup times, and an integrated application store. Quoting Neowin: "Consumers will be able to search on the web or locally on a Windows 8 machine to access applications from the store. Microsoft also details plans for application developers to help reach millions of users. One of the goals is to ensure licensing and monetization for developers is flexible with a transparent on-boarding process. It's clear that the 'Windows Store' will be a software service Microsoft provides and hosts fully in the cloud. The company will likely build the distribution model on Windows Azure to lure application developers."

cancel ×

339 comments

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

Just hilarious (3, Funny)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721262)

Everyone is up-in-arms over the bizarre prediction [slashdot.org] by some third-party developers [arstechnica.com] that Apple will move to an app-store model on OSX (and all the haters pre-condemn them for this "fact" despite Jobs refuting it [macstories.net] ), and then it's Microsoft that comes out and proposes to do it.

Question: Since Apple was labelled "the new Microsoft" due to its supposed policies, does this make Microsoft - um - the new Microsoft, again ? [grin]

Simon

Re:Just hilarious (3, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721306)

It's worse with Microsoft.

They have a monopoly on the Operating System market. This will give them a defacto stranglehold on the entire Windows software market.

"Gee Mr Coder, you appear to have a Linux version.... we don't like these kinds of apps in our store."

"Gee Mr Coder, this appears to be an office suite.. we don't like competitors in our store."

Re:Just hilarious (5, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721372)

"Gee Mr Coder, you appear to have a Linux version.... we don't like these kinds of apps in our store."

"Gee Mr Coder, this appears to be an office suite.. we don't like competitors in our store."

Isn't that the EXACT same thing Apple is doing with their App Store?

Re:Just hilarious (5, Funny)

seanonymous (964897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721432)

Yes, but Apple's products are shiny.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721940)

And they go to 11!

Re:Just hilarious (2, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721464)

The Apple app store is limited to the i-devices. The parent to your post specifically mentioned "the entire Windows software market".

Re:Just hilarious (2, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721514)

Isn't that the EXACT same thing Apple is doing with their App Store?

Yes, except for the bit you left out of your copy'n'paste. Apple don't have a monopoly or even near monopoly of the smartphone OS market.

Re:Just hilarious (-1, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721520)

Props to you and the other retards modding you insightful.

Re:Just hilarious (3, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721898)

Props to you and the other retards modding you insightful.

Hmm, you got the same mod apparently for insulting GP and the mods. Didn't even explain why you thought GP was wrong. That does indeed indicate something is wrong with the mods today, buncha stupid-head dummies that they are.

Re:Just hilarious (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721986)

Yeah, props to him being right, fuckhead.

Re:Just hilarious (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721554)

Queue "but Apple doesn't have a monopoly". I have an endearing term I use for these people: Johnny Trust Busters.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721676)

Queue "but Apple doesn't have a monopoly"...

Heh. Gee, I wonder why this would happen. In one thread: "Anti-trust!" And in the next: "Apple only has 3% marketshare!"

Re:Just hilarious (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722022)

Wow, Apple only has 3% of the smartphone app market? You'll have to alert them (and the rest of...reality) to that "fact" ;).

Re:Just hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721938)

Queue "but Apple doesn't have a monopoly". I have an endearing term I use for these people: Johnny Trust Busters.

Well, okay, we'll queue it up, but you just said it already. Isn't that sort of queue-jumping? Seems a touch rude to me. Maybe we should CUE the queue police to do something about it.

You illiterate buffoon.

Re:Just hilarious (0, Flamebait)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722082)

You're an idiot.

Queue, as in prepare the line of idiots tripping over each other to claim that Apple somehow has different rules because they're "not a monopoly", when by this loose definition they certainly are in the smartphone app market.

Queue, also, grammar correcting idiots who don't know how easy it is to wriggle out of your asinine pedantry.

Re:Just hilarious (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721618)

Isn't that the EXACT same thing Apple is doing with their App Store?

No. Apple does not refuse to carry apps from developers that have versions for other platforms. And even if they did, it would still be different because Apple is only one player in a competitive market. Don't like Apple's methods, but a Blackberry or an Android and you can still have a huge selection of apps. Apple doing this would be like Dell or Toshiba doing it. If you can't grasp the difference between a monopolist leveraging their monopoly into another market versus a non-monopolist bundling products, well you haven't been paying attention here or you willfully refuse to understand.

All that said, it's pure speculation that MS would make such draconian restrictions upon their application store.

Re:Just hilarious (3, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721630)

Same thing, entirely different circumstances. Monopoly is not illegal, ABUSE of monopoly is. Appstore = 100% of iApp market, but not anywhere near a monopoly level of the smartphone app market as a whole. Microsoft censoring competing products in its store = abuse of monopoly, Apple censoring competing products in its store= fair market practice.

Re:Just hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721402)

If Microsoft tried to pull something like that, they'd just be asking for another DOJ investigation. I'm pretty sure they don't want that again.

Re:Just hilarious (2, Insightful)

ILikeRed (141848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721460)

Why not, it worked out pretty well for them last time, and now they will be better prepared.

Easy for MS to do this without much risk (3, Insightful)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721966)

The app store concept is not evil unless traditional distribution is eliminated.

I think it would be very easy for MS to have its cake and eat it too. MS does not need to lock out alternatives because others will do it for them!

MS could make the app store a new choice that expands the distribution of software. Unlike Apple's "i" products, this time the app store would be in addition to traditional distribution, not a replacement. Of course, the apps in the store have undergone some review from a virus/spyware/malware point of view, whereas traditional distribution is what it is. With the app store's new level of safety, users in general (and corporate users in particular) would quickly self-mandate the exclusive use of the app store. Corporate IT would hop on the bandwagon in 5 seconds if it had everything they needed. MS would market this as their best solution to the virus/spyware/malware problem "and of course, it's completely voluntary."

Using a convenient control panel setting, the users (or their helpful sysadmins) could make a unilateral decision to restrict installation of software to the app store. For MS, it's a win across the board: No DOJ investigation, more open than Apple, and for once MS has a way to do something useful about unstable and rogue programs that seem to slip past Windows' limited defenses.

Re:Just hilarious (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721404)

On the upside, it's not really different than what Ubuntu does with software repositories... except that they'll presumably be charging for it. And it would be one way for an administrator to allow people to download software while being reasonably assured they're not going to install malware by accident. I would hope.

As long as Microsoft doesn't block installs from outside the store, I don't see a problem.

Re:Just hilarious (2, Interesting)

FrYGuY101 (770432) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721530)

And it would be one way for an administrator to allow people to download software while being reasonably assured they're not going to install malware by accident. I would hope.

Check out AppLocker.

It allows you to vet certain programs and allow them to be installed, including updates and future versions, without granting the user account full rights to install.

Or you can publish MSIs to the network and allow your users to install programs from the "Add Programs" menu.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721704)

On the upside, it's not really different than what Ubuntu does with software repositories... except that they'll presumably be charging for it.

Ubuntu is moving to the same model anyway, with the next version of the package manager supposedly incorporating a commercial app store.

As long as Microsoft doesn't block installs from outside the store, I don't see a problem.

Technically, to be in compliance with the law, MS would have to play on even ground and offer their store as separate download while at the same time publishing the APIs so other apps stores can have the same access to the OS as MS's store. If it comes pre-bundled most people will end up using it and most developers will have to target it, regardless of the quality of the software therein, the accuracy of the reviews, the level of vetting etc. This could (and probably will) lead to an inferior user experience compared to several competing stores all of which are on a level playing field. But hey, MS is long past worrying about casual antitrust abuses.

Re:Just hilarious (0, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721920)

As long as Microsoft doesn't block installs from outside the store

Microsoft doesn't yet block what Android OS calls "unknown sources" on Windows, but it does on Xbox 360 and Windows Phone 7. To install and run something you wrote costs $99 per device per year.

Re:Just hilarious (1, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721528)

They have a monopoly on the Operating System market.

No, they don't, unless you use the new age hippie definition of "monopoly".

Back in my day, a monopoly was supply side defined. For example, I could only buy my oil from Standard Oil, or my steel from US Steel. Shit, if we had Free Oil and Free Steel I think we'd have probably stopped labeling them "monopolies" and maybe called them "guys who sell stuff I can get for free".

You do know you can get a _free_ operating system to run on your computer right? Or you can buy e.g. Apple computers, or computers with all variety of free operating systems.

I know, I know... but..but...but... That's why I have hereby labeled this new kind of demand-created monopoly a "sissy's monopoly".

Re:Just hilarious (5, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721722)

Congrats- you've just proven that you have no idea what you're talking about. The term "monopoly" has an actual definition in economics, and it has nothing to do with control of supply (although that's sufficient to be a monopoly, it's not necessary to be one). A monopoly is any actor with monopoly power- the ability to set the price of a good, rather than having the market do so. If an actor has this power he can set the price above the equilibrium price, decreasing the quantity bought but increasing his own total profits. This creates a market inefficiency called "deadweight loss" as well as reducing consumer surplus in favor of producer surplus, neither of which are good for the economy as a whole.

Microsoft most definitely has a monopoly under that condition- they can set a price higher than equilibrium because there is no true replacement good. That makes them a monopoly.

Re:Just hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721844)

You're an idiot. In the absence of a 'true replacement good' that price is the equilibrium price.

Re:Just hilarious (-1, Troll)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721968)

Idiocy. Microsoft has no pricing power, some of the alternatives are free.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721972)

Who gets to decide what level of abstraction you take when defining a "good" though? Doesn't Apple have a monopoly on their own products, like iPhones?

So what does Microsoft have a price-setting monopoly on? Windows? Yes, that's their product...

Desktop computers? No, not really, you can get non-Windows-based desktop computers. Sure, not from every retailer, but that wasn't part of the definition.

Certainly not laptops....

So what "good" is it that MS has a monopoly over that isn't simply "huge market share"?

Re:Just hilarious (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722030)

Microsoft most definitely has a monopoly under that condition- they can set a price higher than equilibrium because there is no true replacement good. That makes them a monopoly.

Except that there are better free alternatives. It's like if there was only one big company selling bottled water for $500 a bottle. Sure, they control the whole "overpriced water" market, but it doesn't matter because you can still go out and by your own water bottle for $5 and then fill it up as many times as you want for free (or nearly free). Oh wait, that was supposed to be a car analogy wasn't it? :(

Re:Just hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32722084)

Except there IS a true replacement good - pirated Windows - which is why MS has always said their biggest competitor is pirated Windows. If they set the price too high above equilibrium, people will turn to piracy in even greater numbers. This forces MS to keep prices reasonable, which IMO, they are. $150 for an OS amortized over 4-6 years of useful life is just $35/year. Considering I can and do easily spend that on a single night out, an oil change, or just to fill up my tank with gas, that's not a while lot of money.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Re:Just hilarious (0, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721902)

You do know you can get a _free_ operating system to run on your computer right?

I can get a free operating system to run on a computer, but not necessarily my computer. I have had Linux distributions fail to recognize various pieces of hardware in several PCs on which I have tried them.

Re:Just hilarious (0, Troll)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721994)

Yeah, and that never happens with Windows, amirite? Oh...wait.

Re:Just hilarious (4, Informative)

Admodieus (918728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721590)

The difference here is that you can still install applications from outside the app store on Windows (and Android for that matter), where on iOS you can't. That's why everyone was worried about the next version of OS X moving to a more iOS-focused paradigm; Apple has final cut on everything.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721982)

I think the term "monopoly" is no longer applicable. There are plenty of OS choices today. Doesn't Apple make an OS?

Re:Just hilarious (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721320)

Everyone is up-in-arms over the bizarre prediction [slashdot.org] by some third-party developers [arstechnica.com] that Apple will move to an app-store model on OSX (and all the haters pre-condemn them for this "fact" despite Jobs refuting it [macstories.net] ), and then it's Microsoft that comes out and proposes to do it.

Adding a central repository of applications is no more "The App Store Model" than Ubuntu's central repository of applications. It's only "The App Store Model" if that becomes the ONLY way of putting applications on your device.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721462)

Which is exactly what the rumor mill seems to be proposing for the iMac lineup.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721706)

Then rumour mill is pretty dumb. The prospect of removing the facility for arbitrary applications from an OS that has always allowed them is very different from the iOS situation. It wouldn't wouldn't be a rational thing for Apple to try, therefore Apple being a very rational company wouldn't do so. Even Microsoft aren;t dumb enough to do that.

Neither of them need to. The application finding, purchase, installing and updating process is far from perfect on desktop OSs, and varies from app to app. If they provide a system that makes it as quick and easy as the iPhone App Store, then people will prefer to buy from such a store rather then the old distribution channels.

Carrot is enough to build such a business. No need for a stick.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721758)

I am not vouching for the validity of the rumor mill, mind you :)

Re:Just hilarious (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721964)

The prospect of removing the facility for arbitrary applications from an OS that has always allowed them is very different from the iOS situation.

In fact, it'd be far closer to the PLAYSTATION 3 situation. The fat PS3s could run arbitrary applications until a firmware update disabled Other OS.

Re:Just hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721550)

Whether it's the only way or not doesn't matter much. Commercial developers will have to offer their applications in the app store or they can start looking for a new job. Experience with this model (easily accessible non-mandatory software repository) shows that outside sources can't get the attention they need to stay competitive. The app store paradigm is nothing but the overarching control of the platform over the applications. If you have any desire for the freedom of software development in you, then you should oppose this trend.

Re:Just hilarious (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721370)

The problem with Apple is that we have already seen what their vision of an app store is: A Garden of Pure Ideology.

It doesn't have to be that way. It can merely be apt-get with a fancier interface and a means to pay for stuff.

Microsoft could abuse this idea. However, Apple is already abusing this idea.

Re:Just hilarious (2, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721856)

I have little doubt that Microsoft wants to embrace the idea of having the final say over everything that gets installed. However, there is absolutely no way they would be allowed to do this. Either by the consumers who'd want to install software that doesn't have their blessing, or by the DOJ looking for funding...I mean monopolies.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

mitchell_pgh (536538) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722024)

The end user may not agree.

I'm not sure I would hate having a central repository for all Macintosh applications (as long as freeware was still free, as with the Apple Store).

It sure would simplify things (trusted, signed source)... again, from an end user's perspective.

I'm sure every software programmer (minus Apple) would disagree.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722034)

The problem with Apple is that we have already seen what their vision of an app store is: A Garden of Pure Ideology.

It doesn't have to be that way. It can merely be apt-get with a fancier interface and a means to pay for stuff.

Microsoft could abuse this idea. However, Apple is already abusing this idea.

This all presumes that Microsoft's latest "leak" isnt vaporware still, all in order to slow migration away from Windows Mobile. It would be far from the first time that MS announced a non-product to slow down any exodus from their products. Heck, a look at the announced (and not included or completed) features for Vista may give you an idea of exactly what this tactic may truly be.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721378)

Assuming that one isn't restricted from installing apps outside of the app store, Microsoft is the new Ubuntu?

Re:Just hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721452)

At least it made you admit appstores are bad.

Re:Just hilarious (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721476)

There is a vast difference between merely providing an app store, and an app store that is the only method of obtaining 3rd party software for the platform.

Re:Just hilarious (-1, Redundant)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721572)

Amen. Mod parent up.

Re:Just hilarious (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721482)

An interrogated app store IS NOT a terrible thing even for a desktop.
What would be terrible is if Microsoft made themselves the only app store for windows.

Take a look at Steam. It is really well loved by a lot of users but it is in effect an app store.

Here is the important part.
As long as I do not have to use Microsoft's app store I don't have an issue with them having one.
As long as I can install what I want from where I want I just don't have a problem with this.
Now Walmart, BestBuy and GameStop will be up in arms and the say good buy to the used software market for some stuff but other than that...

Re:Just hilarious (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721834)

An interrogated app store IS NOT a terrible thing even for a desktop.

But what about an ENHANCED interrogated app store?

Activation killed used PC software (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722032)

Now Walmart, BestBuy and GameStop will be up in arms and the say good buy to the used software market for some stuff but other than that...

As far as I know, the used PC software market started to die in the fourth quarter of 2001 when Microsoft introduced Internet product activation for Windows XP Home Edition.

Re:Just hilarious (5, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721484)

Nobody cares if somebody does an app-store. The model people fear is an app-store ONLY method where it's the only way to install programs. This doesn't appear to be that, so why SHOULD we care? The fears regarding Apple and OS X deal with the (very real in my mind) possibility that they could indeed setup an app store and mandate that it be the only source for third party software.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721790)

Yet, considering Windows security track record, Windows would benefit the most from Microsoft store as the only way to install applications on Windows, so Microsoft can check all of them if they are malicious (for a small fee of course) before making them available in the store.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721642)

I would think the most obvious thing to compare this to would be not Apple's App Store but MS's own XBox Live Marketplace.

I doubt this would be the only way to buy software for a Windows 8 machine, just as buying stuff on Live isn't the only way to get games and stuff for your XBox. (Although obviously MS has some control of the 'buy a game on DVD and stick it in' vector on the XBox as well.)

I wouldn't call this move innovative, but it isn't a terrible idea either. If it's too locked down or not good enough in some way, people will keep buying/downloading/pirating/etc. software for their Windows boxen the same ways they always have.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721696)

pre-condemn

I must have learned this stuff all wrong. How is it really supposed to go?

pre-condemn
condemn
sex
post-condemn

Re:Just hilarious (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721738)

That's fine, provided you can still install software obtained from elsewhere - if it is like the Click & Run warehouse in Linspire.

Re:Just hilarious (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721888)

I have no problem with either Microsoft or Apple creating an app store for their Operating System, so long as they don't then block other methods of software installation, or block competing app stores. The problem with the Apple Store is that it's the only way to install software on your Apple device. So, Apple declining to host an app is the same thing as Apple forbidding the app on all of their devices. Unless Windows 8, or OS 10.? blocks unsigned programs from being installed, then it's just fine by me. They can refuse to carry shit for whatever arbitrary and capricious reasons they want, because you can always install it yourself.

On the other hand, they get a huge advantage compared to other app stores, because they will have it installed by default with big instructions "use this to buy software!" This is an anti-trust violation. Even worse than browsers, since browsers are free, and don't make you spend money. App stores are also free, but are used to buy things, so I would think it's even worse. I would expect that the App Store would not be installed by default, but merely available, just as MS has made many previously built-in apps not installed by default, but available for free download from their website. (MSN messenger, for one). If not, I imagine Steam, Impluse, etc. will raise a stink over being shoehorned out of the Digital Download market.

Apt-get install (1)

realmatt (1264206) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721290)

It's about time. The current method of installing software in Windows is obviously very lacking, from a security and convenience standpoint.

Re:Apt-get install (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721450)

This is how I looked at it too. There's nothing to exclude people from downloading an app and installing it like they always do.

As opposed to what may happen on the Macs, where they convert OSX to IOS, and the ONLY way to get an app is to buy it off the App store.

I really don't see an issue.

Re:Apt-get install (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721750)

uh? some people would prefer to be able to choose where things install - some of us have more than one hard drive or partition.

from a convenience side, the MS options are good. security, the same.

I dislike MS, but to act like their MSI is bad shows straight up ignorance.

No fucking way... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721292)

...is this ever going to get past the antitrust hounds.

Re:No fucking way... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721602)

Why? It's a standard industry model. Antitrust laws are not intended to hamper the use of business models used by others in the industry, it's to prevent someone from applying pressures _only they_ can use to push their monopoly further or into other markets. Anyone can (and has) opened an app market, so _everyone_ can.

Re:No fucking way... (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721918)

Well, much like it's leveraging their OS dominance by having Internet Explorer pre-installed, having their app-store pre-installed would also be a huge advantage over other app stores. So, I expect that at least in the EU, MS would be force to not install their app store by default, though there's nothing wrong with them putting it on their website. I think technically they should be required to do the same thing in North America, but who knows if they would be.

Licensing and monetization (2, Insightful)

LambdaWolf (1561517) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721302)

One of the goals is to ensure licensing and monetization for developers

Considering how badly Microsoft has hampered open standards and locked down their operating system for the sake of "monetizing" software in the past, how bad will it be now that they are, presumably, trying to beat Apple at their own game of a walled-garden app store? And on the desktop no less?

Re:Licensing and monetization (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721742)

Considering how badly Microsoft has hampered open standards and locked down their operating system for the sake of "monetizing" software in the past, how bad will it be now that they are, presumably, trying to beat Apple at their own game of a walled-garden app store? And on the desktop no less?

Eh. The scenario in which that comparison's valid is really only possible IF this store is the "only" way to put software on a Windows machine. (I quote only because the app store is likewise the only sanctioned way to get software on an iPhone, but, jailbreaking, etc.)

I just don't see that happening soon, if ever. It's (apparently) easy to tell someone buying their first smartphone that they can only gets apps from your store; it's a lot harder to tell someone who's had a Windows machine for decades, perhaps their whole life, that they now can only buy apps from your store.

Upgrade from C=64 to Super NES (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722072)

it's a lot harder to tell someone who's had a Windows machine for decades, perhaps their whole life, that they now can only buy apps from your store.

Compare it to the upgrade from a Commodore 64 computer to a Super Nintendo Entertainment System. On the C=64, nobody controlled who could publish an app on tape, disk, or cart. But the Super NES used a cryptographic lockout to enforce Nintendo's policy, which was only slightly less restrictive than it was on the NES.

And all this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721324)

Everyone's been worried that it was going to be Apple that was going to lock down the platform with iOS for Mac.

Waaay behind on the 8 ball. (3, Interesting)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721328)

Microsoft... Bringing you Today's technologies 4 years from now..

Wheres the innovation?

And really? an App store? For WIndows?
Cloud Computing? Really? Isn't it here now today?
Searching the Web or Locally? (Hmm... I dunno if I have been doing this my whole life)
Rapid Startup times? Every OS I have boots in less than 30 seconds.. Last time I booted windows it took 5 mins.

Re:Waaay behind on the 8 ball. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721414)

That's because it took you 4 minutes to find your boots and another 1 minute to tie your shoelaces.

Re:Waaay behind on the 8 ball. (1, Insightful)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721672)

And on the wrong platform!

Microsoft is still thinking PC. They push PC, letting other markets slip away.

Latest commercial for Windows 7 show some schmuck using his laptop to stream internet vids to his TV. Ummm...how very '90s. Ever here of networked TVs? You know TVs that can be connected to your network and they go out to YouTube or Netflix and grab content.....

Seriously, so far behind the times.

Re:Waaay behind on the 8 ball. (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721774)

Microsoft is still thinking PC.

Not really -- TFA says 'any Windows device.'

Re:Waaay behind on the 8 ball. (1)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722006)

Yea, but be realistic here:

How many PCs are running "Windows" (or some form of it) compared to the reported "500 Kin" sold by Microsoft?

Re:Waaay behind on the 8 ball. (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722038)

Because, clearly, most users want crazy new innovations.

... not really ... most users want working computers that are nicely integrated so they can do what they want with the least amount of effort.

Only a few people want cutting-edge innovation in their day-to-day OS. Typically, those Linux distros have stability issues. ;)

Sure, Mr. Balmer, Sir... (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721342)

No problem Sir. If Apple can do it, so can we!

Meeting...? Sorry, Tuesday isn't good for me..that's when I work on my iPhone apps. And Wednesday and Thursday - how about Friday, around 4pm?

repository for the common people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721356)

Wow. So, after no less than 10 years, the concept of deb/rpm repository is finally arrived to the closed platform with the Apple app store, and their future Microsoft Windows and Google Chrome equivalent.

"rapid startup times" (3, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721366)

rapid startup times

.
Always a promise from Microsoft, never a reality in Windows.

Re:"rapid startup times" (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721430)

rapid startup times...

Oh sory.. that was a typo... let me fix that...

RABID startup times...

Much better. Let the chair throwing commence.

Re:"rapid startup times" (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721626)

rapid startup times

.
Always a promise from Microsoft, never a reality in Windows.

25 seconds from off to a Windows 7 desktop on my netbook seems rapid to me.

Don't care... (4, Insightful)

demonbug (309515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721368)

As long as I can continue to purchase and download software as normal I couldn't care less about an MS app store.
The second they try to lock down Windows so you must use their app store, I'll be gone from the Windows platform and won't look back.

So, whatever. Don't care. If Microsoft decides to shoot themselves in the foot trying to push this, they are easily replaceable.

Re:Don't care... (2, Insightful)

billlava (1270394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721574)

I agree with this. A Windows app store will help a lot of people, but if I can't install software manually, or by other traditional means, then I'll drop Windows too. I doubt they are this aloof, but MS might be greatly misreading their customer base if they think that people want a more iphone-like experience on their real computers.

Innovation (-1, Troll)

fuzznutz (789413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721446)

And yet again, Microsoft is at the forefront of INNOVATION!

Can't wait (1)

seanonymous (964897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721490)

So, will Adobe Creative Suite and MS Office be in the same list as the slew of fart apps?

Silly me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721544)

Silly me!

Here I was actually considering putting a system together w/ Win7 installed, and they go serruptitiously announce the next version of Windows. Even before the current SP1 is released mainstream, and MS is still gloating over their Windows 7 sales numbers despite whatever inflationary methods they use.

You ALMOST got me Microsft! Almost.

/back to my 5yro desktop w/ linux

Lock-in alert (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721564)

Great. The future of PCs is trying to be like the mobile phone industry today. They call it "integration". I call it "service restriction." There's so many artificial barriers like this in IT right now it's seriously impeding our ability to innovate. Why do we need a dozen different platforms, fifty operating systems, and a plethora of incompatible development environments, languages, and libraries underneath that? And don't tell me it's because each fills a "special niche" -- that's only true to a point.

In the hardware world, we have cores -- dedicated chunks of silicon that each perform a specific task. They're licensed out for cheap, or in a growing number of cases, made available for free. I know programmers always have a library of their own code too because the truth is the same problems come up over and over again. But thanks to intellectual property and copyright law, there's virtually no code re-use. Nobody shares. And thanks to all of this, the operating system of 10 years ago could run on a P133 with 64MB of ram now needs 10x that just to boot.

If you'd come to me 10 years ago and said, "Hey, I'm from the future -- and look what we've done!" ... I would have said "Fuck this, I'll be a doctor instead." It's complete bullshit the things we do in the name of profit. Think of what our infrastructure and society would look like today if we didn't have cell phones and basic cable sucking $200 or more out of us a month, banks finding new and better ways to fuck us over, debt collection firms getting people thrown in jail, and all this other stuff that basically say "We're fat, stupid, and need more money -- and you're gonna give it to us or else."

What the hell happened to the idea that technology was supposed to make society better?

Re:Lock-in alert (1)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722056)

|| What the hell happened to the idea that technology was supposed to make society better? || It only makes it better, if Microsoft *says* it makes it better. Understand?

2015 yet? (1)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721592)

I'll worry about this when it ships. OK, probably not, I lied. Microsoft; innovation at its highest form of flattery!

Click'n'run (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721594)

Rember Lindows/Linspire. Its click'n'run software had a pay download feature.

Microsoft flattering Apple (1)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721614)

The ideas are no longer in Redmond.

Resistance is futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721670)

I for one, welcome our new App Store collective Overlords...

Maharaja (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721712)

Hm... why would we need Windows 8, when we can use Ubuntu Software Center :D

Re:Maharaja (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721748)

Because we want real apps to run instead second rate wannabes like Gimp

Re:Maharaja (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722028)

Right, because you'll be able to download CS5 from the Windows App Store

Windows 8? (5, Funny)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721794)

I see a potential marketing problem.

Windows 8 .. my app.
Windows 8 my files.
Windows 8 my CPU.
Windows 8 all my money.

Wow! (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721836)

See that's what's great about Microsoft. There so damn timely. I mean search engines come out and BAM! It only took them like nearly 10 years to come up with one.

Microsoft is always following with the intention of thinking they can do it better. They never do. The one thing they did do better was market. That's why Windows became the default OS for nearly everything. Now they're losing that battle. This app store should be cool when it comes online in what, 2014?

Re:Wow! (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721852)

There=They're. Someone hit me. :(

God Dammit (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721870)

No, Microsoft. Just, no.

Old framework paradigm vs modern frameworks (1)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 4 years ago | (#32721892)

Just wait for all linux-based distros to come pre-installed with an Android execution environment. Canonical is already working on it and might already be present in 10.10
A platform and framework for smartphones, TVs, tablets, now linux distros. I guess you could even port it to OSX and windows. Thousands of apps suddenly available everywhere! =D

The problem with current software installed through "repositories" is that apps don't follow a common API - instead every app is allowed to have a dependency to X library or require Y version of software Z, and also requires XYZ system changes, messing directly with your system files.
I think one of the strong sides of the App Store (iOS), Market (Android) and future Windows7 phones (XNA-based) is that all apps are required to be coded on top on a modern framework where every app is sandboxed, more secure, and runs on top of a common API. And of course no app is allowed to mess with your system files.

I think this new paradigm is a much more powerful and cleaner way of handling software installation, at least for the "user apps" scenario. And that might very well be the future of OSX, windows or even linux-based distros.

Dev (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32721922)

The "Apps Stores" is a idea from Linux, Ubuntu has a App repository years ago of iphone apps store, and now has the Ubuntu Software Center (and in october you can buy software too). Xbox360 marketplace too, years ago from apple. Read and learn Apple Fanboys, learn.

IE Antitrust? (1)

jago25_98 (566531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32722064)

Didn't they just get sued for this with Internet Explorer?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?