×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Dumps 1,500 Apps From Its Windows Store

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the bad-actors dept.

Windows 126

redletterdave writes: Microsoft announced on its Windows blog Wednesday that it's removed more than 1,500 apps from its Windows Store in a bid to clean up the store and restore trust with Windows 8 and Windows Phone users. Microsoft's new certification process, in particular, asks for clear and accurate names that "reflect the functionality of the app," more accurate categories, and differentiated icons to ensure apps aren't confused with one another. Microsoft reached out to developers with apps that violated its policies; some agreed to make changes to their software, while those who were "less receptive" saw their apps removed from the Windows Store. That might be just the beginning.

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

Google needs to clean up search (5, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 4 months ago | (#47774599)

Google needs to clean up misleading apps in their search and stop malware instead of profiting from it.

Look at the ads for Firefox.

http://i.imgur.com/piER06h.png [imgur.com]

It's the same for other apps, like Skype etc.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774679)

>Windows XP
I think there's a bigger problem here.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about 4 months ago | (#47774711)

What? Nobody even _said_ Windows XP, nor was it in the linked screenshot anywhere. I looked twice. WTF are you talking about?

Re:Google needs to clean up search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774827)

Chrome does not look like this on Windows 7.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775215)

Right, it looks like that on Windows 8.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 4 months ago | (#47775243)

I'm on Windows 7 right now and that's almost exactly how my Chrome looks. The only difference is that my title bar has very slight transparency.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775851)

You can make Windows 7 look the same as Windows XP.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774881)

Chrome does not have a Windows XP skin when you're using Windows 7.

Re: Google needs to clean up search (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775237)

Yes, it does, smartass(es), when you've got an edition of W7 where Aero is unavailable (like Starter or Home editions) or when Aero is otherwise disabled.

They won't (5, Insightful)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 4 months ago | (#47774741)

They won't fix it. They make a ton of money from those ads, make Windows slow down and look bad so they can push heavily locked down Chromebooks that techies seem to sing the praise of.

I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.

I guess it's more about Microsoft hate and the desire to bring them down than software freedom.

Re:They won't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774835)

I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.

Microsoft hate might be a partial explanation, but there are others.

There already exist free and open desktop platforms that work well. No need to recommend Windows 8.
And if someone actually wants a locked down platform, why not recommend the ones that work the best, rather than Windows RT or Windows Phone?

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775457)

I've been running Mint in a VM for a week or two for torrents - it's been nothing but a mess despite me doing nothing more than opening Firefox and the default, pre-installed torrent client. The damn thing even lost the taskbar yesterday. Linux is far from ready for primetime on the desktop. Windows just works vs Linux being a pain in the ass to even keep running.

Re:They won't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775669)

Your two weeks of experience with one distro prove that "Linux is far from ready for primetime on the desktop."?

Re:They won't (1)

cygnwolf (601176) | about 4 months ago | (#47775995)

Particularly since you're talking about Mint and not one of the more solid and robust distros like Ubuntu or Red Hat.

Re:They won't (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 4 months ago | (#47777249)

Does Debian count as solid and robust? I installed it on my HTPC the other day, and (after installing the non-free Radeon firmware and then changing the sound output from speakers to HDMI in settings), the sound works for the non-root user I created during installation, but not for the other non-root user I created afterward.

I've used Linux (on and off) for a long time. I'm a sustaining member of both the EFF and FSF. I'm a really big fan of Free Software in general. But I still have to admit that my immediate thought was "WTF, Windows wouldn't screw up this kind of thing."

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47777351)

Haha. My PC is always connected to a TV. But Windows still randomly decides (for example after each graphics driver update) that sound should go to the (non-connected) line-out instead of HDMI.
So yes, it very much does screw up that kind of things all the time as well.
Software just is in the "crap" stages still all over.

Re:They won't (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 4 months ago | (#47777477)

Mine didn't do that when it was running Windows 7... but then again I never updated the graphics driver either (unless Windows Update did it by itself).

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47777471)

*checks crystal ball*
You didn't add your 2nd user to the audio group.

Newly created users not being members of audio by default ... I can see how one could argue that's a sane default (e.g. someone adds a user account so someone else can ssh in and compile stuff or whatever on that box, they likely don't want them messing with their audio).

The fact that there's no useful error messages (and no, the mixer applet saying "No such device" is a not useful when it really means "Access Denied"), and that you have to dig through wikis to find WTF is causing it... *that* is pretty much a typical linux problem.

Re: They won't (3, Insightful)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 4 months ago | (#47777431)

your two weeks of experience with one distro

his two of experience with one distro running in a VM, no less.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47776215)

I call BS on this. I doubt even windows would self destruct like this with no user intervention other than "just opening Firefox".

Re:They won't (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#47775023)

I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.

I guess it's more about Microsoft hate and the desire to bring them down than software freedom.

You know, it's as much about giving our friends and family a user experience which a) won't drive them insane, and b) won't make them come to us for tech support.

And, really, for many of us this whole "software freedom" thing is a little overplayed.

I've always found Stallman to be a bit of a crank, and the vast majority of people hear this stuff, and they think of teenagers spouting Marxist theory because the school cafeteria switched from Coke to Pepsi ... it becomes a little tired and melodramatic.

I'd wager that 99% of all people will never audit their IP stack, recompile their browser, or otherwise want any involvement in this stuff. They want the latest cool thing, and not some near approximation of it which comes in a kit.

What they want is a tool to get the stuff done they need/want to, and they want it with as little hair pulling as possible.

And, really, let's be honest here ... Windows is no more (or less) open than Apple, and in the places where they're more open, they're trying to be less, just like Apple. Everybody wants their own walled garden.

Hell, I installed a Linux Mint VM image a while back, and it wasn't even possible to set the search provider to Google, apparently because it's not ideologically pure enough or something.

So, if my Mom was looking for a tablet ... I'm going to find her one which suits her needs and will work for her, and I am never going to say "ZOMG, but this software is teh free".

Because my Mom already rolls her eyes at the rest of my loony rants, and doesn't give a damn about software freedom.

So, if you want to know why people aren't doing this, it's because when someone starts screaming "viva la revolucion" over software freedom, people roll their eyes and try to get distance from you.

Don't get me wrong, I likes me some Open Source software. But, have I built an entire ideology around it? Hell no.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775183)

+1 for that (if I weren't an AC).

I've known Stallman for about 30 years. He sounded exactly like that to me when I first met him, and honestly, still does most of the time.

But, much to my surprise, I've decided that he was right about a lot of stuff.

I still think he's a horrible person, tho. But not all wrong.

Re:They won't (4, Insightful)

sensei moreh (868829) | about 4 months ago | (#47775415)

I've never had a problem setting my Linux Mint search provider to Google, or DuckDuckGo, or Wikipedia (I haven't tried the others. Click on the down-arrow in the search window, select "Manage Search Engines ...", then click on the "Get more search engines ..." link. Google should be one of your choices.

Re:They won't (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#47775545)

From their own page [linuxmint.com] , right now:

Linux Mint recommends the following search engines:
Engine Preserves your privacy Funds Linux Mint Description
        Yahoo The 2nd largest search engine on the Web, full of features.
        DuckDuckGo A safe and secure engine providing augmented Yahoo results.
        Ixquick A safe and secure engine gathering results from multiple search engines.
        Startpage A safe and secure engine providing augmented Google results.
        Amazon The largest online store.
        Wikipedia The largest online encyclopedia.

Why aren't some search engines included in Linux Mint?

Engines are included based on the following criteria:

        Funding: Whether using the engine funds Linux Mint
        Privacy: Whether the engine provides users with best-in-class privacy/security features
        Non-commercial: Whether the engine is popular and non-commercial

So, sorry, but for whatever reason in the version I had Google wasn't an option -- and figuring out what was required to change it wasn't worth it for me.

I was shopping for a distribution, not an ideology.

Re:They won't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47777247)

Aka "I pulled my initial claim out of my ass".

Re:They won't (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#47777833)

Aka "I pulled my initial claim out of my ass".

No, I pulled it from the Linux Mint VM I have which didn't give me any obvious mechanism to do something as trivial as setting my search provider to Google.

If it isn't in the drop down list, and I have to play hunt the wumpus to figure out WTF I need to be doing to add it, I'll stand by my initial assertion ... that, for whatever reason, they've made setting Google as a search provider less than easy or obvious.

Google is not in the default list, after spending a small amount of time trying to figure out how to do it, I gave up on the Distro entirely.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47778111)

Hell, I installed a Linux Mint VM image a while back, and it wasn't even possible to set the search provider to Google, apparently because it's not ideologically pure enough or something.

If it isn't in the drop down list, and I have to play hunt the wumpus to figure out WTF I need to be doing to add it, I'll stand by my initial assertion ... that, for whatever reason, they've made setting Google as a search provider less than easy or obvious.

See if you can spot the difference.

Re:They won't (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#47778355)

His initial report OF HIS EXPERIENCE was correct. Linux Mint has chosen to hide Google away as an extra, and this resulted, as intended, in the user thinking it wasn't an option. This user stopped there. That's the fault of Mint, not the user.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47778887)

No. You claimed it wasn't even possible to do so. Emphasis yours.

Put the goalposts down.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47778935)

I've never had a problem setting my Linux Mint search provider to Google, or DuckDuckGo, or Wikipedia (I haven't tried the others. Click on the down-arrow in the search window, select "Manage Search Engines ...", then click on the "Get more search engines ..." link. Google should be one of your choices.

If you are still running Mint 15 or older, there are a ton of unfixed exploits in there (openssh included, also enabled by default) which you might want to double-check aren't exposed online.

I can tell you are using an older version because ever since 16 (according to the mint folk) and 17 where I saw this behavior personally, the included firefox browser is PAINFUL to un-mintafy and un-fuck to let you use Google services in an integrated fashion.

Your process for changing integrated search providers will not work with a stock mint firefox. Google is not an option on the page it takes you to, which is immediately obvious to not be a firefox URL.
Load up the about:config page and find "browser.search.searchEnginesURL" to see the search providers page (where the "get more search engines" button takes you to) and see it is set to a mint page, not the standard firefox one.
It's also a system option under etc, so non-root running firefox processes can not simply delete it and get the normal default URL back. You CAN override the setting with your own URL to a page with search provider profiles, but if one doesn't have a un-modified copy of firefox to reference what the real default value is, it is difficult to reset. Clicking "default" will just blank out the URL completely.

On the mint page of firefox search engines, they out right explain that they will only list and allow search engines that give them ad revenue and refuse to add providers that are hostile to mint making money, which adamantly Google actually is guilty of.

For comparison, the linux mint firefox "get more search engines" goes to http://www.linuxmint.com/searc... [linuxmint.com] (Which redirects to a slightly different url, with a .php extension)
Your options are Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, lxquick, startpage, Amazon, and Wikipedia. No others.
Below those options states why engines like google are excluded.

A stock default firefox however will use the setting https://addons.mozilla.org/%25... [mozilla.org]
(Which is the default setting in v31.0)

While I admit this ticked me off quite a lot the first 15 or so minutes I discovered it, I can at least understand why they might be doing this and in a way that doesn't violate their agreement.
I am too used to how Debian handles things and completely re-brands and re-names their firefox browser (iceweasel) so you are 100% aware this is Debians doing and not Firefox/Mozilla.
But that bit is just my own opinion.

An open platform != open source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775437)

Open source isn't nearly as important as having open platforms. The big issue is about having a 3rd party dictate what you can and can't do with your device. I don't give a shit about auditing the applications I run or the idealistic concepts Stallman has, but I do care about getting to choose what can and can't be done with the electronics I buy.

Microsoft had a great, open platform in the 90s and it was a major contributing factor to their success. I will gladly cough up $200 for Windows if it means the hardware and software industries remain a free-for-all. Too many people are short sighted and don't understand the long term benefits of an open platform. Somehow Microsoft has become one of them.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775547)

"You know, it's as much about giving our friends and family a user experience which a) won't drive them insane, and b) won't make them come to us for tech support."

Yep they won't come to me for tech support. Cause I laugh and give them what they told me "Apple stuff never have any issues." Then step in to save the day with my 5 year old PC. With the only issue I have had is running low on hard drive space.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47779375)

"You know, it's as much about giving our friends and family a user experience which a) won't drive them insane, and b) won't make them come to us for tech support."

Yep they won't come to me for tech support. Cause I laugh and give them what they told me "Apple stuff never have any issues." Then step in to save the day with my 5 year old PC. With the only issue I have had is running low on hard drive space.

Boy, I'lll bet you're a joy to live with.

Fucktard.

Re:They won't (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 4 months ago | (#47777265)

ROUND OF APPLAUSE!!!!!!!!!

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47777413)

Stallman IS a crank, and the GPL is an ideological platform, not a license.

Yes, it may be cheaper to get Linux, but, only if you want all the butthurting experiences that come along with it. My parents aren't going to go for that bullshit, and neither are most people. They want something that works and don't need to call anyone to make it work.

Windows is not even good at not being a butthurting experience, but unlike Linux, you can easily restore a Windows machine to working order by unplugging it from the internet and running the restore discs, wiping out all the data in the process. Linux... not a chance. You're lucky if the Linux Distro isn't years old.

This is the grand problem with Linux as a platform, is that it moves and changes too fast for it's own good. Nothing built for the previous third-point-decimal version of Linux Kernal works with any other version. Video drivers don't work with any version but a specific kernel version, and when you have two different drivers on your system that want the same kind of "only works on this version" you have to make do without it.

And let's not go into how awful mixing binary packages and source packages makes Linux impossible to deal with.

At least on Windows or MacOS X you don't have this crap to deal with. If I can buy a game or a program on the App store, I'm assured that it will at least fricken work without having to recompile anything.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47778861)

Hell, I installed a Linux Mint VM image a while back, and it wasn't even possible to set the search provider to Google, apparently because it's not ideologically pure enough or something.

That's very odd, because I happen to be working in a Mint VM right now, and guess who my search provider is? Google.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775377)

How about Chromebooks being absolutely ideal for people who already use google services and only want browser access? The chromebook gives them exactly what they want, but unlike a windows laptop it's effectively self-maintaining in a completely unobtrusive way.

Re:They won't (1, Interesting)

Aaden42 (198257) | about 4 months ago | (#47775873)

As a user, I’d prefer a software system that had no DRM, but I’m prepared to accept that few publishes are ever going to give that up. It’s down to a matter of whether the compromise struck between publisher and user is reasonable and acceptable to me.

It’s true every iOS app is DRM’d, so we have to look at what the restrictions to me as an end user are: In order to run an app, I must login as the Apple account that purchased it on the device I wish to use the app. That’s it. There’s no limitation on the number of devices. To date at least, the DRM has never been used for “evil” to revoke the right to run an app post-purchase. The most Apple has done to my knowledge was revoke an app’s right to use location services when it misbehaved, but the app still ran on devices where it was installed. If I’m not willing to input my Apple ID username & password on a device for some reason, to me that seems like a good indication that I’m trying to run the app on a device that isn’t mine. As a user, I don’t think preventing that is unreasonable as part of the agreement in my purchasing software.

The other restriction on (unrooted) iOS is that I can’t run arbitrary code of my choosing on my device. If I want to circumvent that (without jailbreaking), I can choose to pay Apple $99/year to run any code I like on up to 100 devices of my choosing. If I need more devices than that, there are higher-cost corporate options to do the same.

Don’t get me wrong. I loath DRM in general. All else being equal, I’d use DRM-free platforms whenever possible. That said, all else is not equal, and the benefits that Apple’s platform provides in terms of security, interface consistency, and ease of use are worth the tradeoff of accepting the limitations of their DRM system.

To contrast that, Apple’s video offerings through iTunes are still limited to playback on five computers with permission required each time a new device is authorized. It’s also only possible to play back the video with devices and software that Apple supports (no Linux, no third party media players, XBMC, etc.) Personally I find that an unreasonable restriction for video. I easily have more than five computers that I could want to play video, and several of them are either non Win/Mac or are set-top systems that I use an interface like XBMC that can’t access DRM’d video, even on an otherwise supported OS. For those restrictions, I choose not to buy video from Apple.

When the limitations imposed by DRM actually restrict something that I think is reasonable for me to want to do, I generally choose not to accept those limitations and vote with my wallet. When DRM generally stays out of my way and more or less succeeds at keeping honest people honest Ideologically I might prefer it not exist, but I have a hard time really justifying that in the real world.

Re:They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47776211)

How the fuck do you blame google for the malware infected fucking cesspool that is the average windows PC?

I've got news for you. Google products are by far the least offensive. Try clicking on promoted links on Bing and see how long you stay clean.

Truely open and unrestricted platforms are good, but utterly useless and frankly dangerous in the hands of unskilled users. Giving you grandma a windows PC and logging her the ability to do administrative elevations is like giving a chainsaw to a five year old. Shit will break. There will be crying.

Sorry. If you don't know what a user account is, then it's Ipads and Chromebooks for you.

For that matter, the idea of a curated and safe computing experience is not mutually exclusive from that of open source software and software freedom. We have android. It's open. Currently, the best curated experiences are closed or partially closed. That's just a market reality.

The dream of having open source software, and a safe curated computing experience is attainable. The fact that the linux kernel is behind the most popular moblie computing platform in the world is proof of this. You can have a 100% open hardware and software platform and cryptographic security can keep your system locked down for unskilled users. It's just a matter of who controls the keys. Open is better, and we're working towards that slowly. Closed will lose because it's less agile, less flexible. It will just take time.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775095)

Seems they don't have that problem when it comes to their own browser.

http://i.imgur.com/OBOK5jG.png

Re:Google needs to clean up search (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 4 months ago | (#47775211)

If you want to be a good citizen, submit feedback to Google using their Adwords feedback page.
I also did a search for "Firefox" and got a different scammer. I just submitted a feedback form for it. The scammer I saw also used the trademarked Firefox logo, but don't even mention that because you can't report that unless you represent the trademark holder. Just select that they are a counterfeit site and mention the scamware/malware aspect.

Naturally, Google should be able to use common sense and filter this out themselves. This is the problem with a fully automated world.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#47775287)

You are aware that there is nothing either illegal, or contrary to the GPL, in repackaging a browser, right? Its expressly in the GPL that you can do so.

And since it isnt illegal, on what grounds would google tamper with the search results? I thought we got up in arms when they do that at the request of celebs and whatnot. Or is it just because this is YOUR google search pet peeve, so its ok to mess with the results?

Re:Google needs to clean up search (4, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 4 months ago | (#47775449)

You are aware that there is nothing either illegal, or contrary to the GPL, in repackaging a browser, right? Its expressly in the GPL that you can do so.

And since it isnt illegal, on what grounds would google tamper with the search results? I thought we got up in arms when they do that at the request of celebs and whatnot. Or is it just because this is YOUR google search pet peeve, so its ok to mess with the results?

1) This is about the ads, not the organic search results.
2) GPL allows you to repackage software, but not under the same trademark. You can do whatever with the code, but cannot distribute it as Firefox if it's not coming from Mozilla. E.g. Debian had to rename their Firefox branch as IceWeasel
3) Google does not need any grounds to tamper with even organic search results.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 4 months ago | (#47775647)

2) GPL allows you to repackage software, but not under the same trademark. You can do whatever with the code, but cannot distribute it as Firefox if it's not coming from Mozilla. E.g. Debian had to rename their Firefox branch as IceWeasel

Question: can I repackage Firefox binaries and distribute it along with my other files? I made a php application and wanna make it a turnkey WAMP stack. It will be called "MyCool PHP App" and the word Firefox won't appear anywhere.

Re:Google needs to clean up search (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#47775901)

2) GPL allows you to repackage software, but not under the same trademark. You can do whatever with the code, but cannot distribute it as Firefox if it's not coming from Mozilla. E.g. Debian had to rename their Firefox branch as IceWeasel

Technically Mozilla has its own license on Firefox which required that change. The Mozilla Public License [wikipedia.org] is described as "hybrid BSD and GPL."

If the repackaging just involved slapping a skin and a couple extensions onto it but no code modification, I don't see why it would be a problem. Didn't IceWeasel involve recompiling or something?

Re:Google needs to clean up search (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 4 months ago | (#47776239)

If the repackaging just involved slapping a skin and a couple extensions onto it but no code modification, I don't see why it would be a problem. Didn't IceWeasel involve recompiling or something?

What if one of the extensions sends all browsing activity and form submission data to another server?
Why would Firefox want to be associated with that?

Re:Google needs to clean up search (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about 4 months ago | (#47777773)

I just wrote a longer response to your post and Chrome ate it (bah)

Basically I think you are wrong about (2), but having just read up on the reasons for IceWeasel rebranding, it would seem that Mozilla does not agree with me.

Isn't it true that the Advertising Clause in original BSD license was the one and only thing separating it from GPL and making it incompatible? The advertising clause, which does nothing other than assert the rights and protections that are already granted by Trademark law...

Walled Gardener (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774607)

If you're going to have a walled garden, you might as well tend it!

Re:Walled Gardener (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774781)

Indeed. Thank you Microsoft for doing it. :)

*Restore*? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774609)

Restore trust? Shouldn't it be *there* in the first place to restore it?

Re:*Restore*? (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47774735)

Yeah, as far as windows Store goes, things went from empty to spamfilled with no golden era of sorta useful in between.

Re:*Restore*? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775491)

Which, perhaps, answers my long-held question of "why doesnt windows make a software repository": you cant just create a repository and wish for a community to appear.

Re:*Restore*? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775151)

Vewry true. They would have trust if their shit would fucking work. Just take a look at outlook email. Users experience outages quite often. Business users are also affected by the constant outages. If M$ doesn't make a stable product for their business users then how can they be trusted for anything else? My guess is M$ removed the apps from their app store simply because it wasn't making them money to further their illegal monopoly.

--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.

Walled garbage approach (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774641)

This is what you get when you let your vendor decide what you can and can't install, what you can and can't offer. Apple and their ilk started this cancer and everyone else has hopped onto the bandwagon.

Re:Walled garbage approach (4, Insightful)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47774759)

They should crowdsource this. Simply mark new apps as being in a probationary period and give downloaders the option of tagging the app as misleading, malware, abuse of permissions, etc. It would greatly help their human staff find the bad apples quickly. Of course the same goes for Google and Apple.

Re:Walled garbage approach (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774801)

Yeah, and no one would ever organize an army of sockpuppets to abuse that at all ever.

Re:Walled garbage approach (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47775091)

Didn't say it was perfect, but it's an idea worth implementing.

Re:Walled garbage approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775165)

Yeah, and no one would ever organize an army of sockpuppets to abuse that at all ever.

It would still be useful.

Re:Walled garbage approach (4, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 4 months ago | (#47775281)

They should crowdsource this. Simply mark new apps as being in a probationary period and give downloaders the option of tagging the app as misleading, malware, abuse of permissions, etc. It would greatly help their human staff find the bad apples quickly. Of course the same goes for Google and Apple.

The problem comes when the apps are ported.

Say I make ACoolApp on iOS, and it's so good, someone makes an Android version. Call it "AndroidCoolApp". Now much richer from iOS sales, I decide to try my hand at Android development, and port it to Android. Now what?

ACoolApp for Android is technically "duplicate" of AndroidCoolApp, but that was a duplicate of ACoolApp to begin with.

It's happened a few times. And while it's true there are a few intentionally deceptive (search 1Password and find the REAL one), there are also plenty where both apps are legitimately developed - someone sees a cool app on the other platform, the developer is "taking too long" and release their own.

And that's the real problem - how do you properly draw the line between apps that are legitimate but happen to be similar because one inspired the other, and apps that are pure scamware and trying to undermine the original developer?

Hell, what if you make a flappy bird derivative that has some neat twists in it? Does your app no longer exist because of all the others? (And face it, most people would download the app, run it for two seconds and then mark it duplicate without trying to play it).

Whatever happened to Free Trade? (1)

Daniel Oom (2826737) | about 4 months ago | (#47776611)

Quality Control may sound like a good idea....and Microsoft should apply it to their own products or maybe even their own app store, but allow competitor's software to run on their wares.

I didnt even know that they had that many (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774653)

!!!

X - 1500 = Y? (0)

kimgkimg (957949) | about 4 months ago | (#47774731)

So that leave like what, 5 apps in that app store now? Seems like that's a bit of a disservice to the developers who put their time and money into developing the apps. Why not put in a voting mechanism so that the apps are still there, but less popular instead of arbitrarily deleting them?

Re:X - 1500 = Y? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 4 months ago | (#47774833)

Being that X is low. Is exactly why they should be deleted.
The voting method isn't that good for low values of X. Because there are plenty of gaps that will make even low voted scammer apps get high on placement. If the App store doesn't have Angry Birds a search for it may mean Disgruntled birds will show up.

As stated. Microsoft did try to get developers to change to avoid the confusion, many did, some didn't those who didn't... Why? Probably because you were up to no good with your app already.

Re:X - 1500 = Y? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#47775111)

If the App store doesn't have Angry Birds a search for it may mean Disgruntled birds will show up.

I'm holding out for Mildly Irked in an Ironic Post-Modern-Sort-of-Way Birds.

That would be cool. ;-)

Re:X - 1500 = Y? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47779331)

How about I am trying to fly through a "wind farm" birds?

Re:X - 1500 = Y? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775101)

Because in this case a little good PR is worth more to Microsoft than a vanishingly small amount of revenue?

Wow, fifteen hundred (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774737)

In related news, New York City has finally taken action on their pigeon overpopulation problem, trapping and removing a whopping 1500 pigeons from the city!

Re:Wow, fifteen hundred (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775481)

Too true! One of the most frustrating things I found when running the free 8.1 public preview was that it would not allow you to uninstall or delete that useless store full of malware and other overpriced junk. Short of dumping the preview of course. We Gparted ways.

Truthfully, the whole "modern" UIs with a store thing is just stepping up the dangers and potentially infinitely more frustrating then the other preinstalled crap from the OEMs.

It's about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774819)

Finally, they're taking this semi-seriously.

Re:It's about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775611)

It took time to write convoluted fineprint that allowed them to still count these 1500 apps towards the total.

..subjhect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47774823)

I didnt even know that they had that many

All it took... (1)

ildon (413912) | about 4 months ago | (#47774869)

All it took for them to do this was a half dozen articles about how the entire store is infested with scams and fake apps. This is something they should have done a year and a half ago.

Microsoft under HEAVY DDoS attack! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775019)

They're all dead, Jim!

Monster (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775039)

Fuck Microsoft you fucking MONSTER

Closed platforms are total bullshit. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775057)

> We took the feedback seriously and modified the Windows Store app certification requirements as a first step toward better ensuring that apps are named and described in a way that doesnÃ(TM)t misrepresent their purpose.

I'm glad to see the scamware get the boot, but the whole idea of "we changed the certification requirements" should scare everyone. Unless you're a large company with a highly sought after application, you're an idiot if you develop for platforms that don't have an open distribution model. Microsoft's platform is one instance where developers have some leverage and everyone needs to take a stand and tell Microsoft to go fuck themselves until they get their heads out of their asses stop trying to control application distribution.

Today they're kicking out the scammers. Tomorrow it'll be competitors.

Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 4 months ago | (#47775393)

The problem is they will tell you 'You absolutely can distribute your own apps, as long as you buy the server infrastructure from us to do it.' It is possible to side-load on iOS, Android and WinPhone platforms, just not for average users.

Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775633)

It's possible to side-load on Android.

It's possible to side-load on iOS and Windows Store, but only if you get permission from Apple or Microsoft and, really, only if you're a big company distributing applications internally. If you're a Fortune 500 company you might be able to get some guarantees when it comes to (internal) distribution. If you're a small developer you might get fucked.

Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. (2)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 4 months ago | (#47775523)

Tomorrow it'll be competitors.

What are you talking about? Microsoft has a long and glorious history of shutting out competitors [groklaw.net] with shady practices [groklaw.net] . You're making it sound like this would be a new thing.

Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47777489)

Citing Groklaw for reasons why Microsoft is the devil is very similar to citing the NRA for reasons why you should teach your 9 year old daughter to fire an Uzi.

Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#47778465)

I'm glad to see the scamware get the boot

However your ideological position involves leaving the known scammers there. A good clue that your ideology is no good.

bailing water at this point, ms. (5, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 4 months ago | (#47775129)

This might not be a stellar opinion but its got to be said. for microsoft to jettison 1500 apps from a store few used and even fewer knew existed isnt poigniant unless you take into account that this has been microsofts strategy for 10 years in various segments. new product shows up, its identical to a product or products that have been around for 5 years, and it reluctantly disappears without much fanfare or spends a decade on XBox revenue life support. The zune was a dismal failure, and Azure only made an 11% gain because they tie the product into normal licensing for businesses, making it a mandatory item as part of discounts. Windows phone has had more stops and starts than a sixteen year old in a porsche. in 2014 it only had 3% of the marketshare for smartphones and its purchase of nokia was the kiss of death that made standard and poors downgrade their bond status to junk. the content restrictions on the appstore are virtually indistinguishable from the content restrictions of a protestant grandmother. The concept of a microsoft store in general is so hobbled its had to partner with another floating turd, best buy, to continue expansion beyond its 63 stores. Bing was the product of 3 years pounding away at yahoo until they purchased their search technology and relabeled it. After a huge marketing blitz, forcing it as a default in internet explorer, strapping it onto everything from phones to the xbox and even copying google results they still couldnt do better than an alexa rank of 23. Yahoo is alexa ranked at 4. IIS is a blood-stain that makes headlines only because its netcraft rating is artificially inflated with hosting providers that have been paid to use IIS for their static placeholder sites. Internet explorer, despite having 7 versions of development, ranks dead last in pc and mobile categories. Windows and Xbox and perpetual corporate licensing are all that keep microsoft in busines, and even Xbox isnt ranked #1 in gaming as that title goes to nintendo.

Financials and earnings reports sum this point up exactly. Microsoft has hemmoraged 21.8 billion dollars in net income and all it has to show for this is a lobbying division thats convinced a city in germany to switch to windows, and an operating system that, until valve pulls the trigger, will continue to exist solely because it shows up on the computer at the time of delivery and skyrim runs on it.

Re:bailing water at this point, ms. (1)

bradvoy (686502) | about 4 months ago | (#47775503)

...from a store few used and even fewer knew existed ...

You're suggesting that some used the store without knowing it existed. An impressive achievement.

Re:bailing water at this point, ms. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47777099)

Searching from the start menu (well, that tile desktop I guess) includes Windows Store results by default. So downloading an app without knowing? Probable.

Re:bailing water at this point, ms. (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 4 months ago | (#47779095)

Ummm, Bing is not Yahoo. Yahoo is Bing.

3% isn't great. But Apple only has 10%. So it's not *that* far behind what most people consider the leader.

IE is dead second. Well behind Chrome but way ahead of Firefox etc.

Bing is also the default search engine for the iPhone. So I guess that means Apple is in on this conspiracy to cram Bing down everyone's throats.

Color me surprised (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 4 months ago | (#47775175)

People actually use the Windows Store? Wow.

obey their own policy (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#47775263)

Microsoft's new certification process, in particular, asks for clear and accurate names that "reflect the functionality of the app,"

i lol'ed at the part in bold....

M$ is not the worst offender but there up there...'zune', .NET, etc...M$ is horrible at names

i'll probably never choose to use a M$ product for the rest of my life...but maybe this is a sign they are wising up?

Re:obey their own policy (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#47778519)

This isn't about picking an obscure made up name for an application. This is about using a name that is similar or the same as another well known app to scam people into downloading.

ensure apps aren't confused = EA and others can (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#47775321)

ensure apps aren't confused = EA and others can bully out other apps that are competitors to there own apps.

look at how bad simcity was now just thing how bad it can be for new apps / games to be the same way and they use the app store lock in to push out other competitors with better games / apps that do the same thing / are the same type of game.

Re:ensure apps aren't confused = EA and others can (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#47778555)

There's no problem with other apps in the same genre. The problem is where apps use a similar name and/or logo to pass themselves off AS another app.

EA isn't the villain here - scammers are.

Names that reflect functionality (3, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 4 months ago | (#47775355)

... asks for clear and accurate names that "reflect the functionality of the app,"

I guess there will be no more "Shazam" for the Windows Phone platform, then?

Re:Names that reflect functionality (2)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 4 months ago | (#47777769)

Or Excel, Outlook, or Powerpoint.

Windows 8 Store Epic Fail (4, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 months ago | (#47775573)

Sorry, the Store has been a problem for me from the start. First I don't believe in Walled Gardens but you also can't sideload Metro apps. Couple that along with the fact that you can't delete store history in Windows 8 and you'll have a situation that just pisses people off. There are multiple support threads on this in the Microsoft forums and yet nothings been done to address these deficiencies. That's why you still see vendors creating desktop mode apps which still give them some control over the user experience including downloads and support.

Sorry Microsoft, get your heads out of your collective asses and listen to your customers.

Re:Windows 8 Store Epic Fail (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#47778623)

First I don't believe in Walled Gardens

MS's walled garden didn't previously have enough of a bar to scammers. Any store without any selection criteria will be predominantly scamware.

(Not including desktop Linux here as there's no one to scam. But definately including Android.)

1500 apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47775725)

They had that many?

OK, cheap shot, but if you aanounce you're giving away cash to developers for every app they submit to the store, why were you surprised when you got deluged with crap? I wish I'd got in on the act myself and submitted my "Hello World" app which no doubt would have also sold loads to knowingly ironic hipsters, and it's title would have "reflected the functionality of the app" better than any app that has or would ever be produced.

Ane the user is left without the choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47776083)

So Microsoft started censoring what the user can and cannot run on their own hardware.

Quality Control (1)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 4 months ago | (#47776155)

What these online stores for software need is proper quality control. Steam used to keep a pretty good standards for publishing games, but that has gone down the hill. Android never had any good quality control and iOS seems to be lacking as well.

This is good news...... (2)

genner (694963) | about 4 months ago | (#47776331)

For the three remaining apps.....

I don't care what they do (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 4 months ago | (#47776343)

I don't care what they do, I will never buy anything that runs Windows 8. 8 is the deal breaker.

Half their app store is gone now (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47777777)

What's that like half their app store gone now?

hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47777781)

Damn, people started complaining all over the web and MS actually did something about it. MS, finally, listening to their user base.

I re-installed windows 7 from scratch and setup my primary user as a standard user with uac enabled and secondary user as a administrator. My performance is hit and some applications don't behave nicely anymore including google chrome, probably caused by UAC. I even ran windows update as Administrator under standard user and in the end of the installation it gave me a damn error and could no longer run the updates even after restarting the machine, but fixed it by re-installing .net framework, then I had different freaking issues. Plus, the update installation took 30 minutes longer than it did when I was under the administrator user. Tired, I just went back to using Administrator and applications no longer run buggy and performance is back. Shit! I thought I could run it like linux. I did not get the su or sudo experience more like FU and SUCKO.

MS really needs to develop another OS but from scratch(get rid of all legacy) with security in mind instead of throwing ACL System on top of all that legacy crap. I'm sure people in time would adopt to the new OS at the same time windows 7/8 still being used. Something has to be done MS can't ride on 24 year old technology for long.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?