Microsoft has gone to great lengths to stress how compatible Windows 8 is with legacy applications. You can download these from any website and install them however you like, as has always been the case with Windows. However, when it comes to new Metro-style apps, Microsoft is locking it down and taking the Apple approach. All Metro-style apps will be available strictly in one store: the Windows Store and Microsoft will take 30 percent of all revenue from developers, reports Computerworld. Developers will also have to pay Microsoft a yearly fee to be a part of the Store.
For the price, consumers will gain safety and security, argued Ted Dworkin, a Microsoft director for Windows Store, at BUILD last Wednesday. “”We will be the only store for distribution of Metro-style apps,” said Dworkin.”…We will examine every application that will be submitted to us [and] we will run a virus check and a malware check on every application.”
Microsoft gives Android the ball
While this Apple standard has become common on mobile, it means Microsoft is, once again giving Android an advantage. Though “fragmentation” has been a hot word surrounding Android, its fragmentation of app stores has as many upsides for customers as downsides. While it does pressure consumers to adopt more than one app store, like competition in retail stores, it promotes lower prices on apps and big sales. Amazon’s Appstore for Android has a new free app out every day. In addition, it means that there is more than one place to get apps. So if the Android Market is compromised for some reason, you can always buy apps elsewhere. This decentralization has the added benefit of making it more difficult for any government, corporation, or special interest from unilaterally removing an application from the world by simply pressuring Google. In the last year, we have seen Google remove tethering apps and ROMs from sections of its Market, among other categories. Services that compete with those offered by Google, Microsoft, and Apple are also served by having a competitive market of stores. Apple routinely rejects apps that compete with its core services, asking developers to be original.
Of course, we also cannot forget the issue of in-app billing that’s causing a stir in the Apple App Store. Because it has unilateral control over all apps and content on the iPhone, Apple has decided to charge app developers a 30-percent commission not just on app sales, but on the sales of anything those developers sell within their apps. So if you run a Google Bookstore, for instance, you would have to pay a 30-percent commission to Apple for each book sold. This has angered many e-book publishers, each of which will have to find some way around the fees for their business model to work.
It’s wonderful…as an idea
The idea of one, single, beautiful place to find all of your apps is a lovely one. But just as its never good to put all of your metaphorical eggs into one basket, the same is true for apps and app stores. Without competition among them, things will not improve for developers or users in the long run. Windows was founded on an open platform. Anyone has always been able to create a Windows application, release it, and promote it. The Microsoft Windows Store is a great new idea, but if it’s the only way humanly possible to get a Windows app, that puts too much control in Redmond’s hands.
For more opinions on Windows 8, check out our recent rundown of the new OS. Or, if you need to know what Windows 8 is and why it’s so different, check out our older piece on Windows 8 features.
They must’ve forgotten the part where many people preferred Windows because of the freedom with applications. Apple somehow has the power to pull it off, but I struggle to see this really working with Microsoft.
I started reading the article with a negative pre-disposition towards it but changed my mind by the time I got to the end (well done Jeffrey).
The idea of a controllable source of apps is attractive and certainly is behind much of the positive user experience of Apple mobile devices that MS wants to emulate. Certainly mobile devices and tablets appeal to a broader user spectrum that will benefit from being protected.
The problem is that this notion goes against the key value offering of windows 8 – its a PC OS that runs on tablets – it gives you the flexibility of a PC and the usability of a tablet. This doesn’t work if the tablets is as locked down as the iPad. We already have iPads after all, why would we buy something else if it works the same and is 3 generations behind?
The key advantage of windows is the flexibility (calling it open seems wrong since the license is as closed as it gets).
I can see how selling totally uncontrolled tablets to an unsophisticated population could lead to the phenomenon where between 2000-2006 every Windows PC was swamped with Malware, spyware and junkware.
But this can be avoided without locking down the store – using UAC style warnings and forcing users to acknowledge the risks of installing software from other sources is one way.
Another even more powerful move would be for MS to issue “Store Certificates” allowing others to build their “licenced” app stores. Alternative app stores would need to comply with MS guidelines e.g. on security and quality but could compete on price, content and social features or curation. They could pay MS a fixed fee or even a small % of profits (as is done by airport stores to airport authorities). MS would thus encourage a large Metro ecosystem while still ensuring a reasonable standard of User Experience as well as protecting its bottom line.
Jeffrey,
A well written article that points out some of the problems with the Windows Arm 8 app store. I have to wonder if Windows Arm 8 turns out to be a flop if Microsoft would shut off the server the same way they did for their music service. Another problem could be that once you buy apps, and then you have to replace your tablet or you buy another tablet, Microsoft might make you buy apps again for the new tablet. Some of us hate buying the same program many times over. Since Microsoft is making 30% commission plus a yearly fee to the software maker on each app sale, would it be reasonable to assume that Microsoft would not want a lot of free open source apps in it’s App Store? 30% of zero is still nothing. Remember Apple not letting VLC in its app store?
thats a good move, cuz Android has LOTS of shitty apps. Most, I’m sure are geared to collecting personal info.
They must’ve forgotten the part where many people preferred Windows because of the freedom with applications. Apple somehow has the power to pull it off, but I struggle to see this really working with Microsoft.
“We just need to be more like Apple!” Yeah, that’ll help.
You say “The idea of one, single beautiful place to find all of your apps is a lovely one, but just as its never good to put all of your metaphorical eggs into one basket, the same is true for apps and app stores.”
As a customer, I find Apple’s approach much more satisfying experience for me. “IF” the App Store is not available (which to my knowledge has always been available), come back later. But back to the comment above, how do you know ” its never good to put all of your metaphorical eggs into one basket, the same is true for apps and app stores”? Apparently you have your app seeded at different locations and you have sales > 1? More proof your method is better and why Apple is not making money please.
I believe I explained my position more in the sentences and paragraphs that proceeded that statement. Having all software for a device in one location is very neat and tidy and clean for consumers, but it also means that it’s easier for censorship and overreaching by Store owners as well. If a store has no competition, then it can treat developers worse and charge customers more. Luckily there is some competition between platforms (Android vs iOS vs Windows Phone), but as consumers become more entrenched into their operating systems, which will happen as they accumulate digital purchases, then there is less of a chance of them leaving on a whim, meaning more leverage for store owners to do as they please.
I hear you but as a person whom does not blindly agree with Apple, much of their designs are simple where you don’t care how something works, you just do/get what you need and move on. The notion of high flexibility where people that can’t seem to separate from the CLI (linux) or pop up a list of running task (android) or android has “real” multitasking and iOS doesn’t just doesn’t hold true for many many users. Too many options, sources, flexibility does not guarantee success.
You talk about competition which I agree about but I don’t necessarily agree that having all software for a device in one location is the worst of two evils. I am one person whom develops in c# and is entrenched in Linux. I can get software from many sources but I’m not so sure I need my mobile device to do the same. I foresee as devices get smarter there will be less of a need to care where you buy a mobile app from. But I do hear you and agree with many points, I just don’t know how important it is to have more “of a chance of them leaving on a whim”. The free market will take care of the stores and where developers go. There are many options.
Good bla bla blaing with you. Sorry my first paragraph is not well worded. Did I mention I’m a coder?