Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Oct 2012 15:47 UTC
Windows Casey Muratori dissects the consequences of Windows 8's closed distribution model. "But how realistic is the assumption that the Windows desktop will still be a usable computing platform in the future? And what would be the consequences were it to disappear, leaving Windows users with only the closed software ecosystem introduced in Windows 8? To answer these questions, this volume of Critical Detail examines the immediate and future effects of Microsoft's current certification requirements, explores in depth what history predicts for the lifespan of the classic Windows desktop, and takes a pragmatic look at whether an open or closed ecosystem would be better for Microsoft as a company." The section that details how none - none - of this year's greatest games (or last year's fantastic Skyrim) and only one of this year's Emmy-nominated TV shows pass Microsoft's rules sent chills down my spine.
Thread beginning with comment 538859
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I don't think ...
by RobG on Wed 17th Oct 2012 12:47 UTC in reply to "I don't think ..."
RobG
Member since:
2012-10-17

I agree with all that, to a point.

The point is the censorship implications. Why should we allow MS (or Apple, or Google) to determine which apps are fit for market? That's the area I'm concerned about.

There seems to be a lot of FUD here as well. Some WinRT API's CAN be used for desktop development, there's a list of them up on MSDN. I hope this list increases over time, and that the Market becomes less restrictive on editorial policy.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I don't think ...
by WorknMan on Wed 17th Oct 2012 17:43 in reply to "RE: I don't think ..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The point is the censorship implications. Why should we allow MS (or Apple, or Google) to determine which apps are fit for market? That's the area I'm concerned about.


I believe we need app stores in order to protect the tech tards from themselves. I don't even bother to install a lot of apps I'd like to try on Windows anymore, simply because I don't know what they're going to do. Things have gotten way out of hand with these 'toolbars' and such. Even Linux distros have distro repositories. And as long as these things exist, SOMEBODY has to decide what gets included, and users may not always agree with their decisions.

So I don't have an issue with these stores, as long as you can side load. And currently you can side load on the desktop, which is the only part of Windows 8 that actually matters to me. As for Windows RT, well... that ain't Windows 8 ;)

Edited 2012-10-17 17:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I don't think ...
by Alfman on Thu 18th Oct 2012 15:15 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think ..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"So I don't have an issue with these stores, as long as you can side load. And currently you can side load on the desktop, which is the only part of Windows 8 that actually matters to me. As for Windows RT, well... that ain't Windows 8"

Agree, if sideloading is possible (along with competing stores, etc), I have no problem with software distribution stores.

The thing is, they desperately want to monopolise 3rd party software distribution, which they cannot do on the windows desktop. It's technically impossible for microsoft to control the distribution of new desktop applications without breaking compatibility with existing ones. That's a real catch-22 for microsoft. This is the reason MS is pushing the label of "legacy" for desktop and shoving us towards metro so hard, even to the point of making desktop usage less friendly.

If they sold a windows 8 standalone desktop (no bundled metro), I am positive it would sell very well, probably even better than with metro, but it wouldn't help microsoft transform into the software gatekeepers they want to be.

Edited 2012-10-18 15:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I don't think ...
by Alfman on Thu 18th Oct 2012 14:42 in reply to "RE: I don't think ..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

RobG,

"The point is the censorship implications. Why should we allow MS (or Apple, or Google) to determine which apps are fit for market? That's the area I'm concerned about."

Exactly! There's tremendous concern with allowing these corporations control consumer access to software.

Reply Parent Score: 2