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 539100
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I don't think ...
by WorknMan on Fri 19th Oct 2012 04:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't think ..."
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Well of course if being gatekeepers of an app store would make them more money, that's what they'd want to do. They ARE a business, after all. And before they can officially ditch the desktop and make Metro the new thing, they first have to make Metro not suck. And we're at LEAST 10 years away from that happening ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: I don't think ...
by Alfman on Fri 19th Oct 2012 13:33 in reply to "RE[4]: I don't think ..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"Well of course if being gatekeepers of an app store would make them more money, that's what they'd want to do. They ARE a business, after all."

There's no arguing that they want to do it, but I'm extremely worried about actively banning competing software distribution channels and consumers loosing access to software-only vendors who have no choice but to submit to microsoft's gatekeepers in order to reach them. I guess since we already agree here, the debate becomes whether we believe government should step in and declare that all app stores must permit competing app stores. I think it would be in the public's interest.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: I don't think ...
by WorknMan on Fri 19th Oct 2012 18:37 in reply to "RE[5]: I don't think ..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I guess since we already agree here, the debate becomes whether we believe government should step in and declare that all app stores must permit competing app stores.


Oh HELL NO!! We are NEVER going to agree on that. Repeal the DMCA and get the government as FAR AWAY from tech as humanly possible. Not only is the idea of competing app stores impractical, but it can also be a pain in the ass for users. I've heard of horror stories on Android where the Google Play store and the Amazon app store were duking it out as to which one should be updating a certain app, when a user (either accidentally or on purpose) installs the same app from both stores. As an OS vendor, why should I have to support somebody else's app store?

You might see MS (and other companies') desire to rule the ecosystem as inherently evil and a power move to take over the world, but I see it as a business decision that also has practical benefits for them (such as added security). If the majority of consumers desire a walled garden, than it shall come to pass. If people want an alternative that is open, I think such an alternative will always exist. Unless these companies buy laws to outlaw anything that isn't locked down. Which is exactly why I say keep the government OUT of the tech.

Edited 2012-10-19 18:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2