> 1.2 Your app must be fully functional when the customer gets it from the Windows Store
> 1.3 Your app’s trial functionality must reasonably resemble its full functionality
> 1.4 Each app must display only one tile after it is installed
...
Have no idea what he is complaining about. If he doesn't want to be on Metro, he can always be on the Desktop. He certainly doesn't mind it being on iPhones, iPads, and on Android devices.
You've listed exactly 3 points from a multipage document with dozens of requirements as if they summarize the whole document. This is not true - the requirements go way beyond the points you listed.
Apart from that, these points are merely necessary, but not sufficient for getting titles published. In a closed ecosystem you hand over control of your ability to publish to someone else, and that is fundamental. The terms that really matter in the MS developer agreement are:
> i. App Availability. Microsoft has no obligation to make any app available that you submit, even if that app is Certified
and
> j. Updates. Microsoft may update this agreement at any time in its sole discretion
That leaves open any kind of anticompetitive reason MS may come up with in the future to manipulate the store.
> 3.9 All app logic must originate from, and reside in, your app package
> 4.1.2 Your app must obtain opt-in or equivalent consent to share personal information
Did you even read any of those terms? They are ALL of the same nature.
> You've listed exactly 3 points from a multipage document with dozens of requirements as if they summarize the whole document. This is not true - the requirements go way beyond the points you listed.
Now you're just making things up.
> That leaves open any kind of anticompetitive reason MS may come up with in the future to manipulate the store.
Is this new Windows "app store" the only way one can install software in the future, or is it just one additional way to deploy applications, which is more streamlined? If it's the latter, then I would think a "certification" process makes sense. It's not about closing down a platform, it's about establishing a more user friendly installation experience.
It's the latter. For now it seems like Microsoft is doing what Apple has never considered - building a streamlined frontend interface with a certified app store so casual users can safely and easily access a wide range of software, and maintaining a fully tinker-able backend and not closing off other software distribution channels for expert users.
Unless this is all a prelude to their master plan to pull an iOS in W9, it seems like a highly prudent move. Microsoft is a company, and needs to remain competitive against Apple, and they best achieve this by simplifying the front-end. But they don't seem to be forgetting their expert-user roots.
The only question for me now is how moddable the Metro interface will be. I think it would be smart if Microsoft left it relatively open for expert users to experiment with.
I would like to point out that it isn't actually the latter. If your app is a "Metro-Style Windows 8 app", then you can't sell it on your own, you have to put it up on the Windows Store or make a desktop application if you want to sell it on your own.
> For now it seems like Microsoft is doing what Apple has
> never considered - building a streamlined frontend
> interface with a certified app store so casual users can
> safely and easily access a wide range of software, and
> maintaining a fully tinker-able backend and not closing
> off other software distribution channels for expert users.
Interestingly, model that you just described works fine on OS X and have been this way for more than a year now.
I would hardly call the front-end of OS X streamlined. Metro is streamlined and user-friendly, OS X is, despite (or increasingly because of) the few tacked-on iOS-esque elements, a train wreck for usability. Apple needs to face the fact that small tweaks will not get you the best of both worlds. A comprehensive rethink a la Metro is essential.
> It's the latter. For now it seems like Microsoft is doing what Apple has never considered - building a streamlined frontend interface with a certified app store so casual users can safely and easily access a wide range of software, and maintaining a fully tinker-able backend and not closing off other software distribution channels for expert users.
Isn't that exactly what Apple has done on OS X with the Mac App Store?
Is this new Windows "app store" the only way one can install software in the future, or is it just one additional way to deploy applications, which is more streamlined?
On ARM-based tablets running Windows "RT" (that is Windows 8, without the legacy, without the desktop), Windows only ships with Metro and the AppStore is the only place to get apps.
On x86-based systems, you can fool around in desktop-land as you are used to and install anything you like.
So the answer is yes and no, all depending on platform.
May be his beef is that Windows, up to now fairly open is now becoming a walled garden. And he is being vocal about it.