locked
Why use Windows 8?

    General discussion

  • Really, why do developers want to use Windows 8 on their tablets instead of another operating system? With the lock down of the metro UI apps, there's no benefit to your operating system. Users naturally gravitate towards open platforms, this being why Android is such a success (and why no one buys Android phones on AT&T, as you can't side-load apps). Why would people want to use a locked down operating system that refuses them any means of choice? Also, if you force them to go to the desktop environment to have any semblance of choice, which isn't tailored for tablets, again, the question begs to be asked, why use Windows 8?

    If people wanted their devices to be policed, and wanted to be told that they have to buy from a specific market, they'd use iOS. Frankly, with Windows 8, you are offering tablets a similar experience to Apple's iPad.

    As if Microsoft wasn't pushing it enough with signed drivers, you are now telling developers that they must use your market and pay Microsoft 30% of their earnings? Having to port to the ARM platform was a large enough deterrent not to develop for tablets, but now to make use of the tablet experience they have to waste more time trying to get approved on your market. I hardly think many will develop for your platform.

    I sincerely don't understand why Metro Apps have to come from the Windows Store. Microsoft is already walking on eggshells due to their prior monopoly accusations. To think that monopolizing the user experience of their platform is something it can get away with is a bit ridiculous. I look forward to seeing the response from the EU, frankly.

    Bringing this all back: Why would any tablet developer use Windows 8 when there are free and open alternatives? Clearly you'll have to mount up more patents in your arsenal if you think you'll win this fight, because your consumers obviously will not choose your locked down platform. The only way you can win is taking your approach of abusing the backwards patent system.

    Long story short, allow side loading of Metro applications.

    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:55 PM

All replies

  • My speculation is that you need to download Visual Studio Express to qualify as a developer, but I may be wrong...

    Google said it was not make money when talking about its 30% cut back in 2009. Guess Microsoft would face the same credit card, carrier and billing companies.  



    The following is signature, not part of post
    Please mark the post answered your question as the answer, and mark other helpful posts as helpful, so they will appear differently to other users who are visiting your thread for the same problem.
    Visual C++ MVP
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 2:31 AM
  • My speculation is that you need to download Visual Studio Express to qualify as a developer, but I may be wrong...

    Google said it was not make money when talking about its 30% cut back in 2009. Guess Microsoft would face the same credit card, carrier and billing companies.  



    The following is signature, not part of post
    Please mark the post answered your question as the answer, and mark other helpful posts as helpful, so they will appear differently to other users who are visiting your thread for the same problem.
    Visual C++ MVP

    The fact that you have to even qualify as a developer to use your computer the way computers have been used since their conception is a bit stupid. It's my computer, I should be able to install what I want onto it.

    What Google 30% cut back? I'm referring to the mandatory 30% that has to be paid to Microsoft when an application is sold on their Market. This is not a transfer fee for credit cards or billing companies, this is profit that directly goes into Microsoft's pockets.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:51 PM
  • The argument about closed system is old, said to another computer maker several years ago. Apps did not disappear. Instead the company now claim "there is an app for that". App developers will circumvent rules if the cut threatens their business. Programmers are not stupid.

    I don't know where you come up with the 30% figure so I used a Google figure. I cannot find anything on microsoft.com or msdn.com, do you mind to share your original source of information? Hopefully it is not winrumor.com.



    The following is signature, not part of post
    Please mark the post answered your question as the answer, and mark other helpful posts as helpful, so they will appear differently to other users who are visiting your thread for the same problem.
    Visual C++ MVP
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:05 AM
  • the 30% number came from a presentation at //BUILD
    Robert Levy
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:20 AM
  • I have seen somewhere in the forum here that 'side loading' of apps is/will be possible, I think I recall with some digital signing or something similar to satisfy the security aspect that metro apps must have. If MS were to be flexible on the security for metro apps, it defeats the whole purpose of the metro apps trust ideals to the consumers.

    The percentage cut of MS (30% has been mentioned here) won't be just a transaction processing fee. If you sell your app through the store you get huge customer exposure, OEM credibility, "shelf space" in a huge store with plenty of passing trade, & they look after all the sales infrastructure for you. That all costs money to run, & opportunity has a cost to it. If anybody thinks they can do a better job of mass marketing & delivering their app themselves for less than MS's cut they'll ask for, then it seems you'll be able to do that too.

    The way I look at it, if it's a percentage cut then you only pay for the successful sales. With your own private sales & marketing efforts, you pay whether it's succeeding or not. It's a no-brainer in my opinion. :)

    Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:19 AM
  • "If MS were to be flexible on the security for metro apps, it defeats the whole purpose of the metro apps trust ideals to the consumers."

    But allowing users to side load apps is not compromising security. The sandbox that Metro apps run in is the primary source of the security and peace of mind for users, and that sandbox will still be present even if the app is side loaded. The signing and certification are just more ways for Microsoft to squeeze money out of developers.

    "If you sell your app through the store you get...OEM credibility"

    You are seriously going to give a developer more credibility because they managed to get their app listed on the Windows Store? Where they only make money by letting more apps in? I own an iPhone; I was long ago disabused of that fantasy.

    "'shelf space' in a huge store with plenty of passing trade..."

    You mean a tiny little blurb in a space that's identical to everyone else's tiny little blurb lost in a vast sea of apps with no way to differentiate themselves? No thanks, I'll pass.

    "If anybody thinks they can do a better job of mass marketing & delivering their app themselves for less than MS's cut they'll ask for, then it seems you'll be able to do that too."

    On what basis are you making that claim? According to this MSDN article, "enterprise customers and developers can bypass the store to side-load apps." It mentions nothing about non-enterprise consumers, but since they bothered to call out those two groups, I take that to mean that other groups will NOT be able to side-load. If I want to sell a Metro app to a non-enterprise customer, I HAVE to give 30% of my revenue to Microsoft. This is unacceptable, it is unethical, and it guarantees that I will never write a Metro app.


    Moderator | MCTS .NET 2.0 Web Applications | My Blog: http://www.commongenius.com
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:38 PM
  • Again, programmers are not stupid. Nobody force you to switch to Microsoft's billing system. Can't you post it to the store as a free app and charge the user via some other methods? It is not like Microsoft forbids you to write in-app purchase or charge users on another web site. 

    The following is signature, not part of post
    Please mark the post answered your question as the answer, and mark other helpful posts as helpful, so they will appear differently to other users who are visiting your thread for the same problem.
    Visual C++ MVP
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:44 PM
  • "It is not like Microsoft forbids you to write in-app purchase or charge users on another web site."

    What is your source for that claim? That is exactly the kind of thing I would expect to see in the TOS for the app store.

    "Nobody force you to switch to Microsoft's billing system."

    Please give me a source for that statement; it would go a long way towards convincing me that Metro is not DOA. Everything I have seen so far is that all Metro apps must be installed via the store (for non-enterprise customers, where "enterprise" has not yet been defined).


    Moderator | MCTS .NET 2.0 Web Applications | My Blog: http://www.commongenius.com
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:44 PM
  • From the name of the CurrentProduct.RequestFeaturePurchaseAsync method in dev docs. I do not know how else the method name can be explained. 

    Think about it, how you detect how much or how a software, say, Netflix, Amazon Cloud player or ITunes, is charging their users? Microsoft has no authority to force those companies to turn over transaction data. 



    The following is signature, not part of post
    Please mark the post answered your question as the answer, and mark other helpful posts as helpful, so they will appear differently to other users who are visiting your thread for the same problem.
    Visual C++ MVP


    Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:07 PM
  • CurrentProduct.RequestFeaturePurchaseAsync is for in-app purchases; they stlll go through the store, and Microsoft is still skimming off the top.

    Again referencing the article I linked to above (since I am trying to go off of facts and not just assumptions): "Store benefits: In-app purchases...Apps can also provide their own commerce mechanism for such purchases." (emphasis mine) It specifically calls out that in-app purchases can be paid for through some other mechanism. It does NOT say that the app itself can be paid for using some other mechanism. And my experience tells me that giving a shell app for free and then unlocking it through some other mechanism as an attempt to get around paying Microsoft their cut would be against the TOS, and would not pass certification if they find it. I can't say that for sure, but it is the most logical conclusion I can come to after reading everything that is currently available. I would love for Microsoft to clear this up.

    Also, even if it turns out that you can charge customers some other way without paying Microsoft, that still doesn't answer the question of why apps have to be downloaded through the store. What if Microsoft has "technical issues" that cause the store not to work? What if it struggles to scale with the volume of users? What if it becomes a target for hackers? I should be allowed to choose the delivery vehicle or vehicles that I feel serve my customers the best, not have a single vehicle forced on me by Microsoft.


    Moderator | MCTS .NET 2.0 Web Applications | My Blog: http://www.commongenius.com
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:43 PM
  • This is just speculation.  If Microsoft force Amazon or Apple (ironically) to pay the 30% cut, and does not provide alternative billing method, what happens? No, people are not stupid, they cannot raise their price by 30%. They would just launch a browser to let the user to shop content. If Microsoft make it too hard to developers so that Amazon or Apple pulled out of the platform, people would have less incentive to buy Windows devices.  A tablet without Kindle app or ITunes? Surely that competes well with IPad and Kindle!

    I believe steve ballmer explained the decision making about the store in build sessions. But he did not answer those "what if" questions. 



    The following is signature, not part of post
    Please mark the post answered your question as the answer, and mark other helpful posts as helpful, so they will appear differently to other users who are visiting your thread for the same problem.
    Visual C++ MVP
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:04 PM
  • iTunes and Kindle are different; they are not charging for the app, they are charging for the service. The app is just a portal to the service that they give away for free. If I am selling an app that is not a portal to a cloud service, I can't make that claim and get away with it.

    Yes, this is all speculation, because Microsoft hasn't answered these questions yet. But they have hinted, and the hints are not encouraging, which is why I will continue to raise the issue until we do get an answer.


    Moderator | MCTS .NET 2.0 Web Applications | My Blog: http://www.commongenius.com
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:35 PM
  • Bringing this all back: Why would any tablet developer use Windows 8 when there are free and open alternatives? Clearly you'll have to mount up more patents in your arsenal if you think you'll win this fight, because your consumers obviously will not choose your locked down platform. The only way you can win is taking your approach of abusing the backwards patent system.

    Indeed, that's why Apple failed so miserably with its locked-down iPhone platform. Who in their right mind would develop for that?

    :)

    Friday, September 23, 2011 12:03 AM
  • Indeed, that's why Apple failed so miserably with its locked-down iPhone platform. Who in their right mind would develop for that?

    :)

    So you liken the capability of Windows to an iPhone? Windows is not a mobile operating system. I don't pay more than a grand for a computer so that I can play Angry Birds.

    Android also has a larger following now than iOS, and Android allows for side-loading. I hardly find this a coincidence. Also, it's projected that at least 1/3 of iPhone users jailbreak their device, again allowing for side-loading.

    :)

    I also wonder if this opens Microsoft to anti-trust and monopoly lawsuits. Seems like they're walking on eggshells as it is, so I hardly see why they'd be exempt from those suits with this choice.

    Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:56 AM
  • Bringing this all back: Why would any tablet developer use Windows 8 when there are free and open alternatives? Clearly you'll have to mount up more patents in your arsenal if you think you'll win this fight, because your consumers obviously will not choose your locked down platform. The only way you can win is taking your approach of abusing the backwards patent system.

    Indeed, that's why Apple failed so miserably with its locked-down iPhone platform. Who in their right mind would develop for that?

    :)

    This is more like Apple saying to its customers that you can only install applications through it's Mac App Store. In the real world it's different because you can side-load apps on a Mac and there is no difference in UI between using the MAS and side-loading. However, on Windows 8 the 'Metro experience' is not available unless you pay Microsoft 30%.
    Saturday, October 01, 2011 9:23 AM
  • We have no idea what percentage Microsoft will take off the top of all Windows Store purchases until they actually release and open up the store.

    I've seen it mentioned a couple times in this thread that "programmers aren't stupid." Well guess what? Microsoft isn't stupid either. Realistically they wont charge an app store fee that developers aren't able to pay. If developers are reluctant to build Metro apps because of the fee, it'll be lowered. However, I highly doubt that will happen as Microsoft will do quite a bit of market research before settling on a number; whether it's 30% or something else.

    Also, I remember ALL these same arguments being raised about the Apple App Store and iPhone. And, guess what? It has been a tremendous success for Apple and has hardly caused them to "fail so miserably." This alone stands to reason that the Windows Store will be a huge success for Microsoft.

    Sure, it seems that you'll need to distribute your apps through the Windows Store if you want to develop Metro apps, but the same is true with the Apple App Store and iPhone/iPod/iPad apps!

    Let's get a little realistic people.


    Microsoft MVP - Bing Maps
    Blog: http://pietschsoft.com | Web.Maps.VE - ASP.NET AJAX Bing Maps Server Control
    Saturday, October 01, 2011 2:49 PM
  • Chris,

    Apple already had a long tradition of restricting what users and developers can do on Apple system. While there certainly was (and still is) an outcry against the Apple store, most people just saw it as more of the same from Apple.

    Not so with Microsoft. One of the defining characteristics of the Windows platform for three decades has been an open platform that anyone can use and anyone can develop for. I got my start in programming at age 12 by using Visual Basic to create little apps and sharing them with my friends and family. Now I am "all grown up", I have my CS degree, I have been working professionally as a software developer on the Windows platform for several years - and I STILL love creating little apps and sharing them with my friends and family, and, through the magic of the internet, anyone else who might be interested in them.

    Now Microsoft is saying, sorry, you are not ALLOWED to cultivate your own trust relationship with your friends, your family, or (and here is the really important part) your customers; Daddy Microsoft has to broker that relationship for you, whether you and your customers want them to or not.

    "If developers are reluctant to build Metro apps because of the fee, it'll be lowered."

    Why should developers have to pay anything at all to Microsoft? The customer buys the OS, the developer buys the tools (or not, if Microsoft chooses to continue offering free versions, which of course they don't have to); that should be the end of the commercial relationship with Microsoft, unless one or both parties want it to continue. If Microsoft feels that they can offer a service in brokering a trust relationship between developers and consumers that has value and is worth compensation, then by all means they should offer that service and charge whatever fee they feel is appropriate. But there is no justification whatsoever for forcing all users and developers to operate under their model.

    Finally, consider this: if all Microsoft is going to do is follow Apple's lead, what reason do I have left to stick with Microsoft's platform? I have stuck with them for almost two decades because they were NOT Apple; the more they become like Apple, the less reason I have to stay.


    Moderator | MCTS .NET 2.0 Web Applications | My Blog: http://www.commongenius.com
    Monday, October 03, 2011 5:19 PM
  • I disagree that 'Users gravitate towards open platforms', Techie's and Developers might but your average smartphone / cheap PC user just wants to know if it'll run angry birds / MS Office, their next question on their purchasing checklist is probably is 'how much does device X cost' and not 'Can I side load apps/applications'. The days of the 'computer' being the sole domain of the techie are gone, 'consumers' outnumber us many to one and I can't blame Apple/MS for catering for the majority as their money is just as good as ours.

    'locked down os that refuses choice' - Choice of what? Apps? There are thousands of apps out there.

    I don't think 'consumers' care about 'policed/curated' markets either, witness the number of people still clicking on fake antivirus popups.

    30% ()or whatever the figure turns out to be) of your app income goes to MS - Fine, I'd rather have 70% of something opposed to 100% of what? Self promotion/advertising/distribution aren't why I got into development and they aren't in my skill set.

    Back to the original question 'why would a tablet developer use W8?' - because if it takes off there'll be a whole new bunch of folk wanting apps to turn their shiny new into something useful (or playful).

     


    Acer W500 tablet Ageing HP laptop Too much apple stuff
    Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:48 AM
  • This is more like Apple saying to its customers that you can only install applications through it's Mac App Store. In the real world it's different because you can side-load apps on a Mac and there is no difference in UI between using the MAS and side-loading. However, on Windows 8 the 'Metro experience' is not available unless you pay Microsoft 30%.

    Having seen the Metro-style UI, I don't think losing the "Metro Experience" is going to be a big deal.  I'm more concerned about not seeing any clear path for RIAs that leverage the .Net stack.  And to be honest, I don't blame Microsoft for that.  Apple's fatal decision to forbid plug-ins in browsers meant that there is no clean and easy code base for developing write-once/run-anywhere RIAs.  If Microsoft can provide us with a product in the Visual Studio family that allows developers to leverage the power of Microsoft back-end technologies and servers, yet code in XAML and .Net languages and deploy to any HTML5+JavaScript compliant browser WITHOUT having to code either HTML5 (shudder) or JavaScript (double-shudder), life would be sweet as honey.

    Alternatively, if Apple would support a "Metro Plug-in" for browsers... but the last time I checked those snowballs in Hell weren't doing so well. 

    Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:12 AM
  • We have no idea what percentage Microsoft will take off the top of all Windows Store purchases until they actually release and open up the store.

    I've seen it mentioned a couple times in this thread that "programmers aren't stupid." Well guess what? Microsoft isn't stupid either. Realistically they wont charge an app store fee that developers aren't able to pay. If developers are reluctant to build Metro apps because of the fee, it'll be lowered. However, I highly doubt that will happen as Microsoft will do quite a bit of market research before settling on a number; whether it's 30% or something else.

    Also, I remember ALL these same arguments being raised about the Apple App Store and iPhone. And, guess what? It has been a tremendous success for Apple and has hardly caused them to "fail so miserably." This alone stands to reason that the Windows Store will be a huge success for Microsoft.

    Sure, it seems that you'll need to distribute your apps through the Windows Store if you want to develop Metro apps, but the same is true with the Apple App Store and iPhone/iPod/iPad apps!

    Let's get a little realistic people.


    Microsoft MVP - Bing Maps
    Blog: http://pietschsoft.com | Web.Maps.VE - ASP.NET AJAX Bing Maps Server Control

    I'm sorry, but the iPhone is horrible. You pay upwards of $400 only to be locked into Apple's monopoly scheme. This is why I run Android. I can side-load whatever I want, and that's that. Android is a work environment to me, because I can load apps that I find useful in a manner that I find works best.

    The iPhone is a toy, not a workspace. When you sit in a waiting room you can pull your iPhone out and play some stupid game or laugh at a fart application. Is that what Windows has become? A toy? iOS is not a realistic work environment, and neither is the Metro UI on Windows 8. To be fair, Metro is fine for tablets, because tablets are not useful unless they come with a keyboard dock. You can't get things done when you're poking an index finger to type. Why is Windows 8 designed for a platform that, again, is a toy? I don't want a toy, I want a steady and intuitive work environment.

    With Windows 8, my work environment has a leech. No longer can I flow between a useful start menu to look for programs, but now I have to waste my time trying to navigate a toy that was meant for touch to try to get to what I need. This is not intuitive. Not only that, but it's Metro. That means it'll be dominated by the apps from the Windows Store which, to me, are entirely useless. No one will develop a useful app for it because it costs money (the 30% was released at a build conference as an actual figure), so that leaves me with what, Angry Birds? Why do I want to play Angry Birds on my $2000 computer? That seems like a waste of hardware to me. So, to navigate, I have to go into a screen that is NOT meant for my mouse and keyboard and is NOT meant to be anything but a toy.

    Windows 8 boils down to the fact that developers will NOT port to the Metro UI, and the desktop is dependent on a useless interface (made useless because of the fact that it won't be developed for) for navigation to applications. Windows 8 is Windows 7 with a toy attached to it, a toy which Daddy Microsoft forces you to use and forces you to pay THEM to do anything with that toy.

    The benefit of the iPhone/iPad/iPod is that it is good hardware, where you're not specifically paying for the software. I would NEVER willingly buy iOS, and I'm sure many people wouldn't either. You don't hear about iOS being loaded onto Android devices, but you certainly hear of Linux for the iPhone. iOS is a toy. Windows 8 is the same breed of toy, except iOS is at least more fluid, not some amalgamation of two codependent but non-communicative UI's. I want a work environment, and I refuse to pay money for an operating system that is NOT a work environment.

    Wednesday, October 19, 2011 3:47 AM
  • I have been a .net developer since 1.0 came out and C++ before and was hesitant on the WPF and Silverlight XAML experience. However that proved to be a success at least for the companies I have worked for, other may disagree with me. The issue that I have with the new Metro look is exactly what I think Artiantil is having and that is the desktop environment is perfected in my eyes as a development environment. I am still really new to this metro idea and probably will catch on more once my copy of windows 8 downloads ;) but I can understand the frustration of the tablet feel and hope that Microsoft doesn't make that a standard on PC more so a standard on Tablets. (would love to see this platform take off on against IPad or Android Tablets). For many of developers out there, there are different standards and I doubt windows 8 will force the user to use the "metro" look instead give it to them as an option on that should not be defaulted when the system boots.... Kinda like windows media center ;).

    I personally think that Silverlight and WPF should have the attention. I hate the idea of programming "apps" and find it to be a useless environment unless you want a quick turnaround for facebook, linked in, or some other silly angry birds app. (not that it is really that quick).

    However in my eyes as a developer "apps" are small productions for simple purposes and "Applications" are big productions (Example: Quickbooks, Point of sales, Kiosks, Health monitor tools, Media Centers, Thin Clients). Sorry if I am completely out of line, just stayed up till 4 in the morning developing on a new technology haha.

    The fact still remains developers are not stupid and either is Microsoft. If you keep posting negative comments about the UI experience, who knows maybe Microsoft will listen if enough people hate it as well... I vote no on the Metro for Desktop and BIG YES for Microsoft competing in the tablet market.

    Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:12 PM
  • Same opinion here. If I want a policed platform I'd just buy iOS. Windows has the strength of being open and throwing that away would kill its advantage over Apple.

     

    Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:25 PM
  • This number is also quoted on the Windows Dev Center site. Here's the link :-)

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh694084.aspx

    Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:19 PM