This post is a revised and condensed version of what I said in my much longer post on Windows 8 and the disappointing new App Store.
Unfortunately the App Store in Windows 8 seems primarily for Metro apps. Traditional desktop applications can be listed on the store but the store will simply guide the user to the vendor’s website. In the BUILD keynote they didn’t talk much about this so here is the relevant part taken from the whole keynote transcript (highlights are my own):
ANTOINE LEBLOND: People have been writing Win32 apps, there are millions — I mean, it’s a big part of what makes Windows Windows is these millions of apps that people have written.
So, I’m going to go back to the store here and show you something. We actually have — I’m going to scroll over. Let’s see, where’s the finance section? You’ll notice down at the bottom left here, there’s an app called Quicken. It’s not a Metro style app, it’s a desktop app. I’m going to click on it. Here’s the product, here’s an app description page for Quicken.
So, what we’re going to do is we’re actually going to list Win32 apps as well as Metro style apps in the store. One interesting part of this is that we’re not actually going to require — because there has been tons of investment around these things, and all these apps, you know, these big apps, there’s websites where they get sold and they have their own licensing models and all those things.
We’re not going to require people to actually rewrite those things in order to have them in the store. We’re not going to force them to use our licensing.
STEVEN SINOFSKY: Right. (Applause.) We love the ecosystem that’s around Windows applications, and we want to make sure that it blossoms in this world as well.
ANTOINE LEBLOND: Exactly. So, in essence, what we’re doing here is we’re giving these Win32 apps a free listing service and exposing them all of the hundreds of millions of Windows users.
Essentially they are providing a free listing service for Desktop applications. You don’t have to change anything, users will just be pointed to your website and it is free. While the rhetoric used (free, not force them etc.) suggest that this is a good thing it is instead a disaster.
Trust and quality control
How can Microsoft ever guarantee quality or make sure that there is no malware if the users are directed to a website which is outside Microsoft’s control?
The App Store cannot work if users can’t trust the applications listed. The whole list becomes meaningless. For the store to be effective they would need to not only check if the App is useful but also check the user interface. Is the app easy to use? Does it adhere to design guidelines? Is the technical part alright? Does it access folders it shouldn’t? Is it malware or harmful in any way.
Does it have good enough performance?
Apple goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure everything is right. They rather ban an app from the store than have the App Store compromised by hosting an application with sub-par experience. They go so far as to ban all apps that haven’t been written in Objective-C right at the start to make sure that Apps in the Mac App Store feel and behave like true Mac apps (no Java or other cross platform apps). This might seem harsh and is sometimes unfair but for the user the result is extremely attractive and it does drive the Mac platform forward as you have to create a good experience to be able to compete.
Apple’s App Store works precisely because they control the listing, purchase, installation and updates and for the user this means that they can trust Apps from the App Store.
Even if I give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and assume that they will do some sort of quality control (otherwise we will be swamped with RAM defragers and Registry cleaners and apps that demonstrate very well why Windows occasionally sucks) the fact remains that if they don’t control the purchase, download, installation and licensing they cannot guarantee the quality of the applications and users cannot trust the App Store.
Ease of use, ease of installation and updates
Secondly by pointing users to the vendor’s website Microsoft does not solve one of the most painful experiences on Windows. The installation and updating of applications. Users will still need to find the download (a lot of companies don’t provide a single click download experience as we do). Users need to deal with the absolutely horrible installation situation on Windows. Users need to deal with a thousand different software license agreements and update mechanisms.
In summary, users don’t get any of the benefits that the Mac App Store provides:
- trust
- quality control (very strict rules on what is listed in the App Store)
- ease of use
- ease of installation/updates
- unified license agreements
And Microsoft, curiously, doesn’t want 30% of our sales and doesn’t want to bring great Desktop applications to half a billion users.
If anything could revive innovation on the client then it is an official trustworthy Windows App Store. Sadly, Windows 8 seems to focus on Metro, touch devices and tablets and seems to leave the traditional Desktop to wither away without providing any significant improvements or new innovations.
Pingback: What is wrong with Windows Software and why Windows 8 doesn’t solve a thing – Part 1: Finding, Downloading & Installing | Patrick Klug
Even if Microsoft offered to install applications directly from the store, I wouldn’t put my apps there, and I wouldn’t buy apps from it. 30% is an insane markup for any decent sized application. We don’t need the app store to provide a seamless install process for users. We just need better installers. Yes, finding the right app to use on the big bad internet can be a pain, but frankly I don’t think it will be any better when your app is listed along side thousands of others in the app store. It will be just like searching the internet again, except I guarantee you that the search inside the store will not be as effective as Google.
Nevermind the fact that you are putting the distribution of your application entirely in Microsoft’s control. What if they fail to anticipate peak demand and the store stops responding? What if they have a bad release of their app store software and it stops working? What if it becomes a target for hackers (as it surely will) and they take it down? What if their malware-scanning software detects a false positive in your application (which happens with commercial anti-virus systems all the time)? What if they get a backlog in their approval queue and don’t hire enough people to clear it, delaying your time to market? These risks, which are entirely out of your control, are not worth the marginal benefit that the store provides. So I will continue to distribute my applications through “traditional” means, and I will certainly never write a Metro app as long as the Windows store is the only way to distribute it.
“[Apple] rather ban an app from the store than have the App Store compromised by hosting an application with sub-par experience…This might seem harsh and is sometimes unfair but for the user the result is extremely attractive…”
I can only pray that this attitude never takes hold in the Windows ecosystem. It is in fact extremely UNattractive and is one of the primary reasons that I will likely switch away from my iPhone, despite my overall good impression of it. Neither Apple nor Microsoft has any right to decide what is or isn’t a “sub-par experience”. That is up to users to decide. If the app is sub-par, it will fail; simple as that. It’s what user ratings are for. I don’t need or want Microsoft imposing it’s view of what I should or shouldn’t be allowed to run on my machine.
“…it does drive the Mac platform forward as you have to create a good experience to be able to compete.”
You have to create a good experience to be able to compete regardless. If your app isn’t competitive, people won’t use it. That’s what having an open marketplace is all about. What if a company comes up with a new user interface concept that they think is better than what is currently available? Should they not be ALLOWED to market their product to users because it is against the Apple or Microsoft guidelines? Shouldn’t users be allowed to determine whether they want to use it or not?
“In summary, users don’t get any of the benefits that the Mac App Store provides:
trust”
I have no more trust in an app in the Windows or Apple store than I do in something I choose to download from a website. I trust MYSELF to decide what I should or shouldn’t run, not some store gatekeeper.
“quality control (very strict rules on what is listed in the App Store)”
We have seen countless examples of apps that were supposedly against the rules being allowed through anyway. Remember the baby shaking app? The approval process is a sham, and it almost certainly rejects as many legitimate apps as it allows in “unacceptable” ones.
“ease of use”
Again, as an iPhone user, I can say firsthand that just because an app was downloaded from the store does NOT guarantee it is easy to use. Moreover, different people have different definitions of what is easy to use. I want to make that decision for myself, not have Mommy Apple or Daddy Microsoft make it for me.
“ease of installation/updates”
Again, you don’t need a store to improve the installation/update process; you just need to improve the installation/update process.
“unified license agreements”
In other words you are required to distribute your application under whatever terms Apple decides, whether or not you agree with them or they are appropriate to your business model. No thanks.
Hi David,
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate your point of view.
For arguments sake, let’s assume that the new Windows store would be similar to the Apple store.
Every developer can decide whether or not they want to put their application on the store and even if they decide to be on the store this doesn’t mean it has to be their only distribution channel. Unlike Metro apps (which are sadly store-only), Desktop apps would still be available outside the store too. As a developer you have to weigh the risks you mentioned against the possible gains and decide if it is worth to be on the store. 30% is quite a normal markup for any publisher and a publisher is exactly what the store is. They don’t just list your software but deal with all the transactions and licensing as well and put your apps in front of millions. If you don’t want to pay for that or you don’t want their restrictions and licensing model, it is your choice.
Seems there’s a bit of hair-splitting going on here, and all these “everything is better” comments refer only to Win32 apps.
The same for metro? No, I don’t think so.
Windows 8 is an interesting technical solution. But current tablet buyers (i.e., iPad owners) are NOT clamoring to run Mac OSX apps on the iPad. We’ve gone thru the Angst period for most developers (publications & stores are still in its thralls), and the model of the curated, code-signed store is a total non-issue for Apple.
Microsoft is adopting its procedures for metro because they’re more worried about maintaining an Apple-quality and -reliability ecosystem. Win8 will fail if tablet users don’t see a clear usage model with 99% of their needs met by metro, with the occasional fallback to the corporate legacy app as a transition device. Look for the store to keep the distinction obvious.
I am not sure what you mean. I was talking about Desktop applications and not the Metro apps. Mac OS X has a different AppStore on the Desktop and does offer heaps of great apps on it. While the Metro innovations are great news for tablet PC’s or kiosk type touchscreen PC’s it will hardly displace Desktop apps.
Recently I decided to install some useful Win7 desktop gadgets – currency, stocks, weather. First glance, well maybe Microsoft did a good job here?
Making a long story short, Microsoft decided to no longer maintain a listing of gadgets. They have one small page, no longer updated. The currency gadget did not display the country I was interested in (really). The stock app had bugs, items in your list of stocks would be missing on the display. And sizing of the gadgets was limited, difficult to read the list of stocks.
Ok, then turning over to using Yahoo gadgets. Guess what. The currency app has my currency and will re-size. The stock app works properly.
My point – here are some useful little apps – Gadgets. Built into Win7. Microsoft could not even bother to:
1) make a store or web page for them
2) scan them, vet them for virus and undesirable behavior
3) code the support infrastructure so that the Gadgets would be safe
And you expect better results for full blown Win32 type apps? Here they had a chance to get started in that direction. Microsoft has done many good innovative things in the past, but it appears they have become a lethargic. unimaginative bloated, formally successful corporation.
I get the feeling that MS introduces things (like gadgets, Marketplace or even WPF/Silverlight) only then to let it wither away and to replace it with something entirely new. This past behavior doesn’t give much confidence that they will stick with anything and see things through.
(I am solely responsible for the following opinions):
Your comments are all well and good but you seem to have missed something that I assume MS legal and “C” exec’s have not. I suggest the issue is not that MS cannot TECHNICALLY provide such an installation tool and framework, but that they cannot COMMERCIALLY provide such a tool. I would love to see a nice click and forget install framework in Windows, I just realize that technically ignorant legal systems (or worse – cognizant ones) would happily state that MS is deliberately destroying competition from competing install package vendors and file petitions to shut them down.
If MS was to create a windows application tool/marketplace similar in functionality (approval etc) to Mac/Android tools, they would undoubtedly be hit by multiple legal actions issued by everyone from State AG’s to the EU for exploiting a market dominance (consider the lawyer enrichment program with IE/Win). When has Apple been subject to such an action? Mac/iWhatever customers are apparently happy with the totalitarian Apple model. Some arbitrary market percentage is the only relevant difference I can see.
Until some form of recognition that Apple’s fervent defense model to sell Mac products (seen any apple clones lately?) is no different from MS’s desire to leverage THEIR products, it is unlikely that MS will/can ever be so productive.
If the need for such a tool is that important to you perhaps you can spearhead or start an initiative to create such – while ensuring that all major and minor players agree to implement it and for it to always be public domain – it worked for PNG and UML perhaps it’ll work here. I would be happy to participate in such a project, but I suspect that you would not feel you want to commit to that much grief, effort or time.
Final note, whatever your actual belief, the reference (5th para) you make to Apple’s policies clearly indicate a feeling that Apple is protecting the users. In my opinion they are concerned with Apple products and shareholders, while marketing a (secondary) message of love for users.
Very good points. I agree with everything you said. Whether or not such an AppStore is abusing power needs to be settled at some stage by the courts but I don’t see why Apple should be any different. If Microsoft introduces a Mac-like AppStore, surely whatever decision courts come up with, will affect the Mac store alike. My point being that if Apple can do it right now then Microsoft should do so too.
I did write to the buildwindows team to express my view and they basically said that they appreciate the technical part and that they want to solve these issues for new Metro apps but they don’t want to disrupt current infrastructure and business models. I think this is understandable but I also think that this ‘avoiding conflict’ strategy ultimately leads to a mediocre user experience and will harm the long term success of the Windows/Desktop platform. (I might write another blog post in the future summarizing the discussions)
I don’t think that it is worth anyone’s effort to create yet another deployment solution for Windows. There are already heaps of them – what we need is a solution that is baked into the platform and fully supported by Microsoft. Nothing less.
Finally, I am *not* a fan of Apple but I do appreciate that their strategies revolve around user experience and usability (and of course making money) rather than ‘not disrupting existing infrastructure and business models’ – surely it is the superior long term strategy.