10-20-2017 01:52 AM
96 1234
tools
  1. Spectrum90's Avatar
    Its a pretty big issue that windows store takes 20-30% of application developers profits. Unlike android and ios, developers currently distribute their own software.
    It's not a big deal. Developers can still avoid the 30% commission. For example, the user downloads the app from the store. The app starts and ask for a login. The user goes to the developer's site, creates an account and pays for a temporary or perpetual licence.

    There is a big incentive to sell through the store, though. Users don't trust small developers to give them payment data. The payment process is just a click in the store.

    Distributing apps through the store w/o payment increase sales improving discoverability and security.

    Windows S is a win-win-win deal for Microsoft, developers and users.
    05-09-2017 02:22 PM
  2. Juan Francisco Meneses Saavedra's Avatar
    I don't know if it should be the "default" but I do think that this OS makes sense in some cases.

    For education, it makes complete sense. Teachers don't want to deal with malware that got installed along with that program the student found on the web. It also gives them a management system that doesn't require them to have network admin skills. In fact, they might just be a good idea for young kids in general since they can be easily locked down even when the parents aren't that tech savvy.

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that these were to be niche devices meant to compete with the Chromebook in the education sector. I didn't think that they were going to be mainstream.

    As long as there is the option to upgrade to full Windows either free or at a reasonable price I see no reason to worry about this OS. I highly doubt that Microsoft is going to lock all versions of Windows down so that only store apps can be used. There will be a lot of people switching to Linux or OSX and a lot of developers switching to those platforms if they can't sell Windows programs outside of the store. Microsoft knows this so they aren't going to do anything that crazy. I think that this is a lot of panic over nothing.

    The sad part is that we are all looking at this version of Windows 10 as a fully feature and mature, bug-free product, which is not. It's a miracle to use an app from the store and have it working your whole workday, because it will either crash a lot, be slow as hell or consume high levels of battery (since most apps and games on the store are not natively optimized to windows, they are just some poor ports from another platform).

    Also, the fact that Microsoft dares to take a 30% cut of an unwanted product (the store) that they are now trying to shove on our throats (or will try) is just stupid. Taking 30% on the store nobody wants to use?, Really?. They should start with a 1% or 2% cut, hell, even 0% just to even atract developers to their store.

    "But they have to maintain servers and ****, so they deserve to be paid!", Yeah?, Devs dont even want to be in the store in the first place. They are selling to users and mostly developers something they don't want. The perfect example is that the store rigth now is there on every Windows 10 machine but barely nobody uses it, so now they have to force its use with Windows 10 S. Besides, Microsoft now milks its user with all the data they harvest (wich is a lot https://docs.microsoft.com/es-es/win...iagnostic-data).

    05-09-2017 03:50 PM
  3. zavandiver's Avatar
    Some years back Apple limited downloaded programs to their app store by default. There was a setting that would allow you to download programs from non-Apple sources. Incorporating a setting like that would give Microsoft the best of both worlds. The majority of average, non-tech users would go through the Microsoft store and more tech savvy users could bypass the restriction as needed.
    garisa likes this.
    05-09-2017 04:01 PM
  4. Sargon Aelther's Avatar
    Some years back Apple limited downloaded programs to their app store by default. There was a setting that would allow you to download programs from non-Apple sources. Incorporating a setting like that would give Microsoft the best of both worlds. The majority of average, non-tech users would go through the Microsoft store and more tech savvy users could bypass the restriction as needed.
    I've said it before, but it seems I'll have to keep saying it:
    Ignoring that this kind of thing has been possible for a long time via GP, Windows 10 Creator's update already gives consumers a dumb-down setting preventing apps from outside the store to be installed. It's ALREADY THERE!

    Turn it on by default and that's done. Windows 10 S is ABSOLUTELY USELESS! It's nothing more than a cash grab for Microsoft. They could have easily flipped that switch on by default on Home editions, but you know... people wouldn't have to pay Microsoft $50 to unblock their iTunes or whatever.

    The only way that Windows S could be justified is by making it ABSOLUTELY free to OEMs and Consumers. Here's a "Lite" version of Windows for free for anyone to download and use without any conditions... want Windows to run your apps, go buy it.
    05-10-2017 06:00 AM
  5. Drael646464's Avatar
    I've said it before, but it seems I'll have to keep saying it:
    Ignoring that this kind of thing has been possible for a long time via GP, Windows 10 Creator's update already gives consumers a dumb-down setting preventing apps from outside the store to be installed. It's ALREADY THERE!

    Turn it on by default and that's done. Windows 10 S is ABSOLUTELY USELESS! It's nothing more than a cash grab for Microsoft. They could have easily flipped that switch on by default on Home editions, but you know... people wouldn't have to pay Microsoft $50 to unblock their iTunes or whatever.

    The only way that Windows S could be justified is by making it ABSOLUTELY free to OEMs and Consumers. Here's a "Lite" version of Windows for free for anyone to download and use without any conditions... want Windows to run your apps, go buy it.
    You seem to making the assumption that windows s, is simply windows 10, without access to non-store apps. Didn't you watch the edu event live stream? The capabilities of the OS are somewhere between home and pro, and its according to the unveiling supposed to be faster to login, wake, load apps, etc, as compared to pro. They said "15 seconds to long in, and load an app, versus 40 in pro".

    As no-one has fully kicked the tires yet, we can't really attest to this or not, but based on what little we know, access to non-store apps, is not the only difference between windows s, and windows pro.

    I agree however, that windows s, should have been free - at least for the first few years. Much like developers should get their apps sold on the store free, for the initial years, while its still growing. If MS is making plenty of money in other areas, the store could use some investment.
    Last edited by Drael646464; 05-10-2017 at 06:31 AM.
    05-10-2017 06:11 AM
  6. ariez84's Avatar
    When I say "pro" I mean the "real" version of windows. (Pro and Home included).
    05-10-2017 08:29 AM
  7. DavidinCT's Avatar
    the "S" version will have it's place. Forcing companies or people to use it, is just bad for the market. I could see people rolling back to 8.1 or even Windows 7 if they cant run a standard application that is on CD or even a DVD buring software.

    Microsoft WANTS everyone to make UWP apps but, that is not the case or nor will it happen. Microsoft wants to capture their 10-20% on the sales of apps. Devs can sell their products on the web and get 100% of the profit.

    No matter how mich you WANT it to happen, it will never happen. Windows has been known for compatablity. With Windows 10 x32, you can actually run 16 bit apps, Yes, an app that ran on Windows 95 can run on Windows 10. IF they break that, they lose one of the best features of Windows.

    If Microsoft blocked Win32 apps from my Windows 10 machine, I would roll back to Windows 7 or 8.1 even with out security updates, even some older aps that I use, that I NEED, will never be make to UWP apps. Windows 10 would be used less and less on a global scale.

    I could actually see a Linux option to start doing better, as Microsoft is getting greedy and it will change the marketplace. Large companies dont really know how people will act when they try to control their users.

    In the long run this could hurt Microsoft but, just like Windows phone, they can be blind to things...
    garisa and Laura Knotek like this.
    05-10-2017 08:57 AM
  8. Drael646464's Avatar
    the "S" version will have it's place. Forcing companies or people to use it, is just bad for the market. I could see people rolling back to 8.1 or even Windows 7 if they cant run a standard application that is on CD or even a DVD buring software.

    Microsoft WANTS everyone to make UWP apps but, that is not the case or nor will it happen. Microsoft wants to capture their 10-20% on the sales of apps. Devs can sell their products on the web and get 100% of the profit.

    No matter how mich you WANT it to happen, it will never happen. Windows has been known for compatablity. With Windows 10 x32, you can actually run 16 bit apps, Yes, an app that ran on Windows 95 can run on Windows 10. IF they break that, they lose one of the best features of Windows.

    If Microsoft blocked Win32 apps from my Windows 10 machine, I would roll back to Windows 7 or 8.1 even with out security updates, even some older aps that I use, that I NEED, will never be make to UWP apps. Windows 10 would be used less and less on a global scale.

    I could actually see a Linux option to start doing better, as Microsoft is getting greedy and it will change the marketplace. Large companies dont really know how people will act when they try to control their users.

    In the long run this could hurt Microsoft but, just like Windows phone, they can be blind to things...
    If MS doesn't make UWP work somehow, windows will die. Google and apple aren't sitting on their hands. They will both try to leverage their massive cashflow and market dominance in the mobile space, into the desktop space if given the chance (and apple already has 10%). Googles project "fushia" is probably a windows 10 competitor. If you aren't growing in business, you are dying. MS and Windows will live or die on the basis of UWP.

    But I agree that forcing people to use UWPs in mainstream windows is a bad idea, and that store tarrifs should be cheaper to encourage developers. Indeed I think like you windows is a "free and democratic" system and if MS wants windows to survive, it needs to modify its store approach to allow for that. Desktop users and developers are not ipad users and developers- and the platforms biggest strength is the power and range of its software. You can't kill that either.

    These two pressures are a delicate situation to handle.
    garisa and Laura Knotek like this.
    05-10-2017 09:10 AM
  9. Donald Simard's Avatar
    The OEMs could let the consumer decide. Offer a base model with Windows 10 S and another with Windows 10 Pro for $50 more. see which is bought.

    I do like the idea of not being locked-in (as was the case with Windows RT) to a dead end OS. Windows 10 S give a path to a full OS should it be required. IF Windows 10 S were on my Surface Pro 3, I am sure I could survive. I have transitioned over time to not depend on Win 32 apps other than Office ones and they will be available through the store. I recently changed settings to require only store apps - I wonder how long that will last before I have to turn it off to get something I really need.
    05-10-2017 09:15 AM
  10. digitaldd's Avatar
    If Windows S is available for free and the Pro version is a paid upgrade I'm down. Think about it you are building a new system and can put S on it for free, if the use case doesn't fit Pro you can at least try the free version and see if you can live with it then pay to upgrade if need be (as long as its not $200 which is about what a Windows 10 pro retail version costs).
    ariez84 likes this.
    05-10-2017 09:23 AM
  11. garisa's Avatar
    The OEMs could let the consumer decide. Offer a base model with Windows 10 S and another with Windows 10 Pro for $50 more. see which is bought.

    I do like the idea of not being locked-in (as was the case with Windows RT) to a dead end OS. Windows 10 S give a path to a full OS should it be required. IF Windows 10 S were on my Surface Pro 3, I am sure I could survive. I have transitioned over time to not depend on Win 32 apps other than Office ones and they will be available through the store. I recently changed settings to require only store apps - I wonder how long that will last before I have to turn it off to get something I really need.
    So you would buy hell of an expensive device, and you would be satisfied because "you could survive with it". Good job.😎 But you obviously don't use your PC for much at this moment, just wait for a weekend or a holiday when you get some time to play with your PC for real.😉

    Sent from mTalk on Windows 10 phone
    05-10-2017 10:08 AM
  12. DavidinCT's Avatar
    WOW.... RT all over again...didn't Microsoft learn ?

    Maybe 10 years out... if they gain full marketshare where 95% of the apps in the Apple/Google store are in the Windows Store... As Windows Phone users know this is NOT the case at all...and it's not even close.
    Laura Knotek and Danobe like this.
    05-10-2017 10:32 AM
  13. garisa's Avatar
    But you have to admit that this is a lot different from RT. Right now developers don't actually need to developer entirely new apps, but simply to bring their existing apps into the Store.

    Sent from mTalk on Windows 10 phone
    05-10-2017 01:05 PM
  14. Grant Taylor3's Avatar
    Adobe won't bring it to the store, Microsoft would get 30% of the revenue. That's the problem with Windows S, major software developers sell their software online, there is no reason for them to take a 30% cut to revenue.

    So it is Ok for Apple to take their 30% but if it is MS then it's a big deal? Double standards.

    An app store is also to get devs to write good apps and gets away from the malware download sites like cnet.
    midnightfrolic likes this.
    05-10-2017 01:33 PM
  15. garisa's Avatar
    Those are not double standards. It's Microsoft who needs to bring apps into their Store, not us. In particular, why would developers help Microsoft to put control over what can and what cannot be installed on a PC... They make applications and programs for many, not because they feel sympathetic towards Microsoft, and just like we don't want to lose or freedom to install whatever we want, so don't developers want to give up their freedom do sell their product as they like. Microsoft simply has to offer them something - be it stopping piracy (if that is even possible), or providing a way for those developers to show that their product a good (which they automatically get when they put their app into the Store thanks to the rating system - if it is really good if course).

    Sent from mTalk on Windows 10 phone
    Drael646464 likes this.
    05-10-2017 02:33 PM
  16. CrazyQwert's Avatar
    Ok, now here's the thing:

    A lot of people need apps outside of the store and the store is often not the best distribution platform for any software. Especially students often rely on software from Adobe and the likes, which have their own distribution platform and probably for good reasons. So this would be a blow to a large group of consumers, not just 1% in my opinion.

    The store is not a solution to everything!
    Yes, I know, distribution via the store has a lot of benefits: Software gets removed without leaving any traces. It is safer as it gets checked beforehand, etc. However there are also shortcomings that are especially annoying for certain types of software: Stores that are being watched for threats such as viruses are awful if you need to get a bugfix to consumers fast. Also they limit you in the way of what features you can have for your consumers versus when having your own distribution platform. Adobe for example allows for installing older versions of their software in case they messed up and a new rollout is unstable. Or you just need that legacy support. A notable example is also Sketchapp on Mac (a popular application for designing UI) which recently moved out of Apples AppStore again and instead went with a more conventional direct install for various reasons they stated on their blog (one of which was speed of approval for updates, afaik).

    Window's store problem has to do with the quality of service
    Furthermore I think that the windows store isn't being neglected because the evil evil consumer does not understand the great great vision of microsoft and is simply being mean!
    No. I think it is because as of yet the store is worse in many regards ... not all that long ago you could not even check for updates manually ... downloading games and other larger applications is really annoying, since you cannot define a bandwidth limit resulting in connection issues if you are trying to do anything else in the meantime. Often enough installations simply fail and restart (had that just yesterday with 40gb of download already done ...).
    Other than that most apps offered in the store simply have not nearly the same feature-set as their win32 or webapp counterparts. I do not know whether that is due to development-cuts or because of limitations that the APIs provide or something ...

    So at the moment there really is not all that much reason for anyone to use the store.

    A compromise
    I still think, that the security amongst other benefits are well worth pushing the store, though. But instead of limiting users by simply not allowing them to install other applications at all, I would love to see another approach: Versions like Windows 10 home and / or S have by default the ability to install non-store-apps disabled and it requires you to dive into the settings. Something most grandmas /-pas or tech-newbies are unlikely to do. Others, however, (eg. Students or tech-savvy people, who are likely to need the feature anyway) can enable it. Versions like Windows 10 Pro have enabled it by default, since the userbase is very likely to enable it anyway. This in my opinion would make far more sense than what Windows 10 S is right now.
    05-11-2017 04:56 AM
  17. Drael646464's Avatar
    So it is Ok for Apple to take their 30% but if it is MS then it's a big deal? Double standards.

    An app store is also to get devs to write good apps and gets away from the malware download sites like cnet.
    Who said its okay for apple? Normally stores do take a percentage markup (physical or virtual). But that markup is usually, in physical stores, proportional to the cost. For example, a physical store makes much more money from large markups on accessories, proportional to say, expensive devices, both by volume and by percentage markup.

    I think the "old system" works better here. High volume, cheap development software should be the ones that pay more to the store. Low volume, expensive development software should pay less. It could be graded based on price, like an inverse tax system.

    So it is Ok for Apple to take their 30% but if it is MS then it's a big deal? Double standards.

    An app store is also to get devs to write good apps and gets away from the malware download sites like cnet.
    Who said its okay for apple? Normally stores do take a percentage markup (physical or virtual). But that markup is usually, in physical stores, proportional to the cost. For example, a physical store makes much more money from large markups on accessories, proportional to say, expensive devices, both by volume and by percentage markup.

    I think the "old system" works better here. High volume, cheap development software should be the ones that pay more to the store. Low volume, expensive development software should pay less. It could be graded based on price, like an inverse tax system.

    Either way, regardless of whats "fair", MSFT does need to encourage UWP as much as possible. Current developers distributing very well on their own (like fruity loops, or adobe, or EA, or anyone distributing via steam), have little incentive to bridge.

    I think the store needs a hmm, how shall we say, generous and "free and open" proposition to draw in maximum development. In that, I would include some kind of deal worked out with steam, origin, gog.com etc, given windows is THE most popular gaming platform.

    Why Windows must die. For the third time | ZDNet
    Last edited by Guytronic; 07-18-2017 at 04:32 PM.
    05-11-2017 05:34 AM
  18. orlbuckeye's Avatar
    Well years back the automobile manufacturers forced you to have to buy unleaded fuel. I remember the transition period when gas stations had both. So the same thing would happen with computers. MS won't force you to use UWP apps until the software companies are ready for it. The amount of software available is what made MS the leader and their not going to ruin that.
    06-06-2017 07:49 AM
  19. SteelSteve's Avatar
    Is it known if Windows 10 S was designed to perform better than say Windows 10 Home on lower end devices? If so this would be a good solution for Atom based tablets that can't really handle the installation of regular software. However I can't see ever wanting this on any normal laptop, the Microsoft store just has to many missing apps to replace over the counter software. The one thing that scares me a little is this kinda smacks of Window RT and we all know how well that went.
    06-29-2017 03:44 PM
  20. digitaldd's Avatar
    Well with Creators Update i believe there is an option to allow only Store apps to be installed under Apps & Features.. Installing apps. I know I've see both a Warn when installing non-store apps and “Allow apps from the Store only”.
    07-05-2017 09:59 AM
  21. j m robin's Avatar
    Tablets: yes - Laptops: no

    I feel like if they were to pull that with a laptop, we would have a similar debacle as with Windows RT with less tech-abled people crying bloody murder. PR would suddenly go back to square one (just my opinion)

    But I do agree that tablets should automatically be sent to this configuration. People are less likely to need win32 applications on their 8-10" screens and thus would make more sense to include a faster, more streamlined experience out of the box. Tablets, in general, are more geared for media consumption, which 10 S would be perfect for.
    07-18-2017 09:45 AM
  22. theefman's Avatar
    Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you buy Windows you should get Windows, not some stripped down, time sensitive version. Microsoft fanboys have bashed ipads for years as toys because they only run apps but it's ok when the apps are on Windows? Typical hypocrisy.

    Sent from mTalk
    Danobe likes this.
    07-18-2017 09:53 AM
  23. Easy-G's Avatar
    Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

    You have a point. One more big reason to use Windows 10 S by default is performance. For those more casual PC users (web browsing, online shopping, facebooking, Office'ing folk), Windows 10 S delivers everything you need and is faster and more secure than Windows 10 Home/Pro. This type of user may never want/need to install any program that isn't found in the Store - however, they would be pretty pissed to find it necessary to pay for a Windows upgrade for a single, essential program after the "free upgrade" window has passed.

    This also kinda sorta works for more savvy users as well - they will be loading up specialized, non-Store programs right from the get go, no worry about missing the "free upgrade" time frame, and they're more comfortable upgrading/changing default settings.

    It's probably not essential for each and every laptop/tablet to ship with Windows 10 S, but it could certainly be of benefit for a large group of users, in the right use case and at the correct price point.
    07-18-2017 09:57 AM
  24. bobsentell's Avatar
    The "average" user of Windows doesn't know how to properly use a computer, as evidenced by the outbreak of a exploit of a defect that was fixed months ago had you just let Windows do its own thing. I like this idea for lower cost PCs. Once you get over a certain price point, say $1,500, one would assume they would be power users and thus put 10 Pro on those.

    Remember, this isn't really a "stripped down" version of Windows, just a "locked down" one. If there is a way to unlock it, it should be easy enough for power users but not easy enough for my grandma to accidentally run into.
    07-18-2017 10:41 AM
  25. labsii's Avatar
    If Microsoft could at least release Microsoft Office for Windows Store, then maybe though some more quality apps would be welcome.

    However Microsoft is talking that Office will come to the Store soon for ages now.
    07-18-2017 10:53 AM
96 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Android killed windows phone (mobile) not apple
    By Premium1 in forum Windows 10 Mobile
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-18-2017, 05:47 PM
  2. Keep your cables organized with 100 VELCRO brand ties for $6
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2017, 07:42 AM
  3. How useful is the Surface Pen, with the Surface Laptop?
    By bluefoam in forum Surface Laptop
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-17-2017, 06:40 AM
  4. Windows 10 Instagram App
    By Alexg75 in forum Windows Apps
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2017, 06:03 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-16-2017, 03:55 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD