[DavidinCT]

OEMS should stick with the same model they are doing now (we've been buying new computers for people in our office). Open licence. Windows 7, 8.1 or 10....

Needs for compaines or end users are different. Have it come with Windows 10 but, the licence is open for 7 8 or 10 so users can roll back and be valid.

It just so happens where I work, some applications dont run correctly on Windows 10 (newer updates), so we have had no choice to use 7 or 8.1. Dont give me the crud of update the app, the program is what our company is based on, very large and VERY expensive. Well over a few million dollars to update. No plans to do such.

[GraniteStateColin]

@L0n3N1nja, you realize that if Adobe sells the shrink-wrapped version through a store or Amazon, the retailer can take more than 30% right? Plus, that has hard costs of production, shipping, damaged inventory, etc. all of which are reduced to $0 by the Store. No, selling through the Store is a perfectly reasonable option for a software publisher with no real margin hit (in many cases, the publisher will make more by selling through the Store than alternatives).

Having said that, I would support some sort of sliding scale for apps that generate large volumes of revenue. Something like 30% for the first million in gross sales, then 25% through $5M, then 20% through $10M cumulative gross sales, then 15% thereafter, where those levels hold as long as the sales volume is sustained on an annual basis, otherwise, it reverts to the proper fee based on prior year sales.

[SvenJ]

Yea, thinking this will push ISVs into UWP or Centennial is naïve. While it is great for users, there are significant drawbacks for the vendors. Consider Adobe. They have turned to a largely subscription format. Imagine them now having to fork over 30% of that $50/month to MS. Oh I can install it on 5-10 PCs too. I don't think MS would even put Office 2016 in the store if they had to pay the store owner 30% for every sale.

This is more an issue for the more professional packages, but those are the ones people buy Windows PCs for. If you feel that most people use their laptops to browse the web, communicate with relatives via skype, messenger, or other live chat apps, they don't need a Windows PC in the first place. Probably better off with an iPad. If you need Office, Access, Visio, Photoshop, Camtasia, Acrobat, you need something other than S. Maybe on a low priced machine, S would be sufficient, but all it will do on a $1000 laptop is tick people off. OK, you can upgrade, but it takes long enough to get a new device up and running, without then finding out it won't load my apps and I have another round of download and install to wade through. (Before anyone notes that set up used to be a lot worse, I know, I loaded from 5.25" floppies, but it is expectations. Most people now think microwaves take to long too.)

I will say a savvy user [me ;)] might buy an S machine to get the free version of Pro. Generally lower priced devices come with Home, and the upgrade is $99. If I buy an S device now, Pro is free, and even after the end of the year, only $50. What a deal.

S is a fine option for lower priced machines, for less savvy users, or for environments where restrictivity (like that?) is needed, like schools, some enterprises even, but it has no business on a $1000-$2000 laptop/tablet. It's like buying a sports car with a 45 mph governor on it.

[deadonthefloor]

I agree with the original poster.

This is a brilliant idea. For those who don't get it. I feel bad for you guys. Cheaper devices for all of us, limited time upgrade, and keeps my parents from corrupting their systems. Win! win! win!

[garisa]

I agree with the original poster.

This is a brilliant idea. For those who don't get it. I feel bad for you guys. Cheaper devices for all of us, limited time upgrade, and keeps my parents from corrupting their systems. Win! win! win!

I bet your parents would want to strangle you soon after getting that PC after noticing they can't have some basic programs on it.😂

Sent from mTalk on Windows 10 phone

[redevall]

Today 11:21 AM

Unless the laptop in question is currently being marketed as a "gaming laptop" (ala alienware, ROG, etc...). Given like what Garisa above mentioned about Steam for example, and other windows games that are not available via the store, you'd have no way to install them. And before you mention the "free upgrade" (or so) to home/pro. Why should I have to go through that upgrade after I purchase a "gaming" laptop? Now that said I can see what you mean as well, but I also have to think that enterprise and a lot of businesses with proprietary software might have issues as well. just a though

[garisa]

I can give an example from a school I worked in. One of their students made a program (after he became a student at a faculty I guess) with which professors can easily print certificates for students (so they wouldn't have to write everything manually). They are still using this program, and if they bought a new computer with Windows 10 S they wouldn't be able to make this program work again. I know most people won't have issues like this in particular (though most of us have at least few programs, or old games, which are on a CD, and which most likely wouldn't arrive in the Store), but the OS is still unnecessarily crippled. But I saying it because this is an example of a school, and Windows 10 S supposedly is targeted at them.

[Spectrum90]

Most people don't need the old desktop programs. Windows S would be perfect for 90-95% of the consumer market with a small selection of desktop programs in the Windows Store.

Microsoft doesn't need to force consumers or OEMs. A big discount on Windows 10 S for one or two years would be enough to create the critical mass of users. Developers would willingly add their desktop programs to the Windows Store to target millions of users.

People that need desktop programs that aren't in the Windows Store can always downgrade to Windows Pro for $50.

Windows S will replace Windows Home, that's for sure.

[garisa]

You underestimate people.

Sent from mTalk on Windows 10 phone

[slooksterpsv]

1. This will force a lot of win32 apps like Firefox, Chrome, Adobe, and other popular legacy developers to use centennial bridge to add their apps into the Windows Store.

This may be true. However, some developers may not know UWP or the bridge may not function properly. At the present moment, I cannot get App Bridge to work on my Home PC. It requires features that are only in Pro. This would mean increased costs for developers to even develop and push an app, which may turn them away.

2. I strongly feel that most people use their laptops to browse the web, communicate with relatives via skype, messenger, or other live chat apps. The need to install apps downloaded from the web is genuinely for professionals and those types of people will undoubtedly have the knowledge/skills required to upgrade to Windows 10 Pro.

I agree with you here. My mom plays games on Facebook or from CDs. She doesn't do much more than that. So it may be a good fit for her. It would be great for my dad as he only uses Facebook. Alas though, they use Chrome because most of the sites they go to, don't function properly on Edge.

3. This will also immensely help holographics, and Microsoft next vision of Mobile (Whatever that may be).

Holographics, no. The developer tools are not in the store, meaning #1 . Mobile, only if they choose to develop with mobile in mind. There are lots of apps that aren't mobile friendly.

4. The idea that Windows is unsafe and "full of viruses and malware" will surely go away when the majority of the casual users are running Windows 10 S. The more sophisticated users never really have that concept in the first place.

Hahahaha, this made me laugh. Sorry OP, but even Android has viruses in its store. Nothing is safe, someone will find a way to circumvent the security and we'll still have malware. If nothing else, advertising networks will become filled with even more malware.

My overall take is this...

I would want to test out a Windows 10 S device. I would want to see if I could do everything I do daily on it. However, a lot of what I do comes down to development, pluralsight videos, office/productivity, and some steam games.

If they offered a free upgrade to Home, that you could redeem at ANY time, perfect. So maybe the option of, by default, disabling apps outside of the store, would be a good idea. Then I can just add features to disable that restriction.

I think this idea has some merit, but there are a lot of issues that need resolved. Development tools being the first and foremost.

[pjs37]

I'll do one better for you. Why not make it part of the set up process when you first set up your new PC? They already ask you to set up an account just make it another step. "Do you want this PC to run traditional Win32 apps at the expense of security. You won't be able to go back later." and throw in some examples some the end user knows what you are talking about and then let the consumer decide for themselves what they want to run. I despise the idea of all PC's being forced into it though. Frankly I don't even think it should be a SKU more of an optional feature.

[jiovine]

Personally, I like the idea of application installation being tied to the store. Better security, more control for admins, ensure a smother user experience, increased usage of UWP and better development of the ecosystem. I for one wouldn't mind buying my third party applications through the Store. Everything is cloud centric now, to me it just makes sense. Get rid of the home, pro and edu versions of windows. If you want a feature, you can just buy the add-on. So for example the only feature I need in Pro is the ability to join a domain, I don't need all the other fluff. From a product management perspective it boils it down to one sku and CAL's. Eliminates consumer confusion and licensing issues.

Also would also increase adoption to mobile and continuum. If you all your apps run on the phone, who needs a pc for everyday tasks. Kinda makes the play for Surface Phone.

[Gregory Newman]

some of Microsoft OEM partners offered Windows 7 Pro as an option you could get on their desktop or laptop PC's well as Windows 8.1 or Windows 10 which is the normal OS of their desktop and laptop PC's. It makes sense for Microsoft to have full Windows 10 already installed on their Surface laptop. They could make a special version of the Surface laptop called Surface laptop Pro. it would cost more than a regular Surface laptop and have more ram . in fact I think the Intel i7 models of the Surface laptop will offer offer Full Windows 10 Pre installed when they hit the market Why because using an Intel i7 CPU is over kill for use with a watered down version of Windows 10 which Windows 10s is. who knows Microsoft might call the i7 CPU versions of the Surface Laptop the Surface laptop pro and give them 8 gigs of ram to start. people will buy em like hot cakes

[romo11]

Yes, I agree. All lowend and midend computers/notebooks/tablets for end users have to be shipped with Windows 10 S. Devices can be cheaper and upgrade to PRO is cheaper. too. For consumers it will be benefit.

[Drael646464]

Technically W10M is superior, yet it is in a comatose state, so basically its a stupid idea. MS should have marketed W10S as a secure OS which cannot be hit by viruses, it would have got consumer interest.

The windows store is for all MS platforms. Its not a mobile store, and UWP isn't a mobile platform. There are PLENTY of things in the store you can't run on a phone.

Someone like steam making UWP available in their store would stop the perceived long term threat to steam as a separate store, for windows gaming. They could add xbox, tablet, PC, HoloLens and mobile titles and become a competitor to the windows store. It would encourage game developers, and possibly lower the 'take' that the stores get by offering a cheaper tariff.

If they for example charged a 5% tarrif, instead of a 20-30 percent one, software developers would flock to it. It could be bigger than the windows store. And being a home for gamers, game devs might actually use the millennial bridge if they aren't losing 30% of their retail price.

As for windows s - who are we to judge whether it has consumer interest or not? I hear pre-sales went well, but we won't know until we see the quarterly sales.

[Drael646464]

Most people don't need the old desktop programs. Windows S would be perfect for 90-95% of the consumer market with a small selection of desktop programs in the Windows Store.

Microsoft doesn't need to force consumers or OEMs. A big discount on Windows 10 S for one or two years would be enough to create the critical mass of users. Developers would willingly add their desktop programs to the Windows Store to target millions of users.

People that need desktop programs that aren't in the Windows Store can always downgrade to Windows Pro for $50.

Windows S will replace Windows Home, that's for sure.

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.

Let's take something like fruity loops 12. The Producer edition costs 199.99 USD. The All bundles option costs 899.99 USD

Adobe products tale a subscription model like 365. The maximum bundle is around 100 USD a month.

Now this is the sort of software MS actually wants in their store. Its an edge that windows has over its competitors that it has well funded, deep, powerful apps. One could easily use games as another example.

Sure the average user has no for adobe photoshop or fruity loops. They do however use fully featured browsers with extensions, play games, want to play with VR, use media cataloguing apps, photo editing suites, things like media servers and so on. Somewhere in the consumer market there are win32 apps that cost more than free, that require more than 3 bucks per user to develop. And in enterprise, creativity and niche markets, the higher cost app is their lifeblood.

I can't say exactly what these companies margins are, given development costs. But I can say that having to charge the customer an extra buck for a 3 dollar app is an acceptable compromise to achieve the same profit, and having to charge the user an extra 269.99 USD, or 33 USD per month, is absolutely not.

The issue for MS and its attendant software isn't just users. Its developers. Windows is THE most popular gaming platform. MS taking 1/3 of all the profit of an industry (gaming) that is bigger than movies re: profit, is just totally unacceptable.

It's completely beyond the pale, and developers just won't buy it. There are discussions all over the net, by developers about how much they don't like this.

MS has to re-think the store model, and make something more accommodating than the apple app store model.

I'm all for UWP succeeding, and Windows future depends on it. But the idea needs refinement if its to succeed IMO. It will need more than windows s and windows on arm, to bring over the power software developers MS needs, to show off things like augmented reality, or the power of the ultramobile PC.

Windows edge is its software power.

It will need more a open development platform, with a less expensive and more democratic store model, if its to actually bring that power, and not lose its entire competitive advantage by becoming indistinguishable from a mobile only platform.

BTW if anyone else agrees with me on the "developer fees for windows store", I created feedback for it just now, so feel free to upvote me.

[kulf]

I'd love developers embrace the store.
But let's face it. None of the programs I use on a daily basis are available in the MS Store.

[Johnny Tremaine]

Sorry, no. It would be a total PR disaster.

Most consumers aren't us---they're low information who walk into a big box store and buy a laptop, and the Sales reps are usually minimum wage college kids.

Imagine the frustration once these folks get home and find out that they cant install, say, iTunes, to manage their iPhone or iPad (no, Apple has zero incentive to offer iTunes via a locked down Microsoft store).

There would be scores of returns, even with the option to upgrade to full Windows 10.

I agree with the other post: you then give an opening to Google to come in to the PC market and offer their own locked down store, but with actual broad developer support and apps people use.

[hemanlive]

I would say, if MS wants to promote windows 10 S and thereby the windows store, then it should provide a discount of $50 on each laptop sold with 10S. Those who really want full windows 10 can pay that extra amount and 'upgrade' to windows 10 (or maybe have two version of each laptop with price difference of $50!)
This will:
Keep those who want their 'freedom' happy
and more importantly provide an incentive to people who are OK with just the Store Apps.
That will really test waters for MS and if 10S still gains popularity it will force developers to move their aps to the UWP program

[Drael646464]

You have to enable the ability to download and use apps from 'other sources' in Android for that to work. You also reduce your security if you do this. You're basically taking the security out of your OS if the whole purpose of 10s and Store is for security reasons.

Not so sure. If for example, google allowed the amazon store, within the google store, you'd need no sideloading. You'd search amazon app store in google play, and click install. Its not like amazon is any less secure than google play. Google of course has no motive to do so, but MS does - developers on windows don't like the lock in. A lot of gamers for example prefer steam, as do game developers.

Equally of course, they could stop asking for 1/3 of developers sale prices. That might be standard in ios and android, but this is windows - software isn't always based on thin margins and high volumes, low grade mcdonalds style fair - sometimes it's the other way around, lower volumes and high margins. You can't make AAA games and sell them for 4 bucks, obvs. And for that 1/3 is unreasonable, as it substantially effects market viability.

The model just doesn't work for all the software on the platform, commercially. Something has to be adjusted.

[lumianok smart]

For sure the success of windows 10 S will depend on wether or not developers will put their apps on the windows store especially x86 apps.
BUT they should definitely think again about the 30% fee they charge for every app in the store. I think MS definitely needs to offer some more incentives (also financially) for developers. often it is an economic desicion...
still I see the advantages you get with Windows Store. Automatic updates alone is fantastic. Probably not an issue for free apps.

[Drael646464]

For sure the success of windows 10 S will depend on wether or not developers will put their apps on the windows store especially x86 apps.
BUT they should definitely think again about the 30% fee they charge for every app in the store. I think MS definitely needs to offer some more incentives (also financially) for developers. often it is an economic desicion...
still I see the advantages you get with Windows Store. Automatic updates alone is fantastic. Probably not an issue for free apps.

More protection from piracy too. It's not that you CAN'T pirate uwa's, its more that if the store is on everyones PC, less people will bother. Like the Netflix effect.

[Juan Francisco Meneses Saavedra]

The fact that you people dare to propose something like this is just amazing(ly dumb). Not only is the Windows Store a wasteland, cou clearly haven't used the UWP enough to know that rigth now is a total **** if you try to use it actively (not only as a "pro" user).

And this doesn't seems to get better since Microsoft layed off its QA department just to rely on the dumb-f*cks called insiders (whicheven they get ignored, passing reported bugs by the insiders to the final public releases).

I mean, Is this a normal thing?

Seriously. Microsoft needed to perfect the UWP before even try to offer it to the public. Instead they are trying to force mass consumption of a half-*** product to make it popular and then justify resources to polish it.

Again, almost every UWP part of Windows 10 is a mess. If you are a pro user, you will understand and get mad. If you are a toddler user, you will simply get up to 4 errors (UWP has a lot to offer) and you will never touch this thing, not even look at it. Of course, if you are a microsoft apologists, maybe you don't care anymore.

Fanboys are not a good thing on any plattform. If we want this whole UWP to succed, we need to be really strict with microsoft.
So, should Windows 10 S ship with ALL Windows laptops?. No, god, no.

The Store is empty (more like full of scam apps, just try to search for chrome) and the platform is a nest of bugs and incompetence.

[garisa]

For sure the success of windows 10 S will depend on wether or not developers will put their apps on the windows store especially x86 apps.
BUT they should definitely think again about the 30% fee they charge for every app in the store. I think MS definitely needs to offer some more incentives (also financially) for developers. often it is an economic desicion...
still I see the advantages you get with Windows Store. Automatic updates alone is fantastic. Probably not an issue for free apps.

Automatic updates are a good thing as long as they are optional. They are optional in Windows Store, but installing a specific version of an application is not an option. So automatic updates don't do so much good on this case.

The fact that you people dare to propose something like this is just amazing(ly dumb). Not only is the Windows Store a wasteland, cou clearly haven't used the UWP enough to know that rigth now is a total **** if you try to use it actively (not only as a "pro" user).

And this doesn't seems to get better since Microsoft layed off its QA department just to rely on the dumb-f*cks called insiders (whicheven they get ignored, passing reported bugs by the insiders to the final public releases).

I mean, Is this a normal thing?

Seriously. Microsoft needed to perfect the UWP before even try to offer it to the public. Instead they are trying to force mass consumption of a half-*** product to make it popular and then justify resources to polish it.

Again, almost every UWP part of Windows 10 is a mess. If you are a pro user, you will understand and get mad. If you are a toddler user, you will simply get up to 4 errors (UWP has a lot to offer) and you will never touch this thing, not even look at it. Of course, if you are a microsoft apologists, maybe you don't care anymore.

Fanboys are not a good thing on any plattform. If we want this whole UWP to succed, we need to be really strict with microsoft.
So, should Windows 10 S ship with ALL Windows laptops?. No, god, no.

The Store is empty (more like full of scam apps, just try to search for chrome) and the platform is a nest of bugs and incompetence.

You said it all well. We certainly all want Microsoft to succeed and even to bring us more Windows phones which we like. But not in the cost of people losing their freedom with what they can install on their machines. That would be madness. Microsoft should attract users and developers by offering them a quality product, not by forcing people to use any **** they create.

But I would only like to note that this is not about limiting people to UWP, but to the Store which can have win32 apps as well.

Also, we can say that UWP is actually good for what it was meant: a replacement for Android and iOS apps (we don't have to start talking how Android and iOS apps are better than UWP apps feature-wise). That's just how a look at it. For all those casual things... Of course, some may think of UWP as of future for all kinds of apps, but it's far from that, and we don't know if it's ever going to become a thing, so I don't even try to consider it as replacement for win32.

Also, if they wanted to promote their UWP, they should have pushed more phones. Only phones can make UWP to succeed, not the other way around, because no developer would develop an UWP app only lose Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 market. And if they already have win32 app, why spending money and time in vain only to make an app for Windows 10 PC, and few irrelevant platforms.

But back to the topic, apart from Windows Store apps not being the same as UWP apps, talking anybody into buying a PC limited to the Store would be insane. Even if it worked faster it wouldn't be worth it.

Sent from mTalk on Windows 10 phone

[Kattz]

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.