Ask YC: why doesn't Microsoft have a Windows App Store?
You could sell your apps through it. Or does that not make sense? And if not, why does the iPhone appstore make sense?
26 comments
Because software distribution through physical retail channels was well established before the internet became mainstream.
And before Microsoft could get their head around the opps on the internet, Tucows, CNET, et al. had the leg up in online application distribution - though they left monetization up to the end developer.
Digital River used to be a digital download online marketplace, but they cut their "app store" out and now focus solely on e-commerce.
And before Microsoft could get their head around the opps on the internet, Tucows, CNET, et al. had the leg up in online application distribution - though they left monetization up to the end developer.
Digital River used to be a digital download online marketplace, but they cut their "app store" out and now focus solely on e-commerce.
If nothing else, anti-trust concerns could be enough to put a damper on things.
Then, there's a host of liability concerns ("Microsoft said it was okay").
That said, I think there is, and has been, plenty of room for improving application management in the Windows space.
One of the things that I appreciate about Ubuntu/CentOS is that I don't have to look for apps, nor even worry if I'm getting the correct version (usually :) ) I just select it, wait, and then start using it.
Windows really needs this kind of simplicity. It's too big a chunk of work for me to pull off (negotiating with Redmond would be an effort, all by itself), but coming up with a Windows "distribution" would be really cool. Something reasonably well-tested, with a means of easily selecting and installing apps which have also been tested.
(Edited to fix an incomplete sentence)
Then, there's a host of liability concerns ("Microsoft said it was okay").
That said, I think there is, and has been, plenty of room for improving application management in the Windows space.
One of the things that I appreciate about Ubuntu/CentOS is that I don't have to look for apps, nor even worry if I'm getting the correct version (usually :) ) I just select it, wait, and then start using it.
Windows really needs this kind of simplicity. It's too big a chunk of work for me to pull off (negotiating with Redmond would be an effort, all by itself), but coming up with a Windows "distribution" would be really cool. Something reasonably well-tested, with a means of easily selecting and installing apps which have also been tested.
(Edited to fix an incomplete sentence)
The iPhone app store is Apple's beachhead into mobile computing in general, the iPhone the first of many such mobile platforms. App store developers get rich, and Apple's platform becomes more popular and attractive to users. It has worked well so far.
Microsoft already owns the majority of the desktop space. Why would it need an App store? The returns on investment would be insufficient to justify any investment.
Microsoft already owns the majority of the desktop space. Why would it need an App store? The returns on investment would be insufficient to justify any investment.
Windows Marketplace? http://www.windowsmarketplace.com
There were a lot of discussions in shareware community about Windows Marketplace, and how it would push every non-Digital River/eSellerate (they were payment providers in Marketplace) registration service out of business back in the days when Vista was known as Longhorn. People were preparing for crazy code signing "Design for Windows"-like schemes, because it seemed like Marketplace would be as big as AppStore today.
Well, Windows Marketplace failed. (I think there's still an icon for it in Windows Start menu?)
Well, Windows Marketplace failed. (I think there's still an icon for it in Windows Start menu?)
I think a free market approach, accidently perhaps, worked for Windows. I don't like the idea of a central authority sanctioning any apps. Apple store has problems of its own. I don't use any Apple products, but i hear people complaining everyday how a certain app was pulled or rejected but iFart made it. I don't side with monopoly on this issue.
The idea of a central update place for all your apps still sounds appealing(like Ubuntu) though.
The idea of a central update place for all your apps still sounds appealing(like Ubuntu) though.
One reason is that it would be hard to ensure no bad stuff slipped in with the free apps. But Baseshield solved that problem by building a vm the apps live in.
http://baseshield.com
http://baseshield.com
It would put other companies that sell software out of business. They really want people like Amazon to be on there side otherwise they might stop selling Windows software and start pushing Mac. In addition Microsoft probably wouldn't ship applications that they saw as serious competitors and would get a lot of legal hassle.
Apple's iPhone store only makes sense in the sense that it is simple for users to get software. In the long term I think it's anti-competitive and stupid, since there should be a Amazon store and various other stores that compete with each other. Currently applications on the iPhone are fairly small and low value - if they move the platform to big devices like a 10inch tablet, Apple TV with more sophisticated applications, then it will have to open up.
Apple's iPhone store only makes sense in the sense that it is simple for users to get software. In the long term I think it's anti-competitive and stupid, since there should be a Amazon store and various other stores that compete with each other. Currently applications on the iPhone are fairly small and low value - if they move the platform to big devices like a 10inch tablet, Apple TV with more sophisticated applications, then it will have to open up.
As I've previously posted, they did (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=618707):
Microsoft included Digital Locker with Vista allowing you to purchase applications from 3rd parties via Windows Marketplace, but it has since shutdown, presumably due to lack of popularity.
Microsoft included Digital Locker with Vista allowing you to purchase applications from 3rd parties via Windows Marketplace, but it has since shutdown, presumably due to lack of popularity.
Lots of conjectures flying around here with or without basis.
This site says they will have one:
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/news/show/91276/steve-ballme...
This site says they will have one:
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/news/show/91276/steve-ballme...
Also, why doesn't Apple have an app store for Mac software? That would be pretty cool (of course they'd still have to allow people to download/buy the traditional way -- the Mac App Store would be optional)
Fear not, young padawan! (I firmly believe that) An xbox mobile is coming...There is already an XNA marketplace which will segue nicely into this venture. Brush up on your C#.
The appstore makes sense for Apple, because...
- quality control for end-users. Like when Nintendo started with the NES.
- cutting the middle-man out of app marketing - good for third-party developers.
Microsoft does not care for neither party. Microsofts strategy with DOS/Windows was always about tight-knit contracts with OEMs.
- quality control for end-users. Like when Nintendo started with the NES.
- cutting the middle-man out of app marketing - good for third-party developers.
Microsoft does not care for neither party. Microsofts strategy with DOS/Windows was always about tight-knit contracts with OEMs.
How is Apple cutting the middle-man out? They are the middle-man!
And, Apple's strategy is also about a tight-knit contract with an OEM--itself. That's about as tightly-knit as it gets.
And, Apple's strategy is also about a tight-knit contract with an OEM--itself. That's about as tightly-knit as it gets.
Apple hasn't cut out the middle-man so much as replacing him by ... Apple itself. They have become the super middle-man, not just for marketing but for distribution and conflict resolution and what have you.
You are somewhat right, but there are two faces in Apple being the super middle-man:
1) the good fact that it is "fair". The underdogs leave to them the same amount of money of the big brasses (30%). Any application starts the same, and you don't need special marketing effort to start up. At least, not the same effort you should have to start from scratch. You can use your time to have a better application, not to market it better. And I REALLY like this one.
2) the fact that they have the "last word" on what goes into the AppStore definitely stinks. No need to add to this. I can understand how this happens, but it stinks.
The fact is that me (and many thousand other) still prefer the reason (1) to the reason (2) and this is the success of AppStore.
Returning to "why Microsoft don't have it": because they don't need the indie developer and they will not upset the bigger brands to help a new market develops. The competitor of Apple in the mobile space are trying to start their store (Nokia, RIM)... if Apple can start the AppStore for OS X (and it have the same success, things I don't know if possible), we will, probably, see the Microsoft Store for Windows... otherwise I don't think so...
The fact is that me (and many thousand other) still prefer the reason (1) to the reason (2) and this is the success of AppStore.
Returning to "why Microsoft don't have it": because they don't need the indie developer and they will not upset the bigger brands to help a new market develops. The competitor of Apple in the mobile space are trying to start their store (Nokia, RIM)... if Apple can start the AppStore for OS X (and it have the same success, things I don't know if possible), we will, probably, see the Microsoft Store for Windows... otherwise I don't think so...
1) the good fact that it is "fair".
I guess this is why Google maps got a "go" despite using undocumented APIs the regular developers of the AppStore are not allowed to use?
It's not a as level playing field as you think.
I guess this is why Google maps got a "go" despite using undocumented APIs the regular developers of the AppStore are not allowed to use?
It's not a as level playing field as you think.
Google Maps are included with the iPhone, they're not a third party app. I'm sure if you could convince Apple to bundle your app with every iPhone you would get to use undocumented API's, too.
You left off the most important thing... the App Store is on the phone. The App Store is practically hardware. It is the one way in / one way out on a closed device that you take with you everywhere.
Because, just like Mac users, Linux* users and users everywhere which has a full rich user-interface, not a minimal mobile interface, they like to be able to get applications from any source, not just one central location.
While the Apple AppStore no doubt is successful, Apple has most definitely proven just how bad that idea works out in practice, and how trying to control it effectively leads to inconsistent censorship leading developers to either hold back on ideas or spend programming effort which could have been spent making their applications better, to make sure it complies with the store-policies. I can just picture updates & security updates lagging behind 2 months because the application needs reapproval.
No thanks. I'll just google, download a setup.exe and run the app thank you very much.
Now you might argue "How would you know that this download is safe and properly QAed?". That could be a fair point. But given how badly Apple has handled the AppStore with its rather limited set of applications, imagine if Microsoft were all of a sudden tasked to deal with the entire back-catalog of Windows software out there.
Do you honestly believe that could be reasonably QAed without Microsoft spending millions, millions and more millions in the process? And if they didn't people wouldn't bother using the store, since "I find all the software I need with google, and nothing with this AppStore thing".
Microsoft is making a pretty good move doing nothing here.
* Yes I know about package-management, repositories, etc etc. That still doesn't cut the need to custom compile applications from various non-official sources every now and then.
While the Apple AppStore no doubt is successful, Apple has most definitely proven just how bad that idea works out in practice, and how trying to control it effectively leads to inconsistent censorship leading developers to either hold back on ideas or spend programming effort which could have been spent making their applications better, to make sure it complies with the store-policies. I can just picture updates & security updates lagging behind 2 months because the application needs reapproval.
No thanks. I'll just google, download a setup.exe and run the app thank you very much.
Now you might argue "How would you know that this download is safe and properly QAed?". That could be a fair point. But given how badly Apple has handled the AppStore with its rather limited set of applications, imagine if Microsoft were all of a sudden tasked to deal with the entire back-catalog of Windows software out there.
Do you honestly believe that could be reasonably QAed without Microsoft spending millions, millions and more millions in the process? And if they didn't people wouldn't bother using the store, since "I find all the software I need with google, and nothing with this AppStore thing".
Microsoft is making a pretty good move doing nothing here.
* Yes I know about package-management, repositories, etc etc. That still doesn't cut the need to custom compile applications from various non-official sources every now and then.
Non-geek Linux users do not custom compile stuff. They do download packages or binaries with installers, or perhaps add a repo, but then, as you point out, an MS app store would not rule out downloading or purchasing elsewhere.
I agree with your other points.
It would also be very difficult to set up the deals with enough other vendors for it to be worthwhile. I can imagine many of them not being happy relying on a single channel.
Also, the presence of software on CDs in shops is good marketing for MS - a major objection to MacOS and Linux is "I cannot buy software for it in the shops around here".
If they excluded open source, it would reduce what is available. If they include it, they would give a message that they do not want to about free (in both senses) software.
I agree with your other points.
It would also be very difficult to set up the deals with enough other vendors for it to be worthwhile. I can imagine many of them not being happy relying on a single channel.
Also, the presence of software on CDs in shops is good marketing for MS - a major objection to MacOS and Linux is "I cannot buy software for it in the shops around here".
If they excluded open source, it would reduce what is available. If they include it, they would give a message that they do not want to about free (in both senses) software.
They sell software, they don't want anybody else to profit from that.
Greed? or plain stupidity?
Greed? or plain stupidity?
1) Requires creative thinking.
2) Microsoft can't make money off it.
3) You can't compete with Microsoft.
4) Microsoft isn't in the business of helping you make money.