[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1351552669' post='4995190']
I never said Microsoft ignored it's customers, nor did I imply that. I certainly would not "have people believe" that, nor did I try to make them believe that.

You, I, and everyone on these forums fall into the minority that's so small, we don't make much of an impact.

That was the statement I was referencing because the attitude bothers me. Microsoft needs developers to build applications for their operating systems and so Microsoft listens to the developer community.[/quote]
That statement was more meant as, 'As consumers that also understand tech, we're in the minority', and most big business is focused on the casual users, or else the business users,
But yes, as developers, Microsoft will definitely make sure we can create good software, by reaching out to us from the business-side of their work.
"The other 0.1 billion are businesses, and Microsoft ofcourse will provide alternatives for them." <- As independents, we're still businesses. In my first post, I mentioned that "Windows 9 Professional" or whatever, will almost definitely support Win32 software even if "Windows 9 Home User" goes the worst-case scenario route of being entirely Windows Store only.

It's also worth pointing out that while Windows 8 is the most "consumer" friendly version of Windows yet, it's also the most power user friendly. The keyboard shortcuts are great, and the advanced menus are much easier to access than in any other version of Windows.[/quote]
I'm really glad to hear that! From what I've seen so far, it hasn't looked that way, but I've only seen some of the videos and press releases Microsoft themselves put out and haven't yet used it in person.

As a consumer, and as someone who loves Windows 7, I certainly wouldn't mind a Microsoft Surface Pro (and would think the Metro interface would fit perfectly with such a tablet/laptop convertible).

Now the other issue. Sure Linux/BSD do have package repositories. But there different, you can have multiple repositories provided by different people and you can always install stuff without using any repository at all. I don't know how Ubuntu's Software Center works, but if it's the sinlge vendor controlled place to get software for Ubuntu, there isn't any difference to Apples or Microsofts AppStore.

It's also quite different if the provider of an AppStore is also distributing Software over it's own AppStore. As a developer you can't be sure that your product get's the same attention and advertisement as a competeting product made by the store owner.

And one more, as customer you have to trust the store owner that he makes sure software that is being sold in his store isn't crap. As far as I can tell, this doesn't work so well. Apple seems to allow any crappy piece of software in their store, as long as it's not malware.

All valid points.

I will clarify that, of course, you can add software sources to apt-get, so the comparison between apt-get and Windows Store isn't perfect unless the same can be done for Windows Store. I simply wanted to say that I prefer such a system, as opposed to installing software directly without organization. I don't like using a different installer for each package, especially if it doesn't remove everything it installed, or if there is litter left behind in my Windows registry.

Windows 8 is great. I've been using it on my samsung series 7 slate for some time now. The released version is really quite nice.

Metro I could live without, doubt I'll use it much. I do think there's a place for it though - appliance-like use cases - media centres, for example. Anything where you're not sitting at a desk, really.

WindowsRT (the ARM-based iOS/Android equivalent) is of no interest to me. I think there's a great deal of usefulness in a tablet PC as a tablet/laptop crossover, but something that only runs Metro apps is of no use to me.

I've yet to buy anything from the windows store, but I'll probably pick up a designed-for-touch media player to help me avoid microsoft's advertising in the default music player.

I have lost a great deal of respect for Valve and GabeN over his FUD about Windows 8. See, Valve has been working for some time on setting up a Steam app store, which has now appeared. It's more than a little dishonest to blast MS for wanting to be a gatekeeper of a closed ecosystem when you were yourself working to become that gatekeeper.

I'm not a huge fan of assuming the walled garden approach is going to be bad. All signs point to it being a very very profitable walled garden. For most developers, more users will be able to find your app, and more users will probably buy your app as being in the store carries a safety guarantee from MS. They also offer a better revenue split than you'll find pretty much anywhere.

I think the major problem is that you can't side load apps on consumer devices right now. More than likely most developers would release both ways before finding out the windows store makes releasing a side loaded app pretty much useless. HOWEVER, there are a couple apps that would benefit from being able to work around store policies (a steam metro app for example could be able to communicate with the desktop steam client. I'm not sure if it can do this now because it depends on whether a 'local mechanism' includes setting up a local server for the two to communicate).

Personally I will start worrying when there is actually something tangible to worry about rather than the possibility of something to worry about.

Also, who is a “fanboy” here?
I hate Linux and Apple even more than I do Microsoft.

L. Spiro
[/quote]

Sorry I just noticed this:

The average consumer, unknowingly, will continue to opt into closed systems because they have very clear short-term benefits (better security, cheaper short-term, more intuitive, better integration with other devices), not realizing the long-term costs (higher software prices, poorer quality service, greater corporate control, more consumer lock-in, less privacy protection).[/quote]
Why do you assume that all of your long term costs are the case? At least 3 of them are currently false on closed systems. Software prices are generally lower (distribution is very expensive. Closed systems tend to handle that for you and usually pay for their revenue take in that regard). Prices being higher goes against almost every piece of data we have on closed digital distribution platforms today; the worst platforms are about the same price. I'm not sure what you mean by "poorer quality service," but there are very good products released on closed systems just like there are bad ones, this is true of any market. If you mean customer service, I see no indication that quality would suffer by nature of the system being closed. I'm also unsure why you assume privacy protection is worse. If anything your privacy is better off. Microsoft/Google/Apple may learn more about you, but random developer who you may or may not approve of having any of your information is much less likely to have your private information. Likewise malware/virus developers are less likely to be able to get any of your information.

Consumer lock in is a legitimate problem, but it has always been a problem even on open platforms or in the non-digital space.

Depends how much windows 8 plans to support "me"
And by that I mean, lend support to dev outreaching to it.
I feel very little compelled to support windows 8 at this stage, knowingly that several larger corps are merely ignoring it.
So long as boxes on shelves list Windows 7 instead of 8, I'm not too worried about being out of sync, so Microsoft will have to find a way to convince us to move forwards with them.

I remember the clamor and controversy over Windows XP, and that turned out to be nothing. In fact, people who had first claimed they would stick to Windows 98SE and Linux later turned around and said they would stick with Windows XP when Vista was coming out. People are fickle.

Windows XP (future activation doubts) was exactly the reason I ditched Windows.
More and more people are getting interested / involved in UNIX and it is only a matter of time. At this current moment in time, the Linux developer community is HUGE! Much larger than any other platform.

It would be silly to waste time learning how to develop for a dying technology and if it goes the way of XNA -> MonoGame, then it will be the open-source community maintaining it anyway.. so why not just cut out the middle man ;)

I am perfectly happy with Windows 7. Using myself as a barometer for the market, I'm going to say that pretty much everyone else is probably quite happy with Win7. Why upgrade to Win8? What compelling feature do they have which I absolutely must have? The Microsoft app store? As a user, do I really want to fork out $X number of dollars so that I can log onto the app store to buy useless widgets and apps which third party developers have created to cash in on mass market appeal? No, not really (but I'm a tight wad).

As a developer, here are the things I don't like about Microsoft:
1. Visual Studio costs lots of money!!! VS2012 Ultimate is $13,000!!! I get it, it's a great product and its got all the bells and whistles a large corporate dev team could want, but as a single indie dev, it's way out of my price range. Yeah, I could use the express edition, but I'd rather decide what features of the IDE I don't want to use rather than having that decision made for me by licensing. Other IDE's for different platforms and languages are free (eclipse for Java, XCode for iOS).

2. If you want to code for the MS platform using their API's (DirectX, XNA, .NET), you get locked in to the MS ecosystem. This limits the market base you can target. Java apps, on the other hand, will work on any platform which can run and support the JVM. You don't have to run any VM's or third party software. (note: the VM is included in the JVM). Making .NET available on non-MS products is contrary to Microsofts big picture business plan -- to build and run an MS controlled ecosystem.

3. I just don't take their store seriously as a viable platform. Look at XBox Live Arcade. Very, very few developers strike gold. Maybe its a market demographics and saturation problem. Maybe its an overall business plan issue. And, the win8 app store is supposed to be different and better...how?

Things I'm uncertain about:
1. The pricing structure for selling apps in the windows store.

Microsoft Source: When you sell apps through the Windows Store, we assess a Windows Store fee. For apps that generate less than $25,000 in sales, this fee is 30%. After the app generates its first $25,000 in sales, the fee on the subsequent revenue drops to 20%.[/quote]
Considering how I'm already slightly biased against it and a little reluctant to spend time, effort and money on developing a Win8 app in the first place, if all MS does is match their digital distribution competitors at a 30% take, I will be even more hesitant. They'd better sweeten the pot a bit and go down to 25% at the least, and ideally 20% overall. The first $30k should be all mine! Everyone wants their slice of my pie (government taxes & Microsoft)! Once I cover my development costs, I'd be willing to split the revenue a bit more generously... if I was going to charge.

2. The windows app store doesn't support a "donate directly to me, whatever you want, whenever you want" business model. That means no humble indie bundles or shareware. Obviously, they'd cut themselves out as the middle man so its not in their interests. So, when they're reviewing your product, they probably wouldn't like it if your app circumvents them from getting their share. So, what about in-app purchases of virtual goods which are a transaction strictly between the developer and the player? Would that get rejected by the certification process?

3. I've got a leery feeling that MS isn't looking out for my best interests as a developer. I'm just a necessary pawn they need to entice in order to reclaim lost territory in the digital distribution market. I do get that warm and fuzzy feeling when I think of Valve, who will help me market and distribute my game and has had a history of selflessly having mine and my users best interests at heart. Initially, it'd be good to be courted by MS because they'll bend over backwards for dev support, but if/when they get their appetites satiated, I worry that they'll get beligerant/cocky and I'll find myself kicked to the curb with all my eggs in their basket.

The only two reasons I can think of to play in the Windows Store market:
1. It's a new market, so getting in early would make it easier for me to capture market share with a polished app.
2. There will be a lot of eyeballs using Win8, all of which are potential customers. MS is still the dominate OS on the desktop.

If I support Metro it will be for Windows Phone 8. That's just a cool OS.