
Windows 8 App Store Screens Leaked - Garbage
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows8-win8-app-store-download,12554.html
======
X-Istence
Don't they mean the Windows Exe Store?

\--

All joking aside, App has been cemented in my brain, and the brains of
consumers across the globe as being distinctly Apple. I was recently telling
my friend that Amazon now had an App store as well, and his first reaction was
"Apple allowed that on the iPhone?"

Now it seems everyone and their mother has an App store:

RIM - App World

Windows Phone 7 - Windows Phone Apps

Android - Market Place (Although if you search in Google Apps - Market Place)

Apple - App Store

Apple - Mac App Store

I don't know who is right, and who is wrong or who should be able to use what.
App wasn't something mainstream on anything besides Apple for a long time. I
don't remember having discussions with friends about apps for Windows, I
remember it being about wares, software, or programs for Windows. I do
remember when I got Mac OS X for the first time that .app extension made sense
and I remember talking about Mail.app, Disco.app (burning program) and asking
friends what app's they would suggest for me to install.

Either way, I think it is awesome that these new stores are popping up giving
many developers the ability to market themselves through an officially
sanctioned "portal" into the users computers thereby giving the more exposure.
Also it makes downloading more secure, instead of coming from download.com and
having clicked 6 links you simple click install and it takes care of the rest
for you, it should hopefully with good quality control lessen the amount of
damage that malware can do.

~~~
halo
While it's true that Microsoft has tended to favour 'programs', the term
'applications' and 'apps' has been used generically for years. The earliest
reference to the term in Gogle News is a paywalled article in the Washington
Post from November 1990, which discusses PC Magazine shortening 'applications'
to 'apps' because the word is too unweildy.

I think "app store" could be seen as analogous to "media player", a generic
term Microsoft coined and popularised.

------
isani
Microsoft has a store for downloadable software _right now_ at
<http://www.microsoftstore.com/>

They also used to have a store called Windows Marketplace that sold third-
party apps, but that closed in 2009.

------
floppy
It's more likely that the UI will be based on the Metro look of Windows Phone
7 (cf. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Design_Language>), so I wouldn't
judge anything from this screenshot. I think the leaked roadmap from June 2010
was also far more insightful: [http://msftkitchen.com/2010/06/windows-8-plans-
leaked-numero...](http://msftkitchen.com/2010/06/windows-8-plans-leaked-
numerous-details-revealed.html)

What does HN think of <http://allmyapps.com>? We launched this application
store for Windows in December and we've recently passed the 100K members mark.
We want to make the app store experience on PC as seamless as on smartphone,
and make sure you never get any third-party software (e.g toolbars &
extensions). 1500+ applications are already available for download & install
in 1-click, from your browser or our desktop client. The website has a nice
list feature to get multiple apps at once, and you can get silent updates for
all your apps via the client (opt-in feature). Your feedback is greatly
appreciated.

~~~
twodayslate
I agree. The screenshot given isn't the same direction that MS has been going
with their most recent apps. Look at Zune or even Office 2010.

allmyapps looks interesting. I like the idea of auto-updating. Just needs some
better polishing and some unique apps. Being lightweight is always a plus.

------
fierarul
Heh, there was a comment the other day asking "what could you do on Mac that
you can't do on Windows" and I wanted to reply: "well you could get an $99 dev
account and have apple sell your stuff world wide".

I guess Windows is getting an AppStore too...

I'm curious though how will Microsoft handle this. In terms of internal
bureaucracy and support for non-US developers. It seems that except Apple,
nobody (not even Google with the Android marketplace) got this right.

~~~
statictype
_well you could get an $99 dev account and have apple sell your stuff world
wide_

Maybe this is true for the Mac App Store but it certainly isn't (anymore) for
the iOS App Store. Even though Apple's hosting your app, the massive barrage
of existing items in the app store means you have to find ways to sell it
yourself.

~~~
fierarul
I'm not talking about the App Store from a marketing point of view.

I'm talking about the App Store as a world-wide, easy to use credit card
processor.

It is non-trivial (technically, legally) to implement credit card handlind
yourself, especially the further you are from the US. Also, people will never
trust a small player as much as they trust Apple.

So, Apple takes care of a lot of international red tape for you, for $99/year.

~~~
ashleyw
$99/year _and_ 30% of your income. Don't forget that.

~~~
fierarul
True, but it still might be worth it due to the market size.

I guess after a point the AppStore becomes expensive and it might be worth it
to sell your own stuff and keep the 30%.

But $99 is a really low barrier to entry for non-US individuals and companies
to sell software to the whole globe.

------
contextfree
99.9% sure these are fake. The UI style doesn't match recent or new Microsoft
design trends (what is with that menu bar?), and the text and details are just
weird (Office's category as "Efficiency"? Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade just
thrown in with the other apps in an "OS" category?) It hasn't been posted by
any of the more reputable leakers, either.

------
latch
I know this was a "leak", but I wonder if they got permission form Rovio this
time for the Angry Birds logo.

------
Kylekramer
Yeah, the fact that Windows 7 Ultimate as one of the apps either means this is
a fake or Microsoft has a decent sense of humor.

~~~
davweb
Since you can already buy upgrades to Windows 7 Ultimate from other versions
Windows 7 online as a "Windows Anytime Upgrade" this is just the kind of thing
I'd expect to see in Windows App Store.

[http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/pd/product...](http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/pd/productID.216649800)

~~~
contextfree
I really doubt they'd just plop it in with the other apps.

~~~
cooldeal
This is pre-beta software. What do you expect? Some QA guy would've just
seeded the data so that people can see how it looks. You people are talking as
if this thing is a leak of something releasing tomorrow.

~~~
contextfree
Fair enough - though I think senior people would probably have worked out the
major categories by now, and there definitely wouldn't be an "OS" category.

The Chinese site where this originated has posted both real and fake stuff in
the past; they seem to be fairly indiscriminate about their sources. That's
why I kind of have a "presumed fake until shown to be real" mentality with
their leaks.

------
obtino
MS never has been a great innovator. This is one of the best examples of that.

~~~
mickeyben
Oh common ... Kinect, C#, F#, Linq, Office, Win7 (this one is debatable but I
really think it's full of innovations even if I'm using OSX principally).

Of course some of them are here through acquisitions but they made them great
products.

~~~
masklinn
> Kinect, C#, F#, Linq, Office, Win7 (this one is debatable but I really think
> it's full of innovations even if I'm using OSX principally).

Erm... Kinect is the only product even remotely innovative there.

Office has never been innovative in all its lifetime (apart from the Ribbon if
you stretch it), C# is as innovative as mud (== it was innovative a few
billion years ago), F# is an OCaml crappified by making it compatible with the
.Net framework and LINQ is a bunch of collection methods, a preprocessor and a
common interface (yeah that was innovative about 30 years ago).

> Of course some of them are here through acquisitions but they made them
> great products.

Obtino was talking about innovation. Apart from Kinect, none of the things you
mentioned is even remotely innovative.

~~~
statictype
_F# is an OCaml crappified by making it compatible with the .Net framework_

It's very difficult to take you seriously when your argument is that a piece
Microsoft technology is crap based solely on the fact that it happens to be
compatible with another piece of Microsoft technology.

If you had any actual critique of F#, the language, you might make more sense.

You could start by explaining how F#'s support for monads doesn't already make
it a superior language to O'Caml.

 _and LINQ is a bunch of collection methods, a preprocessor and a common
interface_

Even worse, it's all just a bunch of _1s and 0s_!

~~~
masklinn
> It's very difficult to take you seriously when your argument is that a piece
> Microsoft technology is crap based solely on the fact that it happens to be
> compatible with another piece of Microsoft technology.

That's a weird statement to make. I'm not saying it does not make business
sense, I'm saying F# is worse than it could be because it needed to be
compatible with the .net framework.

Furthermore, I didn't say F# was crap, I said it was a crappified (aka worse)
OCaml due to that. And as a result it would have a hard time being innovative
(due to being an inferior version of a 16 years old language)

> If you had any actual critique of F#, the language, you might make more
> sense.

That it's compatible with the .net framework and its imperative APIs, with all
it entails (such as nulls or mutability galore) is very much my critique of
F#. It's a worse language (than it could have been and that its ancestor)
because of that.

> Even worse, it's all just a bunch of 1s and 0s!

Wonderfully missing the point, which is the part between the parens. Building
a library is not innovative in and of itself, and there is nothing in linq's
concepts or execution which is novel or innovative.

You seem to have taken an extremely defensive stance on my view that, apart
from Kinect, none of the things mentioned is innovative. I guess that you
disagree, do you have any argument as to why those things would be innovative
(outside of a microsoft-driven world)? What makes LINQ innovative exactly? Or
F#?

~~~
JonoW
LINQ is innovative because it brings a generic query language as a first-class
citizen in the language. I.e. LINQ is more than just a library as they added
syntax constructs for it.

~~~
beagle3
Innovative implies new.

Other languages (LISP, APL, in many senses even Python) had this a long time
ago.

The fact that they had to add syntax is because C# isn't sufficiently flexible
without it. It does not imply any form or manner of innovation.

